Tojo vs Tony Manouver ratings

[Miller]

We all know that the Tony is a waste of time due to its high service rating of 3. However, I always assumed the Tony was more manouverable in real life, as the Tojo was built as an interceptor, not a dogfighter.

Yet in AE the Tojo is more manouverable at all altitudes, why is this???

[Athius]

Yeah, the Tony (and the ki-100) were good aircraft in real life but the game does not seem to agree with that.

[Misconduct]

ORIGINAL: Athius

Yeah, the Tony (and the ki-100) were good aircraft in real life but the game does not seem to agree with that.

Well I can see the problem with the Ki-61 being a service rating of 3, however if we take historically accurate Service rating of Japanese army and navy aircraft, then service rating would be hell of a lot higher. Taken from the book Fire in the skies Japans logistic and Mechanical sense wasn't exactly best in the world, where for example 3 fighters were broken down, however 2 could be fixed from parts of 1 aircraft, the mechanic wasn't allowed to gut the one plane, instead wait for parts to be flown in.

I read a story while back about VT-8 on Guadalcanal, during the bombardment of battleships, VT-8 lost all of its aircraft due to the shelling, squadron leader got a few mechanics together to gut half a dozen aircraft and even used mess cooks to help rebuild a single TBF Bomber to take off and bomb japanese positions, im talking gutting wings from one aircraft, tail section from another, and on a funny note no pilot wanted to fly the thing since well its never been done before, so the CO took it up to bomb japanese artillery positions. Oh and what happened to the lone TBF, when reinforcement aircraft showed up, upon landing the TBF broke its back.

[crsutton]

Yes, in the game it works just the opposite. Early war Japanese fighters with a rating of 1 are right back into the fight and Allied fighters with the 2 service rating are at a disadvantage. Combine that with the "ahem" historical superiorty of Japanese industrial output and pilot training program and it makes for bad mojo. [&:]

[CarnageINC]

Wasn't the Tony based off of the German Bf-109?

[Misconduct]

ORIGINAL: CarnageINC

Wasn't the Tony based off of the German Bf-109?

Basically the Ki-61 was a combination of 2 aircraft, Bf-109s engine with the P-40e's durability, armor and dive capabilities. Basically they used a captured P-40e and attempted to make it a better offensive aircraft, however at the time the DB-601s engine was already obsolete being it came from a Bf-109e model and was underpowered, however japan had never had a liquid inline V engine before had, so it would have to do.

[ChezDaJez]

ORIGINAL: Misconduct

ORIGINAL: CarnageINC

Wasn't the Tony based off of the German Bf-109?

Basically the Ki-61 was a combination of 2 aircraft, Bf-109s engine with the P-40e's durability, armor and dive capabilities. Basically they used a captured P-40e and attempted to make it a better offensive aircraft, however at the time the DB-601s engine was already obsolete being it came from a Bf-109e model and was underpowered, however japan had never had a liquid inline V engine before had, so it would have to do.

Not quite correct. The Tony was not based in anyway, shape or form on any version of the P-40. Kawasaki obtained the rights to the German DB-601 in 1939 and began development on the Ki-60 interceptor. This model failed to meet expectations. Most work on the Ki-60 had been suspended by late 1941 and was officially dropped in 1942. German engineers helped design the Ki-60 but not the Ki-61.

The Ki-61 Hein was developed as a light fighter to replace the Ki-43. Development began in late 1940 and the first prototype was delivered just days after Pearl Harbor. The first production aircraft rolled off the assembly line in August 1942. It was the first Japanese fighter to receive self-sealing gas tanks and armor. It initially received great acclaim due to its high speed and was found to outperform the Ki-43 model II, the Me-109E and captured P-40Es.

A series of unexplained crashes during testing and the tempermental Ha-40 engine delayed development but production still was authorized in Aug 1942 with full production coming in June 1943. The engine was the single biggest problem with the aircraft but the complicated hydraulic system also provided its share of woes. It was difficult to maintain in the field especially in tropical climates. The Japanese attempted to improve the performance of the Ha-40 engines with a redesign resulting in the Ha-140 that was a dismal failure.

When the Ha-40 and Ha-140 engine plant was destroyed by US bombers in 1944, the Japanese found itself with a 100 aircraft but no engines. Kawasaki was directed to redesign the plane to use the Mitsubishi Ha-115 engine that was available in large numbers. This aircraft became known as the Ki-100 and was fairly successful though the hydraulic system continued to be a source of problems.

Chez

[Misconduct]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

ORIGINAL: Misconduct

ORIGINAL: CarnageINC

Wasn't the Tony based off of the German Bf-109?

Basically the Ki-61 was a combination of 2 aircraft, Bf-109s engine with the P-40e's durability, armor and dive capabilities. Basically they used a captured P-40e and attempted to make it a better offensive aircraft, however at the time the DB-601s engine was already obsolete being it came from a Bf-109e model and was underpowered, however japan had never had a liquid inline V engine before had, so it would have to do.

Not quite correct. The Tony was not based in anyway, shape or form on any version of the P-40. Kawasaki obtained the rights to the German DB-601 in 1939 and began development on the Ki-60 interceptor. This model failed to meet expectations. Most work on the Ki-60 had been suspended by late 1941 and was officially dropped in 1942. German engineers helped design the Ki-60 but not the Ki-61.

The Ki-61 Hein was developed as a light fighter to replace the Ki-43. Development began in late 1940 and the first prototype was delivered just days after Pearl Harbor. The first production aircraft rolled off the assembly line in August 1942. It was the first Japanese fighter to receive self-sealing gas tanks and armor. It initially received great acclaim due to its high speed and was found to outperform the Ki-43 model II, the Me-109E and captured P-40Es.

A series of unexplained crashes during testing and the tempermental Ha-40 engine delayed development but production still was authorized in Aug 1942 with full production coming in June 1943. The engine was the single biggest problem with the aircraft but the complicated hydraulic system also provided its share of woes. It was difficult to maintain in the field especially in tropical climates. The Japanese attempted to improve the performance of the Ha-40 engines with a redesign resulting in the Ha-140 that was a dismal failure.

When the Ha-40 and Ha-140 engine plant was destroyed by US bombers in 1944, the Japanese found itself with a 100 aircraft but no engines. Kawasaki was directed to redesign the plane to use the Mitsubishi Ha-115 engine that was available in large numbers. This aircraft became known as the Ki-100 and was fairly successful though the hydraulic system continued to be a source of problems.

Chez

Hmm that's interesting I read somewhere they based the Ki-61 using data from captured P-40e's, ill have to go through and find out which book is incorrectly stating this, always a joy when finding out source information is wrong, gotta love history.

I assumed the book was correct based on the Ki-61 looking pretty close to a 109, I assumed the Japanese taken the data from the P-40 is only way to explain how it dives fairly well, where 109 wasn't able to press over 450 in a dive.

[Miller]

Can anyone answer the original question? Why is the Tojo more manouverable than the Tony?

[1275psi]

one word

Flaps

(very sophisticated flaps)
yes, i know -i can't spell)

[Misconduct]

Tony had flaps also, I am not sure if they were combat flaps however.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Miller

Can anyone answer the original question? Why is the Tojo more maneuverable than the Tony?

The Tojo had a better power to weight ratio, was very small, not much larger than an I 16 IRL and more of its' working surfaces were for maneuvering.
Less armor than a Tony means less weight, and a planes maneuverability is dependent on how quickly it loses speed in a turn.
Less weight (to power) means a sustained speed in the turn.
The smaller the plane also means a smaller axis for the turn.

[JuanG]

Even though the Tojo was smaller, its smaller wing area meant it had a higher wing loading than Tony which would argue that Tony should have been the better turner. However, the point made about combat flaps is interesting, but I dont know if Tony also had them.

[ChezDaJez]

ORIGINAL: JuanG

Even though the Tojo was smaller, its smaller wing area meant it had a higher wing loading than Tony which would argue that Tony should have been the better turner. However, the point made about combat flaps is interesting, but I dont know if Tony also had them.

The Tony did not have the butterfly flaps that the Ki-43 and Ki-44 did. The Ki-44 Tojo was developed to be a high altitude interceptor and maneuverability was not initially judged to be a high priority. Combat experience by the experimental group 47th Indendent Air Group in Indochina showed otherwise and butterfly flaps were fitted to subsequent production aircraft.

The Ki-44 had a much faster roll rate than the Ki-61 due to its nearly 3 meter shorter wingspan. This allowed it to enter turns faster and the butterfly flaps allowed it to maintain a tighter turn for much longer. The Ki-61, a much heavier aircraft, lost airspeed very rapidly in a turn. The Ki-44 could also easily outclimb the Ki-61 but could not keep up with it in a dive. The Ki-61 was faster in level flight than the Ki-44 when the Ha-40 engine ran well but in the real world, the Ki-61 was far slower.

Chez

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

ORIGINAL: JuanG

Even though the Tojo was smaller, its smaller wing area meant it had a higher wing loading than Tony which would argue that Tony should have been the better turner. However, the point made about combat flaps is interesting, but I dont know if Tony also had them.

The Tony did not have the butterfly flaps that the Ki-43 and Ki-44 did. The Ki-44 Tojo was developed to be a high altitude interceptor and maneuverability was not initially judged to be a high priority. Combat experience by the experimental group 47th Indendent Air Group in Indochina showed otherwise and butterfly flaps were fitted to subsequent production aircraft.

The Ki-44 had a much faster roll rate than the Ki-61 due to its nearly 3 meter shorter wingspan. This allowed it to enter turns faster and the butterfly flaps allowed it to maintain a tighter turn for much longer. The Ki-61, a much heavier aircraft, lost airspeed very rapidly in a turn. The Ki-44 could also easily outclimb the Ki-61 but could not keep up with it in a dive. The Ki-61 was faster in level flight than the Ki-44 when the Ha-40 engine ran well but in the real world, the Ki-61 was far slower.

Chez

Ahh...All I have to do is sit back and watch. Thanks Steve.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

ORIGINAL: JuanG

Even though the Tojo was smaller, its smaller wing area meant it had a higher wing loading than Tony which would argue that Tony should have been the better turner. However, the point made about combat flaps is interesting, but I dont know if Tony also had them.

The Tony did not have the butterfly flaps that the Ki-43 and Ki-44 did. The Ki-44 Tojo was developed to be a high altitude interceptor and maneuverability was not initially judged to be a high priority. Combat experience by the experimental group 47th Indendent Air Group in Indochina showed otherwise and butterfly flaps were fitted to subsequent production aircraft.

The Ki-44 had a much faster roll rate than the Ki-61 due to its nearly 3 meter shorter wingspan. This allowed it to enter turns faster and the butterfly flaps allowed it to maintain a tighter turn for much longer. The Ki-61, a much heavier aircraft, lost airspeed very rapidly in a turn. The Ki-44 could also easily outclimb the Ki-61 but could not keep up with it in a dive. The Ki-61 was faster in level flight than the Ki-44 when the Ha-40 engine ran well but in the real world, the Ki-61 was far slower.

Chez

Ahh...All I have to do is sit back and watch. Thanks Steve.

same as I do in my PBEM to watch Tojos achieving kill rates of 6-16:1 vs. P-40, P,39, Hurricane and P-38 when the single squadron kamikaze sweeps meet them on Cap. [:D] Must have been a great dogfighter. Or wait, was it expected to be an intercepter? Glad when I catch halve a dozen of them on leaking Cap though, then the kill ratio is reversed.

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez




The Tony did not have the butterfly flaps that the Ki-43 and Ki-44 did. The Ki-44 Tojo was developed to be a high altitude interceptor and maneuverability was not initially judged to be a high priority. Combat experience by the experimental group 47th Indendent Air Group in Indochina showed otherwise and butterfly flaps were fitted to subsequent production aircraft.

The Ki-44 had a much faster roll rate than the Ki-61 due to its nearly 3 meter shorter wingspan. This allowed it to enter turns faster and the butterfly flaps allowed it to maintain a tighter turn for much longer. The Ki-61, a much heavier aircraft, lost airspeed very rapidly in a turn. The Ki-44 could also easily outclimb the Ki-61 but could not keep up with it in a dive. The Ki-61 was faster in level flight than the Ki-44 when the Ha-40 engine ran well but in the real world, the Ki-61 was far slower.

Chez

Ahh...All I have to do is sit back and watch. Thanks Steve.

same as I do in my PBEM to watch Tojos achieving kill rates of 6-16:1 vs. P-40, P,39, Hurricane and P-38 when the single squadron kamikaze sweeps meet them on Cap. [:D] Must have been a great dogfighter. Or wait, was it expected to be an intercepter? Glad when I catch halve a dozen of them on leaking Cap though, then the kill ratio is reversed.

As far as the typical IJ fighter it was more of an interceptor than pure dogfighter like the A6M and Ki-43, HOWEVER, it was still a superior plane to the AC you list, except the later models of P-38. The butterfly flaps gave it an edge even though it was a High wingloaded AC, and the most Western of the Early to mid war IJ designs.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: TheElf



Ahh...All I have to do is sit back and watch. Thanks Steve.

same as I do in my PBEM to watch Tojos achieving kill rates of 6-16:1 vs. P-40, P,39, Hurricane and P-38 when the single squadron kamikaze sweeps meet them on Cap. [:D] Must have been a great dogfighter. Or wait, was it expected to be an intercepter? Glad when I catch halve a dozen of them on leaking Cap though, then the kill ratio is reversed.

As far as the typical IJ fighter it was more of an interceptor than pure dogfighter like the A6M and Ki-43, HOWEVER, it was still a superior plane to the AC you list, except the later models of P-38. The butterfly flaps gave it an edge even though it was a High wingloaded AC, and the most Western of the Early to mid war IJ designs.

the first version of the Tojo was a better aircraft than the P-38H? In my PBEM, my P-38 are only E and F models but my "test" game has later versions available too and they do no better. Not really suprising anyway with nearly identical ratings (except that they´re slightly faster and got more range). [&:]

In my particular case it´s not the problem that the Tojo got uber stats or something like that, it´s what is happening. Example: 5 squadrons on sweep (meeting all conditions but having all of them at the same HQ), 5 single squadron kamikaze sweeps, of which 4 usually get dived on and slaughtered with above mentioned rates (pilots 70 skill). Usually the other way around when I catch a couple of fighters leaking Cap. Works the other way around too though, when you see your squadrons going in alone on and on in 95%+ of the time you just ask for disasters. This usually only gets "visible" in the game later on as early on you don´t have a lot of material to throw at the enemy. Neither has the enemy so usually you see "some" aircraft on Cap vs. "some" aircraft on sweep. It gets really bloody when you got "a lot" of aircraft on Cap vs. "a lot" of aircraft on sweep (coming in one by one squadron).

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: castor troy






same as I do in my PBEM to watch Tojos achieving kill rates of 6-16:1 vs. P-40, P,39, Hurricane and P-38 when the single squadron kamikaze sweeps meet them on Cap. [:D] Must have been a great dogfighter. Or wait, was it expected to be an intercepter? Glad when I catch halve a dozen of them on leaking Cap though, then the kill ratio is reversed.

As far as the typical IJ fighter it was more of an interceptor than pure dogfighter like the A6M and Ki-43, HOWEVER, it was still a superior plane to the AC you list, except the later models of P-38. The butterfly flaps gave it an edge even though it was a High wingloaded AC, and the most Western of the Early to mid war IJ designs.

the first version of the Tojo was a better aircraft than the P-38H? In my PBEM, my P-38 are only E and F models but my "test" game has later versions available too and they do no better. Not really suprising anyway with nearly identical ratings (except that they´re slightly faster and got more range). [&:]

In my particular case it´s not the problem that the Tojo got uber stats or something like that, it´s what is happening. Example: 5 squadrons on sweep (meeting all conditions but having all of them at the same HQ), 5 single squadron kamikaze sweeps, of which 4 usually get dived on and slaughtered with above mentioned rates (pilots 70 skill). Usually the other way around when I catch a couple of fighters leaking Cap. Works the other way around too though, when you see your squadrons going in alone on and on in 95%+ of the time you just ask for disasters. This usually only gets "visible" in the game later on as early on you don´t have a lot of material to throw at the enemy. Neither has the enemy so usually you see "some" aircraft on Cap vs. "some" aircraft on sweep. It gets really bloody when you got "a lot" of aircraft on Cap vs. "a lot" of aircraft on sweep (coming in one by one squadron).

Maybe you just suck at WITP....

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: TheElf



As far as the typical IJ fighter it was more of an interceptor than pure dogfighter like the A6M and Ki-43, HOWEVER, it was still a superior plane to the AC you list, except the later models of P-38. The butterfly flaps gave it an edge even though it was a High wingloaded AC, and the most Western of the Early to mid war IJ designs.

the first version of the Tojo was a better aircraft than the P-38H? In my PBEM, my P-38 are only E and F models but my "test" game has later versions available too and they do no better. Not really suprising anyway with nearly identical ratings (except that they´re slightly faster and got more range). [&:]

In my particular case it´s not the problem that the Tojo got uber stats or something like that, it´s what is happening. Example: 5 squadrons on sweep (meeting all conditions but having all of them at the same HQ), 5 single squadron kamikaze sweeps, of which 4 usually get dived on and slaughtered with above mentioned rates (pilots 70 skill). Usually the other way around when I catch a couple of fighters leaking Cap. Works the other way around too though, when you see your squadrons going in alone on and on in 95%+ of the time you just ask for disasters. This usually only gets "visible" in the game later on as early on you don´t have a lot of material to throw at the enemy. Neither has the enemy so usually you see "some" aircraft on Cap vs. "some" aircraft on sweep. It gets really bloody when you got "a lot" of aircraft on Cap vs. "a lot" of aircraft on sweep (coming in one by one squadron).

Maybe you just suck at WITP....

perhaps. Perhaps you just suck designing? [:'(]

A pity I have missed your AAR that does better. Glad I haven´t missed your comrades AARs that fail just as miserable when it comes down to "coordinate". lol. And the loops in "my" games are just the same as in other AARs too. The overall situation is ok in the end as four times minus makes two times a plus. So two big loops on one side are neutralized by four smaller loops on the other, making it an ok kill rate in the end (considering the timeframe you´re in and the circumstances).