Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: TalonII on November 18, 2006, 09:36:59 AM
-
First I would like to see the aircraft of the game configured correctly and as Jane’s is a leading authority on military aircraft the configuration of the LA-5 and KI-84 is incorrect and needs to be updated. The following information is from Jane’s
{USSR} Specifications (Lavochkin La-5FN) Production: 9920
Performance
· Maximum speed: 648 km/h (403 mph)
· Range: 765 km (475 miles)
· Service ceiling: 11,000 m (36,100 ft)
· Rate of climb: 16.7 m/s (3,280 ft/min)
· Wing loading: 186 kg/m² (38 lb/ft²)
· Power/mass: 0.42 kW/kg (0.26 hp/lb)
Armament
· 2× 20 mm ShVAK cannon, 200 rounds per gun and 8× RS-82 Rockets or up to 500 kg (1,102 lb) of bombs
{JAPAN} Specifications (Ki-84-Ia) Production: 3,514
Performance
· Never exceed speed: 800 km/h (496 mph)
· Maximum speed: 627 km/h (392 mph)
· Range: 2,155 km (1,339 miles)
· Service ceiling: 10,500 m (34,450 ft)
· Rate of climb: 19.25 m/s (3,790 ft/min)
· Wing loading: 172 kg/m² (35 lb/ft²)
· Power/mass: 0.41 kW/kg (0.25 hp/lb)
The Ki-84 proved faster than the P-51D Mustang and the P-47D Thunderbolt at all but the highest altitudes. At medium altitudes, the FRANK was so fast that it was essentially immune from interception. The climb rate was exceptionally good, 16,400 feet being attained in 5 minutes 54 seconds, which was superior to that of any opposing Allied fighters. It could out-turn a Spitfire, and out-run and out-climb a P-51H at 20,000 ft everywhere but in this game
Armament
· 2x 12.7 mm Type 1 machine guns in fuselage 2x 20 mm Ho-5 cannon in wings
· 2x 250 kg (550 lb) bombs
· Ki-84 Ib (Mark Ib) -four cannons Ho-5 of 20 mm
· Ki-84 Ic (Mark Ic) -Version against Bombers, with two cannons Ho-5 of 20 mm and Ho-105 of 30 mm in wings
Second as you are making many changes to the game in the interest of make it better, its time to start adding aircraft that played large roles in the war. The bomber fleet needs to be added too and as you are going to start charging for ordnances in only fair you add the following three bombers. Petlyakov Pe-2, B-25J and He 111 H-6.
Specifications (Petlyakov Pe-2) Production 11,427
Performance
· Maximum speed: 580 km/h (360 mph)
· Range: 1,160 km (721 miles)
· Service ceiling: 8,800 m (28,870 ft)
· Rate of climb: 7.2 m/s (1,410 ft/min)
· Wing loading: 186 kg/m² (38 lb/ft²)
· Power/mass: 250 W/kg (0.15 hp/lb)
Armament
· 2x 7.62 mm fixed ShKAS machine guns in the nose, one of them being replaced by Berezin UB on later versions. 2x rearward firing 7.62 mm ShKAS. From the middle of 1942 defensive armament included 1 Berezin UB machine gun in the upper bombardier's turret, 1 Berezin UB in gunner's ventral hatch and 1 ShKAS, which may be fired by gunner from port, starboard or upper mountings (switch between mountings was performed in-flight in less than a minute). Some planes were also equipped with DAG-10 launcher, firing AG-2 parachute-retarded timed grenades and 1,600 kg (3,520 lb) of bombs
{USA} Specifications (B-25J) Production: 4318 B-25J & 1000 B-25H
Performance
· Maximum speed: 275 mph (239 knots, 442 km/h)
· Cruise speed: 230 mph (200 knots, 370 km/h)
· Combat radius: 1,350 mi (1,170 nm, 2,170 km)
· Ferry range: 2,700 mi (2,300 nm, 4,300 km)
· Service ceiling: 25,000 ft (7,600 m)
· Rate of climb: 790 ft/min (4 m/s)
· Wing loading: 55 lb/ft² (270 kg/m²)
· Power/mass: 0.110 hp/lb (182 W/kg)
Armament
· Guns: 12× .50 in (12.7 mm) machine guns and 6,000 lb Bombs (2,700 kg)
· B-25H—An improved version of the B-25G. It featured two more fixed .50-calibre machine guns in the nose, and four in fuselage-mounted pods; the heavy M4 cannon was replaced by a lighter 2.95-inch (75 mm) T13E1. (Number made: 1,000; Number left flying in the world: 1)
{German} Specifications (He 111 H-6) Production 6200
Performance
· Maximum speed: 400 km/h (250 mph)
· Range: 2,800 km with max fuel (1,750 mi)
· Service ceiling: 8,390 m (27,500 ft)
· Rate of climb: 20 minutes to 5,185 m (17,000 ft)
· Wing loading: 137 kg/m² (28.1 lb/ft²)
· Power/mass: .082 kW/kg (.049 hp/lb)
Armament
· Guns: 1× 20 mm MG FF cannon (central nose mount) up to seven 7.92 mm MG 15 or MG 81 machine guns, 1× 13 mm MG 131 machine gun (mounted above rear cockpit) Bombs: 2,000 kg (4,400 lb) carried externally and 1× 500 kg (1,100 lb) bomb carried internally, or: 2,000 kg (4,400 lb), internally stored
Finally we have been asking for the JU-52 for some time and as it was the most significant transporter of the Luftwaffe’s it only make sense that this aircraft is added. Plus given the fact you have aircraft like Ta- 152 Production 200, ME-163, production 355, and C-205 Production 289 I’m real not sure what your using for a criteria for the aircraft in the game, but I due know these aircraft should be perk very high giving there low number of availability.
Specifications (Junkers Ju 52/3m g7e) Production: 4845
Performance
· Maximum speed: 265 km/h (165 mph) at sea level
· Cruise speed: 211 km/h (132 mph)
· Range: 870 km (540 miles)
· Service ceiling: 5,490 m (18,000 ft)
· Rate of climb: 17 minutes to 3,050 m (10,000 ft)
Armament
· 1× 13 mm MG 131 machine gun in a dorsal position 2× 7.92 mm MG 15 machine guns up to 455 kg (1,000 lb) of bombs (some variants) and 18 troops
-
nice job on the research :aok
-
I shudder to think about the ord perk system in the works. Espcially with the hardened fields and towns.
I'd have no problem with planes meeting the average performance specs of three reliable sources. Going with one source will always have folks pointing to other numbers, and quite simply, the numbers do vary from source to souce to original specifications when it comes to things like this.
Game balance is NOT a big issue in THIS game. The idea is taking different craft with different capabilities up against one another..... so screw balance and go for as close to historical accuracy as you can with these birds within limits of the code.
Of course, if the Ki-84 was bumped up to Janes' specs, it'd probably come with a Perk cost too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for your plane picks:
I agree the buff drivers need more rides, and another perk plane than the Ar234, or the Lanc in early war (?!).
The B25 I can argue against easily enough, because once it is in game, these boards will be filled with posts about carrier launched B25's. Similarly, we won't see a perked B-29 because of the "I wanna nuke" posts that would generate (I seriously doubt there are many that would consistenty take a B29 to 35K for a run.... inserting high alt jet stream is one fix... not a bad high perk ride, but we won't see it). But, due to what will appear on these boards, you won't see either of these planes in AHII is my bet.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The He-111 would be more of a senerio ride or early war if that arena survives.... it was totally outclassed by the begining of the war as it was.... It is better looking than the 110 and Ju88, but it is slower, carries less ord, and is overall less capable than many other bombers.
Similarly, the Russian Tupolev ANT-40 was outdated by 1941, although it formed the majority (90%+) of the Russian bomber force at that time.
This could also be said for the entire Japanese bomber force... the Ki-67 is probably the best they ever produced. Ki-48 "Lily", G3M "Nell", G4M "Betty", Ki-21 "Sally", Ki-30 "Ann", Ki-49 Donryu "Helen" were all pretty much outdated by 1941, or were underperformers as bombers go.
Neat little planes in some cases, but outdated early in the war and mostly early arena or senerio use rides. Hard to justify their inclusion unless ToD or early war arena takes off at some point.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The He-117 would be a nice perk bomber. But there is a problem with it too...
Performance
* Maximum speed: 350 mph at 21,000 ft (565 km/h at 6,100 m)
* Combat radius: 960 mi (1.540 km)
* Ferry range: 3.200 mi (5.600 km)
* Service ceiling: 30,800 ft (9,400 m)
Armament
* 2 x 20 mm MG 151 cannon
* 3 x MG 131 machine gun
* 3 x MG 81 machine gun
* up to 7,200 kg of bombs or two guided missiles Henschel Hs 293 or Fritz X
Faster than a Lanc, typically carries more ord than a Lanc (although a Lanc could max out at 10,000kg of ord, our run the more typical 6,400kg ord loads), but the types and numbers of bombs the He-177 carried are a problem, and then there would be calls for the Henschel and Fritz guided missiles..... Early He177 also tended to burn nicely, on their own, but later models fixed the self immolation problem they had.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas A-26 Invader . Now THAT'd be a ride worth spending perkies on!
Specifications (A-26B-60-DL Invader)
General characteristics
* Crew: 3
* Length: 50 ft 0 in (15.24 m)
* Wingspan: 70 ft 0 in (21.34 m)
* Height: 18 ft 3 in (5.64 m)
* Wing area: 540 ft² (50 m²)
* Empty weight: 22,850 lb (10,365 kg)
* Loaded weight: 27,600 lb (12,519 kg)
* Max takeoff weight: 35,000 lb (15,900 kg)
* Powerplant: 2× Pratt & Whitney R-2800-27 "Double Wasp" radials, 2,000 hp (1,500 kW) each
(Compared to Martin B-26 Marauder's Crew of 7; Length: 58 ft 3 in (17.8 m); Wingspan: 71 ft 0 in (21.65 m); Height: 21 ft 6 in (6.55 m); Wing area: 658 ft² (61.1 m²); Empty weight: 24,000 lb (11,000 kg); Loaded weight: 37,000 lb (17,000 kg); Powerplant: 2× Pratt & Whitney R-2800-43 radial engines, 1,900 hp (1,400 kW) each)
Performance
* Maximum speed: 355 mph (308 knots, 570 km/h)
* Range: 1,400 mi (1,200 nm, 2,300 km)
* Service ceiling: 22,000 ft (6,700 m)
* Rate of climb: 1,250 ft/min (6.4 m/s)
* Wing loading: 51 lb/ft² (250 kg/m²)
* Power/mass: 0.145 hp/lb (108 W/kg)
(Compared to Martin B26 Marauder's 287 mph at 5,000 ft; 21,000 ft service ceiling; 2,480 nm (2,850 mi, 4,590 km) range; Wing loading: 46.4 lb/ft² (228 kg/m²); Power/mass: 0.10 hp/lb (170 W/kg)
Armament
* Guns:
o 8× 0.50 in (12.7 mm) M2 machine guns in the nose
o 6× 0.50 in M2 machine guns in the wings
o 2× 0.50 in M2 machine guns in remote-controlled dorsal turret
o 2× 0.50 in M2 machine guns in remote-controlled ventral turret
* Bombs: 6,000 lb (2,700 kg)-4,000 lb in the bomb bay and 2,000 lb external on the wings
(Compared to a Martin B-26 Marauder's 4,000 lbs ordanance, 8 - .50's in 5 turrent positions, and 6(?) in the nose)
These things didn't retire from U.S. Service until 1972. They saw action in WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and as aerial tankers for forest fighting (as in the 1989 Steven Spielberg film, Always) through to modern times.
Ultimate straffers.... fun with the town and field upgrades we see now. Great vs GV's.... could even be used to intercept other bombers. Shorter range than B-26's, which leaves their ord more vulnerable to attacks, but otherwise a great fun ride for buff drivers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And instead of the old tri-motor Junkers Ju-52, which would in-game be equivalent to the Goon, why not the Messerschmitt Me 323 "Gigant"? Less than 200 were built before production ceased in April 1944, but they saw a lot of work. The cargo hold was 36 feet long, 10 feet wide and 11 feet high. The typical loads it carried were: two 4-ton trucks, or 8,700 loaves of bread, or an 88 mm Flak gun, its equipment, ammunition and crew, or 52 drums of fuel (45 gal/252 L), or 130 men, or 60 stretchers.
Big slow easy targets, but they were armed, and in-game dropping 40 or 50 troops, or 30 vehicle supplies, or 5 airfield supplies in one shot would be worth it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suppose the Petlyakov Pe-2 (Cyrillic: Петляков Пе-2), nicknamed Peshka (Пешка - "Pawn") could be another contender, but with the P38, Mosquito, Bf-110's, and Ju-88's, that nitch is pretty well covered for now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yakovlev Yak-3 (Russian language: Як-3); smaller and lighter than Yak-9, and produced from 1944-1945 (and again starting in 1991 are a reproduction plane for enthusiasts). From Wiki:
Yak-3 was a very agile dogfighter and a forgiving, easy to handle aircraft loved by both rookie and veteran pilots. Early combat experience found it to be superior to all Luftwaffe fighters at altitudes below 5,000 m (16,400 ft). It could roll with the Fw 190 and its turn was far superior; a full circle in 18.6 seconds. The two biggest drawbacks of the aircraft were its short range and the tendency of the glued-on plywood covering the top of the wings to tear away under high-G loads. The pneumatic system for actuating landing gear, flaps, and brakes, typical for all Yakovlev fighters of the time was also less reliable than the hydraulic or electrical systems, but it was preferred due to significant weight savings. The first 197 Yak-3 were armed with a single 20 mm ShVAK cannon and one 12.7 mm UBS machine gun, with subsequent aircraft receiving a second UBS for a weight of fire of 2.72 kg (6.0 lb) per second using high-explosive ammunition.
A fun little dogfighter and superior to the Yak's in game now.
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
I shudder to think about the ord perk system in the works.
You have fallen victim to the trol. Re-read the thread.
-
You re-read the readme file... They ARE going to add features that allows them to perk certain weapons options, that is their plan. It will phase out the C-hog and add that ammo to the D-hog (only when you choose 20mm cannon it costs you perkies). The joke was only the posts about how pyro was going to charge per round, etc etc.
Also, the Ki84 in Aces High has a top speed of about 384mph at 21,500 feet (give or take a few). That's only 9mph slower than the figure Jane's posted.
FYI: Janes is not infallible. They've made mistakes before. Also keep in mind they don't supply the complete picture, often not supplying any info or details about "almost uninterceptable" -- how? why? in what altitude band? in what role?
So it's not a complete image to just condense an entire flight envelop into half a page (the other half given over to the image that goes along with that plane).
-
"The Ki-84 proved faster than the P-51D Mustang and the P-47D Thunderbolt at all but the highest altitudes. At medium altitudes, the FRANK was so fast that it was essentially immune from interception. The climb rate was exceptionally good, 16,400 feet being attained in 5 minutes 54 seconds, which was superior to that of any opposing Allied fighters. It could out-turn a Spitfire, and out-run and out-climb a P-51H at 20,000 ft everywhere but in this gamezz"
FASTER THAN A P-51H, I DON'T THINK SO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :lol
A Ki-84 doesn't come close to a Mustang, were you thinking of a P-51A????????? The Ki-84 has a never exceed speed: 800 km/h (496 mph). The P-51H is just under this speed in level flight (487 mph at 25,000 feet).
Specs of the P-51H-5-NA:
The ultimate version of the Mustang was the P-51H, which was the fastest Mustang variant to see service and one of the fastest (if not the fastest) piston-engined fighters to enter production during the Second World War. However, it was destined never to see any combat, having entered service too late to participate in the final action against Japan (A good candidate for an HTC post war version).
One Packard Merlin V-1650-9 twelve-cylinder Vee liquid cooled engine rated at 1380 hp for takeoff and a a war emergency power of 2218 hp at 10,200 feet and 1900 hp at 20,000 feet with water injection. Performance: Maximum speed was 444 mph at 5000 feet, 463 mph at 15,000 feet, and 487 mph at 25,000 feet. Range in clean condition was 755 miles at 359 mph at 10,000 feet, 1975 miles at 239 mph at 10,000 feet. Range with two 62.5 Imp. gall. drop tanks was 1150 miles at 339 mph at 10,000 feet and 1530 miles at 243 mph at 10,000 feet. An altitude of 5000 feet could be reached in 1.5 minutes, 15,000 feet in 5 minutes. Service ceiling was 41,600 feet. Weights: 6585 pounds empty, 9500 pounds normal loaded, and 11,500 pounds maximum. Dimensions: Wing span was 37 feet 0 inches, length was 33 feet 4 inches, height was 8 feet 10 inches, and wing area was 235 square feet.
P.S. The max. speed (from above) of 444 mph @ 5000 feet seems a little fast, but I may be wrong (hopefully, hehe).
Ref: http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p51_13.html
MUSTANG RESTORATION PROJECT web site: http://home.insightbb.com/~p51h/index.htm
-
Ki-84 Hayate post war evaluation
In 1946, a captured late-production Hayate was restored and tested at the Middletown Air Depot in Pennsylvania. At a weight of 7490 pounds, the aircraft achieved a maximum speed of 427 mph at 20,000 feet, using war emergency power. This speed exceeded that of the P-51D and the P-47D at that altitude by 2 mph and 22 mph respectively. During other testings was using fuel of 140 octane rating and high quality ignition plugs was tested, for made a record of maximum speed of 689 km/h and was praised as "The best one of all Japanese fighters apparead in the Pacific War".
These figures were achieved with a superbly maintained and restored aircraft and with highly-refined aviation gasoline, and were not typical of Japanese-operated aircraft during the later stages of the war. It could out-turn a Spitfire, and out-run and out-climb a P-51H at 20,000 ft (6,000 m). After World War II it was used by the Chinese Communist Air Force until the 1950s.
The Sea Fury was a fighter aircraft developed for the British Fleet Air Arm by Hawker during World War II. The last propeller-driven fighter to serve the Royal Navy, it was also the fastest production single piston-engined aircraft ever built.
it amazing what you can find even if you're not and expert!!!!!!!!
-
Originally posted by TalonII
Ki-84 Hayate post war evaluation
In 1946, a captured late-production Hayate was restored and tested at the Middletown Air Depot in Pennsylvania. At a weight of 7490 pounds, the aircraft achieved a maximum speed of 427 mph at 20,000 feet, using war emergency power. This speed exceeded that of the P-51D and the P-47D at that altitude by 2 mph and 22 mph respectively. During other testings was using fuel of 140 octane rating and high quality ignition plugs was tested, for made a record of maximum speed of 689 km/h and was praised as "The best one of all Japanese fighters apparead in the Pacific War".
These figures were achieved with a superbly maintained and restored aircraft and with highly-refined aviation gasoline, and were not typical of Japanese-operated aircraft during the later stages of the war. It could out-turn a Spitfire, and out-run and out-climb a P-51H at 20,000 ft (6,000 m). After World War II it was used by the Chinese Communist Air Force until the 1950s.
The Sea Fury was a fighter aircraft developed for the British Fleet Air Arm by Hawker during World War II. The last propeller-driven fighter to serve the Royal Navy, it was also the fastest production single piston-engined aircraft ever built.
it amazing what you can find even if you're not and expert!!!!!!!!
Ki 84 is modeled correctly.
I believe this has been gone over before.
The AC is modeled with the fuel that was available to Japan. This would be what allied pilots faced so thats what we get in game.
Bronk
-
First I’m real not concern about the speed of a Ki-84 as much as the way it handled itself against allied aircraft during COMBAT. Giving all it short coming of inferior parts and poor gas. This aircraft still out performed P-51D Mustang and the P-47D Thunderbolt at all but the highest altitudes when it appeared in the battle for Okinawa, serving with the 101st, 102nd, and 103rd Hiko Sentais. Second no one has even metion the fact that a La-5 should be armed with rockets and heavier bombs. As typical you just pick apart things to avoid answering other questions. Just like the 4 other aircraft I named. The Bombers I selected were base on not being outdated, but the fact the were produce in large numbers and some still had very successful careers I.E. the Pe-2 and as to the B-25 everyone want this aircraft yet you’re dead set on not giving your CUSTOMER what they’re asking for and you had the audacity to give me the excuse someone will want to lanch it off a CV, that total nonsence. You think the He-111 is a bad choose, I can live with your reasoning. But as far as the JU-52 being just another C-47 your crazy, as its armed which gives it a change to defend itself or do you like the idea of having defenceless troop transport. Bottom line is everyone wants these aircraft yet your customer don’t seem to matter to you, as senior member constantly make fun of request and berate people which is complete unacceptable. The fact is there are allot of aircraft that should be added to the game. The SB2C would give you a carrier base dive-bomber with some punch and no one will every think about B-25 launching off of CV’s. I understand you are loaded down with request, but belittling your customers and ignoring their request is just bad business. Especially when that person has severed his country for 23 years in the military. Talk to me, not at me and you’ll find me very reasonable.
-
I understand you are loaded down with request, but belittling your customers and ignoring their request is just bad business.
Talk to me, not at me and you’ll find me very reasonable.
I believe you have gone total past what is reasonable. Especially since this is our first response to you.
As to the actual content of your post. There is no way to use just 1 source in plane modeling. As always, if you believe there is a problem with any give plane, we can take a look, but just because we might disagree on what we choose to be the best set of data. There really is no reason to get in our face with comments like above.
As to your 23 years in the military, I sincerely thank you for it.
But we have only been modeling WWII aircraft for the past 15 years, you might find we know a thing or 2 about it.
HiTech
-
IIRC someone from Japan (fdutchman?) helped HTC with their Ki-84 research by using the libraries there and translating original documents for them.
But if janes says that the Ki-84 was faster than a P-51H i guess those original documents must be wrong!!
Originally posted by TalonII
The climb rate was exceptionally good, 16,400 feet being attained in 5 minutes 54 seconds, which was superior to that of any opposing Allied fighters.
16,400 feet in 6 minutes? that isnt very good by allies standards...
Spitfire 14 could go to 20k in 5.1 minutes.
-
Janes is not a primary source for performance data. HTC uses only primary source documentation when modeling aircraft. HTC does not always offer all possible ordnance configurations.
As someone pointed out, the Ki-84 was substantially slower than the P-51D at any altitude, and the P-51H was much faster than the D model at all altitudes.
Ki-84s were excellent turners, but only at speeds low enough to get their manuever flaps deployed. Taken in light of American fighter tactics, that would be a rare occurence. It was an excellent fighter, but still behind the latest western types.
As to the Ju 52; armed or not, they were slaughtered when faced with even the least capable fighters. Many were shot down by B-25s during the North African campaign. In addition, its speed is substantially slower than the C-47, making it less desirable for game play; when getting troops to a base quickly is often essential. However, there's no reason not to add it if they had the manpower and resources to do so. But given the current priorities, I would not expect to see the Ju 52 anytime soon.
As a subscriber, I have my own thoughts on what HTC is pursuing in terms of new aircraft. At this time, HTC is updating the graphics on existing aircraft and vehicles. They have added some new models in the process (Ki-84, P-38G, P-38J, Bf 109G-14, Spitfire Mk. VIII, Spitfire Mk.XVI, B-24J, Jeep and F4U-1A) as well as some changes to the ordnance options. I'm certain that this is the way that they will continue to go. They haven't stated which aircraft will get the next updates, but would expect to see the F6F-5 (probably adding the F6F-3), A6Ms (maybe add the A6M3), Yaks (maybe add the Yak-3) and Lavochkins (maybe add ordnance options) to be high on their list as they have some of the oldest graphics.
There have been hints that the Brewster Buffalo will appear.
My impression after playing this game for almost 5 years is that HTC sets priorities for new aircraft. Planes likely to be hanger queens get low priority. While the He 111 would be welcome for scenario play, it would get little use outside of the Early War Arena. I'm sure it will be added at some point, but I doubt that it would be in the immediate future.
Most players have a few aircraft that they would like to see added. These include the P-39, B-25, Yak-3, 190A-3 and a host of others. Each aircraft requires a huge amount of labor and research. Inasmuch as HTC has a small staff, one cannot expect to see rapid additions to the plane/vehicle set.
Players should continue to request new models, which helps HTC establish a concensus of what is wanted by the subcribers.
(Edit: It seems Hitech responded while I was composing my post....)
My regards,
Widewing
-
I'd like to point out, that wether or not the Ki-84 could outperform a P-51D, on it's merits.... and disregarding fuel quality issues..... the historical fact was that the Ki-84 was a late war fighter that could not be produced in the numbers that the P-51D could be produced in, and the quality of pilots the Japanese war machine had by that time was pretty poor when compared to what Americans were producing --- a situation that is opposite what the relative quality in pilots was for each nation at the start the war.
I don't know what sources HTC goes with as "primary". So long as their standard is reasonably consistent when considering aircraft specs, it's fine with me. I'd like some axis planes to be a little more competative with allied ones at times, but I still like flying Frank as is.
Now, if the rumored ord perk system could include varients, then I would not mind seeing:
* Ki-84 Ib (Mark Ib) -four cannons Ho-5 of 20 mm
* Ki-84 Ic (Mark Ic) -Version against Bombers, with two cannons Ho-5 of 20 mm and Ho-105 of 30 mm in wings
* Ki-84 N/P/R -high altitude versions
But that's me.
-
First I’ll apologize to high tech and I COAD itself, as you have only answered my question once. But my angry was directed to all those senior members who continually make offhanded remarks. Like I said I’m no expert, but the data I use is from very reliable sources, as you’re right no one source can be deemed reliable. But I’m an aircraft mechanic by trade so I’m more then a little past passionate about aircraft and know lots of sources to find the correct data, but I mainly go to the designer of the aircraft. Point in case the LA-5; if Lavochkin says there LA-5 carried 8 RS-82 rockets and 500KG of bombs I’m guessing that’s what the aircraft carried. It is your choose to update this or not. But as I have been playing this game for a couple of months now I have notice that certain aircraft have been ask for month after month and they don’t appear which enrages my passion which I can’t help. The game needs some new aircraft and if they’re in the works tell us. The fact is I would really like to see the B-25, Pe-2 and SB2C. If the rumors are true the buffalo in the works given only 509 were produced, as opposed to the SB2C production of 7200, which do you think is the better choose? Again I apologize to you COAD for not waiting for Hitech response.
-
Originally posted by TalonII
First I would like to see the aircraft of the game configured correctly and as Jane’s is a leading authority on military aircraft the configuration of the LA-5 and KI-84 is incorrect and needs to be updated. The following information is from Jane’s
{USSR} Specifications (Lavochkin La-5FN) Production: 9920
Performance
· Maximum speed: 648 km/h (403 mph)
· Range: 765 km (475 miles)
· Service ceiling: 11,000 m (36,100 ft)
· Rate of climb: 16.7 m/s (3,280 ft/min)
· Wing loading: 186 kg/m² (38 lb/ft²)
· Power/mass: 0.42 kW/kg (0.26 hp/lb)
Armament
· 2× 20 mm ShVAK cannon, 200 rounds per gun and 8× RS-82 Rockets or up to 500 kg (1,102 lb) of bombs
I do not know from which version of Janes you quote Talon but I would go so far as to say that it is wrong (re load out at least).......if you wish other sources i can point you to them when I get home this evening.............
In general however I must point out that the copies of Janes I have are very poor with respect to VVS aircraft.
There is no record of the La5, La5F, La5FN or La7 ever carrying rockets.
The Lavochkins do share a common wing design (origin) to the LaGG3 which certainly did carry upto 3 x RS 82 rockets per wing.
The Lavochkins were rigged to carry upto 100Kg bombs per wing (as modelled in AH) however this was also very rare. By far the most common bomb was the 50kg GP bomb (not modelled on Lavochkins in AH)
Further AH allows Lavochkin flyers to select salvo and only drop one of its two bombs. There is no such device in a Lavochkin cockpit, release is either electrically initiated from the stick or manually initiated from a turn wheel by the pilots seat. Both bombs released simultaneously.
-
TallonII
Just wanted to clear up a few things. The poster you refer to as COAD is Hitech
Hitech= all things Aces High . :aok
While passion is a good thing do not let it get get the best of you.
There have been more than a few posters here who did and .... well... they are no longer posters here. I'd truly would hate to see that happen to someone so new to the game.
As for the new AC , HTC has been devoting most of there time on CT development . Hopefully after its release we'll see more AC.
Be advised on posting on ac you wish to see introduced .
There are more than a few WWII aviation nuts here. :noid
After a time you will figure out who they are and they are quite knowledgeable on specific types and in general .
Then there is the guys who have been here forever. They have seen every argument from every new player who posts saying " X AC is modeled wrong fix it". After so many years they have grown ahhh ..... a little short with the new posters . Don't let this get to you or curb your enthusiasm for the game.
One final thought look at multiple sources when looking up AC data . I sometimes find a large difference from source to source.
I now apologize if I appeared curt with you in my post.
It was not my intention.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by TalonII
If the rumors are true the buffalo in the works given only 509 were produced, as opposed to the SB2C production of 7200, which do you think is the better choose?
Since I can remember, there has been nonstop requests for the Brewster. Most of these requests come from our Finns. Inasmuch as the Finland contingent of Aces High has been among the most active player groups in terms of designing maps, skins and scenarios, I think that they have earned their Buffalo several times over.
I don't think HTC has ever used production numbers as the only parameter for introducing new aircraft. There are many other factors, such as representing more nations, adding aircraft that will fun to fly and not hanger queens. If it were just a numbers game, we would not have the Ta-152 or the C.205, or the N1K2-J and F4U-1C. All of these were produced in smaller numbers than the Brewster.
This does not mean that we won't see the B-25 and SB2C, it just means that the Brewster is perfectly justified.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Im too lazy to state the facts but here would be a nice addition to the list of AH bombers
Handley Page Halifax (http://www.constable.ca/halifax.htm)
take a look at the restoration project website
NA337 (http://www.airforce.forces.ca/news/2005/11/09_e.asp)
if u look at the page actually read what some of the Halifax pilots said about it...
-
Would be great to see the Halifax. The Mk III with both 4 gun tail and top turrets would be the best version for AH, as that was the one which differed mostly from the Lanc.
Could also have a niche role as a glider tug - maybe use gliders to take towns :)
.join would make you join the guy's halifax who is towing, he releases near the target, you become a glider, land near town and let the troops out.
-
Originally posted by TalonII
Again I apologize to you COAD for not waiting for Hitech response.
LOL?
:huh
-
Originally posted by TalonII
. . . Bottom line is everyone wants these aircraft yet your customer don’t seem to matter to you, as senior member constantly make fun of request and berate people which is complete unacceptable. . . .
. . . But my angry was directed to all those senior members who continually make offhanded remarks. . . .
You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that "senior member" actually means something significant vs your "junior member" status. All it means is we have posted on the BBs more than you, not that we own a part of the company or anything.
Yes, you too will find yourself a "member" and then a "senior member" one day by doing nothing more important than giving your 2 cents every now and again.
:aok
-
Originally posted by Ball
Would be great to see the Halifax. The Mk III with both 4 gun tail and top turrets would be the best version for AH, as that was the one which differed mostly from the Lanc.
Could also have a niche role as a glider tug - maybe use gliders to take towns :)
.join would make you join the guy's halifax who is towing, he releases near the target, you become a glider, land near town and let the troops out.
Hey this is a good idea... i think you may have stumbled onto sumthin...
damn y didnt i think of this??
-
I’ve waited till I got a copy of Jane’s before I answered the question of the LA-5N carrying rockets. I have asked what is your source for modeling aircraft and I was never answered. The fact is Jane’s doesn’t say the LA 5 carries rocket, but it does say it carries 4 bombs and not 2 like in the game. I quoted Wikipedia, which quoted Jane's as it source, however I already had 2 other sources that said the LA-5 carried rockets. Aircraft of WWII written by Stewart Wilson & Aircraft of WWII, 300 of the world greatest Aircraft, written by Chris Chant. Then I started my internet serach which brought me Wikipedia which is very specfic on the LA-5N carried 8 RS-82 Rockets or up to 500Kgs of bomb.
Which is the problem, as people are going to serach the internet and see thing are different then in the game. So when someone tells me they have been modeling aircraft for 23 years and discounts everything I’ve said it’s a little fustrating. For the record I’m not only a veteran, I’m a disabled veteran and have lot of time to reseach these things. I love this game. So if you need help researching these thing I’ll be more then happy to do this for you. Like everyone else who enjoys the game, its because its of authenticy of the aircraft and I don’t think we are asking to much for that to be so.
Oh by the way the Lancaster tail turret had four guns in it, source the avition history online museum and warbird alley. The F6F-5 had a gun package which constant of 2 × 20 mm cannon (225 rounds per gun) and 4 ×.50 cal machine guns (400 rpg). Source grumman, wikipedia, and Avaition history online museum. Oh and is there any change we could update the JU-87D –3 to a D-7 this would give the aircarft some more punch as it was armed with 20 mm and maybe you could add the gun package for the JU-87G which has 37mm gun pods, would be great for killing tanks. If I real look hard I could help you find some more updates. Like I said lots of time and would love to help.
-
Originally posted by TalonII
I’ve waited till I got a copy of Jane’s before I answered the question of the LA-5N carrying rockets. I have asked what is your source for modeling aircraft and I was never answered. The fact is Jane’s doesn’t say the LA 5 carries rocket, but it does say it carries 4 bombs and not 2 like in the game. I quoted Wikipedia, which quoted Jane's as it source, however I already had 2 other sources that said the LA-5 carried rockets. Aircraft of WWII written by Stewart Wilson & Aircraft of WWII, 300 of the world greatest Aircraft, written by Chris Chant.
Yes I know the problem.... Chants books and many other "western sourced" books are basically using very 2nd if not 3rd hand data when refferring to VVS aircraft.
I have Chants book even the camo colours used are ridiculous........... errors all over it.
In order of thoroughness and closest to original sources try the following
1) LAVOCHKIN La5 Milos Vestik - Jiri Vrany MBI ISBN 80-86524-10-8.
It dual languiage Czech and English and in my opinion the most authorotive book on the La5 to la5Fn. It carries much original material that is unique to this publication. (photos schematics etc). Czchs used La5FN's and La7's until 1954 and so had direct access to the machines long after the Russians stopped using them.
2) Lavochkins Piston Engined Fighters - Yefim Gordon - Red Star Midland Publishing - ISBN 1 85780 151 2.
Gordon had access to alot of original VVS material. He uses it to paint a history from the Lagg3 to the La11. It has a lot of original B& W photos and a lot of written dialogue on the development history and service history.
3)Soviet Combat aircraft of the Second World war Vol 1. - Gordon and Khazanov. Midland Publishing - ISBN 1 85780 083 4.
There is nothing in here that is not in Gordons bokk dedicated to the lavochkins However it also paints the complete range of VVS aircraft of the time.
4)La 5/7 Fighters in action. Hans Heiri Stapfer squadron/signal publications ISBN 0-89747-392-2. A texan publication but when you read the acknowledgements on the data page you will see the Czech pilots names listed plus again Yefim Gordon. very good for a "pamphlet publication".
After this you need to star digging and scratching for more data where you can find it. The reports from Rechlin are the only data you will find with any suggestion re tha roll rate that can be expected.
A publication called "in the cockpit" has first hand comparisons by Czech pilots who had flown La5FN's for the Czech air force and the VVS with "Spitfires" they had flown in the RAF. Tracking these guys down in the RAF files shows that the majority of there RAF flying was on Spit Vc's and some experience on IX's.
Vestik has also written an superb book on the La7.
I have original test data taken in 1944 and 1945 on the La7 some with notes comparing the performance to the La5FN. It s in Russian of course.
Any way if you read the first two books above I know you will begin to realise just how Encyclopedias like Chants do not do the researcher justice.
-
P.S. Don't ever trust Wikipedia. Sorry for the aside, but I have sworn to say this every time anybody quotes Wikipedia as a reference.
-
Originally posted by Nemeth
Hey this is a good idea... i think you may have stumbled onto sumthin...
damn y didnt i think of this??
woohoo!! someone finally likes one of my idea's!! in your face god!! hahaha!