Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Axis vs Allies => Topic started by: Arlo on August 07, 2004, 08:02:29 PM
-
Ummm .... I know the F6F is your ride, Soul-man (as is the F4U mine) but perhaps axing the F6F and TBM may not be a bad idea to get some of those voicing planeset parity in the general forum to reconsider? Of course, I say that with the full knowledge it could get my preciousssssss ... axed as well.
-
funny thing is when I was putting together this setup I knew full well that I probably won't be flying Alllied at all this week. A similar setup was done a couple months ago and I cringed at it when it was first announced but I ended up having a good time that week anyway which gave me some hope.
The funny thing is I think the F6F provides a better fight than the F4U does. As far as both parties are concerned.. I enjoy fighting hellcats more than F4u's as well. I spent a few hours this morning in the arena and again this afternoon. Some arena level changes will probably follow late tonight early tomorrow.
I may open things up a little bit and bump the year to '44 include the -1D and the N1k and be done with it as well. But we'll see.
I'm mulling over the following
· Disabling gunners at the cv's... this will stop fleets from parking off the shore and shelling a base into dust... also will increase the vulnerability of the fleets. I hope that this will keep them at arms length.. fleets should promote air battles not keep the other side on the ground.
· Tweaks to hardness and Troop #'s to capture
I hope to make one set of changes this weekend and then keep my fingers crossed that they play out nicely for the rest of the week. I try to keep my mid-week meddling to a minimum... but it looks like a little shifting is in order to get things right.
-
I wish we had the F6F-3 though the differences are kinda neglible I think. -5 will roll better, and had water injection. But I've heard that (and it can be argued) that the -3 climbed and accelerated better.
-
Soulyss, I like the set up as is, and if you decide to add the N1K and the 1D that would be cool too :)
I think the F6F and the Tony seem to be matching up fairly well (although that could just be my ineptitude with the Hellcat showing through), and it's nice to see the F4U in a scenario (my favorite ride).
Gonna be a fun week:aok
Cheers,
RTR
-
Please leave it as it is. We get enough F4U1-D/Nikki setups throughout the year. "North Solomons" worked just fine last time it was run. Im sure after this it will be a raft of 1945 ETO/PAC setups like we usually get.
-
Originally posted by Soulyss
· Disabling gunners at the cv's... this will stop fleets from parking off the shore and shelling a base into dust... also will increase the vulnerability of the fleets. I hope that this will keep them at arms length.. fleets should promote air battles not keep the other side on the ground.
After another CV beaching tonight, I think you are on to something Soulyss. Disabling manned ack on fleets, wont leave them defenseless yet will negate some of the motive to beach them in the first place. Nothing quite as lame as getting hit on the runway by 5" guns from a beached fleet.
Ack was a LAST line of defense.
-
And I dont mean that one side did it and the other didnt, both sides did some beaching of CV's.
-
Originally posted by Soulyss
I wish we had the F6F-3 though the differences are kinda neglible I think. -5 will roll better, and had water injection. But I've heard that (and it can be argued) that the -3 climbed and accelerated better.
After seeing positive feedback, I'll side with the majority. No problem here.
On a side note, here's an excerpt from "Corsair - The F4U in World War II and Korea" by Barrett Tillman. It deals with finally getting the F4U ok'd for carrier ops but the comparisons between in and the F6F got my attention:
"On 22 April (1944) the Navy accepted its first F4U-1D, basically a -1A with two underwing pylons for external stores. Tests conducted in Hawaii during May showed the new Corsair the be perhaps the most versatile carrier aircraft of the period. The Naval Air Forces Pacific Command received an F6F-5 and an F4U-1D for the purpose of fleet evaluation. Three combat-experienced pilots were named to an evaluation board. They were Lieutenant Commander Gordon Cady, CO of VF-11; Lieutenant Commander Bernard W. Strean, CO of VF-1 recently returned from Tarawa; and Lieutenant Colonel John L. Smith who lead VMF-223 at Gaudalcanal. Cady and Smith had flown the F4F-4 in combat, Strean the F6F-3.
'Smoke' Strean recalls, "The three of us decided that carrier suitability was the most important concern. We were given wide latitude as to how to accomplish the comparison. To give these planes the severest carrier test, we selected a CVE. All three of us made many landings in both airplanes. We determined that the F4U-1D was equally as good a carrier airplane as the F6F-5, if not better. The evaluation lasted perhaps three weeks."
At the end of that time the board was generally agreed on most findings. The F6F-5 was more maneuverable than the F6F-3 because of the spring tabs on the former's ailerons, but it was not more maneuverable than the F4U-1D. Control forces on the Corsair also seemed lighter than on the Hellcat. There was no doubt that the Corsair was the faster than the F6F, and it possessed better zoom-climb characteristics than the Grumman.
In the all-important realm of gunnery and ordinance delivery, the F4U-1D was also judged superior. The three pilots - who so far had all their combat experience in Grummans - believed the Corsair was a steadier gun platform and a better dive bomber. There was some uncertainty as to relative visability, but the Hellcat probably gave a wider field of view, and it was generally considered easier to land aboard ship, owing to the better forward visability.
These tests reinforced the informal comparison which VF-12 ran against the Hellcats of VF-3 a year earlier. Joe Clifton and another VF-12 pilot had engaged in a mock combat with Lieutenant Commander Edward "Butch" O'Hare and a wingman near San Diego. Clifton's F4U-1s had proven faster and more maneuverable than O'Hare's F6F-3s, and the playful hassling must have made an impression upon O'Hare. When he took his squadron to Hawaii that summer, he managed to take an F4U-1 with him. For some time it was the only Corsair in the islands, and O'Hare would only let one other pilot fly it. Such are the privileges of being a Medal of Honor winner."
Another section of the book dealt with a comparison between the F4U and the A6M series:
"In late 1944 a detailed test was run between an F4U-1D and a captured a6m5, or Zeke 52. From sea level up to 30,000 feet the Corsair proved faster by an average of 55 knots, or 64 mph. This was from a minimum advantage of 36 knots at 5,000 feet to a maximum of 69 knots at 25,000 feet. Top speeds were 413 mph (355 knots) for the F4U-1D at 20,400 feet and 355 mph (290 knots) at 18,000 for the Zeke.
Unlike the F4F, the Corsair was capable of matching or exceeding the Zeke's rate of climb. Vought and Mitsubishi were equal up to 10,000 feet, after which the Corsair pulled ahead. In fact, at 18,000 feet, the -1D 750 feet per minute better than its opponent.
'The maneuverability of the Zeke 52 is remarkable at speeds below about 175 knots, being far superior to that of the F4U-1D', said the report. 'It's superiority, however, diminishes with increased speed due to its high control forces, and the F4U-1D has the advantage at speeds above 200 knots.' Tests showed that in slow speed turns at 10,000 feet, the Zeke gained one turn in three and a half. But the Corsair, by maintaining an airspeed of 175 knots (200 mph) could use full flaps to stay with the Zeke for a half-turn. By that time, however, airspeed was down to 150 knots (173 mph) and it was high time to disengage.
The Corsair's magnificent ailerons gave it an important advantage over Zekes. The two fighters' roll rate was equal at speeds under 200 knots, allowing the F4U to change directions on an equal basis. Above 200 knots, the Zeke's ailerons became heavy while the Corsair's were still effective. The time invested in those engineering test flights to perfect the ailerons paid handsome dividends in combat.
In dive comaprisons, both fighters were approximately neck-and-neck in the very early stages. After that, the Corsair was vastly superior as it accelerated with astonishing speed. Few Japanese fighters had any hope of escaping an F4U in a dive, and even then it was only over short distances."
In Ace's High, the F4U-1, 1D and 1C can't outclimb any of the IJ planeset. Acceleration in the game for the F4U is fairly anemic unless in a steep dive. Other than that, I find the comparison between the game and this book fairly close.
As far as the F6F vs the F4U, in game the F6F comes out slightly ahead in manerverablity and climb and slightly behind in level speed and diving. The F6F seems to have a more stable gun platform in game, as well. And as far as divebombing is concerned, the F6F carries pretty much the same capacity and is the f4U's equal. A bit off from this book.
-
Corsair was vastly superior as it accelerated with astonishing speed.
I wonder how that compares with the P-51D?
-
The set up is a success! The plane set is keenly competetive!
There is no need to delete the kitty from the plane set. Granted the F6F-3 was present at this time and not the F6F-5. We can make do with what we have and still have fun. Regardless of whining the biggest difference between the two was engine and no rockets on the -3 perhaps no bombs I'm not sure.
I believe that anyone that flies blue planes should be in blue planes. The numbers be damned. I would however greatly appreciate what seems to me to be a small concession, even though it might offend some of the purists in the community. Please. Enable the 110 as surrogate for the woefully absent Ki-45 Toryu.
Thank you oldman for some really tough fights. That was some great P40 flying.
-
Originally posted by Slash27
Corsair was vastly superior as it accelerated with astonishing speed.
I wonder how that compares with the P-51D?
The source doesn't specificallly go into detailed comparisons between the Corsair and AAF planes, especially dealing with acceleration but it did give this little tidbit:
The Army Air Force got its first good look at the Corsair during the Fighter Evaluation Meet at Elgin Field, Florida, during May 1943. Below 10,000 feet the bent-wing Vought was superior to any Army fighter and held its own up to 15,000 or 20,000 feet. At higher altitudes where they were designed to perform, the Republic P-47 and the North American P-51 held the advantage. Along the East Coast, Thunderbolt pilots tired of losing races and dogfights to Corsairs and sought other sport. Pulling alongside the F4Us, they would hold up their oxygen masks and point upwards. A smart Corsair pilot would shake his head and break off.
Perhaps one of the greatest tributes to the Corsair came from an Army pilot. Major (later Colonel) Rex T. Barber was an exponent and a devotee of the twin-boomed P-38. His combat tour in the Solomons ended with a key role in the interception of Japan's premier naval leader, Admiral Isukoru Yamamoto. Rex Barber flew a wide variety of fighters, but his assessment of the F4U was typically succinct: "If the United States had to pick one fighter-bomber to produce during the war, it should have been the Corsair."
Corsair: The F4U in World War II and Korea - Barrett Tillman
-
You know Arlo, I've been looking at getting Barrett's book for ages now.. perhaps I'll break down and get it here soon. I greatly enjoyed his book on the F6F.
The comparision only had one real surprise for me, that was the question of stability and gun platform. Considering how good the historic reputation of the F6F as being a stable, no surprises airplane I would have thought it would rank better in that regard. As far as AH goes two of the biggest pluses the F6F had over the F4U historically aren't a factor here. Ease of manufacture and maintenence. I don't think a F4U squadron out there could post the in service percentages that the F6F could. Other than that I would call it's over-all performance in terms of speed, climb, etc. to be "good enough" wiithout being jaw dropping by any stretch of the imagination.
When there's talk of outclimbing the IJN planes I always like to qualify the statement is this a zoom, or high speed climb? because of it's massive size and weight the F4U should be able to sustain a high speed or zoom climb longer than a A6M for example... I'd be surprised if I saw a source that stated it could match the zeke in a low speed sustained climb.
-
Just a heads up as of, 8:00am PST manned gun positions on all cv's has been disabled.
-
Originally posted by Soulyss
When there's talk of outclimbing the IJN planes I always like to qualify the statement is this a zoom, or high speed climb? because of it's massive size and weight the F4U should be able to sustain a high speed or zoom climb longer than a A6M for example... I'd be surprised if I saw a source that stated it could match the zeke in a low speed sustained climb.
Well, it's only one source and I admit I'm book poor reference-wise (this book was a gift from a fellow squadie, Cmorum - bless his heart).
But the way it phrased the test it sounds like climb tests from take-off to alt. Apparently the horsepower and huge airfoil surfaces of the F4U made up for its weight.
In AH and AHII, from takeoff to alt, both the A6M2 and A6M5 have a distinct advantage over the F4U-1, -1D and -1C.
On the maintenance issue, I wouldn't be surprised if the F6F was easier to manufacture and maintain than the F4U. The biggest deterrant in getting the F4U on CVs, though, was the Navy supply chain gearing for F6Fs instead of F4Us for the fleet.
-
Someone mentioned the PTO planesets earlier...well I know I will be running one with the Frank up against anything the allies had. I just hope that we can get the Phillipines map redone in time for it to at least get us close to a better map selection than what we have now.
-
Soulyss
Remove fleet maned ack & increase, greatly, fleet and ack hardness. Dont add the -1D or the N1K2J, we see the N1K2J too much as it is. The F4U is not a furballing fighter.
Increase troops to 25.
Also, last night CV3 got captured. Someone told me you had it set to were fleets werent suppose to be captured.
-
Hawk, that sounds about right to me too. The only think I might disagree with is fleet hardness being upped too much, there was panic when enemy bombers were sighted in RL, we shouldnt up fleet hardness or ack lethality so much that they are not afraid of buffs.
-
I haven't been able to figure out what's happening but a couple fleets switch sides when sunk.. I tried resetting and making sure the ports were assigned right but that didn't do so I'm not sure what's going on. Untill I figure out what's going on I'll just have to keep an eye on things and give cv's back.
-
Originally posted by Grits
Hawk, that sounds about right to me too. The only think I might disagree with is fleet hardness being upped too much, there was panic when enemy bombers were sighted in RL, we shouldnt up fleet hardness or ack lethality so much that they are not afraid of buffs.
Kinda like Zeros HOing F6Fs and Corsairs? I have never seen Zero pilots so not afraid of allied aircraft. Too bad Zero pilots werent so brave in WWII. They could have won the air battles.
Zero pilots paniced when they saw F4Us and P-38s as well as F6Fs. My bigest beaf is the non self sealing fuel tanks not exploding when they get hit:(
-
The A6M5b had self-sealing tanks and pilot armor, but you make a good point. I am always amazed at how tough the Zeke's are, however you cant make us in a game in 2004 act like the pilots in WWII, who's real life was on the line, its just not going to happen. You are just going to have to live with unrealistic tactics and move on, its unavoidable and to dwell on it will only make you more angry.
What we can do is change arena settings so that larger unrealistic things, like beaching fleets (how close to land do you think Mitcher would have let his CV's get?) is not rewarded. For that reason I say, remove the gunners, and leave the CV hardness and ack lethality the same. That way, if you want your CV to live you have to have effective fighter cover, and it cant get too close to any enemy base. Do that and you wont need to up capture to more than 10 because you would have to have a VERY well organized effort to take a base since you would have to actually defend the CV with planes, not just leave it to the gunners.
-
Originally posted by Grits
The A6M5b had self-sealing tanks and pilot armor, but you make a good point. I am always amazed at how tough the Zeke's are, however you cant make us in a game in 2004 act like the pilots in WWII, who's real life was on the line, its just not going to happen. You are just going to have to live with unrealistic tactics and move on, its unavoidable and to dwell on it will only make you more angry.
What we can do is change arena settings so that larger unrealistic things, like beaching fleets (how close to land do you think Mitcher would have let his CV's get?) is not rewarded. For that reason I say, remove the gunners, and leave the CV hardness and ack lethality the same. That way, if you want your CV to live you have to have effective fighter cover, and it cant get too close to any enemy base. Do that and you wont need to up capture to more than 10 because you would have to have a VERY well organized effort to take a base since you would have to actually defend the CV with planes, not just leave it to the gunners.
Grits you missed the point. You stated that ..there was panic when enemy bombers were sighted in RL, we shouldnt up fleet hardness or ack lethality so much that they are not afraid of buffs.[/i] But then you say "you cant make us in a game in 2004 act like the pilots in WWII"[/b] ..then further say ...You are just going to have to live with unrealistic tactics and move on... So how can you tell us we need to not increase act hardness and then tell me to deal with unrealistic tactics?
If the Zero pilots are not afraid of allied aircraft, why should the CVs be afraid of the bombers? You basicly stated that the CVs should fear bombers but the Zeros should not (fear the much superior allied fighters) be flown as they were in WWII. Kind of a double standard ay?
-
"In late 1944 a detailed test was run between an F4U-1D and a captured a6m2"
--From the report Arlo quoted
"In Ace's High, the F4U-1, 1D and 1C can't outclimb any of the IJ planeset. "
"In AH and AHII, from takeoff to alt, both the A6M2 and A6M5 have a distinct advantage over the F4U-1, -1D and -1C."
--Arlo
Well the report was talking about A6M2 and F4U-1D, so lets check those out in AH:
In Aces High, max climbrate of the F4U-1D and A6M2 is about the same up to about 10K, except the -1D has a large advantage under 2000 feet due to neutral blower setting which was apparently not used in the comparison Arlo quoted.
Asolute best climbrate for the A6M2 is about 2800 FPM. F4U-1D reaches 3375 FPM.
Sure enough, in AH at 18,000 feet, the F4U-1D has about a 750 FPM advantage over the A6M2.
The F4U-1D also handily outclimbs the Ki-61 at many altitudes. The Ki-61 holds a climrate advantage at medium altitudes; the F4U-1D is better on the deck and at high altitude. The F4U-1D outclimbs the N1K2 at high altitude as well. The A6M5 is the only Japanese fighter in AH which maintains climbrate parity with the F4U-1D at all altitudes.
The F4U-1 with the "toothpick" propeller was never known for stellar low-speed climbing.
J_A_B
-
A6M2 was a typo. The captured craft was an A6M5. Flown the F4Us and both Zekes extensively in AH and AHII. The A6M2 maintains with and the A6M5 outclimbs the F4U-1 (the F4U-1D was an f4U-1A with pylons added and wingtanks taken out).
Offline comparisons
Fuelburn rate 1.8 - Slot Map - Henderson field - takeoff NE - autoclimb
F4U-1: 1/2 fuel : wep on takeoff
2k roc 3
5k 2:06
10k 3:53
13k roc 2.75
13.45k wep runs out
15k 5:52 roc 2.25
17.5k roc 2
20k 8:26 wep re-engaged
23.2k roc 1.75 wep runs out
24.75k roc 1.5
25k 11:16 wep re-engaged
25.9k wep runs out
27k wep re-engaged
27.6k roc 1.25 wep runs out
30k 15:22
-----------------------------------------------------------
A6M5: 1/2 fuel
5k 1:41
8.5k roc 3.5
10k 3:09
11k roc 3.25
15k 4:48
16.3k roc 3
18.2k roc 2.75
20k 6:39
20.2k 2oc 2.5
22k roc 2.25
23.6k roc 2
25k 9:04
25.5k roc 1.75
27k roc 1.5
28.7k roc 1.25
30k 12:47
-----------------------------------------------------------
A6M2: 1/2 fuel
5k 2:03
8k roc 2.75
10k 3:56
15k 5:55
15.7k roc 2.5
18k roc 2.25
20k 8:23 roc 2
22k roc 1.75
24k roc 1.5
25k 11:20
26.3k roc 1.25
28.3k roc 1
30k 16:11
-----------------------------------------------------------
Which synchs up with my online experiences.
-
Originally posted by CurtissP-6EHawk
Grits you missed the point.
No, with due respect Hawk, you missed the point. Pilot tactics are an individual thing, about which each one of us as persons living in 2004, have differing views as to what is fun. I dont fly like you, or Storch, or Arlo, or Oldman, or anybody else, much less a real pilot. We are not all trying to stay alive, because we dont really die, we can do things that a real WWII pilot would never have done. You choose to fly as though you life depends on it, and I respect that because not many do, but you can not force others to do the same thing. Nothing can be done to change that, by you or me or anyone else, its a result of this being a GAME.
CV and Ack hardness are arena settings which can be changed to simulate WWII and cause us to react as pilots then would. Individual pilot tactics are not arena settings, and can not regulated.
YOU can not make ME fear the F4U when I am in a Zeke, because I do no fear it and there is nothing you can do to make me fear it. Most (not all) F4U's are poorly flown and with such timidity that they are not a real threat unless they are 3 to 1 because of lack of aggressiveness. Ask Storch if I know how to fly the F4U agressively.
You can however, with proper arena settings, make me fear 2-3 TBM's/SBD's heading unopposed to my CV, knowing that there are not 4-6 manned acks waiting to knock them down. This will cause a person in 2004 to react as a pilot in WWII would knowing if they dont intercept, the CV will be doomed as it would have been then.
As a side note, your hero Chris Magee was well known for attacking any odds, even when lower and far outnumbered so dont act like all "real" pilots flew like you do.
-
Originally posted by Grits
No, with due respect Hawk, you missed the point. Pilot tactics are an individual thing, about which each one of us as persons living in 2004, have differing views as to what is fun. I dont fly like you, or Storch, or Arlo, or Oldman, or anybody else, much less a real pilot. We are not all trying to stay alive, because we dont really die, we can do things that a real WWII pilot would never have done. You choose to fly as though you life depends on it, and I respect that because not many do, but you can not force others to do the same thing. Nothing can be done to change that, by you or me or anyone else, its a result of this being a GAME.
CV and Ack hardness are arena settings which can be changed to simulate WWII and cause us to react as pilots then would. Individual pilot tactics are not arena settings, and can not regulated.
YOU can not make ME fear the F4U when I am in a Zeke, because I do no fear it and there is nothing you can do to make me fear it. Most (not all) F4U's are poorly flown and with such timidity that they are not a real threat unless they are 3 to 1 because of lack of aggressiveness. Ask Storch if I know how to fly the F4U agressively.
You can however, with proper arena settings, make me fear 2-3 TBM's/SBD's heading unopposed to my CV, knowing that there are not 4-6 manned acks waiting to knock them down. This will cause a person in 2004 to react as a pilot in WWII would knowing if they dont intercept, the CV will be doomed as it would have been then.
As a side note, your hero Chris Magee was well known for attacking any odds, even when lower and far outnumbered so dont act like all "real" pilots flew like you do.
Why bring me into this? Oh BTW I liked your panties last night grits, the pink ones with the white hearts. I hope you didn't soil them fearing my zeke of death!
-
"(the F4U-1D was an f4U-1A with pylons added and wingtanks taken out). "
As modeled in AH, they also appear to have a different propeller since the -1D manages to outclimb the -1 at any altitude by a rather signifigant margin.
That or the -1 doesn't have water injection and thus 200 less HP.
Regardless the cause, the -1 obviously has a worse climbrate than the -1D and while most the Japanese fighters will outclimb the -1 at most altitudes, the -1D is much more able to hold its own.
J_A_B
-
Arlo,
Was that the A6M5 that wasn't working properly and was used in the tests posted a bit ago by F4UDOA?
-
It's AHII's A6M5. Versus the F4U-1, it outclimbs it as well as it did in AH1.
-
No, I mean the A6M5 that the F4U was tested against in reality. Is that the one that the F4U outclimbed?
-
Offline comparisons
Fuelburn rate 1.8 - Slot Map - Henderson field - takeoff NE - autoclimb
F4U-1D: 3/4 fuel (equivalent fuel load to F4U-1 @ 1/2): wep on takeoff
2k roc 3.1
5k 1:59
10k 3:38
10.5k 5/8 tank remaining
15k 5:21 roc 2.75
15.3k wep runs out roc 2.4
17k roc 2.25
20k 7:40 wep re-engaged roc climbs 2.1 to 2.35
22k 1/2 tank remaining
22.5k wep runs out roc 1.9
24k roc 1.75
25k 10:13 wep re-engaged roc climbs 1.7 to 1.75
26.25k wep runs out roc 1.5
28.5k wep re-engaged roc climbs 1.35 to 1.4
29.2k 3/8 tank remaining
29.6k wep runs out roc 1.25
30k 13:42
-----------------------------------------------------------
A6M5: 1/2 fuel
5k 1:41
8.5k roc 3.5
10k 3:09
11k roc 3.25
15k 4:48
16.3k roc 3
18.2k roc 2.75
20k 6:39
20.2k roc 2.5
22k roc 2.25
23.6k roc 2
25k 9:04
25.5k roc 1.75
27k roc 1.5
28.7k roc 1.25
30k 12:47
-----------------------------------------------------------
-
Originally posted by Karnak
No, I mean the A6M5 that the F4U was tested against in reality. Is that the one that the F4U outclimbed?
I dunno. What's his source?
-
Offline comparisons
Fuelburn rate 1.8 - Slot Map - Henderson field - takeoff NE - autoclimb
F4U-1D: 3/4 fuel (equivalent fuel load to F4U-1 @ 1/2): wep on takeoff
2k roc 3.1
5k 1:59
10k 3:38
10.5k 5/8 tank remaining
15k 5:21 roc 2.75
15.3k wep runs out roc 2.4
17k roc 2.25
20k 7:40 wep re-engaged roc climbs 2.1 to 2.35
22k 1/2 tank remaining
22.5k wep runs out roc 1.9
24k roc 1.75
25k 10:13 wep re-engaged roc climbs 1.7 to 1.75
26.25k wep runs out roc 1.5
28.5k wep re-engaged roc climbs 1.35 to 1.4
29.2k 3/8 tank remaining
29.6k wep runs out roc 1.25
30k 13:42
------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuelburn rate 1.8 - Slot Map - Henderson field - takeoff NE - autoclimb
KI-61: 1/2 fuel: wep on takeoff
2k roc 3.2
5k 2:03
10k 3:43 Aux dry roc 3
14k Center tank 3/8
14.5k roc 2.5
15k 5:28 wep runs out roc 2.4
16.5k roc 2.25
18k center tank 1/4 roc 2
20k 7:55 wep re-engaged roc climbs 1.8 to 1.9
21.5k center tank 1/8 roc 1.75
22.2k wep runs out roc 1.5
24k center tank dry roc 1.25
25k 11:20wep re-engaged roc climbs 1.1 to 1.25
26.25k wep runs out roc 1 (no appreciable loss)
28k wing tanks 3/8 roc .75
28.5k wep re-engaged (no appreciable gain)
29.4k wep runs out roc .5
30k 17:49 wing tanks 1/4
-----------------------------------------------------------
-
Offline comparisons
Fuelburn rate 1.8 - Slot Map - Henderson field - takeoff NE - autoclimb
F4U-1D: 3/4 fuel (equivalent fuel load to F4U-1 @ 1/2): wep on takeoff
2k roc 3.1
5k 1:59
10k 3:38
10.5k 5/8 tank remaining
15k 5:21 roc 2.75
15.3k wep runs out roc 2.4
17k roc 2.25
20k 7:40 wep re-engaged roc climbs 2.1 to 2.35
22k 1/2 tank remaining
22.5k wep runs out roc 1.9
24k roc 1.75
25k 10:13 wep re-engaged roc climbs 1.7 to 1.75
26.25k wep runs out roc 1.5
28.5k wep re-engaged roc climbs 1.35 to 1.4
29.2k 3/8 tank remaining
29.6k wep runs out roc 1.25
30k 13:42
------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuelburn rate 1.8 - Slot Map - Henderson field - takeoff NE - autoclimb
N1K2J: 1/2 fuel: wep on takeoff
2k roc 4+
5k 1:31
5.5k roc needle unpegs
7k roc 3.75
8k roc 3.5
10k 2:56 roc 3.25
11k tanks 3/8 roc 3
12k roc 2.75
15k 4:45
16.5k wep runs out roc 2.65
19k roc 2.5
20k 6:44wep re-engaged roc 2.35
21k wep runs out roc 2.2
22.5k tanks 1/4 roc 2
24k roc 1.75
25k 9:23wep re-engaged roc 1.6 (no appreciable gain)
26k wep runs out roc 1.5 (no appreciable loss)
27.2k roc 1.25
28.5k wep re-engaged roc 1 (no appreciable gain)
29.2k wep runs out roc 1 (no appreciable loss)
30k 13:46 tanks 1/8
-----------------------------------------------------------
-
Here is a link to F4UDOA's thread:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=123755&highlight=A6M5
I'm not sure the source. Maybe it is in there.
-
Originally posted by storch
Thank you oldman for some really tough fights. That was some great P40 flying.
Heh heh. Was a lot of fun, up until the end of each of those fights. P40 v. Tony is one of the best fights in AH, so far as I'm concerned.
FWIW, I wouldn't change a thing in this setup.
- oldman
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Here is a link to F4UDOA's thread:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=123755&highlight=A6M5
I'm not sure the source. Maybe it is in there.
Ok, different source than mine though it could be Tillman's source (but it would be surprising that he didn't mention the A6M5 malfuntioning, so I doubt it). But it's zoom climb and dive tests. Mine is purely deck to 30k climb tests (though I did dive both a6ms to the deck afterward from 30k - chopped throttle, no shimy or shake the entire drop - pull out began at 8k - came out inches over the deck - no problem. Ditch @ 400 ias .... no problem, heh).
-
Originally posted by Grits
No, with due respect Hawk, you missed the point. Pilot tactics are an individual thing, about which each one of us as persons living in 2004, have differing views as to what is fun. I dont fly like you, or Storch, or Arlo, or Oldman, or anybody else, much less a real pilot. We are not all trying to stay alive, because we dont really die, we can do things that a real WWII pilot would never have done. You choose to fly as though you life depends on it, and I respect that because not many do, but you can not force others to do the same thing. Nothing can be done to change that, by you or me or anyone else, its a result of this being a GAME.
CV and Ack hardness are arena settings which can be changed to simulate WWII and cause us to react as pilots then would. Individual pilot tactics are not arena settings, and can not regulated.
YOU can not make ME fear the F4U when I am in a Zeke, because I do no fear it and there is nothing you can do to make me fear it. Most (not all) F4U's are poorly flown and with such timidity that they are not a real threat unless they are 3 to 1 because of lack of aggressiveness. Ask Storch if I know how to fly the F4U agressively.
You can however, with proper arena settings, make me fear 2-3 TBM's/SBD's heading unopposed to my CV, knowing that there are not 4-6 manned acks waiting to knock them down. This will cause a person in 2004 to react as a pilot in WWII would knowing if they dont intercept, the CV will be doomed as it would have been then.
As a side note, your hero Chris Magee was well known for attacking any odds, even when lower and far outnumbered so dont act like all "real" pilots flew like you do.
My hero is not Chris Magee. Was just a name I saw and it fit the icon ID.
I can make you fear the F4U if the Zero damage model was correct. Zekes flaming for 60 sec. is a bit much when most exploded due to the non-self sealing tanks. I hit zeroe all the time and more than non I get a fuel leak with the first hit. Another fuel leak with the second hit and maybe, if I am lucky to still have the energy I need, get the engine on the third pass. First I can see the fuel leak on the first pass but igniting the fuel mist vapors with the second hit is more likely than just another fuel leak. If not the second, the third hit should finish it off instead of a lousy engin hit! I also have not read anywhere were the A6M5b had self sealing fuel tanks or pilot armor. There were little improvements other than thicker guage wing skin, ailerons tapering into the non-folding wingtips. The thicker guage wing skin aided only in the faster dive speed. The A6M5b was just as fatel when hit in the wing tanks as was the A6M2 and A6M3. Also, the A6M variants were only slightly more manuverable than the F4F and F6F. The F6F had the power that the F4F lacked amongst udder tings! :)
-
Originally posted by CurtissP-6EHawk
I also have not read anywhere were the A6M5b had self sealing fuel tanks or pilot armor.
I was a little off on my facts, the 5b had CO2 fuel tank fire extinguishers and an armoured windshield, the 5c added pilot seat rear armor.
The Zeke takes a bit more damage than I think is right also, but if it took less I still would not fear very many F4U's because of the most important factor, the pilots.
In the end, it is what it is until HT or Pyro changes it and there is not much reason to stress over it.
-
The F4U and the P-38 where the most feared by Zero pilots, and yes, most did fear them.
Whats so funny is that no matter were I hit them on my first pass, its always the left fuel tank that leaks first. No matter were I hit them on the second pass, its always the right fuel tank that leaks. Basicly the same with the engine on the third pass. I love the way pilots have what it takes to keep fighting when there is fire in their face i.e. the "flaming/fighting" Zeros. :rolleyes:
-
Offline comparisons
Fuelburn rate 1.8 - Slot Map - Henderson field - takeoff NE - autoclimb
F4U-1D: 3/4 fuel (equivalent fuel load to F4U-1 @ 1/2): wep on takeoff
2k roc 3.1
5k 1:59
10k 3:38
10.5k 5/8 tank remaining
15k 5:21 roc 2.75
15.3k wep runs out roc 2.4
17k roc 2.25
20k 7:40 wep re-engaged roc climbs 2.1 to 2.35
22k 1/2 tank remaining
22.5k wep runs out roc 1.9
24k roc 1.75
25k 10:13 wep re-engaged roc climbs 1.7 to 1.75
26.25k wep runs out roc 1.5
28.5k wep re-engaged roc climbs 1.35 to 1.4
29.2k 3/8 tank remaining
29.6k wep runs out roc 1.25
30k 13:42
------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuelburn rate 1.8 - Slot Map - Henderson field - takeoff NE - autoclimb
N1K2J: 1/2 fuel: wep on takeoff
2k roc 4+
5k 1:31
5.5k roc needle unpegs
7k roc 3.75
8k roc 3.5
10k 2:56 roc 3.25
11k tanks 3/8 roc 3
12k roc 2.75
15k 4:45
16.5k wep runs out roc 2.65
19k roc 2.5
20k 6:44wep re-engaged roc 2.35
21k wep runs out roc 2.2
22.5k tanks 1/4 roc 2
24k roc 1.75
25k 9:23wep re-engaged roc 1.6 (no appreciable gain)
26k wep runs out roc 1.5 (no appreciable loss)
27.2k roc 1.25
28.5k wep re-engaged roc 1 (no appreciable gain)
29.2k wep runs out roc 1 (no appreciable loss)
30k 13:46 tanks 1/8
Arlo do you have stats for all the planes?
-
Originally posted by soda72
Arlo do you have stats for all the planes?
No. I was just doing some quick comparisons to give an inkling that the IJ planeset has superior climbing capability in AHII. But I guess I could ("test pilot" Arlo - lol). Of course ... so could anyone.
I could easily invest hours flying all the HTC aircraft in climb, level flight and dive tests at various fuel burn rates and loads. Guess that would be days. Well ... maybe weeks. Months? Heh.
-
Yeah, I agree that the physiolgical modeling of sitting in a flaming aircraft are not modeled.
I am only aware of one instance in WWII where this actually happened and it earned the pilot a Victoria Cross.
Really what the pilot of the flaming A6M should be doing is jumping out. Or, if historical and without a parachute, augering to end the pain.
Why do flaming A6Ms last so long and flaming Mossies so short? Why do Mossies catch fire so much easier?
-
oh, I was hoping you had already done all the hard work :D
It would be great information for your web page.
:)
-
Well, HT has oil and blood modeled. Think he can fill a cockpit with smoke? :D
-
Originally posted by soda72
oh, I was hoping you had already done all the hard work :D
It would be great information for your web page.
:)
Ya talked me into it. But I'm gonna space out the work or I'll never get to fly online. :D
-
If you can put the data in a comma delimited file, I can write a Java applet that will let you select plane types to view the data graphically.
I can put together a quick example this comming weekend to demostate what I'm thinking of.. If your interested in using it....
-
Ok. A soon as you explain to me what the hell a comma delimited file is. :)
-
it would look somthing like this.. Define what each field would represent and seperate each field with a comma.
For example:
alt, time
would look like this in the file
5,1:59
10,3:38
15, 5:21
This can be arrange anyway we would like....
-
I see. I suppose the static attributes need only be stated at the beginning (fuel burn rate, initial fuel load, takeoff alt)?
Then the variable data would be:
Alt, time, wep on or off, fuel remaining, speed
-
yep,
we can even include plane type,
-
By graphically ... you mean one o them flowchart doohickies that most everyone misinteprets or sumpin else? :)
-
yepper thats what I'm thinking about....
I'll finish up a quick example at the end of this weekend..
And I can give you a temporary url to view it when it's ready...
-
Roger dodger.
-
I played for a while last night. It was fun. What I saw in the limited time I spent was that the American iron clearly outclassed the Japanese hardware. The Frank was fast enough to keep up with the Hellcat in general and had a good guns package but the poor zekes were falling like flies. Introduce a well flown Corsair and it was sad. I landed 6 kills in an F6F, and only had to land since the ack blew off my wingtip. I took up a zeke and fired an entire load of 20mm at one Hellcat. He died but I had to rtb immediately.
I though the BoB from two weeks ago, or the "????" from last week were more equitable setups as far as plane choices. Perhaps introducing the Me110 as a psuedo Ki45 would help, I dunno. It just didn't seem very fair to me. We really need a fuller planeset don't we.
-
Edbert,
I think you meant "Tony". The "Frank" is the Ki-84 that is coming, but is not here yet. The "Tony" is the Ki-61.
F4UDOA stated some time ago that the F4U-1 we have really has the performence of the later F4U-1A. The F6F-5 is a mid 1944 Hellcat. We should have the F6F-3 for 1943 setups.
Of course the Ki-61-I-Tei is also a 1944 Ki-61, but it is slower than it's 1943 brethern, but has better guns. The A6M5b is a 1944 aircraft, but the only difference from a 1943 A6M5 is the 13.2mm machine gun in place of one of the 7.7mm guns and the bullet proof windscreen.
-
I had three occasions where there were three USN planes against my lone Zeke - me on the deck, they booming and zooming (first time 2 F4Us and a Hellcat, second 2 Hellcats and an F4U, third three Hellcats). First time they managed to empty their ammo and score a couple of fuel hits while I downed one of the F4Us and RTB'd. Second, I got an F4U again, third, they got me but at the cost of two of them.
Currently I'm 23 and 10 in the Zeke.
11 kills of the F6F-5 and 7 kills of the F4U. 2 F4F-4s. 1 TBM. 1P-40E. 2 LVTA2s.
Of course ... all 10 deaths were from F6F-5s. ;)
The A6M5 is fine. You just have to let them outnumber you so they'll engage. :D
-
The problem with some sets, like Pac '43, is quite frankly the USN planes DID outclass the Japanese planes, and these sets are true to that as they should be.
As for the Ki61, some speak glowingly of the it, but I find it...uh...rather lacking in every way but guns. Even with its weaknesses I'd rather fly a Zeke.
-
I got slaughtered last night (hello Edbert) but had a blast none the less. Everyone was flying to their respective aircraft's strenght. Only a few allied were ack hugging and they were ignorable. I did manage to land several two kill sorties and had one three kill but was killed by sharkee going for a fourth victim. Great fighting on both sides I was very honored to be a part of it.
-
THe Me110 as a sub was mentioned to me, I decided against it for a couple of reasons.
Firstly I'll admit that, I don't know much about the ki-45 and I lacked the time to do the research to see if it were even a viable substitute.
Secondly I have a distaste for subsituting aircraft, especially fighters. To me it kills the immersion, if we somehow had a IJN skin for the 110 I'd give it more serious consideration.
I dunno... I've been told I'm inflexible. :D
-
Originally posted by Soulyss
if we somehow had a IJN skin for the 110 I'd give it more serious consideration.
The only problem I had with the substitution. With multiple skins now available, I think it'd be cool if someone could get a "Helldiver" skin approved for the Kate. Almost as cool as getting an actual Helldiver modeled.
-
Originally posted by Soulyss
THe Me110 as a sub was mentioned to me, I decided against it for a couple of reasons.
Firstly I'll admit that, I don't know much about the ki-45 and I lacked the time to do the research to see if it were even a viable substitute.
Secondly I have a distaste for subsituting aircraft, especially fighters. To me it kills the immersion, if we somehow had a IJN skin for the 110 I'd give it more serious consideration.
I dunno... I've been told I'm inflexible. :D
Who??? YOU???? Mr. #8 re-bar????? NAAAAAAAAAAAAAH couldn't be.
Ki-45 had one 20mm Ho-5 and four 7.7 mg 2 1300 hp engines IIRC
-
Ki-45-I-Hei Toryu "Nick":
Crew: Two
Engines: Two 1,080hp Mitsubishi Ha-102 engines
Operational Weight: 12,125lbs
Maximum Speed: 336mph
Climb Rate: Climb to 16,405 ft in 7 min 0 sec
Armament: One 37mm Ho-203 fixed forward-firing in the underside of the forward fuselage; two 20mm Ho-5 fixed obliquely up- and forward-firing in the central fuselage (similar to German Shräge musik; 7.7mm Type 98 trainable rearward-firing in the rear cockpit
Ordinace: two 250kg bombs
Service: August 1942 - 1945
Production: 1,675 total, 477 of this version
-
Hmmm, that sounds like the 110C would be the better match performance and gun wise, but I dont think that is much help against F6F's and F4U's.
-
110c are teh ubar!
-
Kawasaki Ki-45 KAIa
Engines two Nakajima Ha-25 1050 hp. each
Max speed 345mph at 23,000 ft.
Ceiling 35,000 ft.
Range 1400 miles
Armament one Ho-5 20mm four 7.7 type 98 mg. two were the rear gunner's
Ord. 500kg bombs
Remarkably close to the 110c. It's your arena so you get to do what you want. But it seems shortsighted to exclude this logical substitution given that the Ki-45 was probably a better performer than the 110 and HTC will probably not model anymore Japanese aircraft in the foreseeable future.
If I could learn to skin aircraft I would gladly do so. I am however virtually useless in all things 'putery.
-
The Ki45 looks to be quite a bit faster than the 110C, but as you said otherwise looks very close. Would anybody fly it? I mean that seriously, why would anyone fly it over the Zeke or Ki61? I'm all for substitutions, but I dont really see that the 110C would really add anything.
-
Originally posted by Grits
The Ki45 looks to be quite a bit faster than the 110C, but as you said otherwise looks very close. Would anybody fly it? I mean that seriously, why would anyone fly it over the Zeke or Ki61? I'm all for substitutions, but I dont really see that the 110C would really add anything.
I'd fly it to chase down the runners. namely anyone in a blue plane with very few exceptions. The only decent fights I've had this week is when the guys from the MA show up. You don't have to spend 45 minutes chasing them guys around. The 110 might be able to catch the F6F. It will catch the P40 and the F4F. Flown properly it will turn with anything the allies have.
If the Japanese plane set is deficient then we could take sensible steps to make the game enjoyable. Basically this wasn't a 1943 set up any way as there were no 1943 Japanese planes there. The allies only had the P40 anf the F4F so I don't buy the reason put forth by some as to why this or that model was excluded.
Actually you might have tossed in the N1K2 it was as much a 1943 bird as the F6F-5 and the TBM-3. In AH the F4U 1 and the 1A don't differ greatly at all.
-
Myself, I find the Ki-61 to be a much better fighter than the A6M5. The only thing the Zero does better is climb. Zero sucks at high speed, its slower, it dives poorly, and its armament is no better. The Ki-61 has few real flaws, except its slower than an F4U-1. In real life, serviceability was its main drawback, something not modelled in AH.
As for the F6F-3, air to air, it is no different (that you would notice), than an F6F-5. As for the Ki-61 we have in AH2 being slower than its 1943 counterpart, the difference might be a whopping 5-8 mph. I have seen no data that shows any appreciable speed difference in the Ki-61 models, 360-368mph is the big spread. Again, I would say the difference is negligable.
The Ki-45 would be a great addition as a bomber killer, and its a twin engined type, so that adds something to the IJ set.
Just my take on some of the comments.
-
Speeds on the deck with WEP:
F6F 330
Ki61 313
110C 300
The 110C is 13 mph slower at sea level than the Ki61thats the only reason I asked. I agree that the models currently available to us requires us to make compromises, I guess I just dont think from its performance the 110C is worth adding, but I am in no way against it either.
-
So why exactly do you want the Bf110?
Cannons?
Maneuverability?
Speed?
-
Test I conducted off line all aircraft 75% fuel and full power no WEP.
110C4b
5000 ft. 302 mph
8500 ft. 311 mph
10,000 ft. 315 mph
15,000 ft. 329 mph
Ki-61 TAI
5000 ft. 324 mph
8500 ft. 337 mph
10,000 ft. 344 mph
15,000 ft. 363 mph
N1K2-J
5000 ft 335 mph
8500 ft. 350 mph
10,000 ft. 357 mph
15,000 ft. 350 mph
The Ki-61 was also superior in the Dive to the 110 and the N1K2 however the 110 should still be included because it adds the missing element of a more stable jabo platform and it seems to out accellerates the Ki-61 and the N1K2. I'll dig up my stop watch and perform the accelleration tests over the weekend.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
I had three occasions where there were three USN planes against my lone Zeke - me on the deck, they booming and zooming (first time 2 F4Us and a Hellcat, second 2 Hellcats and an F4U, third three Hellcats). First time they managed to empty their ammo and score a couple of fuel hits while I downed one of the F4Us and RTB'd. Second, I got an F4U again, third, they got me but at the cost of two of them.
Currently I'm 23 and 10 in the Zeke.
11 kills of the F6F-5 and 7 kills of the F4U. 2 F4F-4s. 1 TBM. 1P-40E. 2 LVTA2s.
Of course ... all 10 deaths were from F6F-5s. ;)
The A6M5 is fine. You just have to let them outnumber you so they'll engage. :D
Well Arlo, after last nights spanking I'll give you credit. You are clearly able to do things with the Zeke that I cannot. You are a sniper when it comes to the HO and also have figured out how to make the zeke faster than a low fuel and WEPing Hellcat. I was doing ~350 and you were gaining on me like you had a reskinned La7. The only time I got you was when you were running back to the fleet from the GB and I managed to get into your blindspot.
VERY well flown sir !
-
Karnak, correct, I did mean the Tony not the Frank. Wasn't the Tony a product of cooperation with Willy Messerschmidt? Much of the airframe was based on the 109 according to my admittetdly failing memory.
If anyone doubts the abilities of the 110c check out the stats from the current BoB. The ZGs have the highest K/D in the game for both frames so far, and that is against far more nimble opponents than Hellcats.
-
Who??? YOU???? Mr. #8 re-bar????? NAAAAAAAAAAAAAH couldn't be.
ROFL
touche. :D
-
Originally posted by Edbert MOL
If anyone doubts the abilities of the 110c check out the stats from the current BoB. The ZGs have the highest K/D in the game for both frames so far, and that is against far more nimble opponents than Hellcats.
And far slower opponents than the Hellcat. I know the capabilities of the 110c, that is all I fly on the Axis side when we do '40 BoB sets. Its in between the A6M5 and Ki61 speed wise, only equals the Ki61 in Jabo load, and has weaker guns (remember, its 20mm's are MG/FF's not MG121's) than even the A6M5.
Again, I'm not against adding it as a sub for the Ki45, but I do see that it adds anything that the other two Japanese planes dont do better. Performance wise, the Ki45 was faster than even the 110G-2, but there is no way we can add the G-2 because of the gigantic difference in gun package.
-
Originally posted by Edbert MOL
Wasn't the Tony a product of cooperation with Willy Messerschmidt? Much of the airframe was based on the 109 according to my admittetdly failing memory.
No, it was not. When we first encountered it pilots ID'd it as a Me109, but in fact the only simularity is the license built Daimler Benz 601.
From an Internet site on the Ki-61 (http://www.vectorsite.net/avhien.html):
* The confusion of the Ki-61 with German and Italian fighters had some basis in the aircraft's origins. Between 1923 and 1933, Kawasaki Aircraft Engineering Company's head designer was a German named Dr. Richard Vogt, who returned to Germany in 1933 to take a similar position at the firm of Blohm und Voss during the war. Not surprisingly, Kawasaki continued to be strongly influenced by Dr. Vogt's beliefs after he left, particularly a faith in the usefulness of liquid-cooled inline engines. This made Kawasaki something of a heretic among Japanese aircraft manufacturers, who preferred air-cooled radials.
In March 1938, Kawasaki signed an agreement with Daimler-Benz of Germany for manufacturing rights to the liquid-cooled inline engines then under development by the German firm. In April 1940, a Kawasaki engineering team visited Daimler-Benz in Stuttgart to obtain plans and samples of the DB-601A engine, then being used in the Me-109.
The Kawasaki engine team managed to increase the take-off power of their version of the engine to 875 kW (1,175 HP) and reduce its weight slightly. The engine was put into production in November 1941. It was designated the "Ha-40", or "Army Type 2", though it would be later redesignated the "Ha-60" in a combined Army/Navy nomenclature.
In the meantime, certain officers at the Air Headquarters of the Imperial Japanese Army were very interested in the new fighters powered by liquid-cooled being developed in Britain, the USA, the USSR, Germany, and France. The Japanese Army also had unpleasant experiences in air combat against the Soviet Polikarpov I-16 fighter during the beating the Imperial Army took in their Manchurian border clash with the USSR in the summer of 1939. This experience suggested the the single-minded focus on agility above all that characterized Japanese fighter design doctrine might need to yield to a focus on speed and improved armor protection and firepower.
* In February 1940, the Army initiated work with Kawasaki on two single-seat fighters based on the DB-601 derivative engine: a heavy interceptor, designated the "Ki-60", and a general-purpose fighter, designated the "Ki-61". Kawasaki decided to build the Ki-60 first, and the design team, under Kawasaki chief designer Takeo Doi and his deputy Shin Owada, constructed three prototypes of the interceptor in 1941.
-
Arlo
I have the demo ready.
I set it up with the data you posted here and I also used some of the data storch posted as well..
I'll send u the URL if I see you in the CT....
-
Uhh... the Ki45 was a recon plane for the beginning of its life. It started with 2x 7.xmm guns, and when it was upgraded later with the big gun, one of the 7.xmm was removed. My source states that the upward firing tuns are 12.7mm, NOT cannon. Relatively FEW ever got the forward cannon.
These planes were ineffective everywhere, and were NO threat at all until they were used for kamikaze attacks, and then their only threat was non-fighter-performance related. The cannon-armed variant was a night fighter against B-29s, intercepting bomb raids at night and running kamikaze attacks during the day. This plane has NO role in the current setup, in my opinion.
By subbing the 110C with 2x 20mm and 4x 7.xmm, I think there is a BIG difference than a single big-bore gun with limited ammo and a bank of 6 standard normal powered guns with thousands of rounds of ammo. Not much of a comparison, if you ask me. 110c blows the ki45 out of the water in any situation, unless the ki45 is a kamikaze and the 110 is behind it (then it might outrun it, just barely).
Bad matchup in my mind. Not in any way similar, considering roles, performances, firepower, and capabilities.
Leave the 110c out.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Uhh... the Ki45 was a recon plane for the beginning of its life. It started with 2x 7.xmm guns, and when it was upgraded later with the big gun, one of the 7.xmm was removed. My source states that the upward firing tuns are 12.7mm, NOT cannon. Relatively FEW ever got the forward cannon.
These planes were ineffective everywhere, and were NO threat at all until they were used for kamikaze attacks, and then their only threat was non-fighter-performance related. The cannon-armed variant was a night fighter against B-29s, intercepting bomb raids at night and running kamikaze attacks during the day. This plane has NO role in the current setup, in my opinion.
By subbing the 110C with 2x 20mm and 4x 7.xmm, I think there is a BIG difference than a single big-bore gun with limited ammo and a bank of 6 standard normal powered guns with thousands of rounds of ammo. Not much of a comparison, if you ask me. 110c blows the ki45 out of the water in any situation, unless the ki45 is a kamikaze and the 110 is behind it (then it might outrun it, just barely).
Bad matchup in my mind. Not in any way similar, considering roles, performances, firepower, and capabilities.
Leave the 110c out.
Do your sources provide you with your crack also?
-
Bill Gunston, noted aviation author, in "German, Italian, and Japanese Fighters of World War II"
He has done many books, throughout many years, and I feel that his info is relatively solid.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Bill Gunston, noted aviation author, in "German, Italian, and Japanese Fighters of World War II"
He has done many books, throughout many years, and I feel that his info is relatively solid.
Enzo Angelucci claims somewhat different armament packages in the Rand McNally Encyclopaedia of Military Aircraft. Actually all Japanese Aircraft were armed in a plethora of combinations. Try reading some AARs of furballs involving the Nick to see what the guys opposing thought of them. The Ki-45 should be represented.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Yeah, I agree that the physiolgical modeling of sitting in a flaming aircraft are not modeled....
Why do flaming A6Ms last so long and flaming Mossies so short? Why do Mossies catch fire so much easier?
Hmm... Mayhap the Zero/Mossie thing is....
Zeke = Aluminium frame/skin
Mossie = Wood/Fabric/very little aluminium in frame/skin
??? ;)
Storch: Ya slay me man.... and I ain't in game yet! FOCLMGBO! :lol
-
What are the fighter vs fighter stats for this round so far?
-
Typical Furball Stats
A6M5b has 501 Kills of F6F-5
F6F-5 has 610 Kills of A6M5b
A6M5b has 123 Kills of F4U-1D
F4U-1D has 143 Kills of A6M5b
A6M5b has 203 Kills of F4U-1
F4U-1 has 259 Kills of A6M5b
N1K2 has 6 Kills of F4U-1
F4U-1 has 5 Kills of N1K2
N1K2 has 8 Kills of F4U-1D
F4U-1D has 7 Kills of N1K2
N1K2 has 11 Kills of F6F-5
F6F-5 has 11 Kills of N1K2
-
How about A6m5b vs Peeeee38
And Ki-61 vs F4u-1 and Peeeee38?
-
The Niki and Peeeee38 have only been in the set for a day, its too soon to tell.
The Ki-61 has 67 kills and has been killed 51 times against the F4U-1
-
The Niki and Peeeee38 have only been in the set for a day, its too soon to tell.
Gee, I didn't know the A6M5b was know as the Niki... good thing your not teaching the youth of America Grits! :rofl
-
I found out last night that I suck in the N1K2. I have to relearn that ride now :/
-
Read it again, I said:
"The Niki and Peeeee38 have only been in the set for a day, its too soon to tell. "
Hence, comparisons with those planes against any other, not just between those two, probably dont have the minimum number of sorties to get any meaningful data from. :aok
-
Originally posted by Grits
Read it again, I said:
"The Niki and Peeeee38 have only been in the set for a day, its too soon to tell. "
Hence, comparisons with those planes against any other, not just between those two, probably dont have the minimum number of sorties to get any meaningful data from. :aok
ummmm...
The N1K is included in Hawk's list..
:confused:
Anyway, I know the A6M2 (read 'two') has at least two kills against the Peeee38. :D
Splash1
-
Krusty,
It sounds like you are describing thje Ki-46, not the Ki-45. The Ki-45 was designed as a fighter from the start. The Ki-46 was a recon aircraft that latter was pressed into service as a fighter.
Odee,
There was no greater danger of fire from the wooden construction. I have a photo of a Mossie that was covered in burning fuel from the Me410 that it shot down. The Mossie returned home with some damage. It was not kindling.
-
Originally posted by Dennis
ummmm...
The N1K is included in Hawk's list..
:confused:
I know it was in Hawks list, but for a stat to have validity it has to have a minimum quantity in the sample for it to be accurate. Lets say plane xxx is added and the same night Eskimo vulches the same guy in plane zzz 50 times flying plane xxx. The next day the stats will show that plane xxx killed plane zzz 50 times with no deaths, but its not a valid sample. All I was saying is both the Niki and P-38 had not been in use long enough to get any meaningful data from the stats.