Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Rich46yo on December 31, 2008, 03:57:14 PM

Title: The C-205...Under-rated?
Post by: Rich46yo on December 31, 2008, 03:57:14 PM
I fly it like its a P-38 that turns a bit better. It climbs very well, holds a dive fairly well, turns good enough, and the guns on it are great.

I think maybe I'll start spending more time in one. Comments? Tips? From the dedicated 205 lovers??
Title: Re: The C-205...Under-rated?
Post by: Motherland on December 31, 2008, 04:59:56 PM
The C.205 has similar performance to the Bf.109G-6, although it doesn't turn or climb quite as well. It may be a bit closer to the Bf.109G-2 with gondolas. So, it's about on par with other aircraft from it's time period. It's a fun aircraft for sure (as is the C.202).

I, myself, prefer the armament, performance, and canopy framing of a 109, but this is not far removed from one- IMO it's an 'Italian 109', just as the Ki61 is a 'Japanese 109'. Hell I like anything with a Daimler Benz DB60x. :)

I can't wait for it to be updated...
Title: Re: The C-205...Under-rated?
Post by: fudgums on December 31, 2008, 05:00:54 PM
I TnB in it
Title: Re: The C-205...Under-rated?
Post by: Oldman731 on December 31, 2008, 05:34:14 PM
Comments?

The 205 is a pig.

Now the 202.  There is an airplane.

- oldman
Title: Re: The C-205...Under-rated?
Post by: B4Buster on December 31, 2008, 06:28:35 PM
I don't like the .205
forward view isn't that great and it's realll unstable. The .202 is an amazing plane however
Title: Re: The C-205...Under-rated?
Post by: Bosco123 on December 31, 2008, 06:36:29 PM
Well Bubi, read my Sig. :)
Title: Re: The C-205...Under-rated?
Post by: Raptor on December 31, 2008, 06:44:42 PM
If it turns better than a 38, the 38 is doing something wrong.
Title: Re: The C-205...Under-rated?
Post by: Enker on December 31, 2008, 06:56:39 PM
Wait, I thought the KI-61 was a Japanese Wildcat with 20mm cannons....
Title: Re: The C-205...Under-rated?
Post by: splitatom on December 31, 2008, 07:57:53 PM
i think it like a ki-84 in under rateing but i think it looks to much like a ki-61
Title: Re: The C-205...Under-rated?
Post by: Bronk on December 31, 2008, 08:01:59 PM
i think it like a ki-84 in under rateing but i think it looks to much like a ki-61
:huh
translation?
Title: Re: The C-205...Under-rated?
Post by: splitatom on December 31, 2008, 08:03:47 PM
it looks like a ki-67        i thinks its just as under rated as a ki-84 does that clear things up  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: The C-205...Under-rated?
Post by: Banshee7 on December 31, 2008, 08:04:51 PM
it looks like a ki-67        i thinks its just as under rated as a ki-84 does that clear things up  :rolleyes:

1.) Ki-67 is a bomber

2.) ok....Ki-84 is NOT under rated by any means
Title: Re: The C-205...Under-rated?
Post by: Motherland on December 31, 2008, 08:23:53 PM
Well Bubi, read my Sig. :)
Oh, I your sig was referencing  my Italian G6 skins. :lol


The Ki84... is a Japanese Spitfire.


By the way, the Ki61, C.202, and the Bf.109E/F all use the DB601 engine (or a else a copy of it), thus why they look and perform so similarly. The DB60x engines produce very distinctive (and sexy) lines in the aircraft that use them.
Title: Re: The C-205...Under-rated?
Post by: B4Buster on December 31, 2008, 10:56:47 PM
Edit: nevermind  :lol
Title: Re: The C-205...Under-rated?
Post by: splitatom on January 01, 2009, 12:07:30 AM
what ever the jap fighter that looks like it what ever it is
Title: Re: The C-205...Under-rated?
Post by: stroker71 on January 01, 2009, 01:02:37 AM
what ever the jap fighter that looks like it what ever it is

Anger on you 666th post...wierd!

I run the wings tanks out to 1/4 first then go back to aux.  Takes the weight from the wings and gives it better roll.
Title: Re: The C-205...Under-rated?
Post by: Boozeman on January 01, 2009, 07:48:41 AM
The 205 is a pig.

Now the 202.  There is an airplane.

- oldman

Oh, you can make a 205 handle much like 202 and still retain it's advantage in speed, climb and firepower.
Now that is an even nicer airplane.


 
Title: Re: The C-205...Under-rated?
Post by: 1pLUs44 on January 01, 2009, 07:51:21 AM
I fly it like its a P-38 that turns a bit better. It climbs very well, holds a dive fairly well, turns good enough, and the guns on it are great.

I think maybe I'll start spending more time in one. Comments? Tips? From the dedicated 205 lovers??

Needs gas
Title: Re: The C-205...Under-rated?
Post by: B4Buster on January 01, 2009, 11:50:50 AM
If it turns better than a 38, the 38 is doing something wrong.

+1 No decent 38 stick would lose to a C.205 IMO
Title: Re: The C-205...Under-rated?
Post by: Banshee7 on January 01, 2009, 05:09:36 PM
Needs gas

two words.....MAX CRUISE
Title: Re: The C-205...Under-rated?
Post by: Bosco123 on January 01, 2009, 06:21:40 PM
Of course Bubi, love that plane ;)
Title: Re: The C-205...Under-rated?
Post by: gatt on January 02, 2009, 04:21:10 AM
The C.205 has similar performance to the Bf.109G-6, although it doesn't turn or climb quite as well ....

No decent 205 stick would lose to a G-6.
As far as the P-38 is concerned, a decent 205 stick would never ever enter a turnfight with that bat.
Title: Re: The C-205...Under-rated?
Post by: Lusche on January 02, 2009, 06:08:20 AM
No decent 205 stick would lose to a G-6.

I have a simple question:

Why?

Assuming same skill level ("decent") in pilots, a fighter is supposed to have a very distinct performance advantage in any way over the other to give that kind of guarantee.
I'm currently not aware of such an decisive advantage the C205 has over the G6.
Title: Re: The C-205...Under-rated?
Post by: gatt on January 02, 2009, 07:05:50 AM
I have a simple question:

Why?

Assuming same skill level ("decent") in pilots, a fighter is supposed to have a very distinct performance advantage in any way over the other to give that kind of guarantee.
I'm currently not aware of such an decisive advantage the C205 has over the G6.


Well, obviously I speak for myself. I have always tried to use the 205 as it should, IMO, be used: fast, at medium altitude, using hit & climb techniques. In those condition the F-4 ---> G-6 family has almost always been an easy prey in 1vs1 fights down to the ground.
I had more acceleration, more speed (especially between 10 and 15K), more firepower, more rollrate, generally more maneuverability fighting in a dive than the G family. Everytime I saw a 109G driver nosing down after the merge I knew it was mine. Even the G-14 was often easy to kill. Only well flown K-4 were impossible to catch or difficult to kill. Many 109 pilots think to have always the climb advantage, they usually underestimate enemy's E, thats how you usually get them if you are fast.
 
I think your probably right if you imagine same skill pilots, CO-E, CO-ALT ... but it is only theory. In the main arena I killed almost all 109's I found.
 
And maybe I was lucky, perhaps the best 109 pilots flew Knights like me ;)
Title: Re: The C-205...Under-rated?
Post by: Krusty on January 02, 2009, 12:42:38 PM
Somebody said they think the C205 would climb like a G2 with gondies.

Not quite. The C205 with internal wing guns climbs almost identically to the G2 without gondies. The speed and climb charts are almost identical, with just a slight difference in the low-alt power peak because it's not a real DB engine (it's an Italian-made version of one, different power, different settings, etc).

However, it has never been the best turning aircraft. When you have speed to bleed it handles very nicely, but against a 109G2/G6 it has a significantly worse turning radius.

Then again, that's only flat turns at best turn speed. Generally I try to avoid those in a C205. I find it works best to fly it like a 109 and shoot it like a 190.
Title: Re: The C-205...Under-rated?
Post by: gatt on January 02, 2009, 04:31:19 PM
Heya Krusty,

differences in power curves are one of AH's two standards, like the difference in WEP time for example.
German and italian official documentation, that is engine manuals, show no difference.
Power curves and engine settings were exactly the same.
Title: Re: The C-205...Under-rated?
Post by: jerkins on January 03, 2009, 01:45:12 AM
The 205 is a blast to fly.  The Italians thought it was far superior to the 109 IIRC.
Title: Re: The C-205...Under-rated?
Post by: Nilsen on January 03, 2009, 03:12:19 AM
perhaps the best 109 pilots flew Knights like me ;)

You nailed it right there  :D
Title: Re: The C-205...Under-rated?
Post by: Angus on January 03, 2009, 08:39:59 AM
One thing where the Macchi beats the 109 is high speed handling.
It feels to me as very pleasant with E, and being as rare as it is in the MA, many pilots do not know how to fight it.
I'd love to se a graphics update, it's a beauty.
Title: Re: The C-205...Under-rated?
Post by: iwomba on January 03, 2009, 09:40:45 PM
Gee don't make posts like this :)

Let everyone think it is a very ordinary plane.

We don't want too many to know just how good it can be.
Title: Re: The C-205...Under-rated?
Post by: Xasthur on January 04, 2009, 08:19:13 AM
One thing where the Macchi beats the 109 is high speed handling.
It feels to me as very pleasant with E, and being as rare as it is in the MA, many pilots do not know how to fight it.
I'd love to se a graphics update, it's a beauty.

Indeed, I feel like the 205 is a middle-ground between the 109G series and the 190A series.

Easier to handle at high speeds but still turns quite well, hits well with the two MG 151/20, climbs well and has an awful forward view.  :aok

Bring on the graphics update!
Title: Re: The C-205...Under-rated?
Post by: Krahe on February 02, 2009, 05:55:47 PM
I fly the C205 quite a bit... And I just love to see P-38s. Big targets that I usaully punch a bunch of holes in.


Krahe
Title: Re: The C-205...Under-rated?
Post by: Noir on February 03, 2009, 02:45:06 AM
Gee don't make posts like this :)

Let everyone think it is a very ordinary plane.

We don't want too many to know just how good it can be.

Hey I didn't know you where actually reading the BBS !!! and BTW GIAP takes a single P  :D
Title: Re: The C-205...Under-rated?
Post by: TIMMY on February 03, 2009, 07:42:07 AM
IMHO

it is the best about 15-20k with speed seems allot smoother in its attitude and a typhoon would have trouble getting away from you @ that alt

the main downer is the fragile wings
doesn't take much to take them out
Title: Re: The C-205...Under-rated?
Post by: RipChord929 on February 03, 2009, 08:00:26 AM
Been flyin the 205 off and on..
I Like it!!! Cept for that LONG nose...
Shootin blind, on those long lead shots takes some practice..

RC
Title: Re: The C-205...Under-rated?
Post by: Larry on February 03, 2009, 08:58:16 AM
I see it like a mix of the 109F, 109G6 and, 190A5. Speed is like the 109F4, the climb is like the 109G6, and the armament/turn radius is like the 190A5.
Title: Re: The C-205...Under-rated?
Post by: FireDrgn on February 03, 2009, 04:47:09 PM
I think the 205 handles much better than the g2.  There are few planes in ah that handle as well as the 205 in a high speed dive. its very stable and great for bnz. it picks up e like the best of them.

the ammo load out is out-standing in the 205.

Title: Re: The C-205...Under-rated?
Post by: stroker71 on February 04, 2009, 08:19:59 PM
205 v most american fighter 1v1.  First thing I'll do as the 205 pilot is try to bleed the other guys E.  Then I'll use the spiral climb and when he strugles to climb I'll increase my E and BnZ him.  That works well on any AC don't can't climb like the 205.  Try that against a K4 or even a p38 and you go POOF!  But if it's not a 1v1 you better have the alt advantage to begin with.
Title: Re: The C-205...Under-rated?
Post by: Motherland on February 04, 2009, 09:07:18 PM
(coming from a 109 stick...)
The C205 really doesn't climb as well. It can't even keep up with a Freidrich above 6K. Actually, in terms of climb rate and speed, it's surprisingly similar to the Freidrich except for a peak the Macchi experiences at about 6k. And of course turn performance isn't anywhere close.

The Macchi really is a kind of mix between the 190 and the 109, except it's not as fast. It doesn't turn as well as the 109 (but better than the 190) but it has much better high-speed performance than the 109, as well as a better armament.
Title: Re: The C-205...Under-rated?
Post by: Krusty on February 04, 2009, 09:13:48 PM
Look, folks, the C205 sucks, so just stop flying it.





That oughta do it.
Title: Re: The C-205...Under-rated?
Post by: gatt on February 05, 2009, 01:55:59 PM
(coming from a 109 stick...)
The C205 really doesn't climb as well. It can't even keep up with a Freidrich above 6K. Actually, in terms of climb rate and speed, it's surprisingly similar to the Freidrich except for a peak the Macchi experiences at about 6k. And of course turn performance isn't anywhere close.

The Macchi really is a kind of mix between the 190 and the 109, except it's not as fast. It doesn't turn as well as the 109 (but better than the 190) but it has much better high-speed performance than the 109, as well as a better armament.

Any decent 205 driver will dictate the fight againts a 109F. You should have met a lot of 205 dweebs in your AH2 career.
Title: Re: The C-205...Under-rated?
Post by: Lusche on February 05, 2009, 02:02:06 PM
Any decent 205 driver will dictate the fight againts a 109F. You should have met a lot of 205 dweebs in your AH2 career.


What are the specific advantages the C205 pilot can utilize vs the 109F? Which will even allow him to dictate the fight?
Title: Re: The C-205...Under-rated?
Post by: Wedge1126 on February 05, 2009, 03:23:06 PM
Is the performance gain significant if you swap the cannons for the MGs in the wings?
Title: Re: The C-205...Under-rated?
Post by: Lusche on February 05, 2009, 03:56:24 PM
Is the performance gain significant if you swap the cannons for the MGs in the wings?

Minor, and IMHO not significant enough to justify to go back to almost 1/4th firepower.. unless you're looking for an additional challenge ;)
Title: Re: The C-205...Under-rated?
Post by: gatt on February 05, 2009, 03:56:40 PM

What are the specific advantages the C205 pilot can utilize vs the 109F? Which will even allow him to dictate the fight?

In my personal experience I have always exploited the horizontal speed advantage, the superior diving speed, the better roll rate at high speed against the F-4, the G-2 and the G-6.
Even against the G-14. Only good K-4 drivers kept me at distance. Theory is one thing, practice is another: 109 drivers usually fly too slow thinking they can outclimb everything, they generally underestimate enemy aircraft E state.
Please note that I love the 109, and in some TOD I got the most part of my kills with the 109G-10 and then with the 109K-4.
I flew almost only the 205 and the K-4.

To wedge1126: yes, the lightly armed 205 climbs (and probably rolls) much better than the cannon armed one, but with those two 7mm I couldnt shoot down anything.
Title: Re: The C-205...Under-rated?
Post by: Masherbrum on February 05, 2009, 04:15:35 PM
The C.205 has similar performance to the Bf.109G-6, although it doesn't turn or climb quite as well. It may be a bit closer to the Bf.109G-2 with gondolas. So, it's about on par with other aircraft from it's time period. It's a fun aircraft for sure (as is the C.202).

I, myself, prefer the armament, performance, and canopy framing of a 109, but this is not far removed from one- IMO it's an 'Italian 109', just as the Ki61 is a 'Japanese 109'. Hell I like anything with a Daimler Benz DB60x. :)

I can't wait for it to be updated...

The Ki-61 is based off of the Heinkel-100, NOT the Me-109.   
Title: Re: The C-205...Under-rated?
Post by: Lusche on February 05, 2009, 04:50:04 PM

When comparing the capabilities of two different aircraft, one has to strive for objectivity. That means, when evaluating both quantifyable as well as less quantifyable performance, you have to leave out differences in pilot skill. You basically have to assume both pilots having the same skill level (which means assuming both are decent sticks capable of reaching the respective performance limits). Determining absolute performance under controlled conditions has absolute preference to subjective/anecdotal experience in MA (which still has some worth under certain circumstances)

Now to quote again:
Any decent 205 driver will dictate the fight against a 109F.

"Dictate" is a very strong word in air combat. It means that one plane has such a huge advantage in a critical area of performance, so that the other fighter has no chance but to fight on his superior enemy's terms. Usually that's speed & acceleration, because the faster plane can choose to engage & disengage, the better turner can not, unless he has a initial positional advantage.

Now let's take a look at the 205 vs 109F

(http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/3114/c205vs109fsb3.jpg)
(http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/3417/c205vs109fpart3qh7.jpg)
(http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/8517/c205vs109fpart2hk0.jpg)

Not on these charts: Dive performance (clear advantage: C.205), Rate of roll (C.205 wins by a slight margin)

As you can see, both planes have the about the same speed and acceleration and are very close in rate of climb (C205 having a slight edge up to ~6000ft, the 109F a bigger one above that altitude. Both turn rate as well as turn radius the 109F clearly outclasses the 205 (with and without flaps).
The 205 has the better roll rate, but not to such an extend that it could use it to "dictate" the fight. It has the far better weapon package, but that ain't dictating a fight either, it's just a big bonus when someone has managed (by using his plane's performance) to get a gun solution. The 205 is also better in a dive, but when a c205 noses down to get to speed the 109 driver can decide whether to or not to follow. It actually is a big advantage when the 205 started out with a positional advantage and is able to dive on a lower 109F.


There is only one area where one of the two planes has a very big, distinctive advantage, and that's in flat turn performance. And it's not the C205...
Title: Re: The C-205...Under-rated?
Post by: Motherland on February 05, 2009, 05:06:24 PM
The Ki-61 is based off of the Heinkel-100, NOT the Me-109.   
Didn't mean literally, but rather the way it looks it reminds me of the 109.
The Macchi's were certainly not based on the 109 either, but they remind me of one.
Title: Re: The C-205...Under-rated?
Post by: Ack-Ack on February 05, 2009, 05:59:55 PM
The Ki-61 is based off of the Heinkel-100, NOT the Me-109.   

True but initial eyewitness reports from US pilots in the PTO reported the Ki-61 as a C.205 and Bf 109F. 

ack-ack
Title: Re: The C-205...Under-rated?
Post by: Masherbrum on February 05, 2009, 06:09:54 PM
True but initial eyewitness reports from US pilots in the PTO reported the Ki-61 as a C.205 and Bf 109F. 

ack-ack

Indeed.   
Title: Re: The C-205...Under-rated?
Post by: Anaxogoras on February 05, 2009, 06:42:21 PM
People are in the habit of saying the e.g. C.205/Ki-61 are better than aircraft that outperform them on paper simply because they face pathetically weak opposition 95% of the time.
Title: Re: The C-205...Under-rated?
Post by: Masherbrum on February 05, 2009, 07:58:18 PM
People are in the habit of saying the e.g. C.205/Ki-61 are better than aircraft that outperform them on paper simply because they face pathetically weak opposition 95% of the time.

I can say it, because I actually know what the Ki-61 is capable of in this game.   :aok   

Ask:

AKDogg
B4Buster
BaldEagl
shamus
rob53
Rain000
Scotch
Scot12b
RedTop
and many other "weak opponents" I've fought.   
Title: Re: The C-205...Under-rated?
Post by: Anaxogoras on February 05, 2009, 08:35:20 PM
Oh yeah, and I've killed these aircraft with the Ki-61 this tour:

Bf 109K-4       
F6F-5       
Fw 190D-9   
Ki-84-Ia    
P-51D    
Spitfire Mk IX    
Spitfire Mk V    
Spitfire Mk XVI    
Yak-9U    

Therefore the Ki-61 is superior. ;)
Title: Re: The C-205...Under-rated?
Post by: Masherbrum on February 05, 2009, 08:58:42 PM
Toughest one on that list is the Yak.   But, I suck at this game.   
Title: Re: The C-205...Under-rated?
Post by: Anaxogoras on February 06, 2009, 01:20:39 AM
Toughest one on that list is the Yak.   But, I suck at this game.   

Now there's an underrated aircraft.
Title: Re: The C-205...Under-rated?
Post by: gatt on February 06, 2009, 05:29:23 AM
Lusche,

nice and complete analysis. I have to admit that reading the chart the differences are much narrower than those I expected.

I base my analysis on 7 years of AH2, flying almost only the 205, the G-10 and the K-4. And (watching many good players) I consider myself an average pilot.

Anytime I tried the F-4, the G-2 and the G-6 I felt much less horizontal speed, diving acceleration (I mean slightly nosing down to gain speed) and roll rate than with the C.205.

I never turn fighted, I almost always fighted on the vertical, taking my 205 quite fast. This is probably why I almost won 90% of the 205 vs 109 fight I had. Again, in my experience 90% of 109 drivers keep them at average speed, ready to kick WEP and climb away. A 375mph IAS horizontal C.205 can catch almost anything in our arenas. a 450mph diving 205 can usually catch a 109-K or look him lawndart.

In my experience, after the merge, a 109 nosing down was immediately classified dead meat. I chased him down with my better maneuverability at high-very high speed and even if they zoomed up I could almost always get them.
If he zoomed up after the merge and got a better position I could almost always extend, reposition better and merge again. Provided that I kept my Veltro fast.

Yes, I understand that "dictate the fight" is too much, but keep those 205 fast and much of the teory will be less important than the real (ehm, virtual) thing.

I hope HTC will redo the 205 graphics. As soon as they do it I'll be back in the mid-late arenas.






Title: Re: The C-205...Under-rated?
Post by: Boozeman on February 06, 2009, 05:58:45 AM
Is the performance gain significant if you swap the cannons for the MGs in the wings?

As Lusche said, it's not worth it, altough I would not call the perfomance gains minor, they are instantly noticable, the 205 gets more docile in high AoA situations. But as said, loosing the quick kill capabillities completely neuteres these gains in many situations.

However, smart 205 drivers take a different apporach. Simply reduce the amount of ammo carried in the 12,7 mm and 20 mm guns. Preferebly more of the 12,7 mm than 20 mm but you get the idea. I would recommend to completly fire off the 12,7 mm ammo and reduce the 20 mm to 250 rds. This ways you retain most of your firepower but loose just as much weith, if not even more than with the less potent gun option.

Obviously, if you care for your hit %, this aint gonna help, if not, enjoy !       
Title: Re: The C-205...Under-rated?
Post by: Anaxogoras on February 06, 2009, 09:04:04 AM
This sounds like the debate about the P-47 and which gun package to take.  I always prefer to reduce my aircraft's ammo weight by killing enemies. ;)
Title: Re: The C-205...Under-rated?
Post by: Boozeman on February 07, 2009, 08:30:05 AM
This sounds like the debate about the P-47 and which gun package to take.  I always prefer to reduce my aircraft's ammo weight by killing enemies. ;)

Well, if given the chance, I would prefer it that way too, having a nice 5000 ft alt advantage over all enemys. ;)
Unfortunately, this is not always the case, and when you get caught while climbing out, you wanna loose those 500 lb instantly.

But seriously, such weight reduction means do not work so well on other planes like on the 205. I have not checked the P47 in that regard, but from those that I checked out the 205 worked very well that way. Same goes for the 190A5 BTW, it does not gain as much as the Macchi, but enough to really consider it. Other planes that I suspect that could benefit from it without much impact on their kill capabilities are the Tempest/Typhoon, the Niki, and maybe the Jug (not sure though).

Where its not worth the effort are definitely the Mossie, P-38, Ponys, Ta152, the A8/D9 and of course all other planes that do not carry much ammo at all, or have rather weird setups like the P-39.