Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Bino on December 13, 2007, 09:20:54 AM
-
The 5,900+ Nakajima Ki-43 planes made served the IJAAF on every front for the entire duration of the war...
(http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/ArmyJB&W2/Ki-43-44.jpg)
-
I second it. This was a fun plane to fly in Warbirds, and I would love to see it here.
-
Was fun to fly in FA also.
Nice addition to early/mid war Japanese planeset.
Bruv
~S~
-
I had a fight in a Ki43 back in Warbirds that I still can recall today. I was flying the Ki43 and came up against two Wildcats down low grabbing away from a field and I dispatched both Wildcats within seconds by getting in close and hittin the fuselage canopy/engine area (remember the Ki43 only had 200 rounds). Both Wildcats upped again and I repeated the kills. Finally one of these guys decided to try a third time and I waxed him good. Five Wildcats in under 5 minutes and I still had 59 rounds of ammo. Yes, I remember that well.
A Ki-43 in AH would be a real interesting bird for sure. Would be a blast in early/mid war arenas.
-
Fun bird in WB.
-
Japanese planes are fun. I'd love to see a recreation of the shot in Tora,Tora,Tora when the Jap force is approaching Pearl. Remember? When they run into the biplane trainer the Lady is teaching the kid to fly?
Those scenes, starting with their carrier takeoffs, and ending right before the attack starts, might just be the greatest bit of warplane moviemaking Ive ever seen.
-
^-- Ki-43's a land-based army plane, not a cv-based naval plane.
Just an FYI
-
Originally posted by Krusty
^-- Ki-43's a land-based army plane, not a cv-based naval plane.
Just an FYI
Although the IJAAF did have a few aircraft carrier ships of their own. Gotta love inter-service rivalry!
-
ooh, new plane, im up for anything at this point
-
I know the turn-happy pilots will love it for its ability to out-turn an A6M5.
-
Oscar and P39 are the two glaring omissions from the planeset right now. AW had the Oscar too, it was a blast. I don't think it would get as much action in AHs arenas though.
-
Oh, and BTW, let me be the first to request a Taser equipped version to satisfy my sadistic side...
It would be only marginally less effectiver that the 2 pea-shooters that thing had originally.
-
Hey, if I can kill Lancs with a Val, two pea-shooters on a Ki-43 should do just fine. Used to have a ball with it back in WB, thing turned like a dang Fokker. Would be a lot of fun in the EW arena and scenarios.
-
I VOTE YES!! ...for Ki-43!!!
-
no cannon only 2 303's i vote no ki43
-
Originally posted by stephen
no cannon only 2 303's i vote no ki43
Ki-43-II is armed with the same two 12.7mm guns as the Ki-84 has in the cowl. I've killed quite a few fighters with those.
-
With CT being late war ETO, it seems to me that anything which allows the CMs to put up a wider variety of early/mid war special events in the Pacific or Med. theaters would be good additions. So, yeah.
-
excuse me, I stand corrected, two .50's, but I must stand by my vote, in a game where firepower is king, it's lacking, though it would be a nice zero killer, but not much use elsewhere.
-
The C202 has only 2x 50cals in the nose. I've landed 12 kills in the 202 with only 1 hotpad in the middle of the sortie. I was taking out tough planes like P51s, N1k2s, spitfires (not so tough, but by no means fragile) and yes, even other C2s!
2 50cals in a central mounting (i.e. the nose cowling) are very powerful weapons. You just have to get in closer than 600 which most folks don't want to bother with.
Very potent weapons. The only problem would be the short ammo clip on the Ki-43! That would present a unique challenge! :aok
-
ok, so take off from a base in your 202 and kill a multi engine bomber of any type, if you kill even 2 of them without dying a miserable death,the pilot was either asleep, or inept...its just not a solid main arena ride.
o yeh, your leaving out the secondary armorment of the 202, it ain't got just 2 gunz believe me, the comparison your looking for is a val, or an sbd, both decidedly junk as a fighter, and only able to kill a newb,...wait what am I saying?, bring the ki to aces hi, newbs beware!
-
*sigh* :rolleyes:
Yeah.. sure... junk as a fighter...
Whatever :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by stephen
i vote no ki43
Who gave you a vote?
-
Krusty, thank you for your technical report, I hope that further post's are as full of usefull information as your last one, lol
I hate being nasty, but honestly, is anyone gonna fly a ki43 in anything other than a suicide mission?
its wholy incapable of putting up any kind of resistance to even the most bumbling of pilots flying even the worst american rides, give it up.
The Japanese lost the war because of limits placed upon them by aircraft such as this, and I for one would hate to see time wasted on it when there are other aircraft that should be in ahead of it.:huh
-
:rofl nevermind
-
I missed what you posted hub, but I sympathize.
-
Other aircraft such as what exactly?
We're almost out of late war monsters.
The fact is that the Ki-43 was a very important combat aircraft in WWII and as such is needed here. Same for the P-39, I-16, C.200 and LaGG-3, all of which can be seen as turkeys to one degree or other.
Sure, you can ask for later war aircraft that were comparitively rare like the Ki-44, J2M3a, Meteor Mk III, P-63, Yak-3 (not rare, but extends a lopsided Soviet planeset) and so on, but why?
-
Originally posted by stephen
...is anyone gonna fly a ki43 in anything other than a suicide mission?
its wholy incapable of putting up any kind of resistance to even the most bumbling of pilots flying even the worst american rides, give it up.
The Japanese lost the war because of limits placed upon them by aircraft such as this, and I for one would hate to see time wasted on it when there are other aircraft that should be in ahead of it.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. As am I. Personally, I do not care if an interesting, historically significant plane never sees use in the Late War arenas. I am much more interested in the Special Events (big Scenarios, FSO, etc.) than I am in any arena. >shrug< The Ki-43 would definitely be a useful addition to a plane set used for simulating historical battles, which is why I request its inclusion in AH.
<>
-
Originally posted by stephen
Krusty, thank you for your technical report, I hope that further post's are as full of usefull information as your last one, lol
I hate being nasty, but honestly, is anyone gonna fly a ki43 in anything other than a suicide mission?
its wholy incapable of putting up any kind of resistance to even the most bumbling of pilots flying even the worst American rides, give it up.
The Japanese lost the war because of limits placed upon them by aircraft such as this, and I for one would hate to see time wasted on it when there are other aircraft that should be in ahead of it.:huh
Are you kidding, the Ki43 would make a great early war aircraft. As for killing bombers the Zero is pretty worthless, it cant get scratched without turning into a zippo lighter. I think it would make a challenging fighter favoring good shots (which isn't me) but I would fly it in EW and even in MW.
The Japanese late war aircraft were actually superior in performance and maneuverability compared to allied aircraft . The Ki 100 was far ahead of what the US was flying at the time. The main reason the Japanese lost is because of the same problems the Germans had, not enough resources ie. man power and industrial might. America could out produce both Germany and Japan in both of these categories. Both Germany and Japan ran out of experienced fighter pilots and aircraft plants to be able to compete with the Americans. If you know your history Germany at wars end were using boys and old men to fill the ranks of their army. By the late stages of the war Germany and Japan had all but a handful of experienced pilots that survived the war. If not the Ki43 than what another Spit . Tell me the B25c isn't a total hanger queen having no tail gun. WORTHLESS. Their by far the easiest bomber in the game to shot down and have no real advantage in the game except for some dweeb to relive 30 seconds over Tokyo in.
I vote for the Ki unless someone else can come up with something that makes more sense, I know how about the Boomerang. And no know knowledge dweebs it not a Aborigine hunting tool that comes back to you.
-
Originally posted by stephen
o yeh, your leaving out the secondary armorment of the 202, it ain't got just 2 gunz believe me, the comparison your looking for is a val, or an sbd, both decidedly junk as a fighter, and only able to kill a newb,...wait what am I saying?, bring the ki to aces hi, newbs beware! [/B]
Boy-o, Ive seen people kill mad ammounts of planes in a VAL. Hell, Look at what WPAlka can do with a B5N.
Its more of a challenge to get kills, yes. Its alot more fun too. Knowing your the undergunned, underpowered underdog makes you fight that much harder when that LA-7 or P51 dweeb comes charging in with his cannons or multi 50 cal gun carrying aircraft.
I've taken down Lancasters and B-24's with the SDB. No one notices that lonely, slow plane with only two guns until your right on top of them blowing off their wings.
-
"The Ki 100 was far ahead of what the US was flying at the time."
We seem to have a little credibilty isue here.
-
Lemme guess, he thinks it went up against USN Hellcats and killed 14 without any losses, right?
-
The Ki-100 wasn't far above anything the Americans had. But, it was the best plane the Japanese had. In a post-war test is was compared to the P47 and P51. It had better maneuverability then both and was comparable with speeds, especially around medium altitude. But, it wasn't as good up high and wasn't as good as an interceptor as the J2M Raiden.
Not my source, but heres a link to Wikipedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawasaki_Ki-100#Operational_history)
-
Redlegs,
The Ki-84, meticulously maintained and running on US fuel, performed better up to 20,000ft.
The Ki-100 was far, far slower than our aircraft. The reason it was liked was because it was reliable when advanced designs like the Ki-84 were not.
As to where the Japanese were, according to the Japanese manufacturers they were about 3 years behind the US in terms of power and technology at the end of the war.
-
Well, if you'll all recall, we just had the chance to vote on a new plane. There were some very good choices, and a couple of new jap fighters IIRC. An uneducated group of moronic dolts gave us the B25. Good job. We'll probably get something equally stupid on the next round. He 111, Me 210, some pathetic jap bomber that I can't currently think of.
-
Originally posted by Bubbajj
Well, if you'll all recall, we just had the chance to vote on a new plane. There were some very good choices, and a couple of new jap fighters IIRC. An uneducated group of moronic dolts gave us the B25. Good job. We'll probably get something equally stupid on the next round. He 111, Me 210, some pathetic jap bomber that I can't currently think of.
Here's a little bit of insight into why some of us "moronic dolts" voted for the B-25.
http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=151504&highlight=quitch
The fact that it makes some stupid ****s mad is just an added bonus.
-
I see, so the best war story gets your favorite ride added? It must be that there are no other heros that flew anything else in WWII. Get a grip. I guess the 25 made milk runners and field porkers happy. It's pretty worthless junk as far as I'm concerned.
Bombing is like watching grass grow. I guess there's something to be said for the 75 but it only has limited uses. Bombing just isn't my thing and the addition of yet another bomber was a waste of time. What does the b25 do that the 26 or A20 don't? What, exactly, is the point of a light bomber in this game in any event? If your gonna bomb, why not have some payload? With the list of AC offered during the selection process I was astonished, to say the least, at the outcome.
The only way I'd have been even slightly interested in the 25 is if they could be carrier launched. Might be fun to launch raids on unsuspecting rear areas. Would be fun to fly Doolittles raid on Tokyo as a historical scenario too. Other than that, ??????????????
-
Originally posted by Bubbajj
Blah Blah Blah
Sooo . . . because Bubba doesn't like bombers, anyone who does is an idiot?
Got news for you, kid. Many if not a majority of the people who play this game do so because they have a genuine interest in any or all of 1) World War Two 2) Aviation History or 3) Air Combat, all of which entail much more than finding the biggest, fastest, most heavily armed aircraft and seeing if you can pwn everyone else.
If all you are interested in is Uber Weaponry, I suggest moving on to Halo or World of Warcraft so you can have your power ups and such.
-
Hey, your right. Lets just do away with fighters and you can just milkrun yourself into a frenzy. Geez, I'm interested in aircraft that will increase the challenge of the game. No bomber you can add will do much of that. Every one is much the same as the last, just another flying target. I've got books for study of WW aircraft history. This is a game and I come to play. As far as uber planes, check my scores and see how many uber planes I fly. I fly to pit my skill against other pilots. I learn something every time AKAK shoots me down in that stupid 38 or I get smacked around by Kestrol in his GD BnZ machines. I think your missing a lot of the depth of the game if all you do is fly around in bombers.
I'm not trying to insult anyone, I just think there are plenty of bombers already in the game. I'm not really in favor of adding another uber machine, I'd like to see a Brewter or a Poli'. Why not am early war era bi-plane? Now there's a challenge.
I apologize for my strong language in my first post, that was rude and uncalled for.
-
You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
-
Originally posted by Bubbajj
I'm not trying to insult anyone,
Originally posted by Bubbajj
An uneducated group of moronic dolts gave us the B25. Good job. We'll probably get something equally stupid on the next round.
You sure have a strange way of not insulting, ya numpty.
:rolleyes:
-
Geez, I said I was sorry, I'm still bitter over that last selection. We had a chance to get a really neat ride that might add something to the game. Instead we get a hanger queen. I can't recall the last time I saw a B25 in the air. They were really popular as a new plane but have kinda faded as their usefulness becomes more suspect. With my luck, about the time we get to pick another new plane, someone will make a drama film about the Enola Gay and/or Bock's Car. Heaven help us.
-
Originally posted by stephen
The Japanese lost the war because of limits placed upon them by aircraft such as this, and I for one would hate to see time wasted on it when there are other aircraft that should be in ahead of it.:huh
Thats by far one of the biggest ignorant thoughts I've seen in awhile. Before you try saying why they lost the war, pick up a book, or while I'm here I'll give you a link (http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm) on just why they lost the war...
I'll vote yes for this one, I would love to see some more Japanese planes for events.
-
Bubbajj, you dont seem to understand that the B25 was a big, glaring hole in our planeset that was an important asset in the war and is commonly used in the MA's. I dont mind the decision. Infact, any new plane is fine. at least it keeps the game a bit fresh.
-
Originally posted by Bubbajj
I can't recall the last time I saw a B25 in the air.
Do you have memory problems? Seriously, I see a B25H at LEAST once a day, and B25C's... at least 6 times a week. They arent B24's or Lancasters but they certainly are used.
-
Originally posted by Bubbajj
Geez, I said I was sorry, I'm still bitter over that last selection. We had a chance to get a really neat ride that might add something to the game. Instead we get a hanger queen. I can't recall the last time I saw a B25 in the air. They were really popular as a new plane but have kinda faded as their usefulness becomes more suspect. With my luck, about the time we get to pick another new plane, someone will make a drama film about the Enola Gay and/or Bock's Car. Heaven help us.
Wanna see a b-25? Up a gv and head to an enemy base. Bet you see one realy quick.
-
The reason the 25 is a "hangar queen" is beacuse it isn't some late war uber monster. Yet you are arguing for a plane that would just be another? Can you say two things that actually agree with each other?
Yay for the 39 and the Ki.
-
Originally posted by Stang
The reason the 25 is a "hangar queen" is beacuse it isn't some late war uber monster. Yet you are arguing for a plane that would just be another? Can you say two things that actually agree with each other?
Yay for the 39 and the Ki.
Winner.
-
the oscar was a big fighter in the japeneese aresenal, and it played a big role in WW2.:rofl
-
All for more early war designs, I think a Ki-43 would be a fun little change of pace. For the same reason I enjoy flying the zero from time to time. I usually don't expect to land at the end but it's fun till I get blown into tiny little bits, and you know what I learned? When you die... you get a new plane, so I'm not sure what the worry is.
Then again the B-25 is about the only bomber I fly with the exception of my beloved P-38, so what do I know. No it's not the fastest, nor does it have a outstanding bomb load, but you have the love the history of it, and a flight of B25 roaring in at tree top level guns blazing is a great squad sortie.
-
Fact is it has a engine, a seat and wings, and can fly.
Throw in two .50's and agility toped by none.
Put a fighter pilot in the seat with a clue, and you have one mean little ride.
People do not understand what you can do with just two .50's mounted on a plane's nose.It is like a short range laser beam, added the turning..it would be very easy to take out someone's wingtips engines or cockpit.
Not a sprey and prey bird by far, but you get in close and hammer down on any planes most vulnerable spots, you got the kill in the bag, period.
Point & click anyone?
-
Zipping around in a low performance fighter is a whole different ballgame than lugging aroung in a low performance bomber, not even close. Some of the most fun rides are the older EW planes. P40s, Zekes, and F4Fs are some of the most fun and challenging planes there are. I barely touch LaLas, Spits, Doras or any of the uber fighters. The fact that I feel the B25 was a wasted opportunity and still want or would vote for a "low" performance fighter have absolutely nothing to do with each other. I wouldn't vote for a B52 if the option were given.
I got into a base capture attempt the other day. It was a full on GV assault. I didn't see one B25 in the air. A bunch of hurcs and a mossie, no B25s. I guess if you guys see them around your someplace else.
From what I'm seeing here is we got the B25 due to nostalgic reasons. I suppose it might be fun once in a while, but still mostly a hanger queen.
-
The Ki-43 and the Ki-84 seem similar. What is different about it?
-
Originally posted by VansCrew1
The Ki-43 and the Ki-84 seem similar. What is different about it?
They are 41 numbers off. :D
-
Originally posted by VansCrew1
The Ki-43 and the Ki-84 seem similar. What is different about it?
They're about as similar as you and Axer.
-
i dont get it...
:huh :confused: :huh :confused:
-
:lol
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Redlegs,
The Ki-84, meticulously maintained and running on US fuel, performed better up to 20,000ft.
The Ki-100 was far, far slower than our aircraft. The reason it was liked was because it was reliable when advanced designs like the Ki-84 were not.
As to where the Japanese were, according to the Japanese manufacturers they were about 3 years behind the US in terms of power and technology at the end of the war.
I would doubt that any of the Japanese aircraft by wars end had any real amount of service that it needed to perform the way it should have if it did receive the proper service. This has nothing to do with how capable the aircraft should have been if it did receive said service. I don't think anyone during the war had it's machinery serviced as well as the Americans.
At altitude the Americans did have faster planes. That's because they were equipped with super chargers. Iam speaking on all around ability, speed handling, armament. You forget that the Germans traded technology with the Japanese. The Japanese had a rocket fighter, jet fighter and other advanced designs like the Shindin that were flying. The P-51 and the P-47 were not even close to being on cutting edge technology. They were both less that uber at low to medium alts. Maybe 20 mph faster than the late war Jap planes so being much slower than the American planes is a bit of a stretch.
An overall assessment of the effectiveness of the Ki-100 rated it highly in agility and a well-handled Ki-100 was able to out-maneuver any American fighter including the formidable P-51D Mustangs and the P-47N Thunderbolts which were escorting the B-29 raids over Japan by that time, and was comparable in speed especially at medium altitudes. In the hands of an experienced pilot, The Ki-100 was a deadly opponent and together with the Army's Ki-84 and the Navy's Kawanishi N1K-J the only other Japanese fighters being able to defeat the latest Allied types.
That last paragraph is a quote from your link.
-
A Brewster Buffalo shoots down an LA5 over Finland.
Doesn't mean the Buffalo was "able to compete even with the best the Soviets had to offer" -- just means it was able to get a kill due to the circumstances surrounding that engagement.
In no way, shape, form, or stretch of the imagination is the Brewster comparable to the LA5, but it can still kill them.
The fact that the Ki100 (which was NO BETTER, got that, NO BETTER than the Ki61) could get a kill under certain circumstances, does NOT mean it was better than the US planes it fought.
Nor was it faster at any alt. It could only turn tighter circles. Well, against the US fighters, a tight turning radius wasn't going to seal the deal. A6m2s, A5ms, Ki43s, etc *ALL* had tighter turning circles than any of the allied planes that shot them down in record numbers.
It borders on the edge of propaganda to say the Ki-100 was in any way competitive with the late-war US planes. It was a 1942 plane, with an even older engine tacked on in 1944 because they lost their inline engines production lines. A stop-gap, a last-ditch effort. It was not superior, it was not "great" -- I'm rather P.O.ed about the propaganda the Ki-100 receives. Most of it is out and out fabrication, the rest gross exaggeration, and some of it just plain LIES (no, they did NOT shoot down 16 hellcats on their first mission).
:furious :furious :furious
(*steps off soapbox*)
-
The Japanese Rocket Plane and Jet fighter never saw service. Even if they had been pushed into service I doubt they would have performed very well considering Japan's lack of resources at the end of the war. Wouldn't have been surprised if they both exploded on their first sortie.
As far as the late war match-up goes, the Japanese planes could not perform with the American planes. Not to mention lack of trained pilots.
Why we need the Ki-43:
It COULD compete with American planes in the early/mid war scenario. It's performance was good however it's guns were lacking. It was the IJAF's equivalent to the IJN's Zero.
The Ki-43 is NEEDED in the following special events:
Guadalcanal
Solomon Islands Campaign
New Britain/Rabaul
New Guinea
We are also lacking a representative long range early/mid war japanese bomber which would be filled by the Betty bomber.
-
Don't forget the Nell bomber!
-
Originally posted by VansCrew1
The Ki-43 and the Ki-84 seem similar. What is different about it?
The two were totally different:
The Ki-43 first flew in January 1939. It was a small, light, nimble turnfighter that could barely reach 330 MPH. It lacked armor and self-sealing fuel tanks and was only armed with two 12mm machine guns.
The Ki-84 was a fast (427 MPH), well-armored, cannon-armed plane that could compete with both the P-47 and the P-51. The prototype first flew in April 1943.
-
It was fun in AirWarrior, too.
Considered a dweeb plane...but would be nice to have more Jap planes.
-
Aaaaaaand
A P-38H
:D
-
Originally posted by Raptor
"The Japanese Rocket Plane and Jet fighter never saw service..."
Actually the Yokosuka MXY7 Ohka(Cherry Blossom) Type 11 did see service. They even sunk/damaged a few ships.
-
I think he's referring to the Japanese version of the Me-163, not that mini-flying torp of a plane heheh.
-
Originally posted by VansCrew1
The Ki-43 and the Ki-84 seem similar. What is different about it?
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
both are rice paper and be in a hanger 99% of time in main arena.
-
Are you talking about the 44 and 84? 84 can take some hits, but the 43 is sorta like a A6M, IMHO.
By the way, your signature is a classic Ad.
"fuze: 190 over 63, start reentry burn now"
:rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by Adonai
both are rice paper and be in a hanger 99% of time in main arena.
Fly an early war PTO setup instead of picking in some uber-LW monster in the MA and maybe you'll see the need for hangar queens like the Ki-43.
-
Originally posted by Adonai
both are rice paper and be in a hanger 99% of time in main arena.
Ki-84 is in AH now and isn't a hangar queen.
Ki-44 would be rarish and Ki-43 very rare indeed.
Ki-44 is actually one of the fighters left to add that might actually see decent usage.
P-39
Ki-44-II
J2M3
Yak-3
-
Originally posted by Bino
The Ki-84 was a fast (427 MPH), well-armored, cannon-armed plane that could compete with both the P-47 and the P-51. The prototype first flew in April 1943.
427 MPH with american 150 octanes fuel (post-war trials).
-
Originally posted by Stang
Fly an early war PTO setup instead of picking in some uber-LW monster in the MA and maybe you'll see the need for hangar queens like the Ki-43.
from the guy that flies an lgay7 around and complains why I pick and stay alive?
-
I stay alive just fine in the la7. It's great to fly against the horde. Even better to hear the pups whine when they die to it despite having a huge numbers advantage.
Arrp?
-
Originally posted by Adonai
from the guy that flies an lgay7 around and complains why I pick and stay alive?
I think the point is, that some folks don't want to fly the latest and greatest, but look for the challenge of fighting and surviving in something that doesn't give them an immediate advantage.
The hard part is that many of the vets who know what they are doing fly the latest in greatest and the newbs see that and it perpetuates the idea that we're flying AH 1945.
I can think of a number of really good sticks who fly early war rides fairly consistantly.
I go chugging around in my 38G, not that I'm any good, because i don't want the latest and greatest. But then again I'm not worried about 'dying' in a game where no one really dies. I'd rather see how long I can last with the challenge of fighting the latewar birds.
I'd love to see the Ki-43 for the scenarios and because you can bet there will be some guys who will hop in it and have a ball in the MA for all the right reasons :)
-
Originally posted by Bubbajj
It was a full on GV assault. I didn't see one B25 in the air. A bunch of hurcs and a mossie, no B25s. I guess if you guys see them around your someplace else.
From what I'm seeing here is we got the B25 due to nostalgic reasons. I suppose it might be fun once in a while, but still mostly a hanger queen.
There were more combined kills and deaths in the B-25H last camp (17,497) than in the B-17 or the B-26. Hanger queen indeed.
I see them almost every day.
-
Originally posted by BigPlay
I would doubt that any of the Japanese aircraft by wars end had any real amount of service that it needed to perform the way it should have if it did receive the proper service. This has nothing to do with how capable the aircraft should have been if it did receive said service...
From what I've read, the problems were more the result of quality control during manufacture, rather than service in the field. For example, the Ki-61-II "Tony" fighter used a liquid-cooled inverted V-12 inline engine developed from the Daimler-Benz DB 601, the Kawasaki Ha-140. This engine often self-destructed during take-off due to catastrophic crankshaft failure!
-
Originally posted by BaldEagl
There were more combined kills and deaths in the B-25H last camp (17,497) than in the B-17 or the B-26. Hanger queen indeed.
I see them almost every day.
I can't get the total kills feature to load. Care to take a minute and compare the 25H kills to the P40 or A6M5?
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
I can't get the total kills feature to load. Care to take a minute and compare the 25H kills to the P40 or A6M5?
LW Arenas, Tour 95:
P-40E 1736 kills 2266 deaths
B-25C 465 kills 3401 deaths
B-25H 6980 kills 10517 deaths
A6M5b 10961 kills 12292 deaths
C.205 6207 kills 5678 deaths
-
Originally posted by Krusty
A Brewster Buffalo shoots down an LA5 over Finland.
Doesn't mean the Buffalo was "able to compete even with the best the Soviets had to offer" -- just means it was able to get a kill due to the circumstances surrounding that engagement.
In no way, shape, form, or stretch of the imagination is the Brewster comparable to the LA5, but it can still kill them.
The fact that the Ki100 (which was NO BETTER, got that, NO BETTER than the Ki61) could get a kill under certain circumstances, does NOT mean it was better than the US planes it fought.
Nor was it faster at any alt. It could only turn tighter circles. Well, against the US fighters, a tight turning radius wasn't going to seal the deal. A6m2s, A5ms, Ki43s, etc *ALL* had tighter turning circles than any of the allied planes that shot them down in record numbers.
It borders on the edge of propaganda to say the Ki-100 was in any way competitive with the late-war US planes. It was a 1942 plane, with an even older engine tacked on in 1944 because they lost their inline engines production lines. A stop-gap, a last-ditch effort. It was not superior, it was not "great" -- I'm rather P.O.ed about the propaganda the Ki-100 receives. Most of it is out and out fabrication, the rest gross exaggeration, and some of it just plain LIES (no, they did NOT shoot down 16 hellcats on their first mission).
:furious :furious :furious
(*steps off soapbox*)
Lets ask Tommy McGuire if tighter turning planes made any difference, oh wait he's dead. Pappy Boyington was another to fall to tighter turning aircraft. The U.S. fabricated kills just like the Japs and thats a well know fact so getting POEd over what someone has written is pointless.
-
Er.... are you serious? Or are you trying to play dumb?
-
One of the most fun things I ever participated in in the WB arena was one of Kekule's mass Oscar raids.
The Oscar was a fun sweet little ride, no doubt about it.
-
Originally posted by Bino
This engine often self-destructed during take-off due to catastrophic crankshaft failure!
I wonder if we can get that modeled in... :lol
-
Originally posted by Bino
From what I've read, the problems were more the result of quality control during manufacture, rather than service in the field. For example, the Ki-61-II "Tony" fighter used a liquid-cooled inverted V-12 inline engine developed from the Daimler-Benz DB 601, the Kawasaki Ha-140. This engine often self-destructed during take-off due to catastrophic crankshaft failure!
The latest aircraft did have engines that were rushed into service before the bugs could be worked out but this comment was directed towards a comment about a immaculately maintained engine on the Frank. I'm sure that when your country is being bombed on a daily basis you would run short of proper metals and other components that would make your engines run smooth. Im sure that crankshaft failure could have been a combo of poor metal quality, ballbearing quality, rush of completion you know all the things that constant bombing would bring about.
-
the Oscar was the backbone of Japanese air power in China during the early and mid years and it should be added because the plane served as the base model for the 84 that came after. Its not going to be a popular plane though. . .its slow, it lack real firepower and lacks any real protection to pilots (all of these things were `fixed` in the 84).
I think penalizing IJN/A planes because of `poor late war quality control` is a bad idea. . .even the Germans suffered from a lack of quality control in the last year of the war but the K4 and D9 are given a wide berth in terms of speed, firepower and durability. . .the IJ planes should also be given their academic stats. If people insist on quality style realism - then every plane should have a `lemon factor` every time you take a new plane up except the Japanese would have more lemons. But at that point. . .it`s going too far.
More IJ planes would be a good thing imo. . .as it stands the Japanese are underreprisented and given stiff penalties because the perception is that industry in Japan suffered more then the Germans or the Italians. . .which is only the case after Germany and Italy fell to the Allies.
-
Although the IJAAF did have a few aircraft carrier ships of their own. Gotta love inter-service rivalry!
LMAO, this quote made it all the way from page one unchallenged? ;)
Bino I want to hear more about Imperial Japanese Army aircraft carriers.
-
LMAO, this quote made it all the way from page one unchallenged? ;)
Bino I want to hear more about Imperial Japanese Army aircraft carriers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_aircraft_carrier_Akitsu_Maru :)
But AFAIK the only plane that was ever operated from IJAAF carriers was the Ki-76.
-
Thats one that's more about the principle.
The fact that the IJA had its own naval vessels kind of overshadows what flew off them and how they were used. What is the Army doing with combat ships??
-
I second it. This was a fun plane to fly in Warbirds, and I would love to see it here.
+1
-
every plane should have a `lemon factor` every time you take a new plane up except the Japanese would have more lemons. .
anyone here ever owned any early Japanese bikes?
-
Huge +1...I'm surprised it hasn't been added allready
-
Still needed. This and the G4M. I know this post is old, but it is still a good one. Special events would benefit, and when preparing for them folks will fly them in the MA.
KI-43(II) and G4M :pray
-
Lets ask Tommy McGuire if tighter turning planes made any difference, oh wait he's dead. Pappy Boyington was another to fall to tighter turning aircraft. The U.S. fabricated kills just like the Japs and thats a well know fact so getting POEd over what someone has written is pointless.
You should read how McGuire died instead of making incorrect general statements.
ack-ack
-
+1 :aok Japanese plane set has many holes.
-
Holy necrobump, hightone!