Author Topic: The Smart Choice (Read 1144 times)

1K3 · « **on:** March 23, 2007, 11:00:09 AM »

It would be best if they introduce some "gap filler" planes first.

Ki-43-II-ko
- Early war version, armed with 2x 12.7mm guns, maximum speed of 330mph

Ki-43-III-ko
- Late war version (december '44). It had Individual exhaust stacks to provide a certain amount of exhaust thrust augmentation. Armed with 2x Ho-5 cannons, maximum speed of 360mph.

P-39D
- US Version
See more info
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p39_4.html

P-39Q-30
- USSR Version
See more info
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p39_15.html

Brewster B-239 (Finland)
- Finnish fans have been waiting for this plane for a looong time.

KayBayRay · « **Reply #1 on:** March 23, 2007, 01:41:29 PM »

Just my opinion but I would rather not see any new Rice Paper. I would prefer the P-39 or Brewster anything over any Rice Paper.

Just my thoughts on it

Later,
kaybayray

Clifra Jones · « **Reply #2 on:** March 23, 2007, 01:54:13 PM »

IMO, the 43-II would be a hanger queen. It would only be usefull in scinarios. The 43-III may be somewhat affective but it would still be a very low usage plane.

The sane with the brewster, Outclasses in the LW's.

Now of the numbers started growing in the EW and MW arenas it may be worth the effort.

The P39 could be an effective plane in the right hands but again for the most part it's usefullness would be in EQ/MW arenas and in scinarios.

As far as rice paper goes, what we really need are IJA heavy bombers like the Betty. While it's true the Betty is a burning death trap I'd hate to get caught behind one with 999000 controlling those 20mm in the tail.

Karnak · « **Reply #3 on:** March 23, 2007, 02:42:03 PM »

Ki-44-II-Otsu would be fun.

Also, G4M3s were not nearly so flamable. They had a fully protected fuel system. I recall one squad of Hellcats shot one down and one pilot commented that it went down due to the weight of all the .50 cal rounds added to it. They were shocked that it didn't light up.

Now the G4M3 was also late war and built in smaller numbers. The unprotected G4M2 would be the one to add to AH.

Krusty · « **Reply #4 on:** March 23, 2007, 02:54:19 PM »

Just because it's been asked for for years doesn't mean it really needs to be in the game. B-29 has been asked for more than the Brewster, but doesn't mean it deserves to be in the game any more than, oh P-39 or Me410. (for example)

Brewster had smaller wing area than the F4F-4, much less power in the engine, less firepower. Less power + smaller wing area = less turn capability compared to the F4F-4. It was very slow, and unless you model the version with armor (weighing it down more) it would light up faster than an a6m2.

I really think that the only reason the Finns want it is national pride, and hell I can sympathize, but they make it out to be some super plane where it wasn't, IMO. The performance was all based on the Finn fighters, not the aircraft used.

The Ki-43 would definitely be a good addition. As long as it was modeled properly. The early models had 2x 7mm MGs and a top speed (at alt) of 309mph. Heck a spitV does this at sea level. Anyway, they produced a clipped wing version the IIb with some armor after a few nasty run-ins with allied fighters. The IIbs had 2x 12.7mm MGs with 250 rounds each, but a top speed of only 320mph at alt. Very few examples of the IIIb were made, and it wouldn't be very accurate to include the IIIb if you're looking for a mid-war gap-filling aircraft.

I'd hit it. But then, I can get kills with 2x 50cals, I know a lot of other folks can't

The main problem would be flying 100+ mph slower than every other plane around you

Krusty · « **Reply #5 on:** March 23, 2007, 02:56:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
Ki-44-II-Otsu would be fun.

I think it would be better than the Ki43 because it had 4x 12.7mm MGs instead of just 2.

Karnak · « **Reply #6 on:** March 23, 2007, 02:58:04 PM »

I've killed quite a few F4F-4s using the the two 7.7mm guns on the A6M2.

Even 7.7s can kill.

Karnak · « **Reply #7 on:** March 23, 2007, 02:59:15 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
I think it would be better than the Ki43 because it had 4x 12.7mm MGs instead of just 2.

It wouldn't turn nearly as well, but it would be a lot faster, climb better, dive WAY better and be vastly more durable.

Krusty · « **Reply #8 on:** March 23, 2007, 02:59:43 PM »

Yes, to be sure, but you must admit it takes 500-1000 rounds fired to get a kill, as compared to about 200 or so of the 50cal variety

EDIT: it would be interesting to have a good Japanese diver. The closest we have today is the N1K2 and that's still not as good as P51D or P47.

Karnak · « **Reply #9 on:** March 23, 2007, 03:01:31 PM »

Well, I don't recall how many rounds, but I got three F4Fs with just the 7.7s so it had to be less than 1000/kill.

That said, an A6M2 out of 20mm ammo and low on fuel can stick to an F4F's tail like glue and land a grossly disproportionate number of rounds fired.

EDIT: The Ki-61 was designed to dive too.

Ball · « **Reply #10 on:** March 23, 2007, 03:04:28 PM »

Meteor III.

1K3 · « **Reply #11 on:** March 23, 2007, 03:16:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Clifra Jones
IMO, the 43-II would be a hanger queen. It would only be usefull in scinarios. The 43-III may be somewhat affective but it would still be a very low usage plane.

The 2x HO-103 12.7 machine guns on Ki-43-II are not that bad. Think of this as the machine guns on late war Bf 109s. Since they are nose mounted you can shoot down at least 3-4 planes.

Now if we get Ki-43-III-Ko this plane will put A6Ms to shame.

1K3 · « **Reply #12 on:** March 23, 2007, 03:29:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty

Brewster had smaller wing area than the F4F-4, much less power in the engine, less firepower. Less power + smaller wing area = less turn capability compared to the F4F-4. It was very slow, and unless you model the version with armor (weighing it down more) it would light up faster than an a6m2.

I really think that the only reason the Finns want it is national pride, and hell I can sympathize, but they make it out to be some super plane where it wasn't, IMO.

The FAF stripped the B-239 of excess fat when recieved it in 1941. Think of this plane as the FM2. Before Finland sided with Germans the FAF B-239 was very competitive against I-16s, LaGG-3s, and lend-lease p-40s and hurricanes.

Krusty · « **Reply #13 on:** March 23, 2007, 03:51:43 PM »

There wasn't much to strip down, when they got it IK3. They got the early versions that the USN rejected. USN took 11 then promptly said "no more!".

Which, by the way, makes me question that Boyington quote. He never had any time in a Brewster, that I've ever read about.

Anyways, it was not like the FM2. It was more like the F4F-4 than it was the FM-2, and even then it was inferior to the F4F-4. FM-2 totally out-classes the Brewster, which is why it's so wrong to use FM-2 as a brewster sub in AvA setups.

EDIT:

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
The Ki-61 was designed to dive too.

D'OH! How could I forget??

Bronk · « **Reply #14 on:** March 23, 2007, 03:54:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by 1K3
The FAF stripped the B-239 of excess fat when recieved it in 1941. Think of this plane as the FM2. Before Finland sided with Germans the FAF B-239 was very competitive against I-16s, LaGG-3s, and lend-lease p-40s and hurricanes.

Just a thought.
You do realize it will be the standard B-239? Although lighter than the us navy version. It will probably not be a "stripped" version.

Bronk