KI-100 and J2M2s.

[RotBaron]

Both fighters were built in significant numbers, saw significant action, and won significant respect from the allies who faced them. These are late war aircrafts that would see significant use. I occasionaly fly the KI-84 and find it impressive.

Was there not a version with 4 20mm cannon? Would such an equipped KI-84 meets the rules to be in the game or was it only a field mod?

iirc there was a J2M variant w/ 4 20's that saw action

there was also one with an upfiring 20mm shoot bombers from below 

[-ammo-]

I don't think this AC should even be considered for inclusion until other higher priority AC are added.

[Slade]

+1

[Karnak]

The B7A could out turn an A6M??

I don't think this AC should even be considered for inclusion until other higher priority AC are added.

B7A is indeed way, way down the priority list.  Yes, below the P-47D-23.

Ki-44 is fairly high up though.

[Saxman]

B7A is indeed way, way down the priority list.  Yes, below the P-47D-23.

Ki-44 is fairly high up though.

I'd say the Ki-44 and Ki-45 should be added well before the Ki-100 and J2M. The Ki-45 especially fills a significant gap (Japanese heavy fighter, which is currently filled by the 110C is events) and the Ki-44 rounds out the mid-war period quite nicely. And there were slightly more Ki-44s produced than J2Ms and Ki-100s COMBINED. (~1200 vs ~600 and 400, respectively). Only Fewer than 150 J2M2s were built, with theJ2M3 being the representative type.

I'd also like to see:

Additional Ki-43 armament options to allow for the -I and -III
N1K1-J, which I believe was the most representative type. Fewer of the N1K2-Js were produced.
B6N and D4Y to give the Japanese a much more competitive set of carrier bombers for the mid-war period.
Ki-21 as an early-war IJAAF bomber
Ki-49 would provide for a mid-war IJAAF bomber.

And as I think I mentioned earlier in this thread, I wouldn't mind the A5M, Ki-27, and G3M for scenario usage.

[Seadog36]

Like your D23  ?

Bingo great idea!

[Coalcat1]

I'd say the Ki-44 and Ki-45 should be added well before the Ki-100 and J2M. The Ki-45 especially fills a significant gap (Japanese heavy fighter, which is currently filled by the 110C is events) and the Ki-44 rounds out the mid-war period quite nicely. And there were slightly more Ki-44s produced than J2Ms and Ki-100s COMBINED. (~1200 vs ~600 and 400, respectively). Only Fewer than 150 J2M2s were built, with theJ2M3 being the representative type.

I'd also like to see:

Additional Ki-43 armament options to allow for the -I and -III
N1K1-J, which I believe was the most representative type. Fewer of the N1K2-Js were produced.
B6N and D4Y to give the Japanese a much more competitive set of carrier bombers for the mid-war period.
Ki-21 as an early-war IJAAF bomber
Ki-49 would provide for a mid-war IJAAF bomber.

And as I think I mentioned earlier in this thread, I wouldn't mind the A5M, Ki-27, and G3M for scenario usage.

 Hell, add the last 3 in the MA, I'll use em all the time 

[Ack-Ack]

The B7A could out turn an A6M??

I don't think this AC should even be considered for inclusion until other higher priority AC are added.

Yep.  Japanese flight tests showed the B7A,with out ordnance, out maneuvered and out performed the A6M5.

ack-ack

[Blinder]

definitely a +1 for the Raiden. 



I fly this plane sometimes in the VATSIM via FSX. It handles like a dream. I really enjoy flying this fighter.

http://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/fslib.php?searchid=23507320

[Rich46yo]

+1 KI-45. But I want the 37mm cannon one.

[Saxman]

+1 KI-45. But I want the 37mm cannon one.

Armament packages could do a LOT for expanding out the Japanese plane set. IE, the Ki-61 you could probably squeeze out a couple different models just by adding the different gun packages that were used. And as I said, the Ki-43 you could easily add the -I and -III variants just with armament options.

[Karnak]

Armament packages could do a LOT for expanding out the Japanese plane set. IE, the Ki-61 you could probably squeeze out a couple different models just by adding the different gun packages that were used. And as I said, the Ki-43 you could easily add the -I and -III variants just with armament options.

We have the -III armament.  The Ho-5 armed version never made it to combat.

[Saxman]

We have the -III armament.  The Ho-5 armed version never made it to combat.

Odd, because ours is identified as the -II.

[Karnak]

Odd, because ours is identified as the -II.

The armaments for the Ki-43-III and Ki-43-II were the same.  Two 12.7mm Ho-103 machine guns.

The Ki-43-III did have significantly better performance than the -II though.

[Shifty]

The armaments for the Ki-43-II and Ki-43-II were the same.

Well I would hope so.