RHS Japanese Aircraft Data (re exported)

[el cid again]

IF you want this in Excel spreadsheet form, send your address to trevethans@aol.com

Apparently maneuverability is used to find the chance of a shot (probably it counts for both attack and defense). This data set takes what appears to be the WITP values if they were consistently calculated and divides them by two. However, heavy bombers have the SAME maneuverability as in CHS and stock because they divided by 8 and I divided by 4.

Apparently durability is used to find the chance a hit damages or destroys an aircraft. It is used for AA combat as well as air-air combat. And it also is used in rolls for operational attrition. This data set would have to be multiplied by 5 or 6 to achieve stock values.

Firepower is based on 1 for a .30 cal explosive round. IF you get a hit, this value is used with durability to determine what happened.

OpCeiling is "Operational Ceiling" - a value between optimum operating altitude and service ceiling. It is 80% of service ceiling for ordinary engines, 90% for turbosupercharged engines and 95% for jet/rocket engines.

Designation Type Maneuverability Durability FerryRange NormRange ExtRange OpCeiling FwdFirepower RearFirepower Payload [=Bombload+Rockets+Droptanks or Cargo]
A5M4 Claude Fighter 19 5 13 3 5 25590 2 0 132 Carrier Fighter
A7M2 Reppu Fighter 26 7 13 3 5 28463 28 0 1102 Carrier Fighter
A6M2 Zeke Fighter 22 5 32 9 12 26112 16 0 824 Carrier Fighter; 1xDrop Tank
A6M3 Zeke Fighter 22 5 25 7 9 29507 16 0 824 Carrier Fighter; 1xDrop Tank
A6M5 Zeke Fighter 23 5 20 6 8 30656 16 0 1002 Carrier Fighter; 1xDrop Tank
A6M7 Zeke Fighter-Bomber 24 6 13 4 5 27679 20 0 551 Carrier Fighter
A6M8 Zeke Fighter-Bomber 24 6 13 4 5 29247 18 0 1278 Carrier Fighter; 8xRockets = 16
F1M2 Pete [FF] Float-Fighter 15 5 8 2 3 24652 2 1 264
A6M2-N Rufe [FF] Float-Fighter 18 5 18 5 7 25580 16 0 264
N1K1 Rex [FF] Float-Fighter 21 6 18 5 7 28045 16 0 132
J2M2 Jack Fighter 26 6 20 5 7 30814 28 0 264
N1K1-J George Fighter 23 7 26 7 10 32769 28 0 264
J7W1 Shinden Fighter 29 7 16 4 6 37804 40 0 264
Q1W1 Lorna Dive Bomber 4 7 18 5 7 15948 14 1 1102 ASW Dive Bomber; 1xASD Radar
Ki-44IIIN Tojo Fighter 28 6 15 4 5 30847 28 0 0 Army Carrier Fighter
Ki-76 Stella Level Bomber 7 5 9 2 3 14701 1 0 264 Army Carrier ASW Bomber
D3A2 Val Dive Bomber 17 5 14 4 5 27419 2 1 815 Carrier Dive Bomber
D4Y2 Judy Dive Bomber 22 5 37 11 14 27941 2 2 1234 Carrier Dive Bomber
B4Y1 Jean Torpedo Bomber 10 5 16 4 6 15748 0 1 1764 Carrier Torpedo Bomber
B5N2 Kate Torpedo Bomber 14 5 21 6 8 21570 0 1 1764 Carrier Torpedo Bomber
B6N2 Jill Torpedo Bomber 20 6 18 5 7 23606 1 1 1764 Carrier Torpedo Bomber
B7A2 Grace Torpedo Bomber 21 6 31 9 12 29377 14 2 1764 Carrier Torpedo Bomber
C6N1 Myrt Recon 24 6 55 16 22 27340 0 1 1764 Carrier Recon; 1xDrop Tank
C6N1-S Myrt [NF] Night Fighter 12 6 55 16 22 27357 14 0 1000 CV Night Fighter; 1xDrop Tank; 1xType 3 AI Radar
G3M2 Nell Torpedo Bomber 7 9 45 13 18 23645 1 7 1000 1xTorpedo
G4M1 Betty Torpedo Bomber 8 9 63 18 25 26112 1 8 1764 1xTorpedo
G4M2m22 Betty Torpedo Bomber 8 10 63 18 25 23371 2 14 1764 1xTorpedo; 1xASD Radar
G4M2e Betty (w Okha) Level Bomber 7 10 52 15 20 21178 2 14 2205 Okha Manned Missile Carrier
P1Y1 Frances Torpedo Bomber 5 10 56 16 22 24556 2 6 2646 1xTorpedo; Mark 6 Nav Radar; 1xASD Radar
G8N1 Rita Level Bomber 11 16 77 23 30 32144 4 28 2205 2xTorpedos; 1xMk 6 Nav Radar; 1xASV Radar
C5M2 Babs Recon 20 5 12 3 4 25017 0 1 0
J1N1-C Irving Recon 11 7 42 12 16 26897 0 2 0
H6K4 Mavis Patrol 3 14 63 18 25 25095 1 8 3528 2xTorpedos
H8K2 Emily Patrol 4 17 86 25 34 23110 8 14 4408 2xTorpedos; 1xASD Radar
H6K2-L Mavis [Xpt] Patrol 3 14 45 13 18 18279 0 0 15165 Cargo Flying Boat
H8K2-L Emily [Xpt] Patrol 4 16 46 13 18 21230 2 7 15435 Cargo Flying Boat
L1N1/AT-2 Thora Transport 7 8 13 3 5 18279 0 0 3749 Cargo
L2D2/DC-3 Tabby Transport 6 9 33 10 13 26112 0 0 10558 Cargo
L3Y1 Tina Transport 6 8 47 14 18 19540 0 1 2095 Cargo
G5N2-L Liz Transport 4 15 47 14 18 18279 0 0 8820 Cargo
E8N2 Dave Float-plane 12 5 9 2 3 18985 1 1 132 Ship Recon
E7K2 Alf Float-plane 11 5 25 7 10 18435 1 1 264 Ship Recon
E13A1 Jake Float-plane 15 6 22 6 8 22797 0 1 551 Ship Recon
E16A1 Paul Float-plane 18 6 25 7 10 26112 7 2 551 Ship Recon
E14Y1 Glen Float-plane 10 4 9 2 3 14179 1 1 132 Submarine Recon
M6A1 Seiran Float-plane 17 7 12 3 5 25852 0 2 1874 1xTorpedo; Submarine Bomber
2xKu-8 Gander & Tug Transport 4 19 17 5 6 16342 1 2 9702 2xGliders & Ki-21 Tug Combination
Ki-27 Nate Fighter 21 5 18 5 7 31988 2 0 221
Ki-43-I Oscar Fighter 21 26 12 3 5 30421 4 0 66
Ki-43-II Oscar Fighter 22 6 33 10 13 35811 4 0 1102
Ki-44IIa Tojo Fighter 26 6 18 5 7 29821 8 0 551
Ki-45 KAIa Nick Fighter-Bomber 11 7 23 7 9 28019 11 1 1102 37mm Gun
Ki-45 KAIb Nick Fighter-Bomber 11 7 23 6 9 27668 19 1 1102 37mm Gun
Ki-45 KAIc Nick [NF] Night Fighter 11 7 21 6 8 26113 26 1 1102 37mm Gun; 1xType 2 AI Radar (when available)
Ki-61-I Tony Fighter 22 6 11 3 4 28463 18 0 0
Ki-61-II Tony Fighter 24 7 21 6 8 33708 18 0 1102
Ki-83 Stan Fighter 14 9 36 10 14 39904 34 0 221
Ki-84 Frank Fighter 25 7 23 6 9 28071 14 0 1102
Ki-100 Tony Fighter 23 7 23 6 9 34653 18 0 1102
Ki-102b Randy Fighter-Bomber 12 9 23 6 9 26112 35 2 1102 57mm Gun
Ki-32/30 Mary/Ann Level Bomber 16 5 20 6 8 22773 1 1 992
Ki-51 Sonia Dive Bomber 17 6 11 3 4 21596 2 1 441
Ki-48-I Lily Level Bomber 9 8 25 7 10 23093 1 1 883
Ki-48-II Lily Dive Bomber 10 9 26 7 10 27889 1 1 1764
Ki-21-II Sally Level Bomber 9 9 28 8 11 26113 1 2 2205
Ki-49 Helen Level Bomber 9 10 31 9 12 24284 1 8 2205
Ki-67 Peggy Level Bomber 10 11 39 11 15 24730 2 9 2359 1xTorpedo; 1xMark 6 Nav Radar
Ki-36 Ida Level Bomber 14 5 13 3 5 21282 1 1 330 Army Cooperation Units
Ki-15 II Babs Recon 21 5 11 3 4 25017 0 1 0
Ki-46-II Dinah Recon 11 7 26 7 10 33771 0 1 0
Ki-46-III Dinah Recon 13 7 48 14 19 33077 0 0 0
J1N1-S Irving [NF] Night Fighter 10 7 39 11 15 24337 28 0 0 1xType 2 AI Radar (when available)
Ki-34 Thora (Ki-59) Transport 7 8 13 3 5 18119 0 0 3749 Cargo
Ki-56/LO Thalia Transport 8 8 27 8 10 20890 0 0 5291 Cargo
Ki-57/MC-21 Topsy Transport 8 9 31 9 12 20890 0 0 5291 Cargo

Rear Firepower = Rear guns plus Top Turret or Top Rear guns

[el cid again]

Designation Type Maneuverability Revised Speed ROC
A5M4 Claude Fighter 16 19 270 2745
A7M2 Reppu Fighter 23 26 390 3218
A6M2 Zeke Fighter 19 22 331 2642
A6M3 Zeke Fighter 20 22 338 2640
A6M5 Zeke Fighter 20 23 351 2765
A6M7 Zeke Fighter-Bomber 20 24 345 3129
A6M8 Zeke Fighter-Bomber 21 24 356 2880
F1M2 Pete [FF] Float-Fighter 13 15 230 1709
A6M2-N Rufe [FF] Float-Fighter 16 18 270 2440
N1K1 Rex [FF] Float-Fighter 18 21 304 2965
J2M2 Jack Fighter 22 26 371 3493
N1K1-J George Fighter 21 23 362 2514
J7W1 Shinden Fighter 26 29 466 2693
Q1W1 Lorna Dive Bomber 4 4 143 751
Ki-44IIIN Tojo Fighter 24 28 394 4021
Ki-76 Stella Level Bomber 6 7 110 820
D3A2 Val Dive Bomber 15 17 267 1696
D4Y2 Judy Dive Bomber 20 22 360 2139
B4Y1 Jean Torpedo Bomber 10 10 173 703
B5N2 Kate Torpedo Bomber 13 14 235 1283
B6N2 Jill Torpedo Bomber 19 20 344 1577
B7A2 Grace Recon 20 21 352 1900
C6N1 Myrt Night Fighter 21 24 379 2400
C6N1-S Myrt [NF] Level Bomber 21 12 379 2414
G3M2 Nell Level Bomber 6 7 232 1084
G4M1 Betty Level Bomber 7 8 266 1275
G4M2m22 Betty Level Bomber 7 8 272 863
G4M2e Betty (w Okha) Level Bomber 7 7 252 800
P1Y1 Frances Level Bomber 10 5 339 2315
G8N1 Rita Dive Bomber 5 11 368 1494
C5M2 Babs Recon 18 20 303 2480
J1N1-C Irving Recon 9 11 329 2335
H6K4 Mavis Patrol 3 3 212 1174
H8K2 Emily Patrol 4 4 290 1607
H6K2-L Mavis [Xpt] Transport 3 3 207 1174
H8K2-L Emily [Xpt] Transport 4 4 261 1237
L1N1/AT-2 Thora Transport 6 7 223 1483
L2D2/DC-3 Tabby Transport 6 6 220 800
L3Y1 Tina Transport 6 6 216 1007
G5N2-L Liz Transport 4 4 261 1082
E8N2 Dave Float-plane 11 12 186 1509
E7K2 Alf Float-plane 10 11 171 1082
E13A1 Jake Float-plane 13 15 234 1617
E16A1 Paul Float-plane 16 18 273 2109
E14Y1 Glen Float-plane 9 10 153 968
M6A1 Seiran Float-plane 16 17 295 1089
2xKu-8 Gander & Tug Transport 4 4 139 745
Ki-27 Nate Fighter 18 21 292 3057
Ki-43-I Oscar Fighter 18 21 307 2982
Ki-43-II Oscar Fighter 19 22 329 2821
Ki-44IIa Tojo Fighter 23 26 376 3832
Ki-45 KAIa Nick Fighter-Bomber 10 11 339 2610
Ki-45 KAIb Nick Fighter-Bomber 10 11 337 2585
Ki-45 KAIc Nick [NF] Night Fighter 10 11 336 2679
Ki-61-I Tony Fighter 19 22 319 2975
Ki-61-II Tony Fighter 22 24 379 2732
Ki-83 Stan Fighter 13 14 437 3280
Ki-84 Frank Fighter 22 25 392 2780
Ki-100 Tony Fighter 21 23 360 2734
Ki-102b Randy Fighter-Bomber 10 12 360 2750
Ki-32/30 Mary/Ann Level Bomber 15 16 262 1503
Ki-51 Sonia Dive Bomber 15 17 264 1653
Ki-48-I Lily Level Bomber 8 9 298 1823
Ki-48-II Lily Dive Bomber 9 10 314 1923
Ki-21-II Sally Level Bomber 8 9 302 1490
Ki-49 Helen Level Bomber 8 9 306 1250
Ki-67 Peggy Level Bomber 9 10 333 1361
Ki-36 Ida Level Bomber 12 14 216 1548
Ki-15 II Babs Recon 18 21 316 2380
Ki-46-II Dinah Recon 10 11 375 1460
Ki-46-III Dinah Recon 12 13 450 1300
J1N1-S Irving [NF] Night Fighter 9 10 315 1713
Ki-34 Thora (Ki-59) Transport 6 7 223 1483
Ki-56/LO Thalia Transport 7 8 249 1483
Ki-57/MC-21 Topsy Transport 8 8 290 1040

[spence]

Somewhare along the way I believe you spoke to the manner you arrived at these figures: like dividing stock values by 2 or something. I couldn't help but notice that the aircraft "lovingly" referred to as "The Ronson" (a cigarette lighter for those not familiar with tobacco lore), that is to say the G4Mx, has a higher durability (10 vs 8) than the Il2m3 Sturmovik (often referred to as the flying tank).

Doesn't seem quite right - having two engines that blow up with only slight provocation does not seem much of an advantage when the single engine plane's engine has some armor protection. Anectdotal evidence abounds about Allied a/c returning to base with considerable battle damage that seemingly should have brought the plane down. It surely does not abound re the G4 in any model.

[el cid again]

Somewhare along the way I believe you spoke to the manner you arrived at these figures: like dividing stock values by 2 or something. I couldn't help but notice that the aircraft "lovingly" referred to as "The Ronson" (a cigarette lighter for those not familiar with tobacco lore), that is to say the G4Mx, has a higher durability (10 vs 8) than the Il2m3 Sturmovik (often referred to as the flying tank).

First of all, the good news (sort of): the G3M and G4M do not have a durability rating of 10 - they are both 9. I am hard pressed to explain why you are reading 10 above? [Computers sometimes seem to have a mind of their own. I will reexport, copy and repost ALL the data above so you can see it as it is in the actual database.]

Second, know that I gave the IL-2 a very special armor rating. The IL-2 is one of only two planes rated as armor 2 (the other being the very strange Wellington with its geodesic structure and reputation for being able to take ANY punishment). The IL-2M is the ONLY plane rated as armor 3. [I noted that the database gave the IL-2 a rating of 2 - so I decided that maybe it matters if armor is more than one?] IF the code uses the armor rating, these planes will tend to survive better if hit.

ADDED: And due to my data entry error, the IL-2M was not saying 9 as it should have, for that extra armor.

Third, know that I use BOTH the structure of the plane (suggested by mathmetician Joe Wilkerson) AND the armor rating in the durability formula: The Japanese planes are rated differently because of fabric covered control surfaces than the all metal IL-2s are; and the Japanese planes have ZERO armor rating, vs 2 and 3 for the IL-2s. Note here I did NOT "divide stock values by 2" -- although my values are on average about 1/6 of stock - deliberately so operational attrition and AAA attrition will rise (being way too low). Instead I created a formula that considers aircraft size (the square root, not pure size), number of engines, number of pilots, basic structure type, and armor. Further, after comments, I reduced the effect of armor - reviewers felt using it as a multiplier was to grossly overstate its import - so it became an additive factor. [But my original formula would have given the IL-2 a higher value - it does not now because I listen to comments]

Fourth, please observe that an aircraft of the size of the IL-2 which is all metal and armored normally has a duribility rating of 6 - so it is 1/3 better than the norm for a small single engine plane. At the same time,
note that good twin engine bombers usually have durability ratings higher than the G3 and G4 do. So the result is nearly the same, which is not a good thing given the severe difference in maneuverability. If we DID NOT count things like sheer structure size, the availability of another pilot if the command pilot gets killed, number of engines, etc - then ALL other twin engine planes would suffer - and then listen to the sqawks! I like this system because it does count a variety of things which were listed by Joe as probably influential (after I did an analysis supporting most of his guesses about what might be important). For example, it really matters a lot if you lose your only engine! It also matters a lot if you cannot get out of the way of an enemy trying to shoot at you: an IL-2 has more than twice the maneuverability of a G3 and almost twice the manueverability of a G4 - so it is going to get shot at a whole lot less often in any equal situation vs enemy fighters.

Fifth, I have a fine reference by British aviation authority Bill Gunston, who went to Russia, met most of the living designers, and was given unusual access to records, drawings and plans (many of which are published in his book Russian Aircraft). If you read this rather hard to read book (print is small, many words are omitted or abbreviated to achieve compression - more data per page) you will find that the IL-2 did not BEGIN as a very effective aircraft. And it is that EARLY version we have in the game. It was found that the lack of a rear gunner was a fatal problem, and for that reason the later version (IL-2M) is ALSO in the game. But the plane was NOT able to stand up very well to being shot at - even by .30 cal weapons - when this was possible. I am quite skeptical that something is way out of whack here.

BUT IF you will read about the EARLY IL-2, and STILL think there is a problem, we might want to think about a modification of the durability formula. I insist on using the same formula for all planes. However, we can change the formula itself. One thing we could do would be to add a factor for "flamability." I oppose this because I doubt we have the ability to get uniform data on all 240 plus plane types on this subject; because I think the armor rating does this in fact already; and because I fear it might lead to judging planes more by reputation than by data (which is not my intent: my instructions were "use verifiable data" - not "do what feels right"). But I am willing to listen to any mechanism you can propose that might address this issue if you still think it is one after looking up the dismal record of the IL-2 as introduced (and in the form we have here). You might have other mechanisms, or you might be able to show how to use the one I have proposed in a way that is easy, consistent, based on hard data available for all planes, etc.