Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Axis vs Allies => Topic started by: Hooligan on September 03, 2003, 04:43:03 PM
-
Last month in the Pac setup, the FM-2 was not available as a sub for the F4F-3. These aircraft have very similar performance, the primary differences being that the FM-2 was more durable due to better armor, and the -3 had just a bit better performance due to a better HP/weight ratio. Please add this sub next time the early pac rolls around.
This month in the Finn setup, the FM-2 is substituted for the Brewster Buffalo. In addition to being much more durable than the Buffalo, the FM-2 has significantly better performance. On the deck the FM-2 is 20mph faster and can climb 600+ ft/min better than the buffalo. This is a really terrible substitution and it should be taken out.
Hooligan
-
Let me take a guess (btw I have no opinion of fm2 for f4f-3) but if you look at the speed comparisons between the f4f Fm2 and a6m2 below 7k or so the Fm2 would have a 20 to 30 mph speed (depending on alt) advantage over the a6m2. The f4f / a6m2 are relativley close.
Put the fm2 in and you will see the fights go higher. The a6m2 would have no chance catching an Fm2 below 7k and the a6m2 would be forced to come in high or spend their time chasing around a faster plane. That type of game play sucks especially if you just want an hour or so of good fights. The closer 2 planes are in performance (I mean speed here) the better the fights tend to be.
The f4f fm2 was debated as to whtch would be the sub for the brewster. I believe the arguement was that comparing the fm2 and f4f to the la5fn, yak9t yak9u and la7 (finrus has 3 seasonal maps) that it would be better for gameplay to sub with the fm2. I think all agreed that the fm2 was better performing then the brewster.
I dont think the fm2 is to unbalancing but maybe I am wrong.
I only fly the g2 though so I cant talk from experience in either flying or fighting one.
-
FM-2 present B-239 Brewster modified by Finnish Air Force.
(http://www.sci.fi/~ambush/faf/bw376.jpg)
Check this (http://www.sci.fi/~ambush/faf/fighters.html#ryysteri)
I would happily fly slower FAF Brewster than FM2
BTW In FinRus map
LA5FN present basic model LA5.
Hurri IIc present Hurri IIb
-
shush, this planeset is brilliant, don't spoil it!
-
Except for the heavy armament the F4F-4 is much closer in performance to the buffalo than the FM-2. To me the FM-2 just really doesn't seem an appropriate substitution for a buffalo, anymore than it would be to substitute the FM-2 for an I-16 or a Spit V for a Spit I.
Concerning the pac arena. My original point is that the F4F-3/a6m2 pair is a historical matchup. Since we have a very close match to the F4F-3, I would like to see it used. Secondly, while at low altitude the FM-2 climbs better and is faster than an A6M2, the A6M2 is more maneuverable. i.e. both planes have easily useable advantages vs. the other. By contrast an A6M2 holds all the cards in terms of speed (if you include acceleration in the equation), climb and maneuverability vs. an F4F-4. Adding the FM-2 should increase balance between axis and allied fighters.
FWIW an A6M5 is pretty close to the A6M3 in performance (much closer than FM-2/Buffalo), perhaps this sub should be added to the pac also.
Hooligan
-
The fm2 accellerates better then a6m2 otd. At 18k the a6m2 is better. Fork did accelleration tests for alll ah planes . Search for his post.
Heres quotes from them
Fighter Aircraft Acceleration test results
Test Environment
Altitude: 150 ft
Winds: 0
Fuel Burn Rate: 0.01
Fuel: 25%
Vo: 150Mph
Vf: 250Mph
WEP: On
Description
All aircraft were loaded with 25% fuel and with minimal MG loads if available. Aircraft were auto-levelled at 150 feet and speed reduced to 125mph, except the Me 262* and Me 163*. 100% throttle was applied and WEP engaged (if available). At 150mph the timer was engaged to 250Mph. This was repeated five times for every aircraft. The average time was recorded to accelerate through 100 mph.
* Vo was 200 and Vf was 300 due to stall conditions.
Forumla
Acceleration
a = (Vf - Vo) / t m/s^2
where
Vf - final velocity
Vo - initial velocity
t - time in seconds
Vf = 250mph = 111.8 m/s
Vo= 150mph = 67.1 m/s
a = (111.8m/s - 67.1m/s) / t
a = 44.7m/s / time
% accuracy: +/- .2 s
Results (in order of acceration)
Aircraft | Seconds | Acceleration
Me 163 | 7.7 | 5.8
Tempest V | 16.7 | 2.7
La-7 | 16.9 | 2.6
Spit XIV | 16.9 | 2.6
Bf 109G-10 | 17.1 | 2.6
La-5FN | 17.6 | 2.5
Me 262 | 19.5 | 2.3
Fw 190D-9 | 20.2 | 2.2
Bf 109G-2 | 20.5 | 2.2
F4U-4 | 20.8 | 2.1
Typhoon | 21.5 | 2.1
Bf 109G-6 | 21.8 | 2.1
P-38L | 22.0 | 2.0
Bf 109F-4 | 22.1 | 2.0
C205 | 22.2 | 2.0
Fw 190A-8 | 22.8 | 2.0
Fw 190A-5 | 23.0 | 1.9
P-51D | 23.3 | 1.9
NIK2-J | 23.4 | 1.9
Spit IX | 23.6 | 1.9
F4U-1D | 23.8 | 1.9
F4U-1C | 24.0 | 1.9
Ta-152H | 24.0 | 1.9
Yak-9U | 24.0 | 1.9
P-47D-30 | 24.5 | 1.8
F6F-5 | 24.6 | 1.8
Bf 110G-2 | 24.9 | 1.8
C202 | 24.9 | 1.8
Fw 190F-8 | 25.1 | 1.8
Spit V | 26.0 | 1.7
Mosq VI | 26.1 | 1.7
Yak-9T | 26.2 | 1.7
F4U-1 | 26.5 | 1.7
P-47D-11 | 26.9 | 1.7
Seafire IIC | 27.0 | 1.7
P-47D-25 | 27.1 | 1.6
A6M5b | 27.9 | 1.6
P-51B | 28.0 | 1.6
Hurr IIC | 29.1 | 1.5
FM2 | 29.9 | 1.5
Bf 110C-4b | 30.0 | 1.5
Ki-61-I-KAIc | 30.4 | 1.5
Bf 109E-4 | 33.2 | 1.3
Spit IA | 33.5 | 1.3
Hurr IID | 34.9 | 1.3
P-40E | 36.0 | 1.2
Hurr Mk 1 | 37.0 | 1.2
A6M2 | 40.3 | 1.1
F4F-4 | 40.9 | 1.1
P-40B | 101.8 | 0.4
Results are available in an Excel spreadsheet. If you like, email me at mr.fork@shaw.ca and I'll send you the results.
18k
Fighter Acceleration Results: 18'000 ft
Aircraft | Sec | Accl
Me 163 | 6.0 | 7.5
Bf 109G-10 | 24.8 | 1.8
Spit XIV | 25.1 | 1.8
Bf 109F-4 | 25.7 | 1.7
Bf 109G-2 | 26.7 | 1.7
P-38L | 26.8 | 1.7
F4U-4 | 27.0 | 1.7
Bf 109G-6 | 27.5 | 1.6
Spit IX | 27.7 | 1.6
Fw 190D-9 | 27.8 | 1.6
C205 | 28.5 | 1.6
P-47D-30 | 28.9 | 1.5
La-7 | 29.0 | 1.5
Fw 190A-5 | 29.5 | 1.5
P-51D | 29.9 | 1.5
Tempest V | 30.2 | 1.5
P-51B | 30.4 | 1.5
C202 | 30.6 | 1.5
Spit V | 30.6 | 1.5
Yak-9U | 30.7 | 1.5
Ta-152H | 30.9 | 1.4
La-5FN | 31.5 | 1.4
P-47D-25 | 31.5 | 1.4
F4F-4 | 31.9 | 1.4
P-47D-11 | 33.7 | 1.3
Seafire IIC | 34.2 | 1.3
Fw 190A-8 | 34.6 | 1.3
NIK2-J | 35.7 | 1.3
F4U-1D | 35.8 | 1.2
A6M5b | 36.9 | 1.2
F6F-5 | 37.1 | 1.2
Fw 190F-8 | 37.2 | 1.2
F4U-1C | 37.3 | 1.2
F4U-1 | 39.0 | 1.1
Me 262 | 39.3 | 1.1
Typhoon | 39.7 | 1.1
Bf 109E-4 | 41.2 | 1.1
Bf 110G-2 | 41.9 | 1.1
Mosq VI | 42.1 | 1.1
Hurr IIC | 42.9 | 1.0
Bf 110C-4b | 43.3 | 1.0
Ki-61-I-KAIc | 44.8 | 1.0
Yak-9T | 45.0 | 1.0
A6M2 | 45.2 | 1.0
Spit IA | 47.1 | 0.9
Hurr Mk 1 | 57.5 | 0.8
FM2 | 57.8 | 0.8
Hurr IID | 59.6 | 0.8
P-40E | 71.6 | 0.6
P-40B | 73.9 | 0.6
At the altitudes where the fights are the f4f-3 and f4f-4 arent that different. They are closer to the f4f-4 speeds then the fm2s.
Specification of the Grumman F4F-3 Wildcat:
Engine: Pratt & Whitney R-1830-76 Twin Wasp, 14-cylinder, two-row radial engine, with a two-speed, two-stage mechanical supercharger. Three-bladed Curtiss Electric C5315(S) propeller with a diameter of 9ft 9in. Power of 1200hp at 2700rpm for take-off. Military power 1100hp at 2550rpm, sea level; 1000hp at 19000ft. 147 US gallons in internal fuel tanks, provision for one 58 US gallon external tank under each wing.
Performance: 278mph at sea level, 330mph at 22000ft. Max range cruise 185mph. Initial climb rate 2050ft/min. Service ceiling 31000ft, absolute ceiling 32600ft. Max endurance 9.4 hrs. Take-off distance 228ft into a 25kn wind.
Weights: 5293lb empty, 7467lb normal, 3978kg max take-off.
Dimensions: Wing span 38ft, length 28ft 9 3/8in, height 8ft, wing area 260ft2. Wing root chord 8ft 7in, wing tip chord 5ft 1 5/8in.
Armament: Four Colt-Browning 0.50 guns. Two 100lb bombs.
Specification of the Grumman F4F-4 Wildcat:
Engine: Pratt & Whitney R-1830-86 Twin Wasp, 14-cylinder, two-row engine, with a two-speed, two-stage mechanical supercharger. Three-bladed Curtiss Electric propeller with a diameter of 2.97m. Power 1200hp at 2900rpm for take-off. Military power 1200hp at 2700rpm from sea level to 550m, and 1135hp at 1035m. Normal power 1100hp at 2550rpm at sea level, 1090hp at 3445m. 545 in internal fuel tanks, provision for one 220l external tank under each wing.
Performance: 441km/h (274 mph) at sea level, 515km/h (320) at 5735m. Max range cruise 259km/h at 1525m. Initial climb rate 9.9m/sec. Climb to 3050m 5.6min, to 6100m 12.4min. Service ceiling 10370m. Max range on internal fuel 1335km, 2051km with two drop tanks. Take-off distance 195m, 125m into a 28km/h (15kn) wind.
Weights: 2676kg empty, 3621kg normal, 3978kg max take-off.
Dimensions: Wing span 11.59m, length 8.85m, height 3.44, wing area 24.15m. Width with folded wing 4.35m.
Armament: Six Colt-Browning 0.50 guns, 240 rounds each.
Specification of the General Motors (Eastern Aircraft) FM-2 Wildcat:
Engine: Wright R-1820-56W Cyclone, 9-cylinder, single-row engine, with a two-speed, single-stage mechanical supercharger. Three-bladed Curtiss Electric CS propeller with a diameter of 10ft. 1350hp for take-off, 1200hp at 5000ft, 900hp at 18500ft.
Performance: 289mph at sea level, 319mph at 19600ft. Max climb rate at sea level 2890ft/min. Best climb 3650ft/min. Service ceiling 35600ft. Max range on internal fuel 780 miles, 1350 miles with two drop tanks. Take-off distance 195m, 125m into a 28km/h (15kn) wind.
Weights: 5542lb empty, 7431lb gross.
Armament: Four Colt-Browning 0.50 guns, 1720 rounds total. Racks for six 5in rockets under the wings.
From this site
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/f4f.html
Seems to me under 5k theres not much difference in the f4f-3 and f4f-4. They seem closer then the FM2.
As for the FM2 as a brewster, a Fin (Kanttori) made the map and wanted something to fill in as a brewster. The debate was that even though the FM2 performed better then the brewster it matched up better with the limited VVS planeset. Theres no i16s or i153, la5s etc......
I dont see where the fm2 impacts the setup any more then an la5fn or hurri 2c etc....
-
The fm2 accellerates better then a6m2 otd.
I never said that it didn't. In fact I stated that the FM-2 climbed better than the A6M2, which would indicate that it accelerates better also.
At the altitudes where the fights are the f4f-3 and f4f-4 arent that different.
The F4F-4 has significantly worse performance than the F4F-3. It's the same airframe and engine with a lot of weight added. You can see the differences on the chart on page 473 of "America's Hundred Thousand."
Here are some quotes from the same reference:
The fastest and lightest Wildcat was the early F4F-3 which touched 335 mph at 22000 feet. In addition the climb rate of the early F4F-3 was over 3300 feet per minute at sea level, very sprightly performance for the time. The heavier F4F-4, in contrast, could make less than 2500 feet per minute at sea level and, as the curve shows, this performance decreased rapidly at the higher altitudes to little over 1500 feet per minute at 15000 feet in spite of using the two stage supercharged engine. The FM-2, at a lighter weight than the F4F-4, managed to recover a lot of the early F4F-3 climbing ability, particularly at sea level. With its two speed single stage supercharger, the FM-2 climb rate drop off with altitude was faster than that of the twin-wasp powered airplanes, however. Curves of climb time are also shown in Graph 60. They illustrate agai the great reduction in climb performance from F4F-3 to F4F-4. Time to 20000 feet was almost 5 minutes more for the latter.
Even though the FM-2 performance is inferior to the F4F-3, it is much closer to the F4F-3 in performance than the F4F-4 is.
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.
Hooligan
-
a6m2 deck speed is 265
the f4f a6m2 accelerate about the same otd
A6M2 | 40.3 | 1.1
F4F-4 | 40.9 | 1.1
Thats well with in Forks +/- 2 sec. The f4f has a 10-12 mph speed advantage at the alt where fights take place.
The f4f has 50 cal, the a6m2 has type 99 mk 1 thast lose 40% of their lethality at 180 yrds. (see the post where brady reports his talk with pyro; its being looked into). The F4f-4 is a very tough plane for an a6m2 to bring down.
The only thing a zeke has is a turn.
The Fm2 has a best climb of 3560fpm the a6m2 is under 3k fpm. It climbs better then the f4f-3 and is faster at the alts that count in the ct.
Imo I just dont see the need to sub the fm2 for a f4f-3.
I would be like subbing the a6m5 for the a6m3.
-
a6m2 deck speed is 265
HTC's performance chart shows about 270...
The only thing a zeke has is a turn.
and climb and acceleration (I refer you to HTC's charts).
The Fm2 has a best climb of 3560fpm the a6m2 is under 3k fpm.
Look at HTC's climb chart for the FM-2. It shows a initial climb of about 3200 fpm military power and 3400 fpm combat power (a bit worse than the F4F-3 with 3300 fpm military power).
The FM-2 is slightly faster than the F4F-3 up to about 10K where it get progressively slower than the -3 with altitude. Up to about 10K, the FM-2 has very similar performance to the F4F-3 in speed (slightly better), climb & accel (slightly worse), and turning. Above that altitude the F4F-3 would be better in all aspects of maneuverability.
Hooligan
-
Hooligan the RELATIVE impact on performance difference for sub of FM2 vs F4F4 is much much smaller in the FinRus Map full of 400mph 4k fpm climbers than it is in the Pacific vs 320mph sub 3k climbers.
The relative impact is what makes the FM2 appropriate in the Finrus and inappropriate in the early Pac.
As it is the F4F4 is faster than zero under 4k, dives much better, is much tougher, has about 3-4 times the effective firepower, turns nearly as well except at absolutely stall speed and surely well enough to survive with its strength/toughness till a buddy comes to help and blasts a zero.
-
Originally posted by Hooligan
Except for the heavy armament the F4F-4 is much closer in performance to the buffalo than the FM-2.
Hooligan
Can I get performance figures of this buffalo?
-
Aside from What Batz has been saying ,GRUNHERZ pretymuch sumed it up.
-
I'll quote myself from a thread in this forum the last time this issue came up...
Originally posted by Wmaker
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 is well countered by the 1944 model La-5FN and the Yak-9T sporting a 37mm cannon. In the summer of 1944 there were some FNs on the Karelian front (159 IAP) but regular La-5 and La-5Fs were much more common. And AFAIK those FNs in the finnish front were early prodution aircraft. There were around 25 Yak-9Ts.
So if we would follow the history as accurately as possible with the AH planeset we'd have heavely perked La-5FN and Yak-9T and no FM-2. I don't think that would be much fun for the allies...
Hooligan, I take it you're not at all concerned about the out of place Soviet planes in the setup?
-
Heres the level speed tests whels did for sea level. Seems ht chart maybe off in regards to the a6m2 if we take whels numbers as true.
MIL:
TEMPEST 372
LA-7 358
F4U-4 358
TYPHOON 355
YAK9-U 355
P-51D 354
F4U-1 350
P-51B 347
190D-9 346
F4U-1D 343
F4U-1C 342
109G-10 337
LA-5 336
P-38L 333
P-47D-11 333
SPIT-14 332
TA-152 332
P-47D-25 329
P-47D-30 329
190A-8 327
YAK9-T 327
190F-8 326
190A-5 326
MOSQ 325
C205 321
109G-2 320
F6F-5 320
109G-6 317
N1K2 313
109F-4 310
SPIT IX 310
C202 307
KI-61 305
110-G2 305
SEAFIRE 293
SPIT V 293
110-4b 290
FM2 290
A6M5 288
F4F 278
P40B 275
A6M2 275
P40E 276
HURR IIC 262
HURR IID 253
HURR I 253
WEP:
TEMPEST 386
LA-7 380
F4U-4 378
190D-9 375
TYPHOON 370
P-51D 367
109G-10 366
TA-152 361
SPIT-14 358
F4U-1 358
P-51B 358
F4U-1D 357
F4U-1C 356
LA-5 356
YAK9-U 355
190A-8 349
190F-8 349
P-38L 344
P-47D-11 344
P-47D-25 340
P-47D-30 340
109G-2 340
190A-5 339
MOSQ 338
YAK9-T 336
109G-6 336
109F-4 332
C205 331
F6F-5 330
N1K2 324
SPIT IX 319
110-G2 316
C202 315
KI-61 313
SEAFIRE 302
SPIT V 302
110-4B 300
FM2 297
P40E 297
109E-4 292
SPIT I 291
A6M5 288
F4F 275 no wep
A6M2 275 NO WEP
P40B 275
HURR IIC 273
HURR IID 265
HURR I 261
The numbers I have for the f4f-3 @SL is 278mph
Again heres the results of forks accelleration tests
A6M2 | 40.3 | 1.1
F4F-4 | 40.9 | 1.1
FM2 | 29.9 | 1.5
Forks estimates an error of +/- .2
The f4f is no slouch in a turn either. I may need to test sl speed for the a6m2 because I think whels numbers are kinda high. But either way they 2 planes (f4f-4 and a6m2) match up well especially at the alts at which most of the fights are at.
Why is it we would need an F4f-3 or Fm2 for that matter?
If you mess with the current parity the a6m2 guys will just come in higher and make the fights less fun. Even now when the a6m2 guys get handled in a low df they tend to come back high. I just dont see the necessity of making any changes to what for the most part has been good fun.
-
Does anyone know the initial climbrate of B-239? Estimating from the 7min to 5000m time, it might be 3000+ fpm?
So the FM-2 would faster, but B-239 would climb just as well and would be much more agile.
-
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.
-
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).
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
-
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! :)
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
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.
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
-
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.
(http://bellsouthpwp.net/w/o/wotans/a6m2.jpg/)
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.
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
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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....
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
I know Karnak would blow his lid if the next AH IJ fighter wasn't a Ki-84 :) (and I couldnt blame him)...but the Ki-43 is a key Japanese a/c if you are trying to do historical stuff due to its prolific use in WW2. Its incredibly manuevarable, and would be a great foil to the Allies in a 1942-43 setup. But ya, so many good planes to add...but I hope the Ki-43 gets in there at some point.
-
So wait a minute.... since the -3 outperforms even the Fm2.... the axis guys here would still insist on substituting the -4 for the dash three if HTC gets around to modeling the -3?
why the axis guys think that a plane with worse turn, climb, speed and acceleration is a good match for the A6m2 is beyond me. As for the zeke cannon.... what does HTC say? if you axis guys are right then why isn't your data looked at by HTC?
Does the 109e suffer from the same "problem"?
lazs
-
The A6M2, does not outpreform the F4F-4 at all Alt's the F4F-4 is faster under about 5K, whear most sombat takes place, and has other advantages as mentioned above over the A6M2.
On the Cannon isue, HTC is aware of the Cannon isue and is looking into it( They said they will fix it). Yes the 109E would suffer from the same problem, it's MGFF's are basicaly the same weapon as a TYpe 99MK I, they fired slightly different ammo though, like I mentioned above their are a number of weapons that are suffering from this.
-
So wait a minute.... since the -3 outperforms even the Fm2.... the axis guys here would still insist on substituting the -4 for the dash three if HTC gets around to modeling the -3?
No one is subbing the 4 for the 3. The slot map was aug 42 the -4 was there it fought a6m2s as well as a6m3s which we dont have. There is no sub. The -3 is isnt in ah so it aint in that set up. The a6m3 aint in ah so it aint in that set up.
The -4 match ups well with the a6m2 and they actually fought each other, so saying theres some conspiracy to keep the -3 (which isnt in ah out) is nutty.
So what if the a6m2 out climbs the -4 by 300 fpm under 5k. 300fpm isnt all that. If the Fm2 were used it would out climb the a6m2 by more then 300fpm under 5k. You are just trading one "advantage for another". The Fm2 is faster then the -3 at sea level and climbs better. It gets worse as you get higher but at the alts the fights are using the fm2 would be an "improvement" over your -3. So "How fair is that.....". If the -3 were in Ah I am sure it would be used.
If you are upset about the -4 then ask ht why he didnt bring the -3. If the the Fm2 were included in the slot set up or any time theres an early pac set up then no one would ever fly the -4. There would be no need to include it in anything that ah does (ct event etc....).
You dont see anyone calling for the a6m5 to subbed for the a6m3 do ya?
Also if the Fm2 were here the a6m2s would go up as high 20k where they have the advantage they aint gonna stay otd flying in circles trying to catch runners. The Fm2 may get a boost at lo alts but the fights would get higher that advantage would drop off, you would get longer flight times and hi alt bore zzzzzzzzz'rs. Or folks wont fly at all.
As is the f4f-4/a6m2 is good lo alt furballing. And you want to fek that up? Over a 300 fpm climb difference?
-
presently their are like 5 early war rides facing off aganst the A6M2, the F4U-1,F4F-4, P40E & B and the Huricane, . The F4U-1 does not face off against the A6M2.
Whats your take on a "FM2 vs A6M5" match up? Kind of like the Slot set up with those 2 being the primary fighters. Or maybe add the P-40E and Ki-61. Would that be balanced?
-
I believe the f4u-1 is actually a f4u-1a performance wise and a '43 plane.
The a6m5 vrs the fm2 or any allied plane is good for me. The ki-61 vrs the p40e would be too much of an advantage to the ki-61.
The a6m5 ki-61 vrs f4u-1s fm2s p40e is good. If the dhog is out and reduces field porkage. With that out of the way the only thing to do is fight so even if a few guys are timid runners the odds of a good fight increase as long as the field porkage and war winning are kept to a minimum.
On the slot map its gets better because those fields are tough to kill. Fleet parking is always an issue but it also reduces flight time which is good for fights.
So a slot with ki-61/a6m5 vrs fm2/f4u-1/p40e and no bombers would work.
Some would orefer the niki to be added here but I dont care but is it is the whining would start. Ofcourse the calls for the f6f would be loud. So what ever the setup somethings will just be "unfair" to some. Theres always a group that feels anything less then having the advantage is unfair.
Look at this thread, the a6m2 has a 300fpm climb advantage below 5k and turns well so its unfair for the -4 pilots. Even though 90% of pac set ups the japanese types are at a far greater disadvantage across the board. That doesnt seem to bother them.
-
So a slot with ki-61/a6m5 vrs fm2/f4u-1/p40e and no bombers would work. Wouldnt that hinder the Japanese as far as taking out enemy CV's?
-
Yup but its a double edged sword as i mentioned fleet parking is always a problem but close fleets mean good fights.
By including a ki-67 or even a ju88 as a replacement you end up in the same situation as if a dhog just porked a land base.
For the most part bomber san be ignored until they start suiciding a fleet or porking an af at the good fights.
When I say no bombers I mean no tbm/sbds/vals/kates/bostons/b26s/ju88s/ki67. If you include any 1 of those then the other side needs a counter. Instead of debating and arguing what sub for what bomber just get rid of them all together.
If field capture and base porkage is accepted then both sides need the ability to partake in it or you will have 1 side that gets rolled up on and all his fields porked. Ultimately thats the 1 thing that would end up "unfair".
You dont get more folks in the ct by denying flight to one side. Thats why the war winning is out of place in the ct. Thats why purely "historical" set ups are a poor sub for good gameplay.
Ofcourse theres a debate about what = good gameplay.
-
This debate is far and away beyond my knowledge. With that said, it did produce a scenario that, IMO, would be a helluva good time. That being the a6m5 ki-61 vrs f4u-1 fm2 p40e.
-
Except that I think the F4U-1 vs the Ki 61 is not a good match, prety much nead a George when you start adding the F4U's. When we start talking this kinda late war set were run into a big balance issue, just like we walways do in PAc set's do to our limited Japanese Plane set, The FM2's can easly dog fight the Geore's and Tony's, their Faster than the A6M5's down low and turn very well with them as well the F4U's are way faster, and so and so on....
-
I read these posts, and I can see the deep, deep intractable hole that the CT has fallen into with the "it has to be fair all the time" strategy which clearly does not work.
A real shame too, for those of us that would like to see some other rides from time to time.
I say let the Axis have its day, and then the Allies, in ETO and PAC, and if they want 100 percent fair, the MA is all setup for just that purpose.
"We have the TBM but it has a bigger load than the B5N does, so we have to add the Ki-67, but the F4F is too slow, so we will add the F6F, but then we need the N1K2, but if we add that we have to add the F4U, and so we need the Ki-84, with AH doesnt model, so we cant do a PAC setup!"
To quote Brady: "and so on and so on..."
Cripes almighty.
-
No Ct set is ever fair, for any number of reasion's they are or we do endevore to creat good fight's howeaver hince the term "balance", if you want lop sided set up's then I think their are many that can be found being run on various nights by The CM's in the sea, thats what it is their for:), The CT is an open areana one that has a historical feal, many set up's are bnased on historical precedent but they are generaly concieved with good "balanced" game play in mind it better for atandance, better for the players and better for the planet, it cuts down on global warming and helps to lower my sperm count all good thing's.:)
-
SEA events are both lopsided, and popular. :)
All you can eat with 1/2 the calories!
-
I realy have enjoyed the Scenarious, and have been lucky to particapate in the way I have, but I must say I dont care for the other event's at all(because their lopsided:) ).
-
no axis vs allied fights are ever fair or balanced. some small slices of history come close but even then... the axis vs allied thing is very simplistic... everyone does exactly the same thing and that is all you have to worry about. That and getting caught outnumbered.
so let me get this straight.... if HT made a -3 then we would have it in these early scenarios?
lazs
-
Yes we would, most likely.
-
but the FM2 which is inferior to the -3 in every respect except durability is not now being substituted... even tho you guys normally play fast and loose with subs that defy description. Maybe if the blue planes were axis? oh wait... you do use the fm2 as a sub for a plane that is even inferior to the -4. when it is axis.
lazs
-
the fm2 performs better then the -3 below 5k where the fights are at.
The -4 fought the a6m2 in the solomons and thats what that last set up was.
The a6m2 has a 300fpm climb advantage and turns better. There is nothing to "unbalancing" about that at all. Many setups have planes that match up much worse then the a6m2 vrs the -4.
If every time theres a early pac set up and the fm2 subs for the -3 why have then -4 at all? You know as well as the rest of us that the only plane you would see is the fm2.
Because you prefer the fm2 means nothing. Ofcourse you prefer the fm2 only because its "better" then the -4 and the a6m2.
-
The B-239 is an export version of the F3A-1 (i.e. the early lightweight model with no armor - 5276lbs).
So then why dont they die with a nice snap-shot in the face, side or rear? I would rather they be less armor plated, slower and more firepower then to F*** up a good dogfight with a 109 or 190. And what about all the feild attacking....the FM2 just keeps right on a flying. If it were an F4F it would never die!