Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: gatt on October 04, 1999, 10:35:00 AM
-
From PYRO:
"This week we should start production on the Kawanishi N1K2-J Shiden Kai, Allied codename "George". We plan to follow that with the Macchi C.205 Veltro."
Really, you'll have a bunch of affectionate japanese and italian customers, you know ... =)
Regards,
gatt (Grifone in AH)
4°Stormo Caccia
(no, I'm not the one sleepin' on the wing)
(http://www.flightsimmers.net/amivirtual/images/sleepMc202.jpg)
[This message has been edited by gatt (edited 10-04-1999).]
-
Pyro said Fw 190 ought to be coming too - some day I guess. If only the lethality would remain at this level, I could finally get that 20+ kill sortie I have been dreaming about...
//fats
-
Ahh... Its good to see that Pyro is gonna come thru with "ole Curious George" (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) .
The N1K2-J Shinden (translates to "Violet Lightning") code named "George" should be a real killer, with its high power to weight ratio, excellent acceleration, nice instantaneous turn rate (due mostly to its automatically deployed "butterfly" combat flaps) and its x4 20mm HO-5 cannons (HO5 or Type 99-2 depending on variant). It should fit in quite well with its 1944-45 brethen in AH; the P-51, Spit IX, and Me109G10. It should certainly earn its nickname the "Focke Wulf of the Pacific"
The Veltro (or "Greyhound" in Italian), may have a much more difficult time of it (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif) Don't get me wrong, its VERY nice to finally see an Italian aircraft. But, from everything I have ever seen, it should perform very similar to a Me-109F. Which isn't suprising since its shares the same Daimler Benz DB605 powerplant. While the Veltro was a top performer for its 1942-43 timeframe, it may have a tough time competing with the late war planes.
Of course this is the exact same situation with the La-5fn. While one of the best midwar aircraft of the war (again 42-43 era), it gets soundly spanked by Pony's, Spit's, and 109's.
It kinda suprises me that Pyro didn't make either a La-7, or a Yak-3 instead.
Anyways, I am sure glad to see the N1K2-J in a game other than AW. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Thanks Pyro
------------------
Vermillion
WB's: (verm--), *MOL*, Men of Leisure, Goldlandia
AW's: (verm) ACCS, Aerial Crowd Control Services, Cland
-
"Anyways, I am sure glad to see the N1K2-J in
a game other than AW."
Me too!! Now instead of them going up in a
brief red explosion when kilt I can watch that sucker burn like the rice paper it was made of as it plummets earthward. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
--Curly
-
I sense a business strat at play here.
Provide a certain level of unique but capable
airframes to generate interest and draw some folks over from the standard brand sims.
Yes, a Fw190 certainly is a necessity but
a B-26 has yet to be modeled anywhere outside of EAW....and a George fer chrysakes... and a pasta-maker!
This could get very interesting.
Yeager
-
CAN'T BELIEVE THIS!!! WE FINALLY HAVE THE VELTRO!!
To Vermillion:
same engine doesn't mean same aircraft; the 205 was a completly different airplane than the 109F.
It was designed for close T&B fighting, the only way the italian pilot could fight because they never were teached other techniques.
It could dive and climb very fast (could dive at 600kts and reached 20000ft in exactly 5') and his complicated (21000 hours to build a 205!!) and strong structure could absorb up to 15g.
Top speed was 350kts @24280ft.
Ciao!!
v-twin
4° Stormo Caccia
(I apologize for my bad english, isn't my mothe tongue...)
-
The Veltro could dive at almost 700mph??
------------------
Spinny, VF-17
8X
-
Some problem with conversions, I guess... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/redface.gif)))
One C.205 reached during a dive with a test pilot a speed in excess of 590 mph... and landed in one piece...!
L'E' BUNA !
_/_/_/_/
_/ Ferdinando 'veltro' D'Amico
_/_/_/'PR' of 4° Stormo Caccia
_/e-mail: veltro@warbirds.org
_/
(one Mac italian pilot that will never fly the C.205, courtesy of Hitech Creations...)
-
(one Mac italian pilot that will never fly the C.205, courtesy of Hitech Creations...)
Not because you're Italian, but because you fly a mac. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Hey - I wonder if Pinanfarina (excuse my horrible spelling) ever made a version of the C.205? I'd fly that one! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Andy
-
What type of 190 ? Dora, maybe ?
Not again that heavy A8 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
the 205 was a completly different airplane than the 109F.
Well, I am an engineer by trade, not a historian, so I admitedly, don't know much about the Regia Aeronautica flying styles. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
However, for a simplistic comparison (the most you can do with commonly available reference sources), the four most defining attributes of an aircraft are its Max Speed, Climbrate, Turning Ability (estimated by WingLoading), and its Acceleration (estimated by Powerloading).
Here is the appropriate data for these two aircraft.
C.205 Me109F
Max Speed(mph) 399 388
Climb to 10k 150 137
(secs)
WingLoading 30.66 30.46
(lbs/sq.ft)
I don't have any figures handy here at work for Powerloading, but otherwise the C.205 and the Me-109F compare very closely.
The Veltro is slightly faster than the Me-109F, but is slightly slower to it in climbrate to 10,000 ft (I would guess its more aerodynamic, but has a less efficent wing design in regards to climbing). The wingloading is almost identical, and since they use the same engine with the same approximate airframe size, I would guess that the powerloading is also pretty close.
In fact of the entire planeset of both AW and WB, and you want to pick an aircraft that most closely matches the C.205 for a simple comparison.... guess what.... the Me-109F.
I have a complete writeup of data and estimated abilities, of the C.202 and C.205 Fighters on my website, in the Plane Archive section. There are also several nice Macchi Pics there as well.
Of course, there is also Lethality, but that doesn't effect how the aircraft will fly. Just for those that don't know the C.205 was most typically armed with x2 12.7mm MG's(cowl mounted) and x2 7.7mm MG's (wing mounted). It could also carry up to two bombs for a total weight of 750lbs.
So personally I would consider it lightly armed for mid-war aircraft, and very lightly armed compared to late war aircraft.
Now, I am sure a real AeroSpace Engineer, could do a better job than poor little me (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)(Electrical&Computers), but the basic principals I believe are sound.
Guys, please realize that I am not trying to slander the C.205, I was only trying to compare it to an aircraft that most of the other pilots here would be familiar with.
So Congrats on getting an Italian Fighter (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Sources:
The Complete Encyclopedia of World Aircraft.
Jane's Fighting Aircraft of World War II.
Jane's Enclycopedia Of Aviation.
------------------
Vermillion
WB's: (verm--), *MOL*, Men of Leisure, Goldlandia
AW's: (verm) ACCS, Aerial Crowd Control Services, Cland
[This message has been edited by Vermillion (edited 10-04-1999).]
-
Brick:
jokes apart, it wasnt Pininfarina but rather Ing. Mario Castoldi: "One of the world's best aircraft designers, Castoldi benefited from the Schneider Trophy experience with the M.C. seaplanes nos. 33, 39, 52, 67 and 72 setting (world) records and scoring triumphs".
Vermillion,
I think you are right. The C.205 should be as fast as a 109G6 but maneuverable like a 109F. I'd say lethal at medium/low altitude (even better than the Fiat G.55 and Reggiane 2005) and someway weak over 20,000ft. AFAIK the late series of the C.205 had 2x12,7mm (Breda-SAFAT) and 2x20mm (MG151-20).
Regards,
gatt
4th Stormo Caccia
[This message has been edited by gatt (edited 10-04-1999).]
-
Just for those that don't know
the C.205 was most typically armed with x2 12.7mm MG's(cowl mounted) and x2 7.7mm MG's (wing
mounted). It could also carry up to two bombs for a total weight of 750lbs.
Sorry, but this isn't correct. I have another concept of "most typical"...
No.103 C.205s (Serie I) were armed with 2x 12.7mm MG's and 2x 7.7mm MG's
No.161 C.205s (Serie III) were armed with 2x 12.7mm MG's and 2x 20mm cannons...
I guess that the typicalarmament for the Veltro was the latter, right?
P.S. I could tell you the serial of the first C.205 to receive the 20mm cannons, but we are not nitpicking here, aren't we? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
L'E' BUNA!
_/_/_/_/
_/ Ferdinando 'veltro' D'Amico
_/_/_/'PR' of 4° Stormo Caccia
_/e-mail: veltro@warbirds.org
_/
[This message has been edited by veltro (edited 10-04-1999).]
-
I guess that the typicalarmament for the Veltro was the latter, right?
P.S. I could tell you the serial of the first C.205 to receive the 20mm cannons, but we are not nitpicking here, aren't we?
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Hehehe obviously you have much better information on the armament than I do. Whats funny is that I added that blurb as a last second addition to the post and its almost a direct quote from a reference book.
Of course, I find it amusing that we debate the "typical armament" on an aircraft that only had a total production run of approximately 300 (my sources say 289) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Heheheeh so if up they were armed with the x2 7.7mm MG's up until plane #161, doesn't that mean that 55% were armed that way, and would be considered "typical" (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Only the Regia Aeronautica would think that 300 planes deserve the seperate designation of Series I, II, and even III ? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
I'm kidding, I'm kidding, so you can put away that flamethrow... <WOOOOOOOSHHHH>
<G>.
------------------
Vermillion
WB's: (verm--), *MOL*, Men of Leisure, Goldlandia
AW's: (verm) ACCS, Aerial Crowd Control Services, Cland
[This message has been edited by Vermillion (edited 10-04-1999).]
-
Heheheeh so if up they were armed with the x2 7.7mm MG's up until plane #161, doesn't that mean that 55% were armed that way, and would be considered "typical"
I accept jokes, no problem, but I want to avoid misunderstandings... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
One hundred and three C.205s were armed with the x2 7.7mm MG's while One hundred and sixty-one were armed with 20mm cannons... this seems a bit more than 55% to me! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
L'E' BUNA !
_/_/_/_/
_/ Ferdinando 'veltro' D'Amico
_/_/_/'PR' of 4° Stormo Caccia
_/e-mail: veltro@warbirds.org
_/
[This message has been edited by veltro (edited 10-04-1999).]
-
gatt - no problem. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Hey - what was the 3-engine bombers that the Italian AF flew? I think I remember seeing some pictures of one, described as a medium bomber or something. Wonder if those will ever make an apperance...
Andy
-
Oh well,
I think you all understand how much we are sensible to criticism to our beloved aircraft (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Brick,
I think your talking about the Savoia-Marchetti SIAI-79 Sparviero (Sparrowhawk). "The S.79s scored heavily, and a huge tonnage of ships were sunk, at the cost of many crews. Names of pilots like Buscaglia, Graziani, Erasi, Cimicchi and studmuffingioni became almost legendary. The last two big sea battles to be fought against the Royal Navy trying to supply Malta took place in June and August 1942. Good results were obtained, but the price in terms of men and machines was too high and the surviving ships reaching the island were enough to accomplish their task. With the Allied landings in French North Africa on November 1942, the S.79s were again compelled to attack ships moored in harbours, but meanwhile the aerial situation had changed completely and losses were very high. The 1941-42 average of eight torpedo hits for every aircraft lost fell to one hit for 2.5 aircraft lost in 1943!"
I dont think we'll ever see one of them in AH or WB.
Regards,
gatt
4th Stormo Caccia
(http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Nova/8805/savoiam79.jpg)
-
To Vermillion:
Hi Vermillion!
I'm an engineer too (in Mechanic), and even if my knowledge of aircraft design is really poor, I know that a lot of parameters are affecting the performances of an AC.
You may compare 2 cars wich have same hp, they may have similar top speed and acceleration, but on the street they can behave very different, because suspension, gear, weight distributions, brakes, etc, are different.
In the same way, the 205 and the 109 may have similar performances in speed, climb, etc, but a lot of other things are different: the shape and the contour of the wing, shape and area of the control surfaces, position of CG, weight distribution, and so on.
Thus, the behavior in the air can be very different.
Ciao!
v-twin
4°Stormo Caccia
-
v-twin:
I would agree with you arguement, if we were debating the design parameters of the aircraft, for instance, size, weight, or even horsepower.
They can be the same weight and fly differently. They can have the same horsepower and fly differently. They can have the same wing area, and fly quite differently.
But we are discussing direct measurements of its performance.
Therefore if its climbrate is the same, they are gonna climb at the same rate. If the max speeds are the same, well.... they will have the same speed. Get It?
To go back to your analogy of cars, we are not comparing horsepower, cubic inches, size of brakes. We are discussing, 0-60 times, top speed, 60-0 braking distances, cornering G tests.
True the factors you mentioned such as CG, wing desing, control surfaces, and all the others may be vastly different, but together they all determine performance.
And that is what I am comparing, performance, not the design parameters.
I had this exact same arguement with some guys in WB's when they announced that the Ki-61 Tony was to be modeled. I made the statement that it would perform very similar to the Me109F (again same engine and similar airframe), and we debated it endlessly. Well, go fly the Ki-61 and the Me109F in WBs, they are very similar.
------------------
Vermillion
WB's: (verm--), *MOL*, Men of Leisure, Goldlandia
AW's: (verm) ACCS, Aerial Crowd Control Services, Cland