Excited, but at the same time disappointed

[II./JG77_Manu*]

I think you forgot one of the the most iconic US aircraft that fought throughout the Pacific, especially in Guinea and the Solomons; the P-38.

yeah, i forgot that completely, sorry. That aircraft alone would be enough to convince me to buy one of those scenarios

[Dakpilot]

Half of WW2 was a turkey shoot for the Germans against the Russians.

K/D during Moscow was even worse for the Russians, then Marianas for the Japanese. 

But this has nothing to do at all with my statement from above. So please don't derail that

At the time the US had their Corsairs, the Japanese had already the Ki61for a long time.

Corsair vs. Ki61 can be compared pretty much to 190A3 vs. Yak1b

 

 

One of The main reasons for the 'Marianas Turkey shoot' was superior equipment

 

Come on... best Ki-61 is 80kmh slower than worst Corsair (F4U-1A) in the few times they met Corsair simply outclassed them

 

K/D ratio on Eastern front had a lot more to do with training and tactics than totally 'superior ' equipment 

 

I am not trying to derail  your statement

 

 

II./JG77_Manu*, on 12 Jan 2016 - 00:58, said: 

 

 

At no times in the war, the Japanese planes have been as inferior compared to the US ones, as the Russian planes have been to the German in 1942 (both our current scenarios).

 

 

I just cannot agree with it 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

 

[II./JG77_Manu*]

One of The main reasons for the 'Marianas Turkey shoot' was superior equipment

 

Come on... best Ki-61 is 80kmh slower than worst Corsair (F4U-1A) in the few times they met Corsair simply outclassed them

 

K/D ratio on Eastern front had a lot more to do with training and tactics than totally 'superior ' equipment 

 

I am not trying to derail  your statement

 

 

 

I just cannot agree with it 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

 

 

So you know one particular scenario (which is famous, because it's the only one with such a clear K/D ratio in the Pacific War), and think this is representative? Good one. I could tell you numerous encounters during the whole war, where German planes absolutely battered Russian ones, even at later times. That doesn't tell us anything about the best aircraft the Soviets had available at that time.

At the time of Marianas, the Japanese already had Ki84...which was superior to the Hellcat in pretty much any category, apart from high alt speed. 

Comparable to a Yak3 against a G6, with the G6 being the Hellcat...

Ki61 is faster then Yak1b (around 8kph), climb rate is the same. Armament is better. Turn rate about the same. Dive speed capabilities are better. Corsair was around 70kph faster, but only up high. 

Now lets compare Corsair to A3. Top speed Corsair around 7kph faster. So relative speed in those encounters the same. BUT 190 A3 way better climb rate then corsair. Better armament. Better roll rate. Turn rate about the same, dive speed about the same.

So yes, you can well compare those two pair of planes, respectively those two "virtual encounters"

 

 

Come on... best Ki-61 is 80kmh slower than worst Corsair

 

BTW 190 A3 is almost 100 kph faster then Yak1 S69. Funny how that translates into our game here.

 

You did derail my statement. I talked about aircraft capabilities, and you came with some turkey shoot K/D ratio nonsense.

Funny that in case of the Russians

 

had a lot more to do with training and tactics than totally 'superior ' equipment 

, but in case of the Japanese the planes? LOL. Sure. Pretty much every source you can read about the turkey shoot tells about the bad preparation and bad tactics of the Japanese, and not about some bad planes. 

In the opposite, most sources who tell about the battering of the VVS in the first 2 years always refer to their "outclassed aircraft"

Edited January 12, 2016 by II./JG77_Manu*

[Dakpilot]

 

At the time of Marianas, the Japanese already had Ki84...which was superior to the Hellcat in pretty much any category, apart from high alt speed. 

 

 

Prototype had not even flown at the time of Marianas air battle

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Prototype had not even flown at the time of Marianas air battle

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

Prototyp flew april 1943.

Ki84 came into first operational actions November 1943.

turkey shoot was 19. june 1944.

get your facts right Dakpilot.

 

btw, even J2M Raiden, which was considered inferior to Ki84, Ki100, and N1K2 Shiden Kai, had a highly positive K/D ratio against the US in 1944 and 1945. We could also start talking about the Shiden, which outclassed everything the US had in the entire war at lower alts, in pretty much everything, from speed, to climb rate, to manouverability...

Edited January 12, 2016 by II./JG77_Manu*

[Dakpilot]

Sorry meant production model...pre production model, 127 units were built in 43-44

 

but production model only saw combat way after Marianas at least Oct 44

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[LukeFF]

My, the historical revisionism in this thread is strong.

 

Fact: the Hellcat was designed specifically to counter the Zero, and in that capacity it did pretty darn well. 

[II./JG77_Manu*]

My, the historical revisionism in this thread is strong.

 

Fact: the Hellcat was designed specifically to counter the Zero, and in that capacity it did pretty darn well. 

No one is doubting that, but that was not part of the discussion. Thanks for your overly precious involvement

[LukeFF]

 

 

At no times in the war, the Japanese planes have been as inferior compared to the US ones, as the Russian planes have been to the German in 1942 (both our current scenarios).

 

Wait, let's see here:

• Hellcat was faster than the A6M5 at all altitudes.
• The Hellcat could roll far better at airspeeds above 235 mph
• The Hellcat was a hell of lot more durable than any model of Zero
• The Zero was, of course, more maneuverable at low speeds (whoop-dee-doo) and marginally better in a climb.

Sorry, but this isn't even close here. 

No one is doubting that, but that was not part of the discussion. Thanks for your overly precious involvement

 

You were the one who said that Japanese planes were never inferior when compared to American ones, not me. 

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Wait, let's see here:

• Hellcat was faster than the A6M5 at all altitudes.
• The Hellcat could roll far better at airspeeds above 235 mph
• The Hellcat was a hell of lot more durable than any model of Zero
• The Zero was, of course, more maneuverable at low speeds (whoop-dee-doo) and marginally better in a climb.

Sorry, but this isn't even close here. 

 

You were the one who said that Japanese planes were never inferior when compared to American ones, not me. 

Hellcat was only faster then Ki61 at high alt.

Hellcat was less manouverable then KI61.

Hellcat had worse climb rate then KI61.

Not even close.

I never said Japanese were never inferior to American ones. Come on. Just stop it. It's only getting ridiculous.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Arriving a little late here but just replying to something brought up two pages ago, the Zero versus I-16 situation played out in a 1946 server today. There were a few Ki-61s, MiG-3s and Yak-7s to go around but the majority of people were flying the early Zero and the type 18 Ishak with 4 ShKAS. Do not question this Soviet Union versus Japan over Saipan scenario

 

The Zeroes went to bomb and strafe the red airfield and here is how it played out: anything between one to four would come, the Ishaks would be ready, they dropped the bombs and started engaging. An I-16 comes across a Zero's sight and gets blasted away by the 20mm cannons. Two seconds later there are two or three I-16s behind the same Zero and with a short ShKAS burst the Zero caught fire and that was it. Short-lived fun for them. You also had to contend with the odd Ki-61, MiG-3 or Yak-7 diving from above but in the Zero and I-16 those were easy to dodge. Red team closed the match with 26 vs 19 victories.

[Dakpilot]

 

II./JG77_Manu*

Hellcat was only faster then Ki61 at high alt.

Hellcat was less manouverable then KI61.

Hellcat had worse climb rate then KI61.

Not even close

 

Dont know which Ki-61 you are thinking of, but the U.S navy tests do not seem to agree with some of your views of it

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/Tony-I.pdf

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Edited January 12, 2016 by Dakpilot

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Dont know which Ki-61 you are thinking of, but the U.S navy tests do not seem to agree with some of your views of it

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/Tony-I.pdf

 

Cheers Dakpilot

those good old "captured aircraft" performances...

 

here are proper ones

my German aircraft enzyclopedia tells about 600kph topspeed for Ib version. same climb rate

no idea what they tested there, but the Kawasaki Ha.40 has 1.191 horsepower, not 1100...

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

My, the historical revisionism in this thread is strong.

 

Fact: the Hellcat was designed specifically to counter the Zero, and in that capacity it did pretty darn well. 

No it wasn't. Grumman was designing the F6F months before the US entered the war. Experience with the Zero made Grumman change the design to replace the R-2600 Twin Cyclone with the R-2800 Double Wasp.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

This gives a nice taste of what discussions to expect if Pacific ever makes it into the game

 

The Hien was a well respected oppoment to the USN but suffered from the techincal side. It's inline engine (based on the DB601) was not ideal for the pacific envirounment.

 

In addition the Ki-43 and Ki-44 also proved them self as very dangerous to even later american models.

[unreasonable]

Were Ki-61s even used during the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot? I thought they were Japanese Army Airforce operated, not Japanese Navy.

 

IIRC the vast majority of Japanese pilots during the GMTS were so poorly trained and inexperienced (so many elite flyers having been killed at Midway) that they were told never to leave formation under any circumstances. My betting is that even if they had been flying identical equipment to the USN flyers they would have suffered pretty much the same losses.

 

(I always felt sorry for the turkey when I see this expression....)

Edited January 12, 2016 by unreasonable

[JtD]

No it wasn't. Grumman was designing the F6F months before the US entered the war. Experience with the Zero made Grumman change the design to replace the R-2600 Twin Cyclone with the R-2800 Double Wasp.

Well, he's said it himself, it was history revisionism. Thanks for the correction.

 

Manu, I'd recommend you to check up a bit more on service dates, battle performances and aircraft performances - or on your wording. The pictures you're painting in your broad sweeping statements give a totally wrong impression.

[xvii-Dietrich]

K/D ratio on Eastern front had a lot more to do with training and tactics than totally 'superior ' equipment

 

Between 1939 and 1944, the K/D ratio of Finnish-flown G.50s vs Soviet aircraft was 33:1, and this was often against technically superior aircraft. Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_G.50#In_Finnish_service

 

It makes the 'Marianas Turkey Shoot' (K/D of only 6:1) look like it was closely fought. Thus I agree that tactics, training and experience play a massive role.

[Brano]

 

Between 1939 and 1944, the K/D ratio of Finnish-flown G.50s vs Soviet aircraft was 33:1, and this was often against technically superior aircraft. Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_G.50#In_Finnish_service

 

It makes the 'Marianas Turkey Shoot' (K/D of only 6:1) look like it was closely fought. Thus I agree that tactics, training and experience play a massive role.

 

to put it into perspective.

 

http://surfcity.kund.dalnet.se/finland_tuominen.htm

 

SBs,I-153s,I-16s,few MBRs etc.Technically superior indeed

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Well, he's said it himself, it was history revisionism. Thanks for the correction.

 

Manu, I'd recommend you to check up a bit more on service dates, battle performances and aircraft performances - or on your wording. The pictures you're painting in your broad sweeping statements give a totally wrong impression.

Nothing wrong what i said. If you think so, please specify. Otherwise your statement has no value.

In the beginning of the war till late 1942 the Japanese had superior aircraft in all aspects. From mid 1942 till the beginning of 1944 they didn't have any real upgrades concerning fighter aircraft performance, while 1943 was the year the allies had their biggest improvement in that respect (funnily enough exactly the same can be said about the european Axis vs. east and west theatre). So in 1943 the Allies surpassed the Japanese, no question. But in 1944, and also 1945, where the hugely upgraded Japanese aircraft, especially J2M, Ki84/Ki100 and N1K2 came out, the Japanese surpassed the US aircraft at low to medium altitudes again, especially the USN planes. According to Saburo Sakai, Hellcats, the mainstay of the US in the pacific theatre, have been a "particular easy kill" when flying the Shiden-Kai. The only aircraft who could meat it at an even playing field have been the P51D or the P47N, but only at higher alts. Another plane, the J2M Raiden, which was only built around 500 times, shot down more US planes (around 700) then the number of produced aircraft, and that mostly against B29, P51, P47 at high alts.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

'cough'  Great Marianas turkey shoot?  

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Turkey Shoot has little to do with aircraft there, as a matter of fact Zeros on a technical side were not that inferior and in some aspects were superior.

I have some records from the US units participating in the event, a VF-25 combat report stated : 

"Zeke showed usual maneuverability. Zeke outclimbed three F6Fs at 11,000 feetbut was caught by a fourth F6F-3 with water injection. One F6F without water injection had difficult overtaking Zeke at sea level despite a slight initial altitude advantage ... at full throttle. All Zekes absordbed a lot of bullets before being destroyed: none exploded in air and some did not burn at all, indicating probable use of self sealing fuel cells" -> Two points from here, F6F-3 with water injection (R-2800-10W) started appearing in units in late spring of 1944 and was not a standard until long after Marianas. As a matter of fact water injection became standard with F6F-5. 

Zeros used in Marianas were either A6M2 model 21 used in fighter-bomber role or A6M5 model 52 to model 52b - none had self sealing fuel tanks, but they had automatic CO₂ fire extinguisher. So some experiences may differ as both older and newer models were encountered by different pilots.

 

Cdr. B. M. Strean, CO of VF-1 reported : 

"The Zekes were very fast in both straight and level and climbing fight. They could 'turn on a dime' and there is nothing yet in our experience to indicate we can out-dive them. In head-on attacks they were still shooting as we ducked under and over them. It is very noticeable that they have no pilot protection (...)"

 

Lt. Cdr. D.J. Wallace, CO of Air Group 31 thought,  "The ability of Zeke to turn and climb seemed more pronounced than ever. Zekes were able to turn 180 while Hellcat was turning 90 degrees at high speed. The Hellcat was again faster in dives and level runs at all altitudes... In one case the Zeke outran the F6F-3 on the deck. There was evidence of self-sealing fuel tanks and possibly protective armor on Zekes."

He also noted : "It is getting harder than ever to knock down Zekes, and consequently firing must be done at closer ranges." 

 

 

But to the point, Mariana Turkey Shoot had more to do with US being able to take full advantage of the radar and not only detect enemies but guide own fighter units towards enemy, provide data on altitude and course and eventually allow to gain tactical advantage in the area. Americans knew what, when and how fast was coming and they could engage at best opportunity - read the details of every Japanese wave and how Americans could concentrate on them, Japanese at no time could gain a numerical advantage not to mention of tactical one.

And the other aspect of course is training, average time in the air for Japanese pilots was 130-180 hours. There were examples of veterans called to lead the formations but that could not change anything. 

 

 

One of The main reasons for the 'Marianas Turkey shoot' was superior equipment

 

Come on... best Ki-61 is 80kmh slower than worst Corsair (F4U-1A) in the few times they met Corsair simply outclassed them

I think not, A6M5 and F6F-3 (without water injection) both had advantages and disadvantages, first one had superior rate of climb, acceleration, maneuverability and rate of roll at low to medium speeds, the later one had superior top speed, high speed handling, superior rate of roll at high speeds (but not as greatly as at that time F6F-3 still had no spring tabs), better protection and armament. 

 

Well, funny that some Black Sheep pilots had opposite view to "yours". Years ago I have bought this : http://www.amazon.com/Checkflight-F4U-Corsair-Aircraft-Records/dp/B00979O13C

It contains various details on Corsair operation and handling, but also interviews with US pilots. One of the questions was asked about enemy warbirds and which of them was troublesome - two machines were called, C6N as being fast enough to outrun Americans trying to intercept but unfortunately for the Japanese it could make no harm to Corsair. Other one was Ki-61 due to best all around characteristics, great dive characteristics and robust construction - thats what Bob McClurg claimed. He said that he was thankful that Japanese never had that many of Tony fighters. 

 

As for the speed, I assume you just compared top speeds ? F4U-1A entered service a bit later and was equipped with R-2800-8W engine, why you dont compare it to 1943 ones ?

 

 

Sorry meant production model...pre production model, 127 units were built in 43-44

 

but production model only saw combat way after Marianas at least Oct 44

 

Cheers Dakpilot

27 aircraft were built in 1943 - prototypes or pre-production models to scale and prepare plants for mass production which officially started in April 1944, though further pre-production models were built through January-March period. 

And no, the first unit equipped with Ki-84 was 22nd Sentai formed in Fussa, March 5th 1944 under command of Shosa Jozo Iwahashi. They were equipped with pre-production models as well as mass produced ones. 22nd Sentai debuted in China in summer 1944.

 

 

My, the historical revisionism in this thread is strong.

 

Fact: the Hellcat was designed specifically to counter the Zero, and in that capacity it did pretty darn well. 

Luke, some say "history is written by the victors" - in case of Pacific this is very true. From 1940s to 1990s the only known stories written by the Japanese were either by S. Sakai (in Samurai) or Mitsuo Fuchida/Masatake Okumiya about Midway. The latter one was lately completely busted in "Shattered Sword" by Parshall and Tully, but earlier it was quoted on a full scale even by best writers in the west. So how could this give a proper perspective.

Western authors basing almost exclusively on American accounts, and I'm not saying they are bad or that their scholarship is inferior, its just that their view was limited to data of one side. Only since 1990s the access to Japanese data was increased greatly as millions of documents are being digitized each day allowing researchers to access them (for example here - jacar.go.jp)

 

Fact is that Hellcat incorporated some features making it superior to Zero, but this is nothing mystical considering it weight twice as much as well as was powered by an engine producing twice as much horsepower. Grumman simply had a lot of "room" to make an aircraft faster, better protected and so on given the available engine. 

 

 

Dont know which Ki-61 you are thinking of, but the U.S navy tests do not seem to agree with some of your views of it

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/Tony-I.pdf

 

Cheers Dakpilot

US tests of an aircraft with engine that was repaired to a certain degree and later on was lost, exactly due to engine failure. That's like the discussions about FW-190 given that we would use only the Soviet data based on their testing. Hardly proof of anything.

 

Ki-61 in this evaluation is considerably slower than in official records (20 km/h on deck and 40 km/h at altitude), same for rate of climb (over 1100 feet per minute  less at 5000 feet, 1300 feet per minute at 10,000 feet, 1200 feet per minute at 20,000 feet). 

 

 

here are proper ones

my German aircraft enzyclopedia tells about 600kph topspeed for Ib version. same climb rate

no idea what they tested there, but the Kawasaki Ha.40 has 1.191 horsepower, not 1100...

Manual indicates top speed of 591 km/h at 6000 meters, rated power (2400 RPM, rated power). It could do a bit better possibly with the use of emergency power (2500 RPM) but I dont exactly understand how that setting worked on DB 601Aa.

 

 

This gives a nice taste of what discussions to expect if Pacific ever makes it into the game

The Hien was a well respected oppoment to the USN but suffered from the techincal side. It's inline engine (based on the DB601) was not ideal for the pacific envirounment.

In addition the Ki-43 and Ki-44 also proved them self as very dangerous to even later american models.

Hey Dennis

 

Engine was fine, problem was fuel injection. Bosch turned down Japanese and Kawasaki was forced to ask Mitsubishi to design one (which affected the development time also), very high pressure of the Mitsubishi fuel

injection system led to fuel leakage and fuel line ruptures sometimes (but apparently had a positive effect on high altitude performance). Other issue was lack of proper filters for that high humidity and dirt. 

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Good to know, thx Hiro. I'm not too well infomred about the technical aspects of PTA aircraft hence why I also like to see it as a new theatre and get more into it.

[Dakpilot]

Hiromachi, I pretty much agree with all you say, but my responses were generally to some of Manu's sweeping statements.."First of all, half of the Pacific war the US didn't have Corsairs and Ki-84's at Marianas" perhaps it is just the way he uses language...

 

and we can chase around performance data for ever  but F4U and F6 in most cases in combat, were superior to Ki-61 with engine based on 601Aa from Bf-109 E4 especially when the well known supply issues and 'actual' performance are taken into account

 

I am a great fan of Japanese aircraft and would love to have BoS move to some Pacific scenarios eventually

 

discussing aircraft performance is very tricky and should really take two forms, pure data comparisons and operational performance 

 

I just take umbrage to many who feel all Russian aircraft were poorly assembled tractors, in the same way I would when some people feel all Japanese aircraft are flimsy, badly engineered unreliable 'Ronson' deathtraps

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Edited January 12, 2016 by Dakpilot

[II./JG77_Manu*]

 

 

First of all, half of the Pacific war the US didn't have Corsairs

 

Not in sufficient numbers

 

 

 

Ki-84's at Marianas"

never said something about Ki84s at Marianas

 

 

 

F4U and F6 in most cases in combat, were superior to Ki-61

never doubted that. The difference however was nowhere near that huge you tried to make it look. I only said the difference is comparable to the 190A3 to the Yak1PF, and backed it up with actual data. While you just have been throwing around your agenda, and in the end data about a broken captured Ki61, to "back up" your claims.

 

 

especially when the well known supply issues and 'actual' performance are taken into account

For years you have been crying, that "actual" performance, means taking into account: low quality fuel, low production quality, production errors, engine failures etc. - should not be taken into account for FMs in flight sims, yet this time where it suits your agenda you use it as argument. Good lord.

On top of that you are using some battle like "turkey shoot" as reference for aircraft performance, while you have been crying for years, that the Soviets bad K/D ratio in the first two years, not a single battle is solely because of their bad pilots, tactics, bad training, bla blub. Again, measuring always the way, that it supports your claims.

What is elementary yesterday, is not true anymore today, because it doesn't suit your claims anymore. That's your world.

[Dakpilot]

Maybe it is a language thing , but when you say I have been crying for years that in the early part of Russian campaign Soviet losses K/D ratio are solely because of their bad pilots, tactics, bad training, bla blub,... then I lose you...and further discussion is pointless

 

Clearly I understand that 109 etc. outperforms I -153, I-16 early poor performing Lagg-3 and initial badly built Yak-1 during factory evacuation etc. etc.

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Hiromachi, I pretty much agree with all you say, but my responses were generally to some of Manu's sweeping statements.."First of all, half of the Pacific war the US didn't have Corsairs and Ki-84's at Marianas" perhaps it is just the way he uses language...

 

and we can chase around performance data for ever  but F4U and F6 in most cases in combat, were superior to Ki-61 with engine based on 601Aa from Bf-109 E4 especially when the well known supply issues and 'actual' performance are taken into account

 

I am a great fan of Japanese aircraft and would love to have BoS move to some Pacific scenarios eventually

 

discussing aircraft performance is very tricky and should really take two forms, pure data comparisons and operational performance 

Bf 109 E-3/E-4 was more often powered by DB 601 A-0 or A-1 if I'm not mistaken. Though generally you are right, it was much weaker engine than P&W 2800, but Ki-61 was also a much lighter aircraft than Corsair or Hellcat. Ki-61 also maintained altitude performance much better than 109 E. You could compare Ki-61 with Bf 109 F-1/F-2 with Db 601 N (so engine delivering more horsepower) - data based on Specification sheet for the Bf 109 aircraft type, models F-1 and F-2 with DB 601N engine from Kurfurst.org website :

  Ki-61 (Ha-40) vs Bf 109 F-1 / F-2 (Db 601 N)

Level speed

Alt

1 km     496 km/h     514 km/h

2           520              534

3           545              553

4           569              573

5           589              592

6           591              594

7           589              590

8           580              580

9           561              565 

10         523              523  

 

  Time to altitde in min (rate of climb in m/s)

Alt        

1 km 1-20 min (14.3 m/s) / 1 min (16 m/s)    

3    3-34 (16.8)         / 3-12 (16)

6    6-50 (11.1)         / 6-30 (11.2)

8    10-48 (6.9)         / 10-30(6.4)  

10   17-14 (3.3)         / 18-42(2.5)  

 

Ki-61 was performing quite comparably even if compared to refined 109 F design powered by Db 601 N. 

Now compare it to 1943 F6F-3 or F4U-1. Ki-61 doesnt really look that outclassed, it is slower but has advantages in acceleration and climb. There are events when Ki-61 engaged F6F-5 in 1944/1945 and still did very well. Can quote one if you wish, since I lately bough new Osprey book about Ki-61 and Ki-100 Aces. 

 

The issue with actual performance in field is that ... its impossible to get it accurate there are dozens of differences starting from humidity, temperatures and ending on service and maintenance. For gaming purpose that makes little to no sense to dive in such details, as you never can be certain and it is still a game - part of entertainment. No need for NASA level of detail

 

I just take umbrage to many who feel all Russian aircraft were poorly assembled tractors, in the same way I would when some people feel all Japanese aircraft are flimsy, badly engineered unreliable 'Ronson' deathtraps

Funny thing is that many of the talented engineers who designed during ww2 aircraft in Japan later on worked for companies designing cars. Their intellectual involvement in this process had some impact. And judging by quality of products they delivered in 70s or 80s and current expansion of Japanese cars ? Engineering couldn't be that bad in Japan

There was that cool Top Gear episode with reasons for collapse of British car industry and raise of Japanese one, recommend on watching that for some fun !

 

Cheers !

Edited January 12, 2016 by =LD=Hiromachi

[II./JG77_Manu*]

In addition: you weren't refering to 

 

first of all, half of the Pacific war the US didn't have Corsairs and Ki-84's at Marianas

. You were refering, and by the way quoted this numerous times, to my statement 

 

 

At no times in the war, the Japanese planes have been as inferior compared to the US ones, as the Russian planes have been to the German in 1942

 

you were harping on about that statement for a while, until i showed some actual aircraft comparison data between the closest duel between Soviet and German in 1942: 190A3 and Yak1b, and compared it to the pacific theatre time, when the US have been most superior compared to Japan: Corsair against Ki61 (before Corsair, and after the introduction of the Ki84/N1K/J2M the performance between Japan and US planes was closer, i think there is no doubt). I showed that the performance difference between those aircraft is pretty similar. Apparently finally you realized that i am right, because you didn't answer to it anymore.

Realizing that you were wrong, now you are coming up with something new...apparently you were refering to something completely else now, i heard that for the first time  -->

 

"First of all, half of the Pacific war the US didn't have Corsairs and Ki-84's at Marianas"

 

 

 

Maybe it is a language thing , but when you say I have been crying for years that in the early part of Russian campaign Soviet losses K/D ratio are solely because of their bad pilots, tactics, bad training, bla blub,... then I lose you...and further discussion is pointless

 

Clearly I understand that 109 etc. outperforms I -153, I-16 early poor performing Lagg-3 and initial badly built Yak-1 during factory evacuation etc. etc.

 

Cheers Dakpilot

So 109 only outperforms "inital badly built Yak-1 during factory evacuation"? 

But no other version? So you think Yak 1b matches the 109 (F4/G2)? But you strongly claim at the same time, that Ki61 is outperformed by F6F or Corsair? Really?

[9./JG27MAD-MM]

I am also surprised that Ki-61 did so well, but for me is PTO still the last step for new scenario.

For the future we definitely need new western Planes, look MP Servers for US empty. 

Spitfires possible first new Step for good old times BF-109 vs Spitfire....

In 1941/42 some Spitis on the eastern front land lease in the Moscow campaign

Edited January 12, 2016 by 9./JG27MAD-MM

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

I dont mind eastern campaign but east always reminds me of winter (even summer campaign) and having Russia 3rd time in a row ? Would be too boring for me. Some diversity should be introduced, either Afrika or Pacific imo. 

Edited January 12, 2016 by =LD=Hiromachi

[Dakpilot]

 

Dakpilot, on 12 Jan 2016 - 17:17, said:

Maybe it is a language thing , but when you say I have been crying for years that in the early part of Russian campaign Soviet losses K/D ratio are solely because of their bad pilots, tactics, bad training, bla blub,... then I lose you...and further discussion is pointless

 

Clearly I understand that 109 etc. outperforms I -153, I-16 early poor performing Lagg-3 and initial badly built Yak-1 during factory evacuation etc. etc.

 

Cheers Dakpilot

So 109 only outperforms "inital badly built Yak-1 during factory evacuation"?  

 

But no other version? So you think Yak 1b matches the 109 (F4/G2)? But you strongly claim at the same time, that Ki61 is outperformed by F6F or Corsair? Really?

 

Quite where you draw that I state 

 

" 109 only outperforms "inital badly built Yak-1 during factory evacuation"?  "

 

From my post baffles me ,

 

your posts seem to have a bit of hostility (crying for years,agenda etc. ) and certainly a mocking tone to them, I restate that on this subject there seems to be a language issue, and I lose you, and further discussion is pointless, respectfully

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[II./JG77_Manu*]

I am also surprised that Ki-61 did so well, but for me is PTO still the last step for new scenario.

For the future we definitely need new western Planes, look MP Servers for US empty. 

Spitfires possible first new Step for good old times BF-109 vs Spitfire....

In 1941/42 some Spitis on the eastern front land lease in the Moscow campaign

 

I agree. While i would love to see a full-fleshed Guadalcanal scenario right away, i think it's more sensible to evolve the Sim out of it's core with it's already existing aircraft.

Kuban would be sensible IMHO, including A20, Airacobra, maybe Spit.

Then move on to Italy/Op. Husky, where we already have loads of Western aircraft (P40, Spit Mk5, Airacobra), and pretty much any German one's, and only would only have to fill it with aircraft like P38, Spit Mk9, Beaufighter, Hurricane.

This again would already provide us a great base for any pacific theatre, especially the land-based ones like Philippines or New Guinea, were we would only have to fill it with the US naval (Wildcat, Dauntless, Avenger,Buffalo) and the Japanese planes.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

I agree. While i would love to see a full-fleshed Guadalcanal scenario right away, i think it's more sensible to evolve the Sim out of it's core with it's already existing aircraft.

Well, no matter what you do Pacific is so different that in any case it will call for a drastic jump rather than evolution. So it makes no difference if it would be done now or in 2 years. 

But most important change would have to happen in people minds, no longer fast scrambles and 10 minutes flight to target area. It would take a lot more to fly from Kyushu to Okinawa, Lea to Port Moresby or from Rangoon to Kalkuta. Distances are great there and navigation would be a key. 

[LukeFF]

No it wasn't. Grumman was designing the F6F months before the US entered the war. Experience with the Zero made Grumman change the design to replace the R-2600 Twin Cyclone with the R-2800 Double Wasp.

 

Correction noted, thank you. I was writing my reply very quickly and mostly from memory. Still, my point stands that US experience with the Zero directly affected the development of the Hellcat.

[Ace_Pilto]

Well, technically installing a new engine implies significant revisions to the rest of the airframe to accomodate a new powerplant 

[Brano]

Aircrafts are designed around engine,not vice versa.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Aircrafts are designed around engine,not vice versa.

La5 tells a different story

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

La5 tells a different story

But La-5 as well as Ki-100 (which looks pretty similar) are rather examples of so called "out of box thinking". Designers could not solve the issues with existing airframes and insufficient inline engines, so they decided (or were forced like Japanese Army forced Kawasaki to switch to Mitsubishi Ha-112-II engine) to go around the problem and switch the engine. In both cases it worked very well. But its not exactly same as to design the aircraft from the scratch.

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

Well, technically installing a new engine implies significant revisions to the rest of the airframe to accomodate a new powerplant 

Not really, Grumman had designed it so that the XF6F could take the R-2800 if necessary, infact the XF6F-1 and XF6F-3 prototype were in fact the same aircraft, just re-engined.

Edited January 13, 2016 by RoflSeal

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

But La-5 as well as Ki-100 (which looks pretty similar) are rather examples of so called "out of box thinking". Designers could not solve the issues with existing airframes and insufficient inline engines, so they decided (or were forced like Japanese Army forced Kawasaki to switch to Mitsubishi Ha-112-II engine) to go around the problem and switch the engine. In both cases it worked very well. But its not exactly same as to design the aircraft from the scratch.

Another example woud be the shift on the Fw-190 from radial BMW-801 to inline Jumo-213 engines. The design changes involved with the switch were severe as the Jumo occupied way more space than the BMW-801 and called for a longer tail to balace CoG out properely. It worked but involved heavy design manipulation that eventually had a significant effect on it's flight characteristics.

[Ace_Pilto]

Not really, Grumman had designed it so that the XF6F could take the R-2800 if necessary, infact the XF6F-1 and XF6F-3 prototype were in fact the same aircraft, just re-engined.

 

No really, it does. Sorry but you are wrong. It's not possible to change the engine without having to recalculate airframe strength, CofG, undercarriage clearance and strength, cowling design, airscrew, fuel lines, electrical systems and fuel tanks. These are all significant changes that must be made or the aircraft becomes a very expensive cremation service for test pilots.

 

You can't just bolt on a different engine and expect an aircraft to fly and I can guarantee you that Grumman did extensive work to accommodate the Wasp.