Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: brady on April 03, 2002, 03:58:50 PM
-
When it comes right down to it their are only 2 good choices for a new CV strike aircraft. The Fairey Firefly or the Aichi B7A Grace.Some may argue for other Japanes aircraft like the Jill for instance but all but the Grace are lightly armed gun wise so lightly in fact one could consider their guns almost usless. Another point for the Grace is it's handeling and Preformance great spead for a plane of it's type and handeling preportadely compreable with that of a Zero.
Fairey Firefly:
Max Speed aprox 316 mph
Four 20mm Hispanos
Two 1,000pound bombs or Eight 60lb rockets.
Aichi B7A Grace
Max Speed 352 mph
Two 20mm type 99 model 2 cannons
one 13mm type 2 firing to the rear
1,764lb's of bombs or a torpedo
-
Aichi B7A:
-
But if i had to choose I would take the Grace. Though I would rather have Kate.
I think a early japanese torp plane would be more valuble to the planeset than a late war japanese torper. It might survive better in MA but I would rather chase down a kate in my Wildcat in a Midway Scenario than a Grace.
-
B7A2.
We have enough British stuff for now and desparately need more Japanese stuff.
Kate would be useless, even in scenarios without a lot of other stuff being added.
B6N2 might work OK, but I think the B7A2 would be a better fit.
-
b7a2 would be a fantastic plane. it would do well in the main arena and would make for a planeset that would be complete enough to do some 1944 pac stuff -- admittedly not the best time period but it would be complete enough (a6m5, n1k2, ki-67, b7a2, ki61 would make a nice 1944 jap planeset)
-
personally tho i think a combo of d4y and b6n would be better though since they were produced in far far greater numbers and were heavily used for a relatively large period of the war
-
Realy it boils down to how well a plane would fit into the plane set and how usefull it would be in the MA and wheather or not it fills a hole. The grace fits all those requirements better than any other Japanese plane in it's catagory. The numbers produced are realy not all that revelent, and the historical revelence is only a secondary consideration will you still be happy when you are firing those MG on the Jill, or Juddy when you could be Hitting reall hard with a 20mm type 99 model 2(same gun as on the George) Personaly I would like to see a Japanese strike aircraft added that people would like to use, The Grace has fire power spead and manuaverability all things that would make it usefull, appealing in fact.
Lets face it we will probably only get one shot at a Japanese strike plane in the near future, if were going to dream lets go all the way:)
-
I'm thinking in terms of scenarios.
An FAA (UK) CV strike plane would be fun, but we already have an Avenger, which saw extensive combat aboard Royal Navy carriers. So there's not really a need.
So I want IJN. But which IJN CV striker?
We don't have the fighters to run early war Pac scenarios. So the IJN CV strike aircraft should be mid-late war. That means Jill and Judy. AFAIK Grace never flew a single combat mission from a CV. Grace would be a great MA ride, but has no business flying off a CV in a historical setup. If you want to recreate historical IJN vs USN CV battles with the current planeset, Judy and Jill are the way to go.
-
Yes I would tend to agree with you Funked but why would HTC model a plane for use only in a scenario, shure you could do a Jill a realy great torpedo bomber possably the best of the entire war, but who is going to use it other than CT players or scenario goers. Personaly I would like a Jill or Judy for that very reasion, but I thnik, by far and large people would have more fun with a Grace, and we CT staffers or Scenario designers would just half to strech the truth a bit, heck for a long time every Japanese scenario had the JU 88 in it, No Japanese bomber ever came close to packing the ordance she did and that was a bit of a strech.
-
Why not a Judy?
1100lb bomb or 2 550, 360mph top speed for d4y2?
Some guns but really- do heavier guns make a dam bit of difference in an AH bomber? Would you rely on your TBM guns to save your butt?
AND! it took out two carriers in the war- the princeton scuttled and one other (Lexington?) so badly damaged it had to sail home missing the war.
-
True Brady.
They could get a lot of mileage out of a Grace.
-
Your being a PAIN Brady! :D YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE WHO WANT'S A GRACE! :p
How about an a/c that ACTUALLY operated from a CV - the GRACE only saw combat from land bases. The FIREFLY is a good idea for the FAA though.
IMHO the CV's should have "AT LEAST" one of each type - Fighter, Dive Bomber & Torpedo - indigenous to the country represented. Get a set from the CV's (especially the Axis side) and you will see more teamwork and squads useing the a/c from the carriers.
PLANES NEEDED:
---------------------------------------
USN: HELLDIVER or DAUNTLESS
FAA: FIREFLY (or maybe even BARRACUDA to replace TBM)
IJN: JUDY & JILL
-
How about the Fairey Fulmar?
-
Ahh in a perfect world we could have a set like that Andijg, i would love to see it but I bet it is a long way off:)
The Jill has no forward firing gun, non, zero, zip, nota...
The Juddy as two 7.7mm type 97mg's firing forward.
The Grace has two 20mm type 99 model 2 cannons firing
forward.
What do you plan on doing after you drop your bombs? Die,go home, or kill somthing?
Jill=die
Juddy=go home (might as well cant kill with those guns)
Grace=Kill somthing
All three have basicaly the same defensive package that the TBM has. 13mm up top, 7.7 in the ventral position(not all had a ventral gun).
I know the Grace did not fly a combat sortie off a CV they were all CV capable though, and the type was flown from CV's for testing(90% shure on this). Should we keep paying for the mistakes of our forfarthers? I mean realy If the US hadent prety much sunk all those Japanese flat tops so fast we could of had a ligitmate reasion to add it, that is if that is the only reasion not to add it. Because other wise it is clearly the better plane.
-
Though I would rather see a complete set of CV planes (meaning a dive bomber and a tordonut), I would settle for the Grace. My reasoning is that I think the USN and IJN should have their CV planes fleshed out before the British ones because they were the one's that used the CV extensively.
On a side note, if you find a book titled "The Fast Carriers," I highly recommend it. It is about the development of the Fast Carrier Task Force (i.e. TF 58) and the tactics employed by it. Lot of infighting within the USN about the roll of the CV and its offensive capabilities. Very good reading.
-math
-
WELL BE THAT WAY THEN!!!! GANG UP ON ME!!!
I DON"T HAVE TO TAKE THIS!! I GET ENOUGH OF THIS FROM MY SQUADRON! I'M LEAVING!!!! (stomp, stomp, stomp, stomp - SLAM!) :D
I hope you get your GRACE Brady, the Japanese CV force needs SOMETHING that will lug a bomb or tordonut to make the PTO interesting. Their CV's are really nothing more than "targets" at this time.
Doubt we will though - HTC has a "WOODIE" for the ETO. We'll have "every" model of the Spitfire INCLUDEING the prototype before we get a decent PTO plane set.l
If you DO get your GRACE, I better get a HELLDIVER or there is gonna be TROUBLE! :mad: LOL!
-
Who ever tries to torpedo a CV in the MA anyway? All I see are jabo suicide runs or high altitude bombers. I see no problem in developing the early-war planeset. Kate and Val get my votes.
-
LOL Andijg:)
I have seen queit a few brave soles try and torpedo a CV in the main, of course they rarely make it....
-
we could use a dive bomber....either the SBD Dauntless or the D3A Val or D4Y Judy........THAT would be a good improvement.....who torps CV's from planes anyway;)
-
Well dive bomber's and dive bombing will be more appealing when we get the new bomber update i would think, plaens like the JU 88 that can still deleaver large bomb loads accurately will be more important.
Still other than their bomb load out they are lightly armed.
-
I want the SB2C Helldiver! I like that plane,it's a big fat monster that's hard to fly. It's exactly what we need in AH:cool:
-
Why can't we have both? :D
-
Iwant the swordfish but that might be to uber to ask for.
let's have a sink the bismarck scenario :D
-
My first choices were Judy and Jill, followed by SB2C.
But Brady makes an excellent argument, and for MA utility, the
Grace would definitely get my vote over the Firefly.
I really do hope they continue to flesh out the late-war PTO planeset before turning their talents and resources to early war.
-
How about the Fairey Fulmar?
8ball
OK! But only if we add the Blackburn Skua in the same patch. But then, if you add te Skua then you could add the Roc rather easily since they shared the same airframe :)
Charon
-
Brady, who on earth would dogfight in the MA with a torpedo bomber? The front guns are pointless. People use the ju88, oh and they try to dogfight, but I dont think they ever expect the results to be anything but a slow turning death.
The kate would be a great addition, little tiny pea shooter up front, turns like a bat out of hell (at low speed I think it even handles better than the zeke), and it is very relevant for the CT (carrier based), and would add depth to the MA (hey, the last planes were the hurri 1 and spit 1, and the 110 [I am ignoring the spit 14 cause pyro spilled coffee on his keyboard and that plane popped out...yawn] so maybe the MA isnt such a big factor on plane selection). The last thing the PTO needs is japanese torp bombers that can outrun all american fighters at low alt but the p51 (which we never get).
-
Who said the grace could outrun the P-51? Its maximum speed is like 360 mph at altitude, on the deck its much slower.
The point ergRTC, is that the Grace would like a Kate on steroids. Very good turner, great acceleration, and good guns, plus the ability to carry that all important torp. :) Somewhat like a zeke with a torp.
So basically you get to carry that torpedo, and then fight off that never ending horde of Seafires that tend to swarm around the CV's in AH. It would be a very fun and useful MA torpedo plane.
For scenario's the Judy and the Jill would be much preferable over the Kate and the Val, since they fit in better with the rest of the midwar to latewar planeset we currently have for the PTO.
If you want to go early war, with the Kate and Val, we would need too many fighters we don't have, such as the early zeke, Ki43, F4F, P40, P38F, and the P39.
-
Yeah I guess your right verm, just in AW the Kate stood its own ground pretty well. Val was a joke of course (the japanese stuka).
Okay grace it is. What were the numbers like anyway? Was the Kate more common in 43?
-
Well said Vermillion:)
Antoer poit about the Grace that has yet to be touched on is this.
The Grace was an atack bomber, eiter a torpedo bomber or a bomber, it was intended that it would replace the Jill, and the Juddy on Japanese cariers.
Realy the torpedo aspect is a seconday one in AH, Carier aircraft more often than not atack Airfields, so having a plane that can come in with the ordance and then ack to cap the base is a great asset.
Also with it supeurb handeling and forward firepower I would imagine you would see it used more often than the TBM.
-
Ju-88 would be great!
-
Why use torpedos or bombs when you got Ruhrstahl/Kramer X-1 (Fritz X, PC 1400) air-to-surface missile
:D
-
Battleship after 2 hits...:D :D :D
-
Well ya, their's always that but it would be to easy:)
-
well,anyway, bring the Helldiver here!!!!!!!!
-
Grace a much better ride than a Heldiver:)
-
Tweeeet- Foul!!! Hey Zhivago, isn't that pic of a British battlecruiser (Queen Mary class?) sunk at Jutland by gunfire???
-
The rake of the bow might be the giveaway.:)
-
Punt
-
Originally posted by brady
Realy it boils down to how well a plane would fit into the plane set and how usefull it would be in the MA and wheather or not it fills a hole.
Lets face it we will probably only get one shot at a Japanese strike plane in the near future, if were going to dream lets go all the way:)
yeah, what he said.
:)
-
i agree with bradys 2 aircraft....historicaly and for leathality:)
-
Seriously why do we want to add a plane that is going to just sit in the hanger deck, if we get a jill, or a kate, the only people who are going to be happy about this are the US plane lovers who are looking forward to reliving the marians turkey shoot during some scenario that is going to play once a year. Their eys glaze over as they ponder the posabalities of diving into packs of heavely loaded and virtualy defensless Japanse strike aircraft.Why is it going to just sit in the hanger deck because anyone who wanted to optimise their fun is going to up a TBM instead,The Best Japanese strike plane is the Grace.We all live in the MA, or the CT that what we nead planes for not a once a year scenario.
-
Grace, Judy, Jill, Val....whichever one will put out the most! ;)
-
Grace she is a free spirited fornactor if ever I met one...Can I say fornacator?
-
Aichi B7A Ryusei (Shooting Star)
Allied Code Name: "Grace"
(http://www.combinedfleet.com/ijna/b7a2.gif)
UNITS ALLOCATED
752nd and Yokosuka Kokutais.
TECHNICAL DATA
Description: Single-engined carrier-borne torpedo and dive-bomber. All-metal construction with fabric-covered control surfaces.
Accommodation: Crew of two in tandem enclosed cockpits.
Powerplant:
One Nakajima NK9B Homare 11 eighteen-cylinder air-cooled radial, rated at 1,800 hp for take-off, 1440 hp at 1,800 m and 1,560 hp at 6,400 m, driving a constant-speed four-blade metal propeller (B7A1 protorypes).
One Nakajima NK9C Homare 12 eighteen-cylinder air-cooled radial, rated at 1,825 hp for take-off, 1,670 hp at 2,400 m and 1,560 hp at 6,550 m, driving a constant-speed four-blade metal propeller (production B7A2).
One Nakajima NK9H-S Homare 23 eighteen-cylinder air-cooled radial, rated at 2,000 hp for take-off and 1,570 hp at 6,850 m, driving a constant-speed four-blade metal propeller (one experimental B7A2).
One Mitsubishi MK9A ([Ha-43] 11) eighteen-cylinder air-cooled radial, rated at 2,200 hp for take-off, 2,070 hp at 1,000 m and 1,930 hp at 5,000 m, driving a constant-speed four-blade metal propeller (B7A3).
Armament:
Two wing-mounted 20 mm Type 99 Model 2 cannon and one flexible rear-firing 7.92 mm Type 1 machine-gun (B7A1 and early production B7A2).
Two wing-mounted 20 mm Type 99 Model 2 cannon and one flexible rear-firing 13 mm Type 2 machine-gun (late production B7A2).
Bomb-load: one 800 kg torpedo or up to 800 kg of bombs.
B7A2
Dimensions:
Span 14.40 m
Length 11.49 m
Height 4.08 m
Wing area 35.4 m2
Weights:
Empty 3,810 kg
Loaded 5,625 kg
Maximum 6,500 kg
Wing loading 158.9 kg/m2
Power loading 3.1 kg/hp
Performance:
Maximum speed 306 kt at 6,550 m
Climb to 4,000 m
in 6 min 55 sec
Service ceiling 11,250 m
Normal range 1,000 naut miles
Maximum range 1,640 naut miles
Production: A total of 114 B7As were built as follows:
Aichi Kokuki K.K. at Funakata:
9 B7A1 prototypes (May 1942-Feb 1944)
80 B7A2 production aircraft (May 1944-July 1945)
Dai-Nijuichi Kaigun Kokusho at Omara (Sasebo):
25 B7A2 production aircraft (Apr 1944-Aug 1945)
Found it here http://www.combinedfleet.com/kaigun.htm
-
Nice ty:)
-
.
-
Y
-
hay another inverted gull wing A/C to add to my list - got 5 now
-
lol:),:)
-
Punt