Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Arlo on April 14, 2003, 12:11:30 AM
-
We must have them! There must be more early and late stuff - both. Mid too.
CT: Free the F4U! :D
Whatever Key or Naj suggests, I'll back! :)
And until then .... sub in the La-5!
-
Ki 43
Ki 84
Ki 100
D4Y
-
Much debate has been going on lately with regard to PAC plane set's and Just what Japanese planes should be added. I beleave with Just two new planes( perhaps 3) and Two Varents, we could do much for the Japanese side and still be able to squease in anothe US ride,not that I think we nead another New US ride but their are many who want this so It may be ineavatble. Personaly I would rather see some a few Early War US Varients than say a P39 but one never know what's coming. So hear is the solution imo to the Japanese issue, trying to keep it as simple as possable and theirfore doable:
We realy Nead an A6M3 for our Solomns era setings in the CT, the added firpower of the Type 99MK II cannon with 100 rpg will realy help balance things out's air to air(as much as we could hope for), also it's improved High spead handeling traits will help the Japanese players manuaver at spead a bit better.
The Oscars would be nice to"flesh out" the plane set but their extreamly light aramement of only two 12.7mm Ho-103 mg's will make them Hanger Quees I think.
From a players prespective, looking at the plane list in the Virtual hanger the following would be most helpfull for a 42/43 slot/New Gunine Japanese plane set.
Ki 45, While I would personaly prefer to see the Ki 102, the Ki 45 would add much in the way of firpower to the Japanese plane set's for the CBI and SWPA in late 42 and 43.
Ki-61-1b,The Tony saw service entry along the North coast of New Gunnie in early 43, a good model to be included would be the one with the 20mm MG 151's cannons, as apposed to the 4 12.7mm MG's This early model of the Tony would make for a Very Nice Early War Japanese Army Fighter, much more servicable for the average player than the Oscar. With this adation we could get away from using the later model Tony we curently have and thusly avoid having to place out of place US machines in our Early war Slot set up's in the CT.
H8K, This would add so much I cant even begine to cover it's coolness.
I mentioned the A6M3 above.
D4Y2, small detchaments of the D4Y2 begaine to be placed on Japanese Cariers in the Autom of 42. This would Give the Japanese side a very Usefull Tool, the fastest Carier born Dive Bomber Of WW2 and a truly Fantastic airplane, it would add much to their arsenal.
Realy If we got the A6M3, the D4Y2, the early Tony and a Ki 45, all would well and good for the early Pac Plane set balance wise, while I like the Oscar it would not help anything in terms of plane set balance and would be little used, those 4 planes would all see much use.
For the Later War Perioud:
I would Skip the Jake, It was in all respect's inferiour to the George, and the Japanese Navy basicaly canceled it in Favore of the George, they are also prety much in the same time frame.
Obviously a Ki 84 is a must.
If we get a later model D4Y2, that could bridge the gap between late war and early war this would be great, since this plane is primarly a Ground/ship atack weapon using a later model would not be a big issue and it would kill two birds with one stone.
A Grace would be imo the Best all around late war Japanese Strike platform to hope for, great speead, Handeling aramamnt and a usefull bombload make this plane the only logical choice.
A Ki 102 would be nice as well.
Realist whishfull thinking would reduce this list to the Ki 84, and the Grace, for late war.
Over all best Choice for :
1 Japanese plane added: Ki 84 (politics it is wanted bad)
2 Japanese Planes added: Ki 84, A6M3
3 Japanese Planes added: Ki 84,A6M3,D4Y2
4 Japanese Planes added:ki 84, A6M3,D4Y2,Ki 61-1b
I cant even begin to hope for more than that in the next Vershion.
The above From My post Punted on this Forum.
-
Brady, perhaps you don't realize it, but an earlier model of Tony would likely perform slightly better than the model we have in AH. That said, there is no signifigant difference between the one we have and the earlier Mauser-equipped variant, hence having a new model of Tony would add nothing to AH. In fact it can be argued that the Tony, as modeled in AH, actually has more in common with the earlier Tonys than with the one it's supposed to represent.
I hope, when HTC eventually adds a 1942-era bomber to the Japanese planeset, they pick the Ki-49 "Helen" over the ever-flammable G4M. Both the Helen AND the Betty carried bombloads greater than that carried by the Ki-67.
(As an ironic side note, the Japanese Army actually didn't like the Helen, mainly because of performance penalties imposed by the substantial armor the plane was fitted with--the same armor which in practice made the plane somewhat survivable compared to the unprotected likes of the Betty or Ki-48.)
I'd consider the Ki-84 and A6M3 sure things for eventual addition.
As much as Brady hates US planes, I would hope that he'd agree with me when I suggest that an earlier P-38, such as the P-38G, is also absolutely vital for Pacific matches, far more so than some insignifigant "barely-made-it" plane like the Grace.
Strangely, I have yet to see a request for the Ki-51, which was Japan's major close support aircraft of WW2. This is probably due to the fact that it was a piece of crap :)
J_A_B
-
These would be all great additions, and personally I'd also like to see the J2M3 Raiden added. But in all honesty when do you think the first new Japanese plane will be added? Next October? December? 2004? You guys are very patient!
-
Some amfibian planes would be nice too, don't care what side we just need em!
-
The H8K "Emily" flying boat, capable of carrying 8 x 250 KG bombs, would be the best possible Japanese "bomber", partcularly for MA use. I didn't mention if above since AH doesn't seem to support flying boats just as of yet.
I think if we get any new Japanese planes by October, we're doing good :)
J_A_B
-
J_A_B,
H8K2 can actualy carry a heavier load than that, two 1,500kg bombs.
My prefence would be as follows:
A6M3a (brady, A6M3 had Type 99 Model I cannons, it was the A6M3a that introduced the Type 99 Model IIs)
G4M2 (I have to disagree with J_A_B on this, Betty would be more survivable than Helen. The 20mm in the tail as opposed to a single 7.7mm machine gun more than off sets a slight loss of durbility)
Ki.84-I-Ko
B6N2
I'd like the H8K2, but just as I can't see the justification for giving the Germans a heavy bomber I can't see the justification for giving the Japanese a heavy bomber. The Axis simply never really used heavy bombers. That, and the huge amount of work it takes HTC to do a big four engined, multi-station aircraft.
-
Karnak--
Ki-49 had a 20mm in the dorsal position, and most later models had 12.7's in the other defensive mounts (AKAIK all but the earliest 150 or so had a 12.7 in the tail). It would be a far more survivable plane in AH than the unarmored Betty. I can understand not knowing this though since the Helen isn't exactly a widely-known aircraft.
I'd like to see both the Germans and the Japanese getting a heavy bomber because it'd be great for play balance and parity in an axis-allies type of matchup. I don't tie myself to what they relied on in WW2--AH is a game first and foremost and so we don't need to repeat the mistakes that were made 60 years ago.
J_A_B
-
Yes, but the dorsal position is relatively useless in AH. The dorsal cannon on the Ki.67 accounts for very few kills. Almost all kills are obtaied with its two 12.7mm tail guns. Even then it doesn't feel like a lot of firepower. A single 12.7mm on a slower, more fragile bomber isn't going to do very well.
Also note that the G4M2 has a full 360 degree dorsal turret with a 20mm cannon, not a very limited arc, hand aimed 20mm cannon like on the Helen.
I'd rather have the chance to sacrifice one of my three G4M2s and take out the attacking fighter than have a little more durability, but not be able to kill the attacking fighter quickly enough to save my bomber formation.
-
There is a reason the G4M2 earned names like "The flying Zippo" and "One-shot-lighter", and provided several Allied pilots with ace-in-a-day flights. The Ki-49 actually earned some respect from the Allies OTOH.
Either way, none of the early Japanese bombers would be all that great. I just think that the Ki-49 would be the more survivable of the two, based mainly on past experiences I've had with the Betty in several other flightsims, and its horrible historical reputation. No number of 20mm cannons (particularly the inaccurate, slow ROF 20mm guns in use at the time) can defend a big, unprotected flying gas tank.
That said, data on the Betty is easier to obtain hence its more likely to be added eventually.
J_A_B
-
J_A_B, I dont hate US planes, I just think their cup runith over, I have also said repeadatly That I would like to see more US Early War Varient's, in ither post's even this one:
"not that I think we nead another New US ride but their are many who want this so It may be ineavatble. Personaly I would rather see some a few Early War US Varients than say a P39 but one never know what's coming. So hear is the"
Those varient's would include a P38, B26 ect, planes I have requested befroe, varient's are easer to do and would help solve many problems with a lesser degree of work for HTC, hince my not wanting "New" rides for the US but Varient's.
The Tony Varient I requested represent's the Earler part of the War when it gaing comparative domanance over the Allied plane types it faced in New Gunie, we have several varient of other planes in AH I see no reasion we can't have another Tony Varient, as mentioned above Varients are easer to do for HTC. Some 388 Ki-61-1b's were modified to cary the 20mm MG 151's, aprox, 1,380 Ki-61-Ib's were made, more than any other type, The earler model, was slightly faster, And Climbed better, and I suspect excelereted better than the later Model Tony we have in AH, it also came out aprox. a full year earler than the model we have in AH, The early Model F4U is Faster than the Later model's, So I dont see Why asking for the earler model is in any way bad, since it is the Best we could hope for in terms of preformance For a japanese Fighter for this time frame and their for worthy of adation, much more so imo than may US planes that have been added as varent's in the past.
The Helen is not all that bad a choice when looked at aganst the Betty, but if you look at the differences, The Helen is about 35 mph faster, depending on the models you compare to 14 mph faster than the Betty, Both the Hellen and Betty caried the same bombload, in fact normal load for the Helen was 750 KG's while 1000 was normal for the Betty, the Betty was also torpedo capable, While the Hellen did mount a 20mm H0-1 cannon in a turet this was an awfull weapon being derived from an Army AT weapon it was slow firing so slow it was almost imposable to hit with it, it was replaced with the H0-5 in all subsuquent Japanese army Aircraft mounting's whear aplicable, the Ho-103's are Nice gun's to be shure. The G4M2 had 2 to 4 20mm type 99 MK I cannon's on board.
It is kinda a toss up Frankely the Hellen look's good if HTC went with the overload Bomb weight, and looks good if modeled with the Ho-103's, since it would be faster better defended and better armored. the torpedo option is imo not a big thing, Howeaver the Hellen may lose out like the panther did for the Perk tank, a better Tank but not as well Know as the Tiger.
I must say though that the bomber isue is moreover discused from my prespective simply for the sake of argument since I dont see HTC spending the time on modeling another Japane Buff at present, nore would I ask for another japanese buff at present, unless we get another early War alled one to set aganst it in the pac, like a Blenhim, or a B26.
I dont realy think the B6N2 is good Choice, if were going down that road I would go for the Grace it was an armed Torpedo bomber, the Jill has no Forward gun's, and the Grace out preforms it and out manuaver's it and the two 20mm Type 99 MK II cannons firing forward would be "Usefull".
The premis of my post was to highlight just 3 or 4 planes that would be easy for HTC to ad and would do much to add capabality's to balance out the Japanes plane set, of those 2 are varient's, keeping it simple is likely to make it more realistic, howeaver were all dreaming hear anyway:)
-
Brady said:
4 Japanese Planes added:ki 84, A6M3,D4Y2,Ki 61-1b
I really hope we can avoid the Ki84. I just have too many bad memories of it becoming about the only thing flown in AW3 towards the end. I see the same thing happening in AH. The Yak9U is bad enough. Give the dweebs something with very similar performance but with 2 cannon and it's game over. IMHO, that's why there's such a clamor to get the damn thing in the game now. Most folks don't care about "plane set equality", they just want an uberdweeb ride.
The A6M3 is definitely a must-have. Right up there with the Ki27 and Ki43.
I agree, we really need the D4Y, but wouldn't you rather have a radial-engined version? Faster and no radiator to hole. And if we get Judy, we should also get Jill (B6N) IMHO.
Like you, I think the Helen would work better in day-to-day arena life than the Betty. OTOH, the Betty would be more useful in scenarios. Why not get both?
I'm not so sure we really need another version of the Ki61. Why not the Ki44 instead?
-
A6M3 and Ki 100 have current models to be based on.
NO excuses :)
palef
-
"Most folks don't care about "plane set equality", they just want an uberdweeb ride. "
Heh heh I would never even use the Frank (only Japanese plane I can stand is the Tony) and I still clamor for it :)
As much as I loved AirWarrior, how a plane performed in AW wasn't necessarily based upon reality. AW's total lack of accurate flightmodeling was its biggest drawback, and the biggest reason got little respect as a "serious" flightsim in the last few years.
The Ki-84 would fit right in here in AH--in most ways it'd be a little inferior to the N1K2.
Grace or the B6N, doesn't much matter which anymore....they had about the same historical signifigance (both are known mostly for flying from land bases during the Okinawa battle), and the B5N we already have in AH would be used for scenarios up to 1944, so sure, bring on the Grace.
Brady, did the Grace actually have armor protection, or was it unprotected like the D4Y and B6N were?
J_A_B
-
J_A_B,
I understood that the B6N had protection.
Am I wrong?
-
J_A_B said
Heh heh I would never even use the Frank (only Japanese plane I can stand is the Tony) and I still clamor for it :)
As much as I loved AirWarrior, how a plane performed in AW wasn't necessarily based upon reality. AW's total lack of accurate flightmodeling was its biggest drawback, and the biggest reason got little respect as a "serious" flightsim in the last few years.
The Ki-84 would fit right in here in AH--in most ways it'd be a little inferior to the N1K2.
AW's FM got progressively worse over time, but even when the FM was fairly good the Ki84 was an uberplane, and correctly so given the stats I've seen for it. At the low alts where most MA fights take place, it was as fast or faster than the P51, and it could turn nearly as well as a spit9.
The MA planeset should be like rock-paper-scissors. Each plane should be good at some things but other planes should beat it in different categories. The problem with the Ki84 is that it's too good at too many things. It can run down anything that turns worse than it does, it can outrun everything that turns better than it does, it's got good guns, and decent ammo.
The Ki84 would be, IMHO, like a Yak9U only worse. I already hate Yak9Us. They can run down any prop plane in the game and make even 262s be careful with their speed. And when they catch them, they can outturn them. The only thing that keeps Yak9Us from being the only plane ever flown for air-to-air is its weak guns and short clip. If we get a plane that combines this type of performance with good guns and ammo, we'll soon be swamped with them. It doesn't matter if you personally won't fly it, the thousands of dweebs out there who want an edge will jump on it.
All this said, I could accept the Ki84 in the planeset. It was significant enough in real life to be worthy of inclusion, certainly moreso than some things we already have like Ta152Hs. However, if we do get the Ki84, IMHO it absolutely must be perked about as heavily as the Tempest. Otherwise, it would have a very detrimental effect on variety in the MA.
-
"but even when the FM was fairly good the Ki84 was an uberplane"
That would be because it was added with funds from a certain Japanese company, and the modeling was "optimistic" at best (actually it used post-war test data that was far superior to what the KI achieved in Japanese wartime service).
As for the Yak-9U, its inferior to the LA7 in pretty much every signifigant way. IMO the LA7 is the basis of "best non-perked fighter in AH", not the Yak. The Yak is certainly fast, but with a speed of 358 on the deck it's not the fastest, and off the top of my head I can think of 6 or 7 un-perked fighters in AH which are faster.
J_A_B
-
I think you might be giving to much credit to the ki 84, it is going to be a good plane no doubt, but not anymore uber than than the uber rides the dweabs live in in the MA, the Spit's la-7's and ect's will have good company with the ki 84 it's guns are good but they will be the same ones we have on the Tony and with about the same ammo load, they are good gun's but the ammo goes very fast and you nead to be fairly close to get good hit's with the 20mm Ho-5's and 12.7mm Ho-103's. Preformance wise it will be i suspect a bit slugish like the George is, it has the same engine as the George so I would not expect it to be over Uber, P51's will still Zoom and boom and Run away just like they always do.
Adding the Nate and the oscar would be imo a bit waste of time, bad guns and weak airframes would not endear them to anyone and they would be hanger queans, why fly an oscar when you could take a Zero with 20mm Cannon's and actualy get a kill.
The Best thing about the D4Y is that it spans the whole war and has a great preformance for it's type, picking a good mid or late war model would be nice to set it aganst the TBM or SBD we have in AH at present.
Whats realy Scary is that the Ta 152 was actualy voted into the game, the Players picked it in a vote from several potential perk candates, including the tempest.
as to why not get both ya I gues if your going to dream go all the way right:), realistical even the 4 i sugested most likely will Not be added anythime soon, I was trying to be realisticly opmastic:)
Most all Late war japanese aircraft featured some armor protection, and genearly much more robast airframe construction than their early war predisasors, and some sort of self sealing fuel tank technolagy, the Jill had partial tank protection acording to my sorces.
Well us Ct types would like to see a more fleased out plane set for obvious reasion's and the Ki 44 being an entierly new plane would add to the develpoment length and theirfore be more taxing to HTC to do than an early Ki 61. Also the Ki 44 is not a good a mount as the Ki 84 and they were in service during roughly the same time.
-
"J_A_B,
I understood that the B6N had protection.
Am I wrong?"
Karnak--
I believe Nakajima wanted to include substantial fuel tank protection but the IJN wouldn't allow it due to the reduction in range that would have resulted. Whatever the B6N DID have was totally inadequate; same for the D4Y.
Brady's sources may be better than mine, perhaps he can give us the details.
I previously hoped that the Jill would be added to AH since it'd match up better against the TBM, but since we got the Kate instead there's really not much point in ever adding it.
J_A_B
-
Ya it reduced the fuel load by 30% to add the totaly protected tank's so they dident go with this option on the Jill, My Maru Mechanic book shows No armor plate as such, nore do the seats apear to have armor plate, howeaver their are two men behind the piolet that the enemy would have to shoot through to get to him so in efect the piolet has "boddy" armor....The fuel tanks are in the wings, three each wing and they are protected in the since that they are segmented. The Plane was well made though it had a tough frame but no 'armor" realy, it also had of course a ventral gun, unlike the kate, though the 7.7mm is prety useless aganst the US 50cal's, Later models did have a dorsalt Type 2 MG gun though 13mm coppy of the 50cal browning. I think J_A_B hit the nail on the head in his comment about the Jill being aded, most likely we not see it anytime soon if ever. The Jill was a Lot better plane than the kate though, too bad we got hind tit again their.
The Finial Vershion of the Susie was to have Crew and fuel protection , but for the most part all of them had only their preformance a strong airframe and their guns to protect them, later models having the 13mm Type 2 MG's in the dorsal position.
All thing's considered the Grace is realy the best of the lot in MA terms, decent preformance( great for it's type) good bombload torpedo capable, decent defensive gun's ( well for it's type) and it had two Type 99 MK II cannons firing forward.
-
"however there are two men behind the pilot that the enemy would have to shoot through to get to him so in effect the pilot has "body armor"
ROFL that comment about made my day.
Thanks for the info Brady.
J_A_B
-
:)
-
Whats realy Scary is that the Ta 152 was actualy voted into the game, the Players picked it in a vote from several potential perk candates, including the tempest.
Hehehehe.......I printed out that entire thread and counted the votes for each plane. Will have to relocate it, as I have moved twice since then.....but.........
When that vote came out, the Ta-152 was actually pretty far down the list of vote getters. I'll drag that printout out of storage and check it, but I think it was like #10 or #11, and still got included as an addition in the next planeset update.
I was plenty ticked at the time, but I got over it........ :p
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
"but even when the FM was fairly good the Ki84 was an uberplane"
That would be because it was added with funds from a certain Japanese company, and the modeling was "optimistic" at best (actually it used post-war test data that was far superior to what the KI achieved in Japanese wartime service).
AH also doesn't model substandard parts, raw materials, assembly, wear, and maintenance; the planes always have performance stats equal to what a brand-new plane freshly rolled off the assembly line where the manufacturer knew that this plane would be put through the evaluation tests. You're not getting a plane that's been in the theatre for a year, has beer-can aluminum pop-riveted over bullet holes, replacement instruments from two different types of plane replacing the ones that were destroyed by bullets, needs a ring job, new spark plugs, and an oil change, a hydraulic system that has truck brake lines replacing the flap lines that got shot away last week, is missing the aft fuselage fuel tank because it got chewed up and there are no replacements, has three guns with shot-out barrels, and is carrying ammunition that failed quality inspection but got shipped out anyway because the manufacturer bribed the inspector.
Be grateful you don't have to deal with real equipment problems.
-
"Be grateful you don't have to deal with real equipment problems."
Indeed--the N1K2 would be scary due to thingsa like engine fires :)
Regarding the Ki-84, I wasn't even referring to the equipment problems it suffered from , but rather the fact that even the good ones didn't perform as well as they did in the post-war US tests, due to things like fuel quality. The Japanese themselves only claimed around 390-410 MPH for it, as opposed to the 427 figure it reached in US testing.
J_A_B
-
best thing about japanese planes is they burn good..:)
-
ki43 was the japanese most numerous fighter..it should be here.
-
Thier are many planes from many countries that would suffer from these thing's, I understand that something along these lines will be modeled for the ToD though, should be interesting to see how it comes out.
-
I said:
"but even when the FM was fairly good the Ki84 was an uberplane"
J_A_B said:
That would be because it was added with funds from a certain Japanese company, and the modeling was "optimistic" at best (actually it used post-war test data that was far superior to what the KI achieved in Japanese wartime service).
Problem is, AH doesn't model "worst case" things. The only really hard data on the Ki84 are from the "best case" post-war tests. Everything else is too fuzzy: either incomplete, guesstimated reductions of the post-war data, or anecdotal. So going "best case" across the board is the only way to be objective. Which means the Ki84 in AH would be up near the best of its various published stats. Just like it was in AW.
As for the Yak-9U, its inferior to the LA7 in pretty much every signifigant way. IMO the LA7 is the basis of "best non-perked fighter in AH", not the Yak. The Yak is certainly fast, but with a speed of 358 on the deck it's not the fastest
Level speed is of no real importance. What matters is dive speed, and the 9U can outdive every prop plane in the game because of its magic immunity from compression effects, and despite its light weight and no WEP. Do some tests and see for yourself. But bottom line, given a fight between 5-10k, no prop plane can extend away on the 9U from a co-E or even slightly +E start.
However, that really doesn't matter. The point is, both the 9U and the lamer7 are both very good in too many ways. The Ki84 would be another of this type, and IMHO even more of an uberdweeb ride than those we already have. How can adding another such plane be a good thing for the MA?
-
Bullethead,
Actually that's not true. Japanese test data is available for some aircraft, and I believe the Ki.84 is one of them.
As to the quality issue. You Allied fliers don't have it easy either. If it was modeled correctly our A6Ms would keep on ticking while your fighters (P-40s particularly) would suffer high attrition from mechanical failings. Of course this is reversed later in the war. Only the first few batches of Ki.84s were anything like reliable and the N1K2s never were. The A6Ms were reliable throughout the war though.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Yes, but the dorsal position is relatively useless in AH. The dorsal cannon on the Ki.67 accounts for very few kills. Almost all kills are obtaied with its two 12.7mm tail guns. Even then it doesn't feel like a lot of firepower. A single 12.7mm on a slower, more fragile bomber isn't going to do very well.
Also note that the G4M2 has a full 360 degree dorsal turret with a 20mm cannon, not a very limited arc, hand aimed 20mm cannon like on the Helen.
I'd rather have the chance to sacrifice one of my three G4M2s and take out the attacking fighter than have a little more durability, but not be able to kill the attacking fighter quickly enough to save my bomber formation.
2 12.7mm in the tail???
-
Karnak said:
Actually that's not true. Japanese test data is available for some aircraft, and I believe the Ki.84 is one of them.
But that was using mid-late war Japanese gas, which wasn't as good as the gas the US had. And the point is, in AH there is only 1 type of gas. It's not like AW where porking the fuel at a field decreased the octane level. So everybody's got 100-octane gas all the time, so the Ki84 would fly like it did in the US tests.
As to the quality issue...
Quality's not an issue because AH doesn't model it. Every plane is best-case. Each leaf is hand-picked by a master Cuban cigarmaker and hand-rolled on the thighs of Cuban virgins, or whatever the aircraft factory equivalent is.
-
I am prety Shure Gas octane is modeled for each plane type, Not all the planes IN AH use the same fuel.
-
Bullethead,
Not all aircraft in AH use the same fuel.
The N1K2-J is definately modeled with the crappy Japanese fuel. The A6Ms are as well and the Ki.61 may be. I don't know, it all depends on if there was an engine upgrade between the Ki.61-Ic and the Ki.61-I-Kai.