Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: lyric1 on April 29, 2014, 06:13:24 AM
-
Is this correct?
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/55-b6dae018f8_zpsa11fee7a.jpg) (http://s1002.photobucket.com/user/barneybolac/media/55-b6dae018f8_zpsa11fee7a.jpg.html)
Was under the impression they got them too late for WWII?
-
May not necessarily have been WW2 :old:
-
These saw combat with the Russians despite what others will say.
-
I know, just saying maybe the French colours were post war :old:
-
Found this..
114 P-63Cs (not the 300 usually mentioned in the literature) were delivered to the French Armee de l'Air at the end of the war. However, the French Kingcobras were delivered too late to see any service in World War 2 in Europe.
Here.
http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/p63_17.html
Also according to this sight the French P-63s did see action in Southeast Asia in the late 40s early 50s.
-
Found this..
114 P-63Cs (not the 300 usually mentioned in the literature) were delivered to the French Armee de l'Air at the end of the war. However, the French Kingcobras were delivered too late to see any service in World War 2 in Europe.
Here.
http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/p63_17.html
Also according to this sight the French P-63s did see action in Southeast Asia in the late 40s early 50s.
Thanks for that, thought I was correct :aok
-
Armee de l'air was a living WWII museum up until the 60's, as F4U-4's and other surplus airplanes lingered in service for a quite a while
-
These saw combat with the Russians despite what others will say.
Whether or not is saw combat with the Soviets in the Far East has never been in dispute, what is in dispute is whether or not the P-63 was ever credited with A2A kills as there is no official records other than 2nd hand accounts about any A2A kills.
ack-ack
-
May not necessarily have been WW2 :old:
The image came from this book.
http://avaxhome.cc/ebooks/history_military/0897470591.html
The image itself is tucked in amongst other WWII images.
-
Also according to this sight the French P-63s did see action in Southeast Asia in the late 40s early 50s.
Very interesting sight that chronicles how air power was acquired and used by the French in their Post-WW2 efforts to maintain Empire.
http://worldatwar.net/chandelle/v3/v3n1/frcoin.html
-
Very interesting sight that chronicles how air power was acquired and used by the French in their Post-WW2 efforts to maintain Empire.
http://worldatwar.net/chandelle/v3/v3n1/frcoin.html
very cool read, this part of history is never presented this way at school, I wonder why :noid
-
very cool read, this part of history is never presented this way at school, I wonder why :noid
Something about history being written by the victors :noid
-
Something about history being written by the victors :noid
Nope. More like War Crimes. Even genocide. Anyway lets not drift. No Nation is without its sins and certainly America was more interested in helping the French check communism then they were in how they did it. Most of all after Korea. Older air power was used very effectively by the French in these low tech conflicts against enemies with no air power themselves, or very little.
I think the problem was there just wasnt enough of them. That and the French people were tired of foreign wars of Empire, and limited budgets of a country financially devastated after WW2 as so many in Europe were.
The A26 in particular shined for them as it did for us in S/E Asia. A very effective platform for sure and for sure the P-63 did a lot of work for them but i cant find much on its air to air operations.
-
Nope. More like War Crimes. Even genocide. Anyway lets not drift. No Nation is without its sins and certainly America was more interested in helping the French check communism then they were in how they did it. Most of all after Korea. Older air power was used very effectively by the French in these low tech conflicts against enemies with no air power themselves, or very little.
I think the problem was there just wasnt enough of them. That and the French people were tired of foreign wars of Empire, and limited budgets of a country financially devastated after WW2 as so many in Europe were.
The A26 in particular shined for them as it did for us in S/E Asia. A very effective platform for sure and for sure the P-63 did a lot of work for them but i cant find much on its air to air operations.
Rich, I think you are making my point from another angle
-
very cool read, this part of history is never presented this way at school, I wonder why :noid
French had the guillotine in use in the Far East way past WWII. And the Brits for example had concentration camps in Kenia way after WWII.
-
French had the guillotine in use in the Far East way past WWII. And the Brits for example had concentration camps in Kenia way after WWII.
Both empires collapsed in the wake of WWII. Both did some unpleasant (to put it mildly) things in an attempt to keep their empires together.
Reminds me of a story an old professor of mine told. He grew up in France before WWII and was taught in school that the Mediterranean runs through the middle of France line the Seine runs through the middle of Paris :)
-
I'd like to find some material on any ATA engagements with the P-63. Can anyone point me in the right direction? TY.
-
Despite the topic being rehashed every so often there is still no reliable info on the P-63 ever engaging in air combat either in WW2 or afterwards. The Red Air Force had the P-63 on strength late in the war but there is still no evidence that they flew it in combat in the ETO. The reason is fairy simple. The Luftwaffe was all but done by the Spring of 1945 and the vast bulk of the VVS was being used for ground attack. It simply wasn't worth the time to reequip the P-39 units with the P-63 so the Fighter Regiments kept flying the late model P-39s until the surrender. In the East there is a smattering of info about maybe the P-63 flying some ground attack missions against the Japanese before VJ Day but I have seen nothing definitive.
-
Thanks for taking the time to reply. I kinda knew the answer but I was hoping there might have been something I missed, most of all in the east. Seeing the example on display at LackLand AFB last year renewed my interest in the aircraft.
(http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/P63new_zps733ab96e.jpg)
-
It saw ground attack combat. Isn't combat the only req?
-
Despite the topic being rehashed every so often there is still no reliable info on the P-63 ever engaging in air combat either in WW2 or afterwards. The Red Air Force had the P-63 on strength late in the war but there is still no evidence that they flew it in combat in the ETO. The reason is fairy simple. The Luftwaffe was all but done by the Spring of 1945 and the vast bulk of the VVS was being used for ground attack. It simply wasn't worth the time to reequip the P-39 units with the P-63 so the Fighter Regiments kept flying the late model P-39s until the surrender. In the East there is a smattering of info about maybe the P-63 flying some ground attack missions against the Japanese before VJ Day but I have seen nothing definitive.
I posted this a long time ago, ill post it again. The Soviet squadrons did not keep logs as the Luftwaffe or Americans did, unfortunately I have found nothing to confirm anything.
(http://i849.photobucket.com/albums/ab56/Misconduc/63.jpg)
-
What is more important is that the russians had the Yak3P during that time period, much better engine and 3 guns ( very much like the LA-7)
-
What is more important is that the russians had the Yak3P during that time period, much better engine and 3 guns ( very much like the LA-7)
Soviets didn't have Yak-3P operational during WWII or in any other wars for that matter.
-
Soviets didn't have Yak-3P operational during WWII or in any other wars for that matter.
according to Erik Pilawskii Yak3p saw action in Manchuria:
quote "The final VK-105-engined variant was the fearsome Yak-3P (pushechniy, or cannon), armed with three of the new 20mm B-20 lightweight cannons, each with 130 rounds of ammunition.
Unfortunately, the type just missed the end of hostilities in Europe, though two squadrons were operational against the Japanese from 8 August. These were untouchable and the Yak-3P was said, when attacking, to cut even modern and protected Japanese aircraft (such as the Ki-84 and Ki-61) in half like a buzz saw".
-
according to Erik Pilawskii Yak3p saw action in Manchuria:
quote "The final VK-105-engined variant was the fearsome Yak-3P (pushechniy, or cannon), armed with three of the new 20mm B-20 lightweight cannons, each with 130 rounds of ammunition.
Unfortunately, the type just missed the end of hostilities in Europe, though two squadrons were operational against the Japanese from 8 August. These were untouchable and the Yak-3P was said, when attacking, to cut even modern and protected Japanese aircraft (such as the Ki-84 and Ki-61) in half like a buzz saw".
I see no mention of action by Yefim Gordon & Dmitri Khazanov who are considered the leading authorities on Soviet aviation. From what publication is that quote from...does it perhaps mention which exact units supposedly received Yak-3Ps?
-
From what publication is that quote from...does it perhaps mention which exact units supposedly received Yak-3Ps?
Ok, I found the book (Soviet Air Force Fighter Colours 1941-45) I read a couple things that raised an eye brow (The way Pilawski described Yak-3U's maneuverability for example). Would be interesting to know if he has some primary sources about the action in Manchuria. I must say I severely doubt it.
-
This is the Soviet Order of Battle during the Manchurian invasion.
Sovet Air Forces "Autumn Storm" Air Order of Battle (http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/George_Mellinger/soviet_order_of_battle.htm)
ack-ack
-
This is the Soviet Order of Battle during the Manchurian invasion.
Sovet Air Forces "Autumn Storm" Air Order of Battle (http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/George_Mellinger/soviet_order_of_battle.htm)
ack-ack
No doubt to me the P-63A seen combat with the Russians, I have no problem seeing it added as a Russian perk plane.
-
No doubt to me the P-63A seen combat with the Russians, I have no problem seeing it added as a Russian perk plane.
Why would it deserve a perk price?
-
No doubt to me the P-63A seen combat with the Russians, I have no problem seeing it added as a Russian perk plane.
I don't think there is a doubt the P-63 saw combat in the Far East doing ground attack missions, there is just doubt as to whether or not it engaged in A2A combat.
ack-ack
-
I don't think there is a doubt the P-63 saw combat in the Far East doing ground attack missions, there is just doubt as to whether or not it engaged in A2A combat.
ack-ack
Regardless, it puts the P-63 way, WAY down near the bottom of the priorities list.
-
Why would it deserve a perk price?
Perk price can be about limiting a plane's use, if the plane was very rare. It's not always about capability, but the higher the capability, the more perks would be required to keep it rare.Not sure if it would need to be perked to be rare. I think many will not like it because of two significant drawbacks:
1) The limited rear view due to the Opaque armor plate behind the pilot which replace the bullet proof glass of the P-39.
2) The gun package is difficult to use effectively.
those two things will keep all but it's fans in something else. :salute
-
Perk price can be about limiting a plane's use, if the plane was very rare. It's not always about capability, but the higher the capability, the more perks would be required to keep it rare.Not sure if it would need to be perked to be rare. I think many will not like it because of two significant drawbacks:
1) The limited rear view due to the Opaque armor plate behind the pilot which replace the bullet proof glass of the P-39.
2) The gun package is difficult to use effectively.
those two things will keep all but it's fans in something else. :salute
OK, and thanks for the :salute, but name one airplane we already have that is perked simply because it was "rare"? Or GV for that matter. They are perked because they are "BEASTS"! in either speed, firepower, or both. I dont even think the P-63 would deserve a 5 eny. Not when you look at its performance and firepower. :salute
-
OK, and thanks for the :salute, but name one airplane we already have that is perked simply because it was "rare"? Or GV for that matter. They are perked because they are "BEASTS"! in either speed, firepower, or both. I dont even think the P-63 would deserve a 5 eny. Not when you look at its performance and firepower. :salute
Ta-152 is not a beast in my opinion, but it was very rare in the war. A8 is fast on the deck and has one of the best gun packages in the game, not perked. P-51 is a beast and is not perked, because it served in large numbers. The F4U-C was rare so it's perked. The niki has 4 cannons and turns better but it's not perked because it wasn't as rare.
Just my opinion on why planes are perked. I could be wrong. :salute
-
Ta-152 is not a beast in my opinion, but it was very rare in the war. A8 is fast on the deck and has one of the best gun packages in the game, not perked. P-51 is a beast and is not perked, because it served in large numbers. The F4U-C was rare so it's perked. The niki has 4 cannons and turns better but it's not perked because it wasn't as rare.
Just my opinion on why planes are perked. I could be wrong. :salute
The F4U-C was not perked because it was rare, it was perked when it was introduced in game because it was unbalancing to the game play and that was the only reason. You can verify that yourself if you ask HiTech. The reason why the P-51D isn't perked is because it served in large numbers, it's not perked because it does not nor has it ever unbalanced the game play when it was introduced in game.
ack-ack
-
it's not perked because it does not nor has it ever unbalanced the game play when it was introduced in game.
and also because its plane 1 :)
-
Ta-152 is not a beast in my opinion, but it was very rare in the war. A8 is fast on the deck and has one of the best gun packages in the game, not perked. P-51 is a beast and is not perked, because it served in large numbers. The F4U-C was rare so it's perked. The niki has 4 cannons and turns better but it's not perked because it wasn't as rare.
Just my opinion on why planes are perked. I could be wrong. :salute
The F4C was perked due to performance and 4 Hispanos/ammo load. None of the others are perked.
-
The F4U-C was not perked because it was rare, it was perked when it was introduced in game because it was unbalancing to the game play and that was the only reason. You can verify that yourself if you ask HiTech. The reason why the P-51D isn't perked is because it served in large numbers, it's not perked because it does not nor has it ever unbalanced the game play when it was introduced in game.
ack-ack
I remember very early when the F4u1-c was introduced it was the only aircraft flying for that tour, it wasn't fun at all especially when the majority of people flew it, I even quit the game over it and came back few years later because I figured the Main Arena was only going to be F4u-1C's
-
The F4C was perked due to performance and 4 Hispanos/ammo load. None of the others are perked.
That's pretty much why it is and should REMAIN perked. It's not just that it's got four Hispanos. It's that it's a CORSAIR with four Hispanos. That's a series whose only real negatives are climb and acceleration, and the 1A/D/C are middle of the pack and hardly at the bottom there.
Unperk the C-Hog, and guaranteed that's the only Corsair you'd see.
-
"A8 is fast on the deck and has one of the best gun packages in the game, not perked"
More than half of the planes on-line catch the A8 with ease, also the 20mm and 30mm guns have lousy trajectory compared.
Its only asset is that no plane can dive with it.
Its totally useless 1vs1 dogfights.
At high altitude you solidly get out-turned and outperformed by 4 engined bombers in formation in AH.
Hopefully they perk the A8 very soon - :lol
-
"A8 is fast on the deck and has one of the best gun packages in the game, not perked"
More than half of the planes on-line catch the A8 with ease, also the 20mm and 30mm guns have lousy trajectory compared.
Its only asset is that no plane can dive with it.
Its totally useless 1vs1 dogfights.
At high altitude you solidly get out-turned and outperformed by 4 engined bombers in formation in AH.
Hopefully they perk the A8 very soon - :lol
You're being goofing, maybe not having read the whole thread. I didn't say perk the A8. I said that being uber is not the only reason planes are perked. I don't know what else was around when the C-hog was introduce that made everyone fly the C-hog, but the N1Ki is much better Ma fighter and it is not perked. 4 hispanos in a Corsair may have been great at the time. I've flown it, as a fighter it's the worst Corsair in the game. My point was, if 4 cannons make a plane Uber than there are more uber planes in the game than the C-hog.
Not that the A8 should be perked. :salute
[/quote]
-
I've flown it, as a fighter it's the worst Corsair in the game
Counterpoint: It's STILL a Corsair.
-
Counterpoint: It's STILL a Corsair.
F4U-4 is perked. Fastest corsair but slower than a 109-K4, Pony, Dora, and at less than 10K it's also slower than La7, P-47N, P-47M
F4U-4 will also be out climbed by every 109 except the E, every Spitfire from the Mark VIII onward, and a Pony D. It's about equal to Dora.
F4U-4 is nothing special in the gun department.
But it's perked.
perhaps there is a reason other than it's Uberness that determines perk cost. :salute
-
F4U-4 is perked. Fastest corsair but slower than a 109-K4, Pony, Dora, and at less than 10K it's also slower than La7, P-47N, P-47M
F4U-4 will also be out climbed by every 109 except the E, every Spitfire from the Mark VIII onward, and a Pony D. It's about equal to Dora.
F4U-4 is nothing special in the gun department.
But it's perked.
perhaps there is a reason other than it's Uberness that determines perk cost. :salute
I guess you've skipped over every single thread (and there have been many) that's ever explained why the F4U-4 is perked. It's not one thing, it's EVERYTHING.
-
F4U-4 is perked. Fastest corsair but slower than a 109-K4, Pony, Dora, and at less than 10K it's also slower than La7, P-47N, P-47M
F4U-4 will also be out climbed by every 109 except the E, every Spitfire from the Mark VIII onward, and a Pony D. It's about equal to Dora.
F4U-4 is nothing special in the gun department.
But it's perked.
perhaps there is a reason other than it's Uberness that determines perk cost. :salute
You're just comparing it to superior planes stat by stat. And I don't know where you got your numbers. The F4U-4 is faster on the deck than a P-51D, 109K4 and can match La-7 and 190D9.
Why is the Tempest perked? A Bf-109K4 can easily outrun it above 16K, climbs worse than a La-7 and the armament is worse than a mossie's! :uhoh See? There will always be a better plane in a specifit stat, as Saxman put it it's the whole package that matters.
The F4U-4 is one of the fastest on the deck and little else can outrun it at altitude, climbs well and can carry a lot of rockets, bombs and fuel. This performance envelope is shared by no other aircraft in the whole planeset, not even the Tempest.
-
You're just comparing it to superior planes stat by stat. And I don't know where you got your numbers. The F4U-4 is faster on the deck than a P-51D, 109K4 and can match La-7 and 190D9.
Why is the Tempest perked? A Bf-109K4 can easily outrun it above 16K, climbs worse than a La-7 and the armament is worse than a mossie's! :uhoh See? There will always be a better plane in a specifit stat, as Saxman put it it's the whole package that matters.
The F4U-4 is one of the fastest on the deck and little else can outrun it at altitude, climbs well and can carry a lot of rockets, bombs and fuel. This performance envelope is shared by no other aircraft in the whole planeset, not even the Tempest.
Why do you make a non-case and say that's my case? The Pony D is better in every category than the U-4 except low speed turn rate. So the pony isn't perked based on it's turn rate differential compared to a F4U-4? But rather than get lost in performance discussions....
Just clarify what you think determines perk cost. I think there might be criteria other than performance.
What say you?
-
The Pony D is better in every category than the U-4 except low speed turn rate.
:huh
The P-51D is marginally faster from 2000ft-12,000ft.
The F4U-4 out-accelerates the Mustang in all speed bands.
The F4U-4 outclimbs the Mustang at all altitudes under WEP, and the advantage is quite significant between 8000-20,000ft.
The F4U-4 is tougher.
The F4U-4 carries an extra pair of rockets.
The F4Us in general out-maneuver the Mustang.
The F4U-4 out-guns the Mustang (the P-51 loadout is either 4x .50cal with 400rds in one pair and 500rds in the second pair, or 6x .50cal with 500rds in one pair, and 270rds in the remaining four. The F4U-4 has 6x .50cal with 400rds in all guns. Either the Mustang has to reduce its volume of fire to match the Corsair's firing time, or temporarily match the Corsair's firepower at the cost of a drastic reduction in weight of fire once the four guns are dry).
The Mustang has better all-around visibility
The Mustang has longer range on internal fuel.
Yeah, I can see how the Mustang is superior in all categories.
-
My WAG is the King Cobra would be perked out of the bag but would eventually find its way to the unperked list after the new wears off.
-
:huh
The P-51D is marginally faster from 2000ft-12,000ft.
The F4U-4 out-accelerates the Mustang in all speed bands.
The F4U-4 outclimbs the Mustang at all altitudes under WEP, and the advantage is quite significant between 8000-20,000ft.
The F4U-4 is tougher.
The F4U-4 carries an extra pair of rockets.
The F4Us in general out-maneuver the Mustang.
The F4U-4 out-guns the Mustang (the P-51 loadout is either 4x .50cal with 400rds in one pair and 500rds in the second pair, or 6x .50cal with 500rds in one pair, and 270rds in the remaining four. The F4U-4 has 6x .50cal with 400rds in all guns. Either the Mustang has to reduce its volume of fire to match the Corsair's firing time, or temporarily match the Corsair's firepower at the cost of a drastic reduction in weight of fire once the four guns are dry).
The Mustang has better all-around visibility
The Mustang has longer range on internal fuel.
Yeah, I can see how the Mustang is superior in all categories.
You didn't answer my question.
-
Actually, I did. Either you just ignored it, or you just don't want to see it.
It's not a question at all over whether there are criteria beyond performance that justifies the perk cost, the -4 just plain has FAR too many advantages over any of its potential adversaries to remove the perk.
If the F4U-4 is unperked, you will never, EVER see another aircraft launch from a carrier in Late War. Every CV op will be a horde of F4U-4s, whose combined stats make it THE best all-around fighter in the game. You certainly wouldn't see another Corsair. It carries too much ordinance. It's too maneuverable. It's too fast. It climbs too well. It can switch too easily between E-fighting and a maneuvering contest. It doesn't matter that Plane A has a speed advantage in specific altitude band, or if Plane B has Hispanos.
-
Why do you make a non-case and say that's my case? The Pony D is better in every category than the U-4 except low speed turn rate. So the pony isn't perked based on it's turn rate differential compared to a F4U-4? But rather than get lost in performance discussions....
(http://hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=0&p2=54&pw=1>ype=0&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
(http://hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=0&p2=54&pw=1>ype=2&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
The F4U-4 Is faster and climbs way better than the pony. I don't know why you said the pony is better in every category besides low speed turn rate.
Just clarify what you think determines perk cost. I think there might be criteria other than performance.
I think that a plane deserves to be perked when it has performance (specially speed and/or armament) notably above the rest of the planeset.
-
Actually, I did. Either you just ignored it, or you just don't want to see it.
It's not a question at all over whether there are criteria beyond performance that justifies the perk cost, the -4 just plain has FAR too many advantages over any of its potential adversaries to remove the perk.
If the F4U-4 is unperked, you will never, EVER see another aircraft launch from a carrier in Late War. ...You certainly wouldn't see another Corsair.
Why does that matter, unless the developers think a rare bird shouldn't fill the arena?
Perk the La-7 because no one flies the La-5
Perk the Pony D because no one flies the B model.
Perk the SPit16 because no one flies the Mark 5
Those aren't perked bacause they weren't rare. The F4U-4 was rare, as was the C-hog.
Yes, I made a mistake when I checked the Pony vs F4U-4 numbers. I blame my browser which doesn't correctly load the plane performance page causing me to use the back button to reload a new chart. I hadn't realized that it changed the plane selection back to a F4U-D. So subsequent charts I studied had the wrong F4U-data.
I still think it's not just about a performance score. that was my whole point. I tried to make that case with examples but you think the C-hog and F4U-4 are obviously uber. I don't.
I still think the objection to the C-hog was that everyone was flying it, and purest whined that it saw very little action in the war and so it shouldn't be so prevelant. If they built 30,000 C-hogs and they all saw service, I think HTC would have left it unperked. :salute
Do you disagree?
-
Those aren't perked bacause they weren't rare. The F4U-4 was rare, as was the C-hog.
Real world rarity is not playing any role. If it were, the Ta-152H (only a handful ever to see combat) would have never been unperked years ago. The Wirbelwind and Ostwind would be heavily perked with only ~105 and 43(!) built
From the HTC website:
The perk system is a way for HTC to introduce some interesting but otherwise unbalancing planes on a limited basis but the benefits go deeper than that. Perk planes (and vehicles) would be things like Me 262s, Ta 152s, Tempests, B-29s, Ar 234s, Tiger IIs, etc. These are interesting rides but would be very unbalancing if they were available on an unlimited basis. So there won't be unlimited availability but they'll be available as bonuses or perks every so often.
That's all the perk system is about.
I still think the objection to the C-hog was that everyone was flying it, and purest whined that it saw very little action in the war and so it shouldn't be so prevelant. If they built 30,000 C-hogs and they all saw service, I think HTC would have left it unperked. :salute
Do you disagree?
Disagree very much. The F4U_C totally dominated the arena at that time, creating a severe imbalance. That's why it was perked.
-
Disagree very much. The F4U_C totally dominated the arena at that time, creating a severe imbalance. That's why it was perked.
And if it were unperked, it would most definitely cause an imbalance once again, even if it's not to the same extent now as it was when first introduced.
Even if the 1-series Hogs are nowhere near as dominating as the -4 (and despite your lack of respect for the model, the -4 is DEFINITELY a dominating fighter), all are solid and competitive aircraft regardless of the competition they're up against because of their balance of characteristics. The Charlie may be the "worst" performing of the lot, but the difference between it and the 1D are so minute as to be virtually nonexistent (and I mean we're talking about 1-3mph speed difference, turn rates not even 1dps off, etc.) AND it has cannon. You're out of your mind if you honestly believe that removing the perk from the 1C wouldn't be severely disruptive to the game.
-
Real world rarity is not playing any role. If it were, the Ta-152H (only a handful ever to see combat) would have never been unperked years ago. The Wirbelwind and Ostwind would be heavily perked with only ~105 and 43(!) built
From the HTC website:
That's all the perk system is about.
Disagree very much. The F4U_C totally dominated the arena at that time, creating a severe imbalance. That's why it was perked.
Ok, did it got more use on a percent basis than the Pony and Spit 16?
But let me ask a different question. HTC says "balance" and "Un-balance" what does that mean? Does that mean the same number of every plane is balance? Or that each plane's use reflects war use? Or does it mean the game-play is balanced? What does game-play balance mean? True about the whirble. HTC has stated that it balances game-play between GV's and planes, base defense and base capture. So it's not perked. This make your point, but...
What would un-perked F4U-4s unbalance? I.E. The F4U use distribution? F4U vs other plane type distribution? Fighters vs bombers?
I think the answer lies in what "balance" means to HTC. It can mean a couple of different things.
-
So it got more use on a percent basis than the Pony and Spit 16?
Yes, and a much better K/D as well, of course. IT was very much dominating the arena, not only by pure stats but also by playing experience.
Not totally unlike the 262, a gaggle of F4U-Cs flying around pretty much changes the combat environment.
Perks were entirely introduced for arena balance purposes (as stated by HTC).
-
F4U-4 is a beast. A BEAST!
-
Overall 'usage' and k/d of fighters in tour 12 - two months before perk system was started to being introduced:
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/fighetrt12_zps62e0ec5b.jpg)
Even more telling way to determine the arena "dominator" is to put K-D in a chart - how much more does a fighter kill than it's being killed, in comparison to all other fighters
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/kminusdtour12_zpsd98f59e9.jpg)
-
The F4U-4 is a better handling airplane at all speeds. To me at least tho I dont have data and its all "feel" to me. Its ability to outclimb, out accelerate, turn better at a wide range of speeds, puts it way ahead of the Mustang. Also I feel it dives and rolls better and is better at delivering ords accurately. The U-4 is the best Yank jabo in the game.
:huh
The P-51D is marginally faster from 2000ft-12,000ft.
The F4U-4 out-accelerates the Mustang in all speed bands.
The F4U-4 outclimbs the Mustang at all altitudes under WEP, and the advantage is quite significant between 8000-20,000ft.
The F4U-4 is tougher.
The F4U-4 carries an extra pair of rockets.
The F4Us in general out-maneuver the Mustang.
The F4U-4 out-guns the Mustang (the P-51 loadout is either 4x .50cal with 400rds in one pair and 500rds in the second pair, or 6x .50cal with 500rds in one pair, and 270rds in the remaining four. The F4U-4 has 6x .50cal with 400rds in all guns. Either the Mustang has to reduce its volume of fire to match the Corsair's firing time, or temporarily match the Corsair's firepower at the cost of a drastic reduction in weight of fire once the four guns are dry).
The Mustang has better all-around visibility
The Mustang has longer range on internal fuel.
Yeah, I can see how the Mustang is superior in all categories.
-
Yes, and a much better K/D as well, of course. IT was very much dominating the arena, not only by pure stats but also by playing experience.
Not totally unlike the 262, a gaggle of F4U-Cs flying around pretty much changes the combat environment.
Perks were entirely introduced for arena balance purposes (as stated by HTC).
We are stuck on the C-hog which I will just agreee is uber. so it's not a good example.
So in your opinion, the TA-152, and F4U-4 is perked because if it were unperked, they would unblance the arena? :salute
-
Overall 'usage' and k/d of fighters in tour 12 - two months before perk system was started to being introduced:
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/fighetrt12_zps62e0ec5b.jpg)
Even more telling way to determine the arena "dominator" is to put K-D in a chart - how much more does a fighter kill than it's being killed, in comparison to all other fighters
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/kminusdtour12_zpsd98f59e9.jpg)
Looking at this I have a problem with the data. The K/D includes C-hogs killed by C-hogs, correct? What are the kill ratios of the planes, with kills from the same type filtered out? this I think would be a better indicator of what you are trying to say.
the data displayed says the C-hog has a fractionally better K/D than the next closest planes. No big deal. The fact that everyone chose to fly it large numbers is not clear why from the data. By your data the plane accounted for 21% of the total usage.
What percentage of the total usage is a plane supposed to be limited too?
what were the max usage% for Spit and Pony?
Could it be that 20% was too high for a plane that barely saw service? ;)
Now I'm going to guess that if you take the C-hog kills and deaths out of the C-hog data it's kill ratio will go up. [I think that's a mathematical certainty]. But if the K/D "against other types" graph would clear this up and the K/D axis would be a much truer measure of the plane's capability vs other aircraft. :salute
-
Could it be that 20% was too high for a plane that barely saw service? ;)
:rolleyes:
-
:rolleyes:
Don't give me the eye roll. Lol. That's a fair question. You're whole case is that perks are for "balance", but you haven't defined "balance."
-
Could it be that 20% was too high for a plane that barely saw service? ;)
Nope. Lusche is 100% correct and you're just reaching.
I recall Pyro saying at the time that it was the amount it was used and the fact that, at the time, they didn't want to stretch then new eny system to any lower values.
All HTC has ever talked about is perking units that would be unbalancing, not a word about "rareness".
Perks are a way to balance the arena, not so much a means of classifying planes. How many were produced or what its combat record was is not relevant. Some planes intended to be perks may not need to be while others that weren't intended to be may end up getting perked. Right now, the F4U-1C is accounting for about 20% of all kills in the arena. I don't want to push the score values any further so perking it is about the only option left. I don't really like the idea of making a carrier plane unavailable from the carrier.
-
You're whole case is that perks are for "balance", but you haven't defined "balance."
You either have not read my posts or are ignoring them on purpose. It's not "my" case - I gave you the exact quote from HTC what perks are about. My own definition of balance doesn't matter, it's HTC's definition which counts.
-
Nope. Lusche is 100% correct and you're just reaching.
I recall Pyro saying at the time that it was the amount it was used and the fact that, at the time, they didn't want to stretch then new eny system to any lower values.
All HTC has ever talked about is perking units that would be unbalancing, not a word about "rareness".
Wmaker, our history is not great on this board, but I want you to know I do respect your opinion so my continued discussion here is just for the purpose of discussion. I think there is more to vet in understanding what HTC means by balance, and does that definition not include, in any circumstance, helping to limit planes that saw very little action. They may not have said it, because no one ever asked. I get my impression from veteran players who have posted in this board that planes like the P-63 will need to be perked to keep them rare. They could be wrong.
Lusche, Yes I understand it's not your case but you are stating HTC case and providing the data you think backs it up. And HTC hasn't weighed in yet so....
Conceded, C-hog "unbalanced" game play. let's move on from the C-hog because I agree a plane being UBER is a reason to perk it. now the question is to see if keeping rare planes rare might also be a reason. A lousy rare plane doesn't need to be perked because no will fly it anyway.
But there are a few planes that are very good, but not really UBER that they justify being perked. I'm wondering if their low numbers in the war were a factor in that decision because they have being produced n low numbers in common. these would be....
TA-152
F-4U-4
Are these planes really perked because they would unbalance game play? please explain. :salute
-
So, this appears to boil down toa question for HTC. I've read the quote -and thanks for that, Lusche. I understand your position, I believe, when you say that it's not your def of "unbalancing" that is relevant. It is htc's. I also "get" Vinkman's frustration. What does HTC mean by this term? Because: when I look at lusche's tour stats for the pre-perk c-hawg, I too see a marginal k/d advantage but huge usage. This begs the question Vinkman's voiced. Is there some disposition on staff against dominant usage of a type, whether this correlates to über ness or a merely marginal advantage ( define either -both terms get used a lot...) or not?
So, perhaps we could eschew some of this obfuscation and mind-reading by conjuring HTC himself.
Also, how dd we get here from p-63?
I'd also like to voice my opinion. I'd like to see more variation in usage and so support more "perking". In part, it's because I've got a decent bank from my occasional (maybe two hours a week when I'm lucky) use of the g14 over the last 4-5years, but also because I'm a bit bored with an arena stuck on may '45 stupid. Thus, I'd like to see all the top dawgs perked: gay4, lame7, easy16, runs tang d, alle... Alles clar? Sorry, but all this time in Deutschland is getting to me....
- from the Lufthansa 747-8 passing over...
-
But there are a few planes that are very good, but not really UBER that they justify being perked. I'm wondering if their low numbers in the war were a factor in that decision because they have being produced n low numbers in common. these would be....
TA-152
F-4U-4
The Ta 152H is NOT perked. And it's about the rarest (real world) plane in the planeset.
-
F4U-4
Are these planes really perked because they would unbalance game play? please explain. :salute
First: Fixed the designation.
Second: Apparently you haven't paid attention to ANYTHING I've said about the -4 if you're still asking whether unperking it would unbalance gameplay.
-
The Ta 152H is NOT perked. And it's about the rarest (real world) plane in the planeset.
Hmm was sure it was perked. Was it ever perked? :salute
-
Hmm was sure it was perked. Was it ever perked? :salute
Only until September 2006
-
Hmm was sure it was perked. Was it ever perked? :salute
It was perked when added, as was the Spit XIV. Probably because HTC thought they would be imbalancing if not controlled, but that proved not to be the case for those. We know the F4U-1C needs to be controlled, and the Tempest and F4U-4 both have robust use and K/D ratios despite being perked, things the Ta152 and Spit XIV could not achieve while perked. There are no signs that any of the current perk planes ought to be unperked.
-
First: Fixed the designation.
Second: Apparently you haven't paid attention to ANYTHING I've said about the -4 if you're still asking whether unperking it would unbalance gameplay.
Thanks for correcting the designation.
Don't be so offended. I read every word of what you said. sorry If I didn't reply. I'll do that now. It's a good plane, and yes it has an edge in capability over a pony. but with Pony usage a big as it is, and F4U-4 usage as low as it is, perhaps the perk is overkill.
HTC hasn't perked the pony or the Spit16 to curb their over use. :salute
-
It was perked when added, as was the Spit XIV. Probably because HTC thought they would be imbalancing if not controlled, but that proved not to be the case for those. We know the F4U-1C needs to be controlled, and the Tempest and F4U-4 both have robust use and K/D ratios despite being perked, things the Ta152 and Spit XIV could not achieve while perked. There are no signs that any of the current perk planes ought to be unperked.
What is the F4U-4 usage?
-
...
Also, how dd we get here from p-63?
...
Because it was mentioned that it would have to be perked. not on performance.....but If it real life usage....Oh never mind. :lol
-
Because it was mentioned that it would have to be perked. not on performance.....but If it real life usage....Oh never mind. :lol
Its real life usage makes it a bottom-of-the-barrel, when there's absolutely nothing else left to add addition.
The Boulton-Paul Defiant had more relevance to the war than the P-63.
-
Because it was mentioned that it would have to be perked. not on performance.....but If it real life usage....Oh never mind. :lol
If the charts Widewing has posted are accurate the P-63 would be perked for performance reasons.
-
"A8 is fast on the deck and has one of the best gun packages in the game, not perked"
More than half of the planes on-line catch the A8 with ease, also the 20mm and 30mm guns have lousy trajectory compared.
Its only asset is that no plane can dive with it.
Its totally useless 1vs1 dogfights.
At high altitude you solidly get out-turned and outperformed by 4 engined bombers in formation in AH.
Hopefully they perk the A8 very soon - :lol
Well, the A-8 can't dive away from the F6F-5... They have nearly identical wing profiles. The F6F keeps much more control at max Mach. Both aircraft will reach Mach .81 in a dive, and in a virtual dead heat in dive acceleration. The difference is that the F6F-5 doesn't need trim to ease out of that dive. My tests show that it is one of the best divers in the plane set, possibly, THE best.
Recently, I've followed down 190A-8s and Doras in dives, closing at the end of the dive, to their pilot's dismay...
-
If the charts Widewing has posted are accurate the P-63 would be perked for performance reasons.
I don't know that it would require being perked, but its low to medium altitude performance is a bit better than the La-7. Pretty much the equal of the Tempest. It's a low altitude beast, for sure. It doesn't have much of a gun package, and isn't much for Jabo use. Range is very short too. Because of those limitations, it may not need a perk. Especially if they model the -9 model or earlier.
Speed and climb below 20k are world class for the time....
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-63/p-63chart-1400.jpg)
With under-wing gun pods...
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-63/p-63-chart-bell-1400.jpg)
-
Why is it only you and I seem to see the capricious nature of this argument?
-
Pretty impressive top end on the E-1... What were the riffs b/w the 3, ww?
-
I don't know that it would require being perked, but its low to medium altitude performance is a bit better than the La-7. Pretty much the equal of the Tempest. It's a low altitude beast, for sure. It doesn't have much of a gun package, and isn't much for Jabo use. Range is very short too. Because of those limitations, it may not need a perk. Especially if they model the -9 model or earlier.
Given that the Tempest is perked, it's hard to argue why something with similar performance in the Main Arena environment wouldn't need to be, despite its limitations.
However as I already said, this is probably the very last aircraft that should be added after there's absolutely nothing else HTC could possibly model. It's barely a footnote in the war (so little of one look how much debate that's been stirred up over whether it even saw combat), and the only real reason to add it is to toss in yet another late-war monster ride.
-
I have never been caught in dive in a A8 with a F6f to terminal speed, but that does not mean It couldn't be done.
Normally you don't have to dive against a Coalt CoE F6F since A8 on WEP is faster at all altitudes, and acceleration is better at combat speeds.
The Dora start to shake at 580mph, the A8 at 600mph so Dora's have a hard time catching the A8, but the F6F seem to start shaking at 600ish like the A8, maybe a bit strange since 190A8/D9 share the same wing.
Something is very suspicious with the A8 vs the F8 :
The A8 and the much heavier F8 have almost the same turning capabilities, only 14 yards differentiate them, and all the other parameters are the same for both planes (according to AH performance charts).
This makes me believe the performance charts for the A8 might the armoured variant, or a hybrid.
The armoured variant was close to impregnable to .50 calibre from front.
-
I have never been caught in dive in a A8 with a F6f to terminal speed, but that does not mean It couldn't be done.
Normally you don't have to dive against a Coalt CoE F6F since A8 on WEP is faster at all altitudes, and acceleration is better at combat speeds.
The Dora start to shake at 580mph, the A8 at 600mph so Dora's have a hard time catching the A8, but the F6F seem to start shaking at 600ish like the A8, maybe a bit strange since 190A8/D9 share the same wing.
Something is very suspicious with the A8 vs the F8 :
The A8 and the much heavier F8 have almost the same turning capabilities, only 14 yards differentiate them, and all the other parameters are the same for both planes (according to AH performance charts).
This makes me believe the performance charts for the A8 might the armoured variant, or a hybrid.
The armoured variant was close to impregnable to .50 calibre from front.
Yes, the AH F6F-5 is slower. However, the AH curve does not reflect WEP above 5,000 feet. It shows the MIL power curve. In September of 1944, a captured A6M5 was tested against US Navy fighters by TAIC at Pax River.
The chart below reflects the F6F-5 speed curve as reported in the test report. The TAIC data is in green... Maybe HTC will correct the speed some day....
(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/083d/fw6cm039g4a7fq7fg.jpg)