Author Topic: wierd plane substitutions (Read 1981 times)

Toad · « **Reply #15 on:** September 04, 2003, 09:13:29 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Batz
the a6m2 has type 99 mk 1 thast lose 40% of their lethality at 180 yrds.

I've seen you post this twice now as if it was a fact handed down to Moses graven on the stone tablets.

That ISN'T what Pyro said. That is something you decided based on your "tests".

It is being looked into, but I'm near certain Pyro does NOT think that the difference is any where near that great.

Hooligan · « **Reply #16 on:** September 04, 2003, 10:25:13 AM »

Wmaker:

I don't know what is in or out of place in the current Finn setup. This is what I wrote earlier about the FM-2 (which this thread primarily concerns).

Quote

I agree that the FM-2 causes no play imbalance in the Finnish setup. I do find it both laughable and highly Ironic that the FM-2 is substituted for the buffalo, which it is far superior to in performance in one setup, and that it is not substituted for the F4F-3 which it is very close to in performance in the other setup.

Xjazz and Mora:

The B-239 is an export version of the F3A-1 (i.e. the early lightweight model with no armor - 5276lbs).

From page 438 in AHT. The F3A-2 (5942 lbs) sea level climb is 2500 fpm, top speed 285 mph. The lighter B-239 should have a similar top speed and climb about 2800 fpm.

Grunnherz:

The F4F-4 is just slightly faster than the A6M2 on the deck. But it accelerates slower. No F4F-4 is going to use superior speed to escape from a low co-E engagement. The F4F-4 has better guns and if it starts with some alt it can use its better dive and terminal speed to escape. Otherwise the A6M2 dominates in all respects. An F4F-3 (or FM-2) / A6M2 matchup would match better speed and climb vs. better turn, kind of like 109s vs. spits. An F4F-4 in trouble may be able to hang on a bit hoping for the assistance of another but an A6M2 doesn't even need to since his maneuver advantages should allow him to quickly reverse the situation.

Batz:

HTC publishes charts of the performance of these aircraft on their website. Unlike that long list of test data you keep spamming us with I estimate the error in the HTC charts to be ZERO. We are talking about planes in Aces High after all. Why not just look at the data that HTC has plotted from their game and displayed for our use? And yes you need to look at the speed of the A6M2 again because your data does not agree with HTC's charts and is therefore wrong.

One more time: The A6M2 accelerates better than the F4F-4. Climb and acceleration are both a function of HP/Weight. This means: A) that with a climb of 2800 fpm compared to 2500 for the -4, the A6M2 accelerates better that the -4. and it means that: B) That those test results you keep showing us are wrong.

I want an F4F-3 (an FM-2 sub since we don't have the -3 yet) because it is a more even match to an A6M2. I understand that the pac setup is "fair" to the axis, who have a clearly superior fighter, and whom in my experience invariably use their superior climb to come in with an altitude advantage. However how about making it "fair" to both sides and letting one side have the fast-good climbing aircraft while the other side has the better turner, instead of giving a single side all of those advantages?

Also, I can't really believe you are telling me that the way to discourage the CT alt-weenies is to continue to make sure that their opponents are equipped with poor climbing aircraft.

Hooligan

Wmaker · « **Reply #17 on:** September 04, 2003, 11:00:39 AM »

Ok Hooligan, thought you were mainly conserned about the performance difference.

I really don't like substitutions and don't fly them at all basically (probably under 5 sorties in FM-2 during all the Fin-Rus setups in the CT). The reason for the iclusion of the FM-2 was simply to get more playable plane set....

"We could take away the FM-2 but then 109s would practically be the only fighters allied side would see in the air (along few 190s from the german fields here and there). FM-2 adds a bit of variety to the planes allied side gets to fight."

FM-2 was chosen because it had 4 guns instead of 6 and because it is more agile than F4F-4, just like B-239 would be.

We would get Brewster into AH I would choose it over the FM-2 anyday. Not because it's a better plane (overall it's a lot inferior) but because it's a Brewster!

brady · « **Reply #18 on:** September 04, 2003, 01:13:03 PM »

Toad:

What was said is this in a Nut shell:

Their should be around 8 percent diferance in lethality between the two, howeaver all guns that are relying on primarly HE/HEI type shels are suffering undualy from the range effect on lethality factor, this is what they are as I gather from my conversation going to look into, my tests concluded that at 180-200 the shels were 40 to 50% less lethail than the Type 99 MK II, now if you subtract the 8 percent differnace it is only like 30 to 40 percent differance.

But hears the kicker, the Type 99MK II is suffering from this equation as well so it is actually less letahl as well, than it should be as are all weapons of a similar type. It is also true that the further away you get the worse the efect.

lazs2 · « **Reply #19 on:** September 04, 2003, 02:28:32 PM »

hmm.... what I get out of this is that.... allied vs axis allways causes parity problems and that the CT staff has tried to fudge the sets as much as possible to get some type of parity.

I believe the the FM2 substitute for the -3 is obvious. not only would it be more realistic performance wise but... it would even up the set, add parity. The fights would be lower and more intense because the zekes would be using thier superior turn bot vertical and horizontal and the FM2's/-3's would not have to hide from em or climb to 20 k so that they could dive down, whack a zeke or two, and then run away.... never getting slow because their acceleration was so poor as the f4f-4.

The fighting is allways timid with the f4f in the mix unless their is a carrier right up next to a field where the -4's durability and 6 50's and low alt of the fights will allow them to compete.... none of these things, durability, 6 instead of four guns or depending on close fields/ack/ everyone at low alt... is in the slightest historic.

If you tried the fm2 sub I bet it would work out.

I don't know about the type 99 guns... is it the same with the 109e?

lazs

Squire · « **Reply #20 on:** September 04, 2003, 02:46:18 PM »

The FM2 is at least 20mph faster than the F4F-4 is with a climb rate 15-20 percent better as well.

It is not a good substitute for the unboosted F4F-3 imho, which did not do 300 mph on the deck.

On top of all that...the FM2 would completely and utterly destroy A6M2s. Thats not a contest, thats an execution.

FM2 is a 1944 ride, and belongs fighting A6M5s and Ki-61s.

As for the FinnRus setup, well, the F4F-4 with 4 x 50s would be MUCH closer I think to a Brewster, but its done, and the Allies usually have decent rides to counter it.

Batz · « **Reply #21 on:** September 04, 2003, 03:57:57 PM »

The charts arent 100% accurrate. Spamming? blah you started the stupid thread and now dismiss the real facts from real tests other folks made. If his tests are wrong then I am sure yours will prove it.

The facts are the a6m2/f4f match up is decent as is. Why would you want to change that? You want a 1944 plane to fight a6m2s with. Just like some say they must have an f4u-1 to fight the a6m2.

If ht ever gets around to an f4f-3 then I am sure it would be included in the setups. The main has fm2s all day long.

Toad I am 100% right in that is what brady conveyed to me. He re states it again right here. From flying the a6m2 quite a bit it seems right on.

Believe it or not I dont care but until told other wise, bradys report on his talk with pyro and real experience I tend to believe. Are you going to pull out bc charts to show us its all ballistics? Spare me its been beaten to death already numerous times.

Hooligan · « **Reply #22 on:** September 04, 2003, 04:12:21 PM »

Quote

The charts arent 100% accurrate.

Explain to me why you believe this. Since HTC publishes the game and the charts, I assume that they just plot the data directly from FM outputs. Why would you assume that some outside test of the FM would produce more accurate results than data output directly by the FM?

Quote

The facts are the a6m2/f4f match up is decent as is. Why would you want to change that?

Because the a6m2/fm-2 matchup is fairer.

Quote

You want a 1944 plane to fight a6m2s with.

Since there is no F4F-3 available and since the FM-2 is a very close sub to it, yes. You make a big point about it being a "1944 fighter". Do you actually think the FM-2 was the cutting edge of performance in 1944? I was under the impression that it was a 2nd line fighter with pretty good performance by 1940 standards, and that it was relegated to secondary duty in the real world.

Hooligan

Batz · « **Reply #23 on:** September 04, 2003, 06:52:03 PM »

until 5k (according to hts chart) the a6m2 has a 200-300fpm climb advantage which is mostly insignificant. Sea level accelleration would not vary between to much based on a 250 mph climb advantage and easily falls into forks margin of error of +/- .2 sec.

Its easy if hts charts say 270 for an a6m2 and ingame tests show something slightly different then the chart isnt 100% accurate.

Then consider how 2 people read the chart differently. I said 265 for the a6m2 you said 270. Tested it I got 267.

Quote

Because the a6m2/fm-2 matchup is fairer.

According to who? What were there under 400 F4f-3 and F4f-3a produced and then phased out by the f4f-4 in August '42? What year was the ct slot set up for?

So what if there no f4f-3, theres no need for it be available. The a6m2 and f4f match up well (even according to hts charts). Theres certainly no need for the f4f-3/Fm2 in the slot historically either. So whats unfair?

In the Finland map a g2 can out climb any vvs plane. Is that unfair? Should we give the vvs the yak 9u or la7? Anyway a 300fpm climb difference is hardly an advantage.

Quote

You make a big point about it being a "1944 fighter".

I mentioned that 1 time, if thats a big deal so what? But that was a reply to your implication

Quote

I understand that the pac setup is "fair" to the axis, who have a clearly superior fighter,

As a matter of fact its you making a big deal about how unfair it is to be forced to fly the f4f-4 instead of the fm2, a plane which out performs the f4f-3 at the alts where most of the fights in the ct are at.

I doudt many will buy it out side a few of your buddies but good luck with all that.

brady · « **Reply #24 on:** September 04, 2003, 07:04:10 PM »

The Funny thing is that their is some evidance that F4F-4 in AH actualy preforms better than one would think, coupled with the cannon isue on the A6M2 and the fact that when the F4F-4 was seing most of it's combat in the Solomons many of the Zero's (a signastudmuffinant percentage 50% or better) were actualy A6M3's, Which had Type 99MK II cannons with 100rpg. So in light of this the Allies realy have it better than they should in this case. The F4F, has clear advantages in Durabality, Firepower Range, and Overall duration and effectivenss in firepower, and in Preformance Below around 5K.

See this Thread:

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=79044&highlight=A6M2+vs+Wildcat

Squire · « **Reply #25 on:** September 04, 2003, 11:18:38 PM »

A better source :

http://www.badz.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Files/pdf/Midway.pdf

and...

http://www.214th.com/ww2/usa/f4f/f4f.pdf

As for the FM2 (Wildcat VI) it was considered 2nd line by the time it reached the combat theater in 1944, but was used succesfully as a CVE based fighter against Kamikaze and other Japanese attack a/c. They had them, so they used them. It freed up the F6Fs and F4Us to do offensive operations from the Fast Carriers. It had a very good record in this role.

brady · « **Reply #26 on:** September 04, 2003, 11:35:39 PM »

LOL, not this same circle jerk agin:)

I said somthing like: "that document is in conflict with the test data or somthing halfway through the thread I sighted, then I said this later on:

"A couple pasages from: Americas Hundred Thousand.

p. 490:

" The peek role rate of the F4F-3 was just under 70 degrees per second at about 250 mph IAS. At 350 mph IAS roll capabality fell off to about 50 degrees per second.
The F4F-4,with lots of added weight, was much less maneuverable, and was called uncomplimentary names by it's piolets, such as "A TBD-1 with a torpedo; has the feal of a fully-loaded torpedo plane","unresponsive","Generally sluggish, compared even to F4F-3s and F4F-3as", "Pitifully inferiour to the Japanese Zero in Maneuverabaility", and "An overloaded clunker".
The FM-2, though more powerfull and agile than an F4F-4, had generally similar characteristics. Although the controls were considered effective, it was"heavy to manuaver; needs lighter controls", and had"Heavy controls; heavy elevators in a turn'. In adation "heavy ailerons and slow rolling',and again "Heavy rudder in a turn'. So the general consensus was the controls,were effective and nicely harmonized, were "Heavy".

Does that sound like our Wildcat?

"Maximum G limits were (for the FM-2) 7.5g up to 7700pounds and 7.0g up to 8200 pounds gross weight."

And so on and so on, the saga continues....

I am going to take a nap somebody wake me when AH2 finialy get's hear....

Squire · « **Reply #27 on:** September 05, 2003, 12:00:42 AM »

Ok I wont go there, peace

...I do hope that AH2 will flesh out the early war stuff...the Pacific is a really interesting area to do things in. We need a better 1943 set to do New Guinea, Solomons, and Darwin type setups.

Warbirds modelled the Ki-43, P-39, and the A6M3, and we had some great Pacific events there. We need those a/c in AH.

Oh yes, compared to a Seafire, 109F-4, and A6M2...yes, its a bit of a clunker.

Hooligan · « **Reply #28 on:** September 05, 2003, 01:52:54 AM »

Plane performance is relative. Late war planes turn like crap compared to early war planes. The British considered the martlet a very nice turning aircraft, compared to mid-war spits and 109s. The same aircraft in USN service was considered a poor turner compared to its IJN opponents.

The F4F-4 is outperformed in turn, climb and acceleration by the A6M2. It works great against an A6M2 if it starts with an altitude advantage, but that isn't saying much is it?

Hooligan

brady · « **Reply #29 on:** September 05, 2003, 02:32:56 AM »

I hope by Christmass we see some new rides, since as far as I know were not going to see any in AH2. I too am hoping we some new rides for the Pacific, howeaver I am not in anyway real excited about adding the P39, presently their are like 5 early war rides facing off aganst the A6M2, the F4U-1,F4F-4, P40E & B and the Huricane, I dont think we realy nead another allied ride at present for this perioud in time. I would Like to see a Ki 61-1b, and a A6M3, I am not to kean on a Ki 43 for a number of reasion's, It also be nice as long as I am dreaming:), to see a Beaufort and a Betty, a Juddy and a Nick and an Emily and a Early B26 varient, not to mention a Huricane IIB.