Jump to content
J2_Trupobaw

Ok, sell me the Pacific theatre planes.

Recommended Posts

If the Ki-61 does make it's way into this series, I hope it performs better than the one in the old IL2 series. I always found that one a bit of a dog, i.e. slow and with poor energy retention. If it could perform as least as well as a Bf-109E I'd be happy.

 

Good hunting,

=CFC=Conky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol:

I wonder what happened to our former resident IJAAC expert?

You mean LEBillfish ? 
I was recently searching for something on old Il-2 forums and found that thread about all Ki-61 bugs and in-corrections. He sure knew all the details. 
 

I rather miss those holiday snaps.

Holiday snaps ?
 
But why is it that every time I see a picture of this plane my immediate reaction is that the designers have installed the engine upside down and the wings back to front.
Those wings indeed look weird on the picture, but engine ? Nooo, its British that installed their engines upside down. Just like they drive on the wrong side of the road :P
 

If the Ki-61 does make it's way into this series, I hope it performs better than the one in the old IL2 series. I always found that one a bit of a dog, i.e. slow and with poor energy retention. If it could perform as least as well as a Bf-109E I'd be happy.

 Ki-61 in old Il-2 was really poor, seems someone just wanted to give it a minimum attention if any. It was slower, even at Emergency power it was 20 km/h slower than what it should be able to achieve at Rated power (so subsequently it was about 40 km/h slower at Rated altitude), in fact sometimes it was 50-60 km/h slower than it should. I can only imagine any of 109 or 190 fans spotting that their aircraft seems to have lost somewhere some of its speed ;)  

Ki-61 was heavier than Me 109 E but not that much and at the same time it has aerodynamically cleaner airframe, much greater range and better handling characteristics. Though roll rate isn't great, but neither 109 was. 

Anyhow, I checked that months ago and based on Kurfurst website and performance for 109 F-1/F-2 here are comparative performances at rated power (I excluded emergency since Japanese manuals do not provide such details, overall its still Db 601 Aa vs Db 601 N).

 

      Ki-61 (Ha-40) vs Bf 109 F-1 (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 altitude 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)  

 

Source: 

- Ki-61-I Piloting Procedure captured on Hollandia on May 10th, 1944 and translated by Allied Intelligence. Date and issuing authority unknown.

Kennblatt für das Flugzeugmuster Bf 109 Baureihe F-1 und F-2 mit DB 601 N Motor by Messerschmitt AG. Augsburg,  October 1941.

Edited by =LD=Hiromachi
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly the Ki-61 was modelled extremely conservatively (nicely put) in Il-2:1946, however, "20 slower at emergency power than it should have at rated power" is a little bit of an overstatement or a simplification. The difference was considerably smaller below full throttle altitude, but was terrible above.

Additionally, as you state, you're using handbook figures for reference. As far as I know, Japanese handbook figures were generally taken from or confirmed by flight tests, but still, this is just a handbook, not a test. Reality may vary.

But taking these numbers as granted, the differences are +2, -3, -8, -11, -19, -29, -37, -40, -35, -16 from the in game perspective from 1km up to 10km.

Basically, the biggest trouble was the too low full throttle altitude modelled - which however was in line with all DB601's. Bottom line, bove 5km, the thing could be considered wrong. Other than that, it wasn't really less accurate than any of the most popular aircraft.

 

p.s.: Fixing that for you. ;)

She sure knew all the details.

Edited by JtD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used that old IL-2Compare4.11 by LesniHU, which is still floating on my secondary HDD. Dont have game installed anywhere at this point, so can't recall precise engine settings from the game but I assumed that WEP in game would be equivalent to manual Emergency power 2500 RPM/+330 mmHg (about 1.48 Ata if my boost calculator is not wrong) and Military power would be an equivalent to manual Rated power as 2400 RPM/+230 mmHg (1.35 Ata) with Rated altitude of 4200 meters. Thus in game 480 km/h vs 496 km/h at 1 km, 518 km/h vs 545 km/h at 3 km, 540 km/h vs 591 km/h at 6 km and 501 km/h vs 561 km/h at 9 km. 

Regardless though, old Il-2 was pretty damn conservative as you put it nicely. 

 

 

 

Additionally, as you state, you're using handbook figures for reference. As far as I know, Japanese handbook figures were generally taken from or confirmed by flight tests, but still, this is just a handbook, not a test. Reality may vary.
True, things like wind, temperature on that day and even humidity can affect the speeds. But still manual is by far closest to reality and actual data, especially that reference is left to the airframe, its weight and CoG for the test.  

 

 

 

Other than that, it wasn't really less accurate than any of the most popular aircraft.

Maybe, I didn;t get that far into detail. I still considered worst part of Ki-61 its guns :lol: 

 

 

 

Fixing that for you.

Oh, didnt know that one. Though I'm not surprised. When it comes to Japanese ships/tanks/aircraft there are surprisingly large numbers of female researchers. Cant complain :ph34r:  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, the guns. I generally used the 4x12.7 version, because as I understood it, it was the most common one, and I like it best.

 

It always was a piece of work to bring anyone down, and totally near impossible to bring someone down quickly. Attacking bombers, even medium ones, could be considered suicide. The 1000 rounds carried were barely enough to shoot down two Hellcats if I managed 25% accuracy, often insufficient for a single B-29...

 

... fun times. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, four Ho-103s were most common although Mauser equipped Ki-61-I Hei also contributed, they were given to the best pilots since they could make best use of them. 

 

Well, 1000 round load was incorrect either. Standard load was 300 rounds per fuselage gun, though manual makes it clear that 500 rounds can easily be carried by each gun. Never found a trace of ammo load for wing mounted 12.7s or German MG 151/20 for that matter. But it seems like Mc 202 in game with two Breda 12.7s and two 7.7s can do more than fine, so I guess Hien should do even better.

 

I had fun trying to bring down P-40 B with my poor Ki-27 :lol:  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

But still manual is by far closest to reality and actual data, especially that reference is left to the airframe, its weight and CoG for the test.

 

Exactly.

 

The manual is THE document for referencing how to operate and what performance the pilot can expect to get.  The limitations section carries the weight of law.  Japan was a signatory nation of the Paris Convention and as such adheres to the same principles and methodology for airworthiness of aircraft as every other signatory nation.

 

That means the POH is the last word on operating the aircraft and the information contained in it is the primary source of information.  Everything in the POH is operational ground truth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, 1000 round load was incorrect either. Standard load was 300 rounds per fuselage gun, though manual makes it clear that 500 rounds can easily be carried by each gun.

Interesting, did they fly with the ammo boxes half empty or did they use different ammo boxes when loading 500 rounds?

 

Never found a trace of ammo load for wing mounted 12.7s or German MG 151/20 for that matter.

Commonly 120 rpg get quoted for the MG151. Couldn't you look up wing 12.7mm in Ki-100 documentation, maybe even US studies? Oddly enough, in some ways there's more data around on the Ki-100 than the Ki-61, and the wing was retained.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No idea, the way I saw Oscar being rearmed (same guns) they just threw ammo belts into magazines. Might simply be the fact that 300 rounds belt is shorter and thus is easier to load than 500 one. Or that manual tried to put some emphasizes on accurate shooting and thus trying to limit ammo use. Still, its translation of original document, but meaning is weird. Table indicates that normally 300 rounds per gun are loaded for fuselage guns and right under table its written that 1000 rounds for fuselage guns can easily be loaded (thus 500 rounds per gun). And then again it is mentioned that maximum of 1000 rounds is possible for machine cannons. 

In section describing ammo boxes for fuselage guns following is stated:

"The magazines are easily removed from or attached to the side of the fuselage. They hold 500 rounds each, and are constructed so that ammunition can be pulled out of the top."

 

Whatever is the reason, I cant complain for more ammo  :)

 

 

 

Commonly 120 rpg get quoted for the MG151.

Books I have indicate 120 rpg for Ho-5 nose mounted, but it makes sense if that would be 120 for MG 151/20 as well.

 

 

 

Couldn't you look up wing 12.7mm in Ki-100 documentation, maybe even US studies? Oddly enough, in some ways there's more data around on the Ki-100 than the Ki-61, and the wing was retained.

There isn't much US documentation for Ki-100 if any. US was not aware of its existence prior to landing in Japan and except for being surprised they didnt give it much attention when things like Ki-84, N1K2-J, Ki-87 and A7M were to be found. But Bunrindo publication for Ki-100 gives 250 rpg for wing mounted machine guns.

 

Some time ago I've found quite interesting mentioning of trials carried in Australia when RAAF pilots compared Spitfire VIII and captured Ki-61. Was hoping for some observations, most importantly for comparative turn trials but they did not carry them. Dive trials was interesting though as indicated that Ki-61 was easier to push over from level flight into a dive than Spitty, but latter one seemed to accelerate better and in the end they broke Tony impeller. At least pilot did not complain on the ailerons like they usually did in regard to Zero :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The move to the Pacific theatre will effectively end development of the ETO for years, and possibly end it altogether. That is hugely disappointing for me. I hate to see the further development of the eastern front terminated, along with the vanishing hope of North Africa/MTO.

 

So, not the PTO per se, but everything that is sacrificed to make it happen.

Nothing was sacrificed.

The bottom line is that many of us were done paying for Eastern Front expansions after the third release if another plan wasn't put forth to go elsewhere.

So you're only hope of getting further Eastern Front content is revenue, and revenue was gong to plateau if they stayed fixated in the east.

 

This shouldn't surprise you if you were around for the old IL2 sim - it expanded as well.

Further you have a ton of Eastern Front content already, and those that are fans of other theaters have nothing thus far - so maybe a little perspective?

Edited by Gambit21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you think pto threads, posts outnumber kuban threads, post what seems like 10 to 1 now? Yea we need more of that stuff that damned bom to nothingness. Jason had to step in to help save this game after the huge success bom turned out to be. Even kuban is trying to get away with those lead lease planes. The truth is in the money, which fact is has dried up on the eastern front. Just the hope of going somewhere else will (hope) float this game along.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Yea we need more of that stuff that damned bom to nothingness.

To be fair BoM was dozen times more interesting and fun for me than BoS. Moscow map is more appealing and plane set was quite unique. I have to give them that :)

 

I hope PTO plane sets will be as good as BoM set was.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair BoM was dozen times more interesting and fun for me than BoS. Moscow map is more appealing and plane set was quite unique. I have to give them that :)

 

I hope PTO plane sets will be as good as BoM set was.

Indeed. BoM is a level up but people are stopping this because of other reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair BoM was dozen times more interesting and fun for me than BoS. Moscow map is more appealing and plane set was quite unique. I have to give them that :)

 

Just wish the large majority felt the same way. Money talks.

 

I hope PTO plane sets will be as good as BoM set was.

The I16 is fun (to me). . . Period. Lol

 

The fact remains if this was to stay in the eastern front (without the hope pto) the game was as good as dead. The sales only pointed one direction. Thus the change was made.

 

On the phone sorry for my sentence imposed in your quote.

Edited by 12.OIAE_Snake9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad the way things are currently working out. I'm glad that Jason and team recognized that a straight jump to the Pacific was probably a bridge too far and that it made sense to develop the technologies in a couple of stages. I'm glad that they stuck with the Eastern Front for one more battle... a way to kind of round out the experience and offer something a little closer to the mid war while also adding some popular types to the game. I'm glad that they outlined in their plans that another theater was coming up after.

 

I think there are a great number of us who love the simulation for the fun of feeling like you're flying. The scenery and the planes are a close second but they are second. So while we get a little wrapped up in East Front or Pacific or West or Med... I like to look at this as parts of a greater whole. The progression from Moscow, to Stalingrad to Kuban is a good one. I hope that we get with the Pacific...a progression, whatever it is decided to be, from Midway to something to something else. There are lots of arguments as to which comes along next but I think we need to keep an eye towards the overall goal of having a great selection of aircraft that are fun to fly and aircraft that work well together - either as additions to the overall whole or as types that progress from one scenario to the next.

 

I think we're heading in good places.

 

The East has been fun, continues to be fun, and the Pacific should be good time too.

Edited by ShamrockOneFive
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1 what ShamrockOneFive said.

 

Pacific is not the ultimate saviour and this sim would not be dead without it. But it's great to have it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You mean LEBillfish ? 
I was recently searching for something on old Il-2 forums and found that thread about all Ki-61 bugs and in-corrections. He sure knew all the details. 
 
Holiday snaps ?

 

Oh, there was a while there when at the beginning of the holiday season, LEBillish would post some "seaside photographs" of herself just for fun.  She had a good sense of humour.

 

Thanks for the 244th recommendation by the way.  It's now on my must-have list.  :salute:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Oh, there was a while there when at the beginning of the holiday season, LEBillish would post some "seaside photographs" of herself just for fun.  She had a good sense of humour.

Damn, where have I been back then ? Missing something like that ^^

Well, maybe she and few others will return at some point. I guess one would need to spawn a Ki-61 to attract attention :)

 

In the meantime another video finding: http://arawasi-wildeagles.blogspot.com/2016/10/mitsubishi-g4m-betty-milne-bay-video.html

Famous lighter, this time in action over Milne Bay in April 1943.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A questions for all aviation enthusiasts and engineers. 

 

I was going through various documents obtained here and there and one caught up my attention which is a post war interrogation summary focusing on stability and control characteristics of Japanese airplanes (interviewed was Prof. H. Kimura from Tokyo Imperial University as well as specialists from both Army and Navy research institutions) and here is what they said (or what interrogating officers compiled):

I. Japanese Army Air Force

1. and 2. focus on Center of Gravity which is not all that interesting here.

 

3. Stick forces in kilograms:

                       Elevator    Rudder    Ailerons

A.                        5               10            5       

B.                        10              20           10

 

The "A" forces were maximum forces which could not be trimmed out (some words are here unreadable). "A" forces applied mostly to training airplanes. "B" forces were the maximum forces in maneuvering and accelerated flight under all conditions. (It was admitted that these requirements were somewhat unreasonable, but justified by the fact that JAAF pilot required low stick forces.)

 

II. Imperial Japanese Navy Air Force

1. Same CoG stuff

2. Stick forces:

a. At 1000 meters altitude and 5.5 g acceleration, the stick force had to be less than 15 to 20 kg. At 8000 meters altitude and 5.59 g the stick force had to be greater than zero.

b. In dives at maximum speed, the force required to pullout at 1000 meters altitude had to be less than 40 kg. 

c. The landing stick forces were less than 15 kg for small airplanes, and less than 20 kg for large airplanes. 

 

3. Stick free stability was required to be great enough so that change in airspeed per 1 kg of stick force did not exceed 10 km/h.

 

4. Aileron requirements: 

a. 5 deg of bank must be achieved in less than 1 second for total aileron deflection of 10 degrees at landing speeds.

b. For fighters, 10 kg of aileron stick force should produce from 12 deg to 16 deg of total aileron angle at maximum speed.

 

5. The stall was required to start at the wing root and the ailerons had to be effective at an angle of attack 3 deg greater than stall angle.

 

6. Angle of yaw produced per degree of rudder deflection was required to be between 0.7 deg and 1.0 deg.

 

 

Thus, I was curious how does it compare to other known civilian and military requirements (German, Soviet, Italian, American or British) from that time ? I dont know much about this part of Japanese development and was fairly surprised to find out some pearl like this among other documents. 

 

Also, found this video this afternoon which shows one of the Nakajima engineers who was invited to take a look at wreck of Ki-43-I in Australia:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWu1iBul9QU

 

It turned into this beauty :)

Hayabusa-2.jpg

http://www.flyingheritage.com/TemplatePlane.aspx?contentId=21

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, there was a while there when at the beginning of the holiday season, LEBillish would post some "seaside photographs" of herself just for fun.  She had a good sense of humour.

 

Thanks for the 244th recommendation by the way.  It's now on my must-have list.  :salute:

 

Kelly used to be fond of posting pics of herself - she messaged me a few here and there too.

She enjoyed showing off her endowments as it were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Not sure how accurate this book is but has lots of info.

Bueschel is old. It is also incorrect in some areas and aesthetically book leaves something to be desired.

 

From newest works I could recommend Kagero for general description :

https://sklep.kagero.pl/en/kawasaki-ki-61-hien-ki-100.html

Not perfect, but I found it better than others. And then there is newest Osprey book which is very nice:

https://ospreypublishing.com/ki-61-and-ki-100-aces

It was however disappointing for me, mainly due to the same fact as other Osprey Aces series as its not as much Aces really but a diaries or logbooks of units. One reads about units and their actions but there is less about specific pilots and the aircraft itself. I always felt that they miss the most important - what made presented aircraft unique as of why was it chosen by the author to portray. How did it differ from others, was it pleasant to fly or not ? 

Osprey is good but disappointing.

 

Best ones are for those who can into Japanese:

Gakken Pictorial - http://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/gakken-book-61-kawasaki-ki61-ki100-251829601

Model Art (which is more technical and focuses on details that are important for plastic maniacs and would also be important for dev making 3d model of it) - http://www.1999.co.jp/eng/10061826

 

 

 

Kelly used to be fond of posting pics of herself - she messaged me a few here and there too. She enjoyed showing off her endowments as it were.

There are those girls that like to be admired. Nothing wrong about it, but I never can happen to meet one :(  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There are those girls that like to be admired. Nothing wrong about it, but I never can happen to meet one :(  

 

I suspect a lot of people are looking at this intending to give some useful advice and then thinking - no better not go there.  ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to all for posting their insights. It's very satisfying to see we have many people who are interested in the Pacific theater.

 

Speaking of carriers :) I found this link of CAP2 carrier. It got me thinking about the possibilities of carrier design (game play) and how ops could be very appealing (air/sea marshal feature). 

 

 

 

The idea of getting pushed by a crew to the elevator and going up to the flight deck is appealing. These videos reminded on me of my experience when my dad took me on a carrier (1965). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Few more pictures found on facebook, which were added by Tomoaki Arakaki:

 

Z7BuJ2.jpg

Rest in spoiler:

 

 

3Lhrfr.jpg

 

bS564C.jpg

 

p8HRF2.jpg

 

JTxXl1.jpg

 

uLlHmK.jpg

 

4jCoaD.jpg

 

erUYgv.jpg

 

RvugHI.jpg

 

 

 

I really like that control panel layout, so obvious and easy to read (for those who dont see it that way - central panel contains flight instruments like altimeter, turn and bank indicator, compass, airspeed indicator, vertical speed indicator and lower part having coolant temperature, oil temperature, oil pressure and fuel pressure gauges - left panel contains engine control gauges so tachometer, boost gauge, magneto switch, etc. - right panel contains aircraft mechanism indicators such as flap position indicator, radiator flap position indicator, front and tail wheels position indicator, fuel gauge and fuel switch).

What strikes me here is manifold pressure gauge with -60 cmHg up to +80 cmHg, when standard Ha-140 engine had rated manifold pressure of +32 cmHg and emergency of +38 cmHg. In fact no mass produced Japanese engine exceeded 52 cmHg during war, and prototypes in 1944-1945 reached up 65-70 cmHg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I. Japanese Army Air Force 1. and 2. focus on Center of Gravity which is not all that interesting here.   3. Stick forces in kilograms:                        Elevator    Rudder    Ailerons A.                        5               10            5        B.                        10              20           10   The "A" forces were maximum forces which could not be trimmed out (some words are here unreadable). "A" forces applied mostly to training airplanes. "B" forces were the maximum forces in maneuvering and accelerated flight under all conditions. (It was admitted that these requirements were somewhat unreasonable, but justified by the fact that JAAF pilot required low stick forces.)   II. Imperial Japanese Navy Air Force 1. Same CoG stuff 2. Stick forces: a. At 1000 meters altitude and 5.5 g acceleration, the stick force had to be less than 15 to 20 kg. At 8000 meters altitude and 5.59 g the stick force had to be greater than zero. b. In dives at maximum speed, the force required to pullout at 1000 meters altitude had to be less than 40 kg.  c. The landing stick forces were less than 15 kg for small airplanes, and less than 20 kg for large airplanes.    3. Stick free stability was required to be great enough so that change in airspeed per 1 kg of stick force did not exceed 10 km/h.   4. Aileron requirements:  a. 5 deg of bank must be achieved in less than 1 second for total aileron deflection of 10 degrees at landing speeds. b. For fighters, 10 kg of aileron stick force should produce from 12 deg to 16 deg of total aileron angle at maximum speed.   5. The stall was required to start at the wing root and the ailerons had to be effective at an angle of attack 3 deg greater than stall angle.   6. Angle of yaw produced per degree of rudder deflection was required to be between 0.7 deg and 1.0 deg.    

 

It is about the same.  The early specifications especially on stick forces in the United States Military circles were ridiculously low to the point they were almost never met. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I see, thanks for the reply. So to a certain degree it was rather an optimistic desire than number that had to be met by any means. That makes sense. 

 

Yes, this is one of the reasons why it was so important for the aviation authority to develop standards.

 

The ones you posted appear to be service standards coming from the Army and the Navy.  Some of those specifications will make an engineer cringe.  The maximum elevator forces issued by the JAAF are low to the point of being dangerous for example.  They are dictating that designers deliver an aircraft a pilot can easily kill himself in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Japan developed decent fighters right to the end, their problem was attrition. Death took their best pilots, reduced production (dead factory workers tend to lie around on the job), and eroded their ability to fight properly in the machines they were developing.

 

After Midway - their trajectory was decidedly downward..in flames.

 

It will be interesting to see good pilots - unhampered by those conditions - waging war in those late war Japanese machines

Edited by Heywooood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cant give it to you now Gambit, but here is a nice substitute which I found yesterday on facebook. Author and creator is Michal Švehla - Plastic models

14882288_1239561716115802_88091062776876

 

 

 

 

14753814_1239561772782463_54564975804649

 

14612463_1239561792782461_53229952660371

 

14712606_1239561829449124_64348459847047

 

14615805_1239561342782506_20941221501726

 

 

 

After Midway - their trajectory was decidedly downward..in flames.

It wasn't exactly Midway but New Guina and Solomon Islands campaigns that killed most experienced and "sucked" all the resources from other areas of operations. Japanese went as far as to drop their carrier air groups and use them to reinforce Rabaul leaving no experienced crews on boards of their most important ships.

 

It will be interesting to see good pilots - unhampered by those conditions - waging war in those late war Japanese machines

For the beginning it will be Midway I think :)

Edited by =LD=Hiromachi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm hoping it won't take too long for the introduction of Japanese Army aircraft.  I much prefer them to the IJN birds by and large, mostly because they tend to out perform the Zero, which was successful at first because of it's great range, and general performance against the mostly obsolete aircraft it met in the first six months to a year of the war.

 

I'm also hoping that the devs will incorporate some of the Japanese Army attack types, as that was a big shortcoming in original IL2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I much prefer them to the IJN birds by and large, mostly because they tend to out perform the Zero, which was successful at first because of it's great range, and general performance against the mostly obsolete aircraft it met in the first six months to a year of the war.
 

It kept being successful for the following 12 months after first 6 months too. Was doing more than fine against P-40s or P-39s, even against later aircraft like Spitifre Vc, P-38 and F4U Zero pilots could hold even as long as they wouldnt be outnumbered or outclassed by more experienced pilots. Even in early 1944 there were instances where Zeros broke a good score against Allied attackers, though at this point this was rare and more surprising than expected.  

 

I'm also hoping that the devs will incorporate some of the Japanese Army attack types, as that was a big shortcoming in original IL2.

 

Yeah, thats true. Though mods allowed to fix this problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It kept being successful for the following 12 months after first 6 months too. 

 

 

Yep

Cant give it to you now Gambit, but here is a nice substitute which I found yesterday on facebook. Author and creator is Michal Švehla - Plastic models

 

Thanks!

 

I'm well on my way to making my own as well. :)

On hold until I get the Catalina finished, but nearly ready to texture and render.

Just need the prop and a seat (will be a left isometric render)...the wing tips even fold!

post-23599-0-64320600-1477662300_thumb.jpg

Edited by Gambit21
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have any high quality drawings for that ? 

 

I have a reproduction of A6M2-A6M5 factory drawings. It's very hard to scan as it is a hardcover book and I dont want to damage it, but if you need any details say so. I can try to get something if necessary :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have nice, highly accurate (from what I can tell) reference drawings in the background of each isometric view, just turned off in this screen grab. That's the only way to get these AC modeled otherwise you're just spinning your wheels. I'll post a pic with them turned on later when I'm back at my workstation and you can let me know how they compare to what you have. :)

Edited by Gambit21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok - here are the drawings I'm working from,  I didn't post the front isometric, but you get the idea.

I can't remember now where I obtained them from, but I think they're pretty much dead-nuts on.

The external proportions are pretty much set, just need the spinner and prop, and maybe whatever part of the seat etc is visible from the side.

 

This model will be converted to a Sub-D (smoothed) mesh down the road.

I had some delusions of grandeur about getting it up and flying in the Unity game engine, (thus the modeled and movable control surfaces, gear doors etc) but realized after a time how futile that was given the primitive flight model tools available still.

So it as it sits its technically a game model, but will now be utilized for profile illustration purposes (after more work) after the Catalina is done.

 I am definitely looking forward to painting it though - you'll have to send me some recommendations in that regard. :)

 

Of the ones I saw fly recently, the dark, sort of forest green livery was most beautiful in real life.

post-23599-0-08552900-1477702515_thumb.jpg

post-23599-0-78336300-1477702526_thumb.jpg

post-23599-0-73807900-1477702543_thumb.jpg

Edited by Gambit21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...