hearsay and facts maybe you can name your sources? imo, your numbers are in parts vastly overdone: max speed of N1K2 was 604km/h at 5600m (Francillon, Rene J.; Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War), resp. 594 km/h (National Museum of the US Airforce). if you want to include other games as reference (like you did by referencing Il-2 for auto-flaps), the modeled turn-time there is 20.25 sec (compared to 17 sec for the A6M5-A) i think, before you ask for agreement, you should at least give the numbers and be consistent in your sources. i would also like to know, where you got the information, that the turn-time of MC.202 was in any way better than a Spit IX? as far as i know, it's climb-speed was also not impressive, something about 19 m/s, by far anything but superior to Spit V nor IX. the airframe was probably an improvement to the Bf-109 E, which used the same engine, however it was considerably heavier (about 500kg), even to the Spit VB (200kg), which also had a more powerful Merlin 45. the Daimler 601 A1 (resp. the Alfa licence-built) was outdated at times of MC.202 - the later builds like 205 were much better fitted. the comparison to any P-51 doesn't make any sense. totally different aircrafts in concept and tactics.
Re: hearsay and facts I see we have very different ideas about what constitutes an impressive climb rate.
Well... To be exactly, 18.1 m/s is the climb rate of C.202 It gives a 1086 m/min. It oscilates between 1086 and 1120 m/min (sources) I think I'm not inventing names, numbers nor sources. I wasn't there to fly all planes of the war and take notes of each one. About C.202: U can read this: Chris Bishop - The Enciclopedia of Weapons of World War II, page 286 This book states that C.202 was well matched with Spit V, they were equal in the performance, but C.202 was badly undergunned. I read that Spit V had better turn radius than Spit IX, and C.202 didn't turn better than Spit V, but SPIT 9. It proved to be superior than Hurricane II and P-40 in Setentrional Africa. Tell me: can you even turn with a Spit IX in C.202's FH? Can you run after a Spit V in C.202's FH? Can you outclimb a Spit V in C.202's FH? Can you beat a P-40 or a Hurri II in C.202's FH? http://www.world-war-2-planes.com/Macchi-C-202-Folgore-Thunderbolt.html http://www.xs4all.nl/~fbonne/warbirds/ww2htmls/maccmc202.html#maccmc2020 Another source: WB2009. C.202 and C.205 works all fine there. And WB2009 don't have modified FM, it came from iEN and it's the way they developed. C.202 is absolutely different from what I fly in FH. Completely. It has good performance, great turning hability, I can turn as equal to or better than a Spit V in low speeds, low alts. (And I have witnesses). Here in FH I can't even get out of a spin. This is bullshit. You just put some G and the plane go on spin that I can't get out. Same on C.205. Another source: IL-2 1946'. It's even better than WB2009. Do I need to write all that again? For C.205: Engine: Daimler-Benz DB605 The same. This is my favourite plane (within Me-262 and C.202) of WB2009. Just don't need to comment. If it were bad on WB2009, I just won't come here and tell that it's not good on FH. They're completely different aircraft. Mb 'cause the game is different? Dunno... The spin caractheristics are even worse. You said that Oh really? Did Ki-84 fight against La-7? THAT WASN'T ME THAT WROTE, TEST PILOTS AND REAL PILOTS SAID. I don't give a damn if they wasn't in the same class, Mustang is real superior to the C.205. Much faster than it. DID I SAID THAT C.205 WAS BETTER THAN P-51? The pilots who encountered C.205 said that was a tight oponent. The 51st Stormo received their MC. 205 in April 1943 and on 8/2/43, 6 MC.205 attacked 20 P-38 and P-40s destroying 6 of the Allied fighters for the loss of only 1 MC.205. The MC.205 was capable of meeting on equal terms the Mustang and the latest German fighters. The MC.205 was produced until 1948, representing the best aeronautical engineering during the war. These machines, against common belief, are witnesses of the Italian Air Force ability to deploy, although in limited number, planes of the highest quality. At the start of February 1944, 1° Gruppo was transferred to a base on the outskirts of Reggio Emilia, with the task of attacking Allied four engined bombers and the P-51s that escorted them. Dogfights with the aircraft that could be considered the best fighter of the time meant that the Italian pilots were hard pressed; however they were able to claim 58 Mustangs, though at a high price. At the end of May 1944, the number of C.205s of the ANR was so low that the unit had to be re-equipped with Fiat G.55." PLS READ THIS CAREFULLY: "The Macchi fighter possessed some excellent qualities, and the Italian pilots made optimum use of the aircraft which had a maximum speed of 644 km/h (400 mph)." One of the greatest British fighter pilots of World War II, Group Captain Duncan-Smith DSO DFC respected both the Macchi and the Italian airmen: "In general the standard of flying of the Italian pilots was very high indeed, and in encounters with Macchi 205s particularly we were up against aircraft that could turn and dog-fight with our Spitfires extremely well." Sources: http://www.comandosupremo.com/Mc205.html; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macchi_C.205; http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/mc205.htm; Famous Fighters of the Second World War-2 - Willian Green For N1KX-J: Do you know who was Pierre Clostermann? Did you read "Flames In The Sky" ? Well, there is a note in that book that states all that about N1K2. Mb he is wrong, dunno. He wrote that book with quotes from real pilots. THE ALLIED pilots said that N1K1-J and N1K2-J were really hard opponents to fight. It's in the same class or someways better than F6F-5. It's in the same class of Ki-84. As said before. Tested on IL-2 1946'. Much different planes. Not released at WB2009 yet. Climb rate of 1300m/min, that gives a 21.6 m/s. Turn radius equal as A6M-5. Sources: Flames In The Sky - Pierre Clostermann; Chris Bishop - The Enciclopedia of Weapons of World War II; some sites on the internet. Tell me: Can you overrun a Spit 9 with N1K1/K2's FH? Can you overturn a P-51/P-47/P-38 with N1K1/K2's FH? Can you outclimb a F6F-5/F4U with N1K1/K2's FH? The autopilot still looks drunk, oscilating hi and low. @ledada I didn't tell the numbers 'cause I cannot create the log on FH TA. "Can not create the log file". Dunno why. But all comparisons that I stated above were tested on different sims, the only sim that the results don't meet is WB FH. This is why I said that planes are very, veeery different from what I mean is ok. Tell me, do u fly at least N1K1 when available? When it is available, do you choose it to take off from a CV or you just pick up the A6M and go fly?
impressions hi redant, well, true... impressive might be not a good choice to say. surely, climb-rate was good, but the newer design of macchi didn't really 'impress' here, compared to the Bf-109 E of 1940 with the same engine - however, that is probably subjective. i better keep it the way, that it was not 'almost superior than spit'.
Hehe, to me anything better than 15 m/sec is at least noteworthy ... anything approaching or exceeding 20 m/sec is enough to impress me. Yeah ... I know ... by 109K4 / Spit XIV standards, that's nothing.
hi joseh i haven't said anything about inventing. is that climb-speed 'almost superior than spit'? that is what you said before, and this is what i questioned. and how does, in your opinion, 'well matched' translate to a suggestion of change? then, i find the quote not convincing: compared to Spit V, the MC.202 is a lot faster and turns a lot worse. in which way is this equale up in performance? this is what i mean with comparability. the quote says, the MC.202 turns better than Spit IX - that is not the case! furthermore, i have no intent to talk about Hurricanes and P-40. quotes like that don't seem to be more than prosa. don't ask me... you are loudly demanding changes. and what in all saint's names is it worth, if i (or you or anyone else) can do this or that? give test-numbers and then discuss them. pilot abilities are worthless. imo, it should be like this (no clue, if it is): Spit IX shouldn't be outturned by MC.202, Spit V shouldn't be able to run from MC.202, MC.202 shouldn't outclimb Spit V... in 2 points you just repeat the claim of before - both of your links don't show that! both of your links give no sources! i doubt, that other games will be accepted as sources here, not if these games don't back-up their own models. how can you consider them as valuable? btw: in 'Il-2' the MC.202 is exactly modeled as i described before: faster than Spit V, but not at all better turning... and much worse in both aspects than Spit IX. so what? if you have different experiences, don't bother to write anything down. otherwise it is hard to answer. i didn't talk about 205. pardon me? i wrote: 'the comparison to any P-51 doesn't make any sense. totally different aircrafts in concept and tactics.' sorry, but YOU said that some pages before in this thread: 'C.202 could hold their won against Spits and P-51s and whatever allieds could put in the air'. you didn't quote anyone else. now you say, that Mustang was real superior... well enough. perhaps i don't understand, what 'could hold their won' means? which is even about the MC.202? you said: '[MC.205] Could hold their own against every new plane allieds put in the air'. how does this translate then to any usable informnation, if you also say: 'Mustang is real superior to the C.205'? i think, it won't help to talk about nice Mustang-pilot stories and what they have to say about Macchis. not only in general is hearsay tough to transform to data, but the two planes are even so different in design, that such pilot-comments are worth nothing. anyway, i have no clue, what the MC.205 has to do with this. i wasn't talking about it. (you shouldn't get enraged so much...) i read it carefully, but couldn't find anything on topic here. which type was it anyway? i guess, the MC.205. i haven't talked about the 205! this gets slightly boring, but i read it carefully... nice of the captain to respect his enemies. what exactly do you get from 'extremely well'? besides that 'well' means next to nothing to use, it doesn't even mean 'equal', not to speak of 'better' (both would as well be useless) then again, i am not interested to talk about MC.205! either stay to what i said, or don't adrees this reply to me, pls. so, you honestly think, it is any worth to quote clostermann, who quotes stories of pilots, which say, the N1K were hard opponents? nothing to comment on this. ok, i said before what i think about comparing to other games. but anyway, how does your 'testing' in 'Il-2' relate to your posting (see some pages before) of max speed at 680 km/h? in 'Il-2' the max speed is modelled (as in the code) with 595 km/h. you claim, that the turn of N1K2 is equal to A6m5? in 'Il-2' N1K2 has 20.25 sec, the A6M5 has 17 sec (both as coded). that is pretty inconsistent, maybe you test again. and... which of your various 'sources' you want to have acknowledged here? maybe it would be a good idea to get the various sources in a table to see the span of data. maybe that way, one could at least be able to see, what is compared to what. well enough, it might be difficult to create a log for you. but how do you still claim, that the 'results' don't compare? if you have no log, you have no results, do you? what about at least trying to get 'manual' results, by reading 'showdata' and trying to setup a testride? if you want to compare with other sims, don't you think, it should at least be accurate? it seems, you have got wrong data from 'Il-2' alone - the code is available for it, so don't bother about testing, get the numbers. don't ask me rhetorical questions, if you want to achieve a change. please get me right here. i am by far not the one who has much clue about performance and so. but i have seen quite some inconsistency in your arguments. the point is: there is a lot of discussion about what should be better and what not. but those who can implement it, are expected to read several different opinions. all of which think, they are right. the developers have to check the arguments, look-up the trustworthyness and think, how to integrate the demands. how do you think, this has to happen? with pilot-accounts? why do you think, you have it right? even your claims are not consistent. how do you think, it helps anything to quote 'N1K were hard opponents' to allied pilots? which planes were they in, which tactics and which situation were described in the quotes, what does 'hard' mean at all? i don't see, how most of the demands connsider what is needed to get a better model here. i think, it is understandable, that developers have a hard time to answer to the not too few demands in a foreign language equally, and also i think (as mentioned at some point), that it is not just a 'fill it in'-thing to change the model of a totally outdated game. considering this, i would find it a question of pure politeness to respect the way it is done and give what is needed instead of stories and impressions. i don't doubt your serious wish to have an improvement of your favourite models. i am very sure, that the developers have all data from 'Il-2' already tabled, but i doubt, they can and will just implement those - the discussion in 'Il-2' forums is not any less than here, unsurprisingly. if you want to add other valuable information, you should perhaps be very explicitly listing them: exact numbers with exact sources probably preferrable. if not available maybe pilot-comparisons, which describe tactical and strategical situation, planes, abilities, etc. ... imo, there is nothing usable in 'xxx pilots said, that yyy planes were extremely well'. i mean, honestly, what do you expect can be done with your claims? maybe it already helps, if you just list the specific aspects which you would like to have changed in detail? logging: don't type '.startlog' don't type '.startlog <whatevername>' type '.startlog whatevername' that doesn't work?
I see u guys simply dont understand each other very well. First of all, Joseh made some good points. Ok, mb he didnt ask right questions, but as i could understand he asked about some planes that he thinks are not correctly modelled. I totally support this. What i dont support is creating confusion after that, by asking him to prove some facts or to name sources etc etc. To show u how much u dont read at all, ill just point out this sentence about combat flaps in n1k. Automatic flaps are not il2 invention, u can read about them everywhere on the net including in Saburo Sakai's book. So its not game as source its known fact. Second, talking about climb speed etc etc blah blah is not something u should do , because it is just making confusion. You can make philosophic conversations all day long, but fh is fh , and fh should be flown.On fh guy needs to spend some time flying different planes to really know what hes talking about. I am saying this because this is not airwar forum, this is forum about fh , and philosophic thoughts do not count here. If u never flown fh , what the fuck do u know about mustang in game or mc202? Joseh had some idea, to connect data with game. Even more than simple irl data is important if u fly . So, if any of u philosophers had flown for just a bit on every plane , every version, u would know facts: 1) n1k is lame duck ( quoting ant) 2) even more lame is F6F 3) F4u is better turner than many planes 4) P51 is not what u can read in books And so on ....not to mention all. Lets take 1 example.Ok lets take 2. Antred, one of the greatest pilots here, last tod noticed F4U4 is very strange plane, turning mb too good. WEll, HELOOOOOOOOOOOO! Good morning Ant. Second example is Ledada. What do u Ledada know about FH? I, personally, never saw u flying in arena. Yet, u use every opportunity to hop in threads, talking something that has nothing to do with this game. Why has nothing to do ? Because u dont know what is or what is not p51 in game. Joseh knows, i vv him in arena every day. Saying that , i hope u will understand that u can not compare something that can not be compared in fh. Lets say u want to compare f6f and n1k: U cant do that because f6f is lame duck, and it shouldnt be, and n1k is too lame duck. How can u compare them at all? I am not talking here that its FH's fault, it is something that came with ien, or happened while developing new versions of fh , thus its nobody's fault imho. We all need constructive threads, numbers, data, and of course FH DATA. Just pls dont obstruct every attempt on changing something, just to say something. Fh is still develloping, ppl are working on it , they need help. They need oppinions of ppl who fly certain model of airplane, for longer time, they need fh pilot's experiences, not real pilot ones.They dont need philosophy. I saw some pilots who could make real nice ratio while flying n1k, or mustang, so they r the ones who should be asked. In the end, i want to ask one more thing , pls all, think about balance. For example, N1K. With 4x20 mm , deadly as shvak ( i bet ledada doesnt know that ), it shouldnt be too good. Because then ull have new ki84, thus many more new players will start as noobs, and end up as being noobs. WE all need to work on this game, at least we who love it, and we really dont need obstruction. We need patience.
Joseh, I hope you have some good numbers, which your claims of research would have us believe. Words are great and exciting, but they are worth little as data (as ledada has pointed out). I gave you the tools to test the planes on FH, and it's very easy to find numbers that dont make sense. I dont mean to toot my own horn, but the method I developed last week provides the best analysis of FMs I have ever seen on this forum. For the first time we have an easy, accurate and repeatable way to test critical attributes of FMs (Clmax, stall speed, etc). Before, exec had me flying sustained turns at 1000 +-10m at a constant speed, with an average over 6 turns. Have you ever tried to fly one of those tests? It's possible, but not easy. And I dare say that if even this new method isn't enough to get the attention of the FH team, nothing will. So what chance do you have by using anecdotal evidence?
WTG demian! You reached exactly the point: What I'm trying to point is this: FH today have a lot of planes to choice, mb IMO 30-50 planes. But the arena today is full of noobs that get the planes and become aces. Wich planes are that? PPL WHO FLY EVERYDAY, EVERY VERSION KNOWS THESE PLANES. I fly everyday and see, everyday, the same planes. The SAME. For example, antred flies P-38 as no one can fly that. He simply master that plane. But for 1 P-38 pilot, there is 10 LA pilots. See? If I choose the Zeke, I'm sure that I can survive and take evasive measures to avoid antred's P-38. I know that I'll never climb as him in a Zeke. But, if I choose N1K2, what are my real chances to survive? At least, IMO, NO CHANCE. Why? Because the Zeke is better. But was Zeke better? Mb... depends on the pilot Faster? Of course, no. Agile than? No. Had better roll rate? Of course, no. What I'm trying to say is: N1K is a lame duck. No one flies them 'cause no one likes them. Why then, it were a beloved fighter? And another point is: I fly everyday the C.202 and C.205. EVERYDAY. I should feel the same when flying it on TH or FH, no? YES. But I don't feel that way. C.202 is another sitting duck, as C.205. In WB2009 I master the Macchi series, mainly the C.202! Love that plane. And what about here in FH? I simply hate that. How can the same planes be so different? I'm trying, mb not the right way to do, BUT I'M TRYING TO GIVE MY IMPRESSIONS TO DEVS/ADMINS. PLS DON'T COME HERE AND BEAT THE EFFORTS OF PEOPLE WHO LOVE FH. It's better to take a Spit 9, or LA, and when you see a C.205/N1K2 you say: "What a idiot, flying that piece of sh*t plane. Easy kill." @ledada YOU JUST DON'T ANSWERED ME Tell me, do u fly at least N1K1 when available? When it is available, do you choose it to take off from a CV or you just pick up the A6M and go fly? 1) Are you talking that I need to be a professional researcher to put my impressions here? For God's sake, if you need sources, why can't you find them? I'm not a researcher, I don't have money to build a plane and test it like it was in rlty. 2) Instead of beating someone's efforts, WHY CAN'T U JUST HELP ME? 3) I personally never saw you on arena. @ all ppl 1) F4U is strange, turning mb too good. Need help on it? 2) F6F feels less than it should be. I tested on WB2009, mb you need help? 3) Need help on italian planes? @gandhi Tnx man, I know that my efforts are little, just need some practice on tests. Just finishing retrieving data on WB2009, to compare. I need some help
Hey guys, maybe reading some pilots' stories would help and or be entertaining? http://www.aviationartstore.com/aviator_stories_2.htm Even some nice pics once in a while.
there's a time for stories, looseleaf but those who want to know how much factual value they hold need look no farther than yours
@gandhi: Perhaps the irony has been lost in my suggestion. Everyone here is talking just that now: stories. quotations of specifications and many sources providing different numbers. I am providing even more stories. All these stories are subjective. As pointed-out before, this is a talk about an online game. Your charting tool can be used to provide a relative performance index. Maybe we can see these charts of all the planes here, make comparisons and then recommendations for adjusting parameters. Without all the stories. By the way did anyone fix the A6m wingless fire plane option yet?
I agree with Looseleaf about those stories. And no, zeke is still flyable with no wing as La as many other planes. IMHO it wont be changed any time soon, because as i read, admins agreed that if u find the way how to land it , u should do it . The reason why i dont like war stories is for example everyone here knows that americans for almost all their planes said they were climbing like "homesick angels".. wtf... that is so subjective as any other pilot comment..I am more for game approach, fly, know, read little data and say. But MORE fly than read books, because this is not coresponding forum, this is not philosophical forum. This is forum about certain game. If we make all planes according to data from life, we will have shit , not game. I dont think Looseleaf is malicious element here Gandhi, and i dont think ur either. I dont like wars like these. Therefore, i suggest u Gandhi make new thread, with all data tables u made, im very fond of ur new method, so we can all have them at one place.The reason why im asking this is , i cant everytime come here to see ur results, and to read this non stopping ledada's jumping. Wasting time on reading some pscyho babbling, knowing that he cant start new thread, cant be creative, last 3 years no sign of it. Just some shit everytime when someone wants to change anything, without any agreements ever. WELL, back of ledada. Start ur own thread someday , or dont participate in others. Everything u do here is just spamming, "searching for some holes" according to own saying. Well, if u need some holes, go find some girl, or boy if ur gay, and search there for any sign of holes.
