Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Axis vs Allies => Topic started by: Oldman731 on April 02, 2006, 09:01:59 PM
-
This is really the first time we've used substitute planes for any extended period. Obviously the PAC is the arena where the biggest holes exist in the plane set. Fork worked hard to come up with some useful substitutes; some have been suggested by others in the past.
Certainly it looks a little weird to see a 109 over Bouganville, or a Focke Wulfe over Okinawa. Some day we may get Japanese skins for them, or, better yet, accurately-modeled Japanese planes. In the meantime, what did you think? Was it better to have the subs, or would you have been happier without them?
- oldman
-
I can appreciate the use of the 109`s for use as a subsitution or any other aircraft for that matter, if it met the criteria of the specific event.....
However....stating this and flying a sortie or two in the 109, i found it just didn`t fit my mindset of the event...felt a little MA-ish.
Maybe new skins as was suggested would be the ticket "if" that was at all possible?....There`s a lot of talent out there and i`m sure it would be undertakin if allowed....
The best would be additional aircraft of the era and time slots, but i realize that ya just can`t snap your fingers and they appear....
Someone asked in another thread what it would take to have additional aircraft added too the roster, not just someones whim... but sensible additions that would round out the planeset for better sim-play on both sides...
-
We see enough 109s in other setups.
-
As much as I love the 109 (still planning on naming my firstborn son "Gustav"...) I have been restraining from flying it during the PTO setup. As glad as I am to get away from the Euro setups and the neverending Spitfire Horde, I don't want the Allies to return fire about the endless 109 swarms over the Solomons and Okinawa...
Besides, its been nice to take a vacation and get to know its redheaded cousin Toni. :)
-
What FiLtH said.
-
Just a couple of observations from a normally "Allied" Flyer.
Taking off to go into battle against the IJ Forces calles for a "certain tactical mindset", at least on My Part. I have to continually tell myself, " DO NOT TURN" with that Zeke. Fight Him Historically, using the strengths of your plane. With that mindset firmly implanted (hopefully anyways), I go seeking the Foe. The Radar Operator informs me that a horde of enemy planes are after one of our CV's, just fly east a bit, till ya see the puffy ack, and join the combat. After finding the Fight, It's time to get set up for a fight, get the speed where I need it, get the correct trim set, all while waggling the wings seeking targets. Aha, 2 Zekes after one of ours, drop the wing, kick the rudder, nose down a bit, go for the bird with the best chance of killin the friendly, line it up, check the needle and ball, squeeze out a burst or two, go into a quick snap roll, looking for the second bird, make a quick decision whether to continue engagement, or break off, get set-up again, and re-engage, see that the 1st zeke broke off when My tracers dinged his engine, the 2nd zeke is following the 1st one, so I decide to continue the engagement, since I still have speed and "E", I set up a converging course on the 2 targets, and suddenly get the "Check Six" from a Friendly. Start looking frantically for whatever is threatening me, and suddenly have a 109 go zooming right past me, having overshot his merge. All kinds of 4 letter words are exploding from me, as I try to juggle two different styles of fighting. Do I climb after the rocketing 109, or take a swat at the pesky zeke starting to fly circles around me ??:eek: :confused:
At the above point, to me, all of a sudden I feel like I logged into the MA by Mistake. My personal emersion into the arena has just evaporated.
I totally approve of the search and struggle to discover what are effective substitute Aircraft, to fill in the Holes in the different planesets, and realize the subs for the IJ Forces are most difficult to find. The Japanese Concentrated on lighter weigth, agility, speed and Manueverability. To My Knowledge ( which is certainly less than perfect ) , the only A/C the Japanese Designed, built and flew in combat, which had any resemblance to the BF-109's, whether in visual effect or flight charactoristics, was the Ki-61, which is already ingame. Subbing the 109 for any of the other IJ Designs, just feels wrong to Me.
I haven't really reached a conclusion about using the 190 as a sub, but I have reservations about it. The Ki-100 was a late war bird, and even given the difficulties the Japanese industries were facing ( lack of industrial supplies, bombings, etc.) I don't see them spending resources to develope an aircraft from a early/midwar design that was already outclassed.
As far as a sub for the J2M Raiden, the Birds that pop into My Mind's eye, would be the Yak9, or possibly the LA. I have no concrete facts yet, that they would be good subs, just those are the planes that popped up when I thought about the J2M.
Hopefully you see this as a constructive reply OldMan, and not as a whine. You asked for opinions and feelings for how the subs worked out, in this particular set-up. To me, while it was a good positive effort, it just didn't feel right to go looking for a fight with an A6M, and get engaged by a 109.
You guys get a GIANT :aok from Me, for at least trying something.
-
if it weren't for the 109/190 substitution this would have been an unbearably boring RPS for many of us on the axis side. The PTOs are not popular. The allied players seldomly leave the sprinting safety zone of their ack. This time I could catch them. I would add that the J2M was probably a better performer in many respects than the 109G2.
109F4
top speed 375mph at 20k who fights at 20k?
Ki44
top speed was 375 mph at 17k armament was either 4x12.7mg or 2x20mm + 2x12.7mg.
a very close match except the Ki44 was a great turner as well as a great climber and accellerator. entered service in early 1943.
109G2
top speed at 28k 406 mph. who fights at 28k? down in the weeds it barely hits 350. reduce that by 12mph if you add the gondolas.
J2M-3
370mph at 18k down on the deck it was around 340. Armament wise, 4x20mm Ho-5s basically a blistering N1K2-J that was in service in 1943.
190A5
top speed 380 at 20k.
armament was 2x20mm + 2x7.92mm mg.
Ki-100 was basically a radial engined tony.
top speed was 350 at 19k
armament was 2x20mm and 2x12.7mm mg.
the Ki100/190 is the biggest stretch for a substitution and not really that far off, certainly no worse than the FM-2/brewster 239 one.
-
I agree with Storch here.
Although it does seem kind of weird to have the 109's and 190 in this set up, they are at least a respectable substitute.
The hog has the ability to dominate in the PAC set ups. It's nice to see some balance happening.
It's unfortunate that we don't have enough IJN/IJA rides in the planesets yet and this is what we are reduced to.
However, a great big <> to the AvA staff for being so pro-active and trying different things to keep the AvA a popular choice.
cheers, and I have had a blast the last few days I have flown in the AvA!
RTR
-
I agree with my collegues, I don't really like hopping in a 110/109/190...but there are just too many missing Japanese planes. If at least some of us weren't in these subs, we would be severely limited.
I heard a lot of complaining the other day about the German subs... While I adore my German aircraft...they are far from perfect. They have significant shortcomings which could be easily taken advantage of by a good pilot...they are far from "uber"....the G2 especially.
-
No doubt there are too many missing Japanese airframes. I still think the 110 is as good of sub as your going to get for the KI-45. If people are going to complain about 109s, just give the IJ's more time with the N1K2, and KI84.
As much as I love the the 190, which has always been my favorite plane. I don't think it's performance is on par with the Ki-100. Just from what I've read Allies are better off fighting the 190 over the KI-100. I can see how it may ruin the immersion for some having the LW planes subbing............ It's ethier that or enable the NiK2, and KI-84 , more.
The JM2, KI-44, and Ki-100, would be nice additions, the Ki-43 , Ki-45 and A6M3, would be a must too, I would think.
Keep up the good work AvA staff. If we didn't have anything to complain about , some of us would be forced to go look elsewhere.:D
-
I agree we should drop the 109/190 subs only if we drop this setup and put up another ETo this Friday :)
-
Not a fan of subs, so would rather not see them used. But on the other hand if subbing brings more people into the AvA, and the subs don't have a negative impact on the planeset(other than being subs) I could understand the need to implement them.
Subs aside there are many other factors that should be discussed in regards to PTO setups in my opinion. Mostly the lack of maps and the totally bad fit for the AvA of the ones we do have. Don't get me wrong, I am a big PTO fan. But I think the PTO setup has been weak, in regards to turn out and actual gameplay. No fault of anybody, just seems to lend itself to the maps we use. I did have fun at times and love the planes, so it wasn't all bad.:)
Don't want to hijack, the thread anymore than I did, sorry OM don't mean to do that to ya. Just wanted to broaden the discussion a little more, hope you understand.
-
I personally have had an absolute blast with the PTO (when I have been able to show up). The subs haven't bothered me, but then I haven't used them anyway (maybe once??). I never cared for the Japanese rides in the MA. But with the AvA, just as designed, the matchups were a little more even, and as a result I have actually come to like the twisty little suckers. Put another way, without the Spit XVIs and LA7s shooting my tail off every five seconds, I found the Zekes and Tonys to be interesting rides after all.
Yeah, it would be nice to not have to use substitutes, but unless/until HiTech models more aircraft, what choice do we have? Subs or Gaps. I prefer subs to gaps.
-
I lose a lot of immersion when I see a 109 in a PAC setup. Having said that I have not been in the AvA arena much so don’t put much weight to my opinion. :)
-
Going by what's been listed in storch's post:
The 109G2 shouldn't sub for the J2m, the 190a5 should, only it's less manuberable. The G2 should be left out, and the K i100 performed slightly worse than the Ki61 (the engine change was because they had a shortage of inline DB601 clones, not because it gave better performance), and it was a late war plane made in few numbers.
Leave the Ki100 out and just use the Ki61. Switch 190a5 to J2m and ditch the 109G2. It may "only" be 350mph on the deck, but that's faster than all corsairs save the F4u4.
-
Actually the Ki100 was supposed to have been equipped with a 1,500Hp Ha-150 engine- a home-grown development of the DB series designed specifically for use in a new interceptor. When the factory that was to build the engine was destrtoyed in a bombing raid, it was decided instead to mate a Mistubishi Ha-112-II engine to the Ki-61-II-KAI airframe. The engine mounting was, incidentally, based on the Fw190A.
Performance was slightly slower than the Tony (366 MPH at 36,000 feet), but the engine was much more reliable (and probably more resistant to damage) and the the aircraft was much more maneuverable than its predacessor. Its ceiling was also slightly lower (36,000 as opposed to 38,000 feet). The Ki100 did perform better than the Tony at altitude however (Ki61 reached its top performance at 15,000 feet).
Both carried the same armement packages, and the Ki100 had about twice the range.
(http://www.airventure.de/hendon/hendon04_mof_ki100_02.jpg)
-
I don't think that putting a radial in would simply make the exact same plane "more manuverable". I find that very hard to believe. P36 put an inline engine in and you got the birth of the P40, but that doesn't mean it was "more manuverable" -- just faster.
Also, unless the radial (with more cylinders than the in-line) had less than half the gas consumption of the in-line, I don't think it would have twice the range. The tanks weren't changed, from anything I've read. What I read was that it was almost a straight-up engine swap (with adjustments to taper the cowling).
-
Originally posted by Krusty
I don't think that putting a radial in would simply make the exact same plane "more manuverable". I find that very hard to believe. P36 put an inline engine in and you got the birth of the P40, but that doesn't mean it was "more manuverable" -- just faster.
Also, unless the radial (with more cylinders than the in-line) had less than half the gas consumption of the in-line, I don't think it would have twice the range. The tanks weren't changed, from anything I've read. What I read was that it was almost a straight-up engine swap (with adjustments to taper the cowling).
I've also heard that the Ki-100 was greatly superior to the Tony.
But I've got nothing to back that up.
- oldman
-
Allison V-1710 and Rolls Royce Merlin were both 12 cylinder inline V engines, yet one had almost half the gas consumption of the other.
The Ha40 was based on the DB601A, which was 1940 tech, while the Ha112-II engine was 1944 tech- a lot of time for progress to be made. It may have also operated at a much lower RPM/Manifold Pressure rating than its predacessor.
And the Ki100 had a much shorter nose with no bulky liquid cooling system (had no belly radiator), so the two may have altered the COG enough to affect its turn performance.
I'm definately not an aircraft design expert, but I personally dont see why such a signifigant change to an airframe would make a major impact on its performance capabilities.
Look at the difference between the LaGG-3 and La-5. Same basic design with a much bigger radial engine, and it became an entirely new aircraft.
-
Found this on the KI-100
http://www.tarrif.net/cgi/production/all_aircraft_adv.php?op=getplanes&planesX=122
And this on the KI-61 II
http://www.tarrif.net/cgi/production/all_aircraft_adv.php?op=getplanes&planesX=125
-
Shifty, I'm not entirely sure that webpage is trustworthy, because it quotes:
"It possessed a definite ascendancy over the Grumman F6F Hellcat. In one encounter over Okinawa, a Ki-100-equipped unit destroyed 14 F6F Hellcat fighters without loss to themselves"
which has been turned into an urban myth of sorts. It never happened.
600 pounts doesn't really make THAT much difference for a plane. It's the difference between flying a Ki84 with 50% gas and with 25% gas (guess-timating here), you are still one mean mofo.
I think the engine would have helped in some instances (probably climb, maybe acceleration -- but it was draggy so I'm not sure) but I don't think it would instantly have made a super fighter. Ki100 was little better than the Ki61. I base this off of past discussions I've read on these forums and all the information that has been brought up before (ahh.. the endless debate!). Ki61 is pretty darn manuverable as it is. It's almost on par with spits (it's about the C202/5 level, I'd say).
EDIT: Just using that website, *this* is the plane AH has:
http://www.tarrif.net/cgi/production/all_aircraft_adv.php?op=getplanes&planesX=123
-
That webpage makes no sense. It says the Ki61 II had first flight in 1943, but the Ki61 I was a 1944 plane. From memory it was a late '42 or early-mid '43 (probably '43) plane.
-
I forget which version ,but they had Tonys on New Guinea and at Rabaul by the time the P-38s and F4U-1 were reaching the frontlines, so I would agree with Krusty on its service dates.
But I still wonder if it was tested in SE Asia during the spring of '42, the AVG reported encountering Japanese fighters with Inlines in Burma.
-
I trust the judgement of the AvA CMs.
But personally, I don't use subs.. it's just not fun.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Shifty, I'm not entirely sure that webpage is trustworthy, because it quotes:
"It possessed a definite ascendancy over the Grumman F6F Hellcat. In one encounter over Okinawa, a Ki-100-equipped unit destroyed 14 F6F Hellcat fighters without loss to themselves"
which has been turned into an urban myth of sorts. It never happened.
600 pounts doesn't really make THAT much difference for a plane. It's the difference between flying a Ki84 with 50% gas and with 25% gas (guess-timating here), you are still one mean mofo.
I think the engine would have helped in some instances (probably climb, maybe acceleration -- but it was draggy so I'm not sure) but I don't think it would instantly have made a super fighter. Ki100 was little better than the Ki61. I base this off of past discussions I've read on these forums and all the information that has been brought up before (ahh.. the endless debate!). Ki61 is pretty darn manuverable as it is. It's almost on par with spits (it's about the C202/5 level, I'd say).
EDIT: Just using that website, *this* is the plane AH has:
http://www.tarrif.net/cgi/production/all_aircraft_adv.php?op=getplanes&planesX=123
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Shifty, I'm not entirely sure that webpage is trustworthy, because it quotes:
"It possessed a definite ascendancy over the Grumman F6F Hellcat. In one encounter over Okinawa, a Ki-100-equipped unit destroyed 14 F6F Hellcat fighters without loss to themselves"
which has been turned into an urban myth of sorts. It never happened.
600 pounts doesn't really make THAT much difference for a plane. It's the difference between flying a Ki84 with 50% gas and with 25% gas (guess-timating here), you are still one mean mofo.
I think the engine would have helped in some instances (probably climb, maybe acceleration -- but it was draggy so I'm not sure) but I don't think it would instantly have made a super fighter. Ki100 was little better than the Ki61. I base this off of past discussions I've read on these forums and all the information that has been brought up before (ahh.. the endless debate!). Ki61 is pretty darn manuverable as it is. It's almost on par with spits (it's about the C202/5 level, I'd say).
EDIT: Just using that website, *this* is the plane AH has:
http://www.tarrif.net/cgi/production/all_aircraft_adv.php?op=getplanes&planesX=123
I just found that website after reading in here this afternoon. Everything I have read in books always led me to believe the KI-100 would be superior to the FW-190A5, as we know it in this sim. Then again , books always seem to potray the 190 as a better dog fighter then I've ever seen modeled in AW, WB's, or AH. When I have time later I'd like to spend some time reviewing the whole site.