Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Urchin on July 22, 2001, 09:42:00 PM
-
Could someone explain to me what the difference between the G10 and the K4 is? Not that we are very likely to see a 109K4, since I've heard it is more manueverable and faster than the G10. Anyways, I've heard that the K4 climbed at some 4,800 FPM, was a little faster (452mph at 20k), and rolled faster, is this accurate? Also, is the turning the same as the G10, or better, or worse?
Also, I'd like to see the perk values reworked, perhaps it would cut down on the more commonly used planes. I'm actually not quite sure why the TA-152 is perked at all, it sure isn't because of its performance, unless you count its speed at 40k. Of course the last time ANYONE was ever at 40k in the MA was... never. I guess the only reason that it is perked is that everyone would use it instead of the 190D9, since the Ta-152 was the successor to that plane.
Also, could someone explain to me how to work the shore guns? I think it is great fun to engage in a "duel" with the enemy cruiser... but I can't seem to HIT the sucker. How fast does the fleet move, and what does that translate to in terms of distance, so I know how much to lead the cruiser by? I've had some success using those shoer guns as AT weapons though hehehe, had 6-7 kills in one go when some GVs tried to attack a base while I was playing with the shore gun.
Also, what is good about the Ki-84? I'm not very knowledgable about the Pacific planes, so give it to me in terms of planes that are already in the game. Would the ki-84 be fast, turny, or what? Are the guns good on it? Would all the Nik dweebs decide this is a "better" plane and move to it?
I'm all for getting more planes into the game, but as I've said earlier, most people aren't going to use it if it isnt faster than a P-51 (or maybe LA7 nowadays), turns better than a Spit, or is generally considered to be the "best" plane in the arena - which is a title that I feel the Niki wins hands down (but then again my experience vs. them is pretty limited, to only the German planes).
Anyways, I really would like to see the 109K4 in the game, especially if it will be about the same speed as the G10 (maybe a little faster on the deck would be nice) and more manueverable.. that'd be real fun for me to fly I think.
Lastly.. DejaVu, when you going to have your scores page back up? ;-)
-
I'm actually not quite sure why the TA-152 is perked at all, it sure isn't because of its performance, unless you count its speed at 40k. Of course the last time ANYONE was ever at 40k in the MA was... never. I guess the only reason that it is perked is that everyone would use it instead of the 190D9, since the Ta-152 was the successor to that plane.
Ah.. you fricking LuftWhiners are always...
er...
wait...
I actually agree with this one. The Ta-152 either needs to be unperked or greatly reduced. Its flown less than the C.202 right now.
Lastly.. DejaVu, when you going to have your scores page back up? ;-)
http://www.dbstaines.com/Top10 (http://www.dbstaines.com/Top10)
Of course, a really smart person would have made a back up AFTER doing the tour 17 stats and top 100 stats. Unfortunately, you guys are stuck with me.
AKDejaVu
-
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/images/charts/109g10climb.gif)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/images/charts/109g10speed.gif)
-
Funked.. that is interesting. I hadn't checked the "performance" page for the AH G10. It would appear that our G10 DOES climb at 4800 or so, at least to 5k- and the 452 mph is at around 20k. If that is the case, why is it called the G10 and not the K4? I'll have to check some pages, but I seem to recall that the stats I found for the G10 were something like 428 mph at 20k-ish. Thats sorta odd...
-
Deja, even though you aren't really smart, we still appreciate the stats pages! :D :D
-
Urchin, Ki-84 should be faster than the KI-61 or NiK, with a good turning ability, (but it should bleed E quickly when turning).
Not sure of it's top speed, but as I remember it was slower than the pony. Could give the P51 a good fight however because of it's acceleration.
I agree on the perk planes. I think you could cut their price in half & still not see many of them at any given time in the arena.
Seems there are 2 kinds of pilots.
Those who are always out of points & trying to get enough for one more ride.
Those who have LOTS of points cause they never use em.
Please can we get a Perked Ground vehicle???
-
Urchin,
Let me address some of your points and commented areas.
Could someone explain to me what the difference between the G10 and the K4 is? Not that we are very likely to see a 109K4, since I've heard it is more manueverable and faster than the G10. Anyways, I've heard that the K4 climbed at some 4,800 FPM, was a little faster (452mph at 20k), and rolled faster, is this accurate? Also, is the turning the same as the G10, or better, or worse?
As I understand it there was no standard Bf109G-10, there were various versions of it made ad various places. The Bf109K series was done in order to incorporate and consalidate the best features of the Bf109G-10 series. Because our G-10 has the engine and MW50 that the K-4 had the performance is very similar.
I have never heard that the K-4 was more manueverable than the G-10, but somebody else might be able to confirm that.
Also, I'd like to see the perk values reworked, perhaps it would cut down on the more commonly used planes. I'm actually not quite sure why the TA-152 is perked at all, it sure isn't because of its performance, unless you count its speed at 40k. Of course the last time ANYONE was ever at 40k in the MA was... never. I guess the only reason that it is perked is that everyone would use it instead of the 190D9, since the Ta-152 was the successor to that plane.
I agree. In fact I think that all of the perk prices are too high. I don't think that the Ta152H should cost any more than, say, 15 perk points. I flew an Ar234A for the first time this weekend and came to the conclusion that it isn't very useful. It has such a light bombload and is more difficult to aim and hit with due to its speed than any other bomber. They are practically non existant. The Ar234, IMHO, should cost about the same as the Ta152 shold, 15 perk points. Even the Tempest costs too much. It isn't that much better than the La-7. I would price the Tempest at 25-35 perk points.
Also, what is good about the Ki-84? I'm not very knowledgable about the Pacific planes, so give it to me in terms of planes that are already in the game. Would the ki-84 be fast, turny, or what? Are the guns good on it? Would all the Nik dweebs decide this is a "better" plane and move to it?
Depends on the version. Speed wise, here is a sample of Japanese fighters:
Ki61-I Hien: 348mph
A6M5b Zero-Sen: 353mph
N1K2-J Shiden-Kai: 369mph
Ki44-IIa Shoki: 372mph
J2M3 Raiden: 380mph
A7M2 Reppu: 390mph
Ki84 Hiyate: 392mph
I've heard that the Ki84 will out turn the N1K2, but I've also heard that the N1K2 will out turn the Ki84.
Armament wise, it will carry 2 12.7mm maching guns (Type 99?) and 2 20mm Ho5 cannon, or, 4 20mm Ho5 cannon, or 2 20mm Ho5 cannon and 2 30mm cannon. Its ammunition load should be significantly lighter than the N1K2-J's ammo load.
I'm all for getting more planes into the game, but as I've said earlier, most people aren't going to use it if it isnt faster than a P-51 (or maybe LA7 nowadays), turns better than a Spit, or is generally considered to be the "best" plane in the arena - which is a title that I feel the Niki wins hands down (but then again my experience vs. them is pretty limited, to only the German planes).
I agree. I think that, barring better Spitfires, P-51s, Me262, Meteor Mk III and Ki84 there is nothing left to add that will see heavy use unless what-ifs, like the A7M2 and F7F, are added. If that is the case I think that the "It must be used heavily in the MA." requirement should be tossed out. The two aircraft I most want to see added are the Me410A and the Mosquito FB.VI. Neither will see intense usage, but they are both neat and usefull aircraft.
-
From what I've read the 109G10 was made from other G series and K series parts in the hopes to have a craft that came close to matching allied aircraft performance. The major dif between the G and the K was the K had improved main wheel fairings, the tail wheel could retract much higher, the tail assembly was made from wood and was supposed to be 20-25 kph faster. Changes to antennas and other bits and piece happend too but not sure exactly what those were.
WHOOPS that was the 109H that was kinda crappy in the handling department.
(http://members.home.net/winyah999/ProfFate.jpg)
I AM PROFESSOR FATE! (http://members.home.net/winyah999/proffate.wav)
Grand Poobah
7./SG2 'Immelmann'
[ 07-23-2001: Message edited by: Professor Fate ]
-
Best way to explain the Ki-84 would be the axis version of the Jug ( kinda) It's faster than the n1k2 but takes more time to get up n go, quicker in a dive, Bleds E faster, BUT i found that to be more of a help than hinderance. I will agree the way to fly the Niki is just Punch the throttle, to successfully fly the Ki you need throttle control. I can't speak for the other N1K2 pilots but I would switch to the Ki-84, Thats my ride, my first love, and my "perfect" plane, that and the A-26 "vader"
In AW i flew the Vader and Ki 84 exclusively, 2 planes that have yet to be implimented in AH.
NUTTZ
-
Originally posted by Ghosth:
Please can we get a Perked Ground vehicle???
The GV need to be fixed. Damage sustained is wrong. Panzer HE rounds are ineffective against buildings, etc.
Even, then... I can't see perking any of the ground vehicles ever.
-
I wouldn't mind seeing the A-26 either, at lesat not if that is the one that had the godawful big cannon in the nose. The anti-ship cannon? I think that'd be big fun! ;)
Guess it could cause some problems with hordes of em attacking a CV group tho.. I dunno.
About the Ki-84, it doesn't sound like it would be a "bad thing" in my opinion. The only real issue would be if it outperforms all the other planes in the arena to the extent that it becomes the dominant plane. How fast does it go on the deck? That'd be a big issue with how common it would be, another would be how large the ammo loud would be for the 4 cannons.
-
The Ki-84 will be very N1K-like. Basically it is another Japanese low wing-loading ride with an outstanding horsepower to weight ratio. This translates into very good climb acceleration and turning ability. Maybe it does turn and accelerate just a bit worse than a N1K. But us guys flying corsairs and 109s are not going to notice the difference. I believe the common version had 2x20mm with 150rnds per gun and 2x12.7mm with a few hundred rounds per gun, so the ammo load is not as impressive.
Hooligan
-
I seem to recall low wing-loading itself does not necessarily mean a better turn.
The values and factors which output a certain result of "turning factor" is - from what I've heard - much more complicated it seems. Having a more powerful engine would mean more weight is added to the aircraft, and to amount up enough lift force for this weight, larger wings would be needed - which in turn, adds up more to weight to the aircraft total because of the larger wings. Wasn't this the case with the Messerschmitt-109 G10 which had sufficiently larger wings than its predecessors?(I think some one can confirm this) And though a plane may be lighter, it might not be able to turn so good due to other complicated reasons as well.. So, the "turning angle", "turning speed", and actual "turning rate" seems to be all different and complicated.. one big mess of math I think :)
I think I've read that the Ki-84 was faster than all American planes but one exception - it was slower than the P-51s.. but had a great rate of acceleration(thrust:weight ratio of 4:1). The top speed from the data i have says here 427mph at about 20k feet. And it says it's actually lighter than N1K1 here, but I dunno how it compares with the N1K2. In overall I think it's safe to say It was a less maneuverable but lot faster version of the N1K2, but wouldn't be that much of a 'great turner' if it is to be compared with other planes in pure aspect of turning - such as A6M5, N1K2 or Spitfires - but would be fast and would turn good enough to give most American planes fits.
I think we can think of it as an LA-7 that is a lot more slower but turns a bit better.
-
The 427mph speed was obtained in US tests using higher octane fuel than the Japanese had access to. The N1K2 also performed better than 369 in US tests.
The 392 and 369 speeds are reflective of the poorer Japanese fuels.
-
With the fixed up engine and US fuel the Ki84 was as fast or faster by a few mph than P51D and P47D up to around 20k.
Under the same conditions it could outclimb both P51H and P47N!!!!
The plane was pretty good even with crappy Japanese fuel.
-
here rises an important question. why should a plane be penalized for the fuel it historically used. that is like saying it should be penalized for having historically worse pilots, or historically worse maintenance.
if you penalize for fuel etcera, then there is an obvious disadvantage to axis aircraft in teh late war. while this is historically cofrrect and important for scenarios, it doesnt reflect the main arena. imo in the main arena all planes should be given the same octane gasoline.
an interesting thing to do would be to hurt the octane rating (and therefore maximum MAP achievable) of enemy aircraft by strategic bombing (ie their oilfields/refineries)
-
Zigrat, well, why should the Germans be penalized for not having enough raw material to produce reliable jet engines?
Or why should they be punished for making bad decisions that negatively affected production and development of aircraft?
Well, because that was the way it was. We g with how it was, not (hopefully) a full fledged what-if scenario.
Better fuel is just as much a weapon as better cannons. The yanks got it right, the Japs were forced to use lower grade.
-
Wait a minute.. Now I'm getting confused here... :confused:
Ummm... Then, by what standards are the aircraft modelled currently in AH? For instance, if we were talking about Axis aircraft, is it modelled according to the test results and data aquired by the Allies by confistication or capture of enemy aircraft?? Or is it modelled according to the data the Axis originially had?
If a certain airplane performs in a certain manner, what are the standards?
-
Pyro gets data from various sources and people on this message board.
He then averages all of the data together, unless he sees the same data match more than a few times.
-SW
-
Main difference between the G-10 and K4 models thus:
K4 had all wooden tailplane
wingspan g models 29ft. 8in.
wingspan k model 29ft. 4in. or (HA-1109-M1L) 29ft. 11 in.
engines:
G Models DB 605A-1 with 1475hp or DB605D rated 1800hp with MW50 boost.
K Model "usually" DB 605ASCM/DCM 1550HP, 2000 hp with MW50 boost
Weights: empty: G: 5,880 lbs. to 6180 lbs.
empty: K4: typically 6,000 lbs.
rate of climb: G: 2700 to 4,000 f/m
K4: 4,823 f/m
speed: G models: 2 to 10 353 to 428 mph
K4 model: 452 mph
K4 Models also incorporated the "Galland Hood"
Source: German, Italian, and Japanese Fighters of World War II. Major fighters and attack aircraft of the Axis Powers.
Author: Bill Gunston
-
fuel is horsepower. the japs also had some raw material problems that made for engines with poor clearance problems which is also horsepower. saki said that he never seen a ki84 that wasn't 30 mph slower than claimed (if it would even run). Why shouldn't a plane use the fuel and materials that are historic? The brits had some 150 octane fuel.. should U.S. planes be penalized because they couldn't get any? Bet a british test of a corsair or 51 with 150 octane fuel would show em to be 480mph planes. Pratt engines could easily have the boost turned up to produce several hundred extra hp and planes were tested that way but durability and conservative thinking won out on factory settings.. what do you think the 19 year old hot rodder mechanics did to those Pratt's in the field?
as for low hour poor material 262's.... reverse it... why should the nazis be rewarded because they desperately pushed out every half finished deathtrap that they could get to fly? why should the Americans be penalized because they spent 6 months (they had the luxury to) training pilots and checking every little detail on perfectly good F8 Bearcats that they could have put in the air 6-9 months before they did.. maybe sooner.... and heck... why not run them Bearcats on 150 octane British fuel for the game?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs1:
why should the Americans be penalized because they spent 6 months (they had the luxury to) training pilots and checking every little detail on perfectly good F8 Bearcats that they could have put in the air 6-9 months before they did.. maybe sooner.... and heck... why not run them Bearcats on 150 octane British fuel for the game?
lazs
Blowin the lid off that can o' worms eh? As mcuh as i'd love to see the bearcat, i can't see it ever getting into the arena, except as a "non-available- only used in total 'What-If?' scenarios" (See BoB II) That's the only place i can see the F8F-1 in... the 4x.50 cal one anyway. Now, the F7F on the other hand, should be in as a perk plane for us Navy fans :P It was delivered before the end of the war, and had 2 squadrons on thier way to Japan.
Have you seen the Ordnance load on that thing? it's insane! :D
<S!> Hamish
-
Originally posted by StSanta:
Or why should they be punished for making bad decisions that negatively affected production and development of aircraft?
I'm thinking now about the He-280...but an early end of the war does not favor the diversity of planes :D
greetings
-
The brits had some 150 octane fuel.. should U.S. planes be penalized because they couldn't get any?
Does that mean we can expect Spitfires with 150 octane soon? Seems to me if the Germans and Japanese are getting punished for having poor fuel, the British should get rewarded for having better fuel than the Americans.
-
>>>That's the only place i can see the F8F-1 in... the 4x.50 cal one anyway. Now, the F7F on the other hand, should be in as a perk plane for us Navy fans :P It was delivered before the end of the war, and had 2 squadrons on thier way to Japan.<<<
I'm no encyclopedia of knowledge, but it was my understanding the Bearcats had two squadrons on carriers on their way to Japan when the war ended. Now you have me curious and I'm gonna have to actually look this up. Thanks! <g>
-Puke
332nd Flying Mongrels