Oscars are still death traps from the get-go.

[Tankerace]

Hence my half sarcastic suggestion of having them dogfight a 1922 biplane fighter. They way they perform ingame, it could be an even match.

[Nikademus]

I know. I was commenting on the historical preformance of the plane. In the game they are undervalued.

[Tankerace]

Yeah. I wonder why though, that is just... "un 2by3ish". I wonder what would happen if a biplane fighter tangled with it in game....now I'm curious![:D]

[Apollo11]

Hi ali,

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Oscars were the most successful plane type during the Malaya campaign in terms of kills. They also preformed well during the Sumatra and Java operations, but their successes were overshadowed by the exploits and fame of the Zero.

It is same everywhere... [;)]

In BoB most downed German pilots claimed that Spitfires did it (while many times the Hurricane was involved).

In Pacific most downed Allied pilots similarly credited Zero and not Oscar (especially since the external apperance was rather similar)...


Leo "Apollo11"

[Nikademus]

You are correct. Part of the reason the Oscar's preformance was overshadowed by the Zero was because 9 out of 10 times, Allied pilots reported attacking and being attacked by "0" type aircraft during the SRA fighting. In many of these cases they were actually fighting Oscars...not Zeros.

The humble Nate also contributed substantially in Malaya and over Burma despite it's obsolesence.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

I know. I was commenting on the historical preformance of the plane. In the game they are undervalued.

Hey, I know. Have a few beers, act like an ass in the private forums as you pressure for a change. Worked for me.[8|] Not!

[RAM]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Just wondering why the Oscars are the ones which have their less nimble opponents "evade" them, then they can't themselves. Seems reversed.

to evade an Oscar (or a Zero, for that matter) you only had to point your plane downwards. The Oscar had outrageous diving qualities...it didn't build up speed fast (because it was extra-light), and when it indeed built speed, it was hard as hell to maneovuer on dives (controls stiff as concrete at speeds over 300IAS), and was even prone to lose its wings at high speed maneouvers (because of extra-light construction). I don't find surprising to see so many allied fighters evading Oscars...specially if the allied fighters have a decent pilot on board. All he had to do is dive, build up speed and if the japanese fighter follows, when fast enough bank a bit to change direction, and pull up making a zoom (Zooming: another thing the Oscar was outrageous at) to leave the Oscar helpless under him (as he couldn't follow). From that point onwards the Ki-43 was mostly dead meat...if it didn't rip his wings trying to follow the maneouver.


The initial successes of the model were because the same reason as the Zero's: everyone tried to dogfight them...as soon as the allied fighters started using energy fighting, the Oscar was pretty much useless for air combat.

I don't think is undervalued. The Oscar was probably one of the most rubbish fighters of WW2.

[RAM]

also, there are many ways for a less nimble fighter on the tail of a highly maneouverable one to follow it into a sharp turn...high and low yoyos, Slicebacks, etc.

Also, planes regarded as "highly maneouverable" had relatively low corner speeds while the "can't turn" planes had high corner speeds. This is a misconception and a very common error. PLanes aren't "highly maneouverable" or "bricks"...depending on the speed they are fighting, ALL and EVERY plane can be both "extremely maneouverable" or a Brick.

So, at low speeds what we usually call the "maneouverable" plane can turn faster and inside the "less maneouverable" plane. That's mostly because at low speeds wingloading (in fact liftloading, but that is another issue) are the most important asset for turnfighters. The lower the wingloading, the better the low-speed turn a plane has. Planes with low wing loadings had very low "corner speeds" (corner speed= speed at which a plane achieves its best turning performance, over or under that speed the plane loses turning performance, the farther from the corner speed ,the more turning performance it loses)


So, at high speeds the plane with a higher wingloading, and thus, high corner speeds, may be able to actually turn INSIDE the "more maneouverable" fighter. As long as the "less maneouverable" plane starts with an advantageous position, it can follow the "more maneouverable" one until the speeds drop under safe margins for the higher wingloading plane (and then is time to disengage).


For instance, the Fw190 was one of the best dogfighters of WW2 even while having a high wingloading. It was one of the best dogfighters because they could be used in very high-speed close encounters, starting with advantage (said that, the Fw190 was kept on BnZ and energy fighting tactics, which were the main tactics of the Luftwaffe, but IT WAS an exceptional hispeed dogfighter none the less).

With its high wingloading, great high speed controls and its extremely good roll rate the Fw190 was able to win angles to fire on almost everything as long as the fight stood well over 250mph IAS. There are a lot of accounts of Fw190s cutting into Spitfires' turns...because those turns happened at 300+ mph IAS, where the turn rate of the 190 was quite superior to that of the Spitfire. A Spit with a 190 in his tail was in serious trouble, if the speeds involved were high enough (if not, all the 190 pilot had to do is to not turn with his enemy).

When the speed dropped, the Fw190's dive gave it the chance to disengage at will from the Spitfire.


Change the words "190" for "F4F" and "Spitfire" for "Zero", and you have the reason why the americans were able to fight successfully a plane with better performances on the paper. Change again the words "190" for "F4U", and "Spitfire" for "A6M5", and you know the story...

finally, if we change "190" for "F4 Phantom" and the "Spitfire" for "MiG 17" ,you'll see that the same lessons still held true 30 years after WW2, as Randy Cunningham (among many others) proved repeatedly over the Vietnam skies.


This means that high maneouverability planes, as we think of them, are in fact good LOW SPEED fighters...which lose a lot of their maneouverability at high speed clashes...while "low maneouverability" planes, as they are called, can be extremely successfull high-speed dogfighters but mostly dead meat at low speed.

There is no absolute thing as a "very nimble" fighter and a "brick" fighter. All fighters have their own fields on their flight envelope were they are "Very nimble"...or "Bricks"...against any given foe. The Oscar was a "very nimble" fighter at low speeds but a "Brick" at high speeds. The 190 (or the P47 or P51) was "very nimble" at high speeds but powerless at low speeds.


In the end what WW2 showed was that in an one on one encounter a heavy fighter with properly light high-speed controls and good dive and zoom qualities would always prevail over lightly built, designed to turn at low speeds, enemy planes, as long as the pilot didn't let his speed go under a certain treshold. In short: it's better to be nimble at high speeds than at low speeds.

The Oscar was extremely light and an excellent low speed turner. However it couldn't fight at all at high speeds. So...results : it was dead meat against almost anything else if the "anything else" stood out of low-speed dogfights.

[Ron Saueracker]

Well, good points. At what time did allied pilots discover the boom and zoom energy solution. Seems like they have it at the outset. Perhaps a restriction vs Japanese fighters, not just zeros is an idea (unless of course it is this way now...can't remember). Also, traditional dogfighter like I-153c are doing as well as Oscars, despite having pilots with less than 50% of the Japanese pilot exp rating. Overall, I think the Oscar is either getting a bad deal or the Allied planes are getting a great deal.

[RAM]

I would say that the benefits of the Zero should apply to every fighter of the Japanese arsenal, not only to the A6M...except for the AVG (those guys had already figured the correct way to fight japanese fighter already for 1940). In the opening stages of the Pacific war every allied fighter tried to turn with the japanese...and that's why the Zeros and Oscars got those great results that early.

With time and proper development of tactics, this should fade away (as it does with the Zeros).

I agree on that, Ron. However, my previous posts were intended to show that when a message comes up with a fighter avoiding the attack of another, doesn't mean that the attacked fighter has done an ultra-sharp turn. It may have been as simple as a Split-S, for instance, and that doesn't depend on the plane's maneouverability, but on the pilot's situational awareness and correct evaluation of the avoidance move, and the correct timing to apply it

[Mike Scholl]

RAM WHICH Fw-190 are you talking about. The 190a or the 190d? They are virtually
two different aifcraft, The 190a was a small and nimble aircraft at lower altitudes and
became the best German Fighter-Bomber of the war. The 190d was a high altitude
interceptor who's final development (the Ta-152) was one of the best in the war. But
a "blanket claim" for the Fw-190's abilities won't wash any better than one for the
Spitfire (various "marks" were optimized for different tasks and missions)

[madmickey]

It is also pretty hard to shoot down anything with 2 12.7mm machine guns.

[RAM]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

RAM WHICH Fw-190 are you talking about. The 190a or the 190d? They are virtually
two different aifcraft, The 190a was a small and nimble aircraft at lower altitudes and
became the best German Fighter-Bomber of the war. The 190d was a high altitude
interceptor who's final development (the Ta-152) was one of the best in the war.

in fact, I'm talking about both. They aren't that different, in fact the Fw190D9 was not a high altitude interceptor, but a mid-altitude fighter. If you look carefully at the two-speed supercharger of the Jumo213A in the Dora-9 you'll see that it's rated altitude is about only 1000m more than that of the BMW801D-2 of the Fw190A series. Over that altitude the engine lost power quite fast (just as with the BMW801), meaning that if the Fw190A was in trouble at more than 18500 feet the Fw190D9 was good up to 22000feet more or less. It was an improvement, indeed, but not enough to call the D9 a "high altitude interceptor". That role was owned by the late Bf109 Gustav series.

About the maneouverability, the early 190 Antons were lighter than the Fw190D9. However that was true only up to the A8 series, and anyway the much better powerloading of the Doras even over the early A-series Fw190s gave them a definitive upper hand in close fight performance (with higher powerloading your sustained turn rate improves, as does your climbrate&acceleration, meaning that the Dora was able to hold its own quite longer than an Anton in a close knifefight). The longer fuselage in the D9 meant a bigger elevator moment (because the tail was farther from the CoG), allowing for a much improved pitch control for the pilot.

Not only that, the Fw190D9 had better aerodynamics than the radial engined ones, meaning that in dives and zooms the performance of the Dora was noticeably better.

The only drawback noticed for the D9 compared vs the A series 190s was a slightly slower roll rate. I never understood why was that (in fact the D9 having only two inner 20mm guns should have lesser roll inertia and better roll rate), but there are several accounts about it.

Quite possibly the best german dogfighter of the war was the Fw190D9, and in my own personal opinion the Dora owns the "best piston engined fighter of the war" title. However this is highly subjective because there were some other excellent fighters around (like the F4U4) which could very well deserve that distinction.

the Ta-152H was too late in too little numbers. It was an excellent plane but it suffered at lower altitudes (the Jumo213E was optimiced for extreme altitudes)...

But
a "blanket claim" for the Fw-190's abilities won't wash any better than one for the
Spitfire (various "marks" were optimized for different tasks and missions)

True as it is, the Spitfire always went one step behind the Fw190 development, exception made for the late'43-early'44 period. The Spitfire was an excellent fighter, but in my opinion it was always a notch lower than the better contemporaneous german fighters. In fact, when in the early'43 the american FGs in England flying with Spitfire IXs were converted to the enormous, big and bulky P47 (a plane wich was, in every meaning of the word, the anthitesis of the Spitfire), they found the Thunderbolt was vastly superior in actual combat...

And the P47 ,no matter how formidable fighter it was, wasn't by far the best fighter flying around at the ETO.

[madmickey]

It was the range that made P-51 best piston fighter of the war.
Problems with Me-262, let the P-51 pick them off when they landed.

[RAM]

Long range made the P51D the best escort fighter of the war.

In everything but range the Fw190D9 could kick a P51D out of the sky. The D9 (no matter what you've read) was actually faster than the Mustang at altitudes under 24000 feet, had way better powerloading, climb rate, sustained turn rate, acceleration, dive, zoom, roll rate and firepower than the P51D. And the Fw190D9 with drop tank's range wasn't exactly bad either.

The P51D was much more prone to fatal damage: one 7,92mm bullet into the extremely exposed ventral radiator and say bye bye...the Fw190D9 had an annular cowling radiator in the nose( meaning it could only be hit in frontal area impacts, much harder than to hit the ventral spot of an aircraft), and the airframe wasn't well stressed for high-G maneouvers (the airframe of the Merlin mustangs were very similar to that of the Allison Mustangs, however the weights were much bigger, meaning the wings sometimes snapped in high-G maneouvers).

Also the Merlin could use its War Emergency Power for 3 minutes in a row only. The Fw190D9 with the MW50 injection could use it for periods of 10 minutes in a row as long as there was MW50 in the tank (and there was enough for 40 minutes).


There are some contenders for the "best piston engine fighter of the war", but the P51D is not one of them, IMHO.

[Hatamoto]

like ram and ron I´d vote for a bonus like the zero bonus in the early month for all jap fighters. with the exception of the zero all jap fighters seem to perform worse in the early game than they actually did in history, no matter what tactic you use or how experienced, rested, motivated... your pilots are.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: RAM

The initial successes of the model were because the same reason as the Zero's: everyone tried to dogfight them...as soon as the allied fighters started using energy fighting, the Oscar was pretty much useless for air combat.

I don't think is undervalued. The Oscar was probably one of the most rubbish fighters of WW2.

The Ki-43, at it's time of introduction was a fine plane, but one with a limited shelf life given it's top rated speed and light armament. To say that the plane was rubbish is a gross exageration. Its success was not meerly due to it's dogfighting capabilities but as with the Zero because of a combination of it's positive attributes which included agileness, quick acceleration and good handling qualities. The centerline armament also aided the Japanese gunners in lining up their targets and it was superior to the Hurricane (it's principle opponent) in vertical manevuering. I recall reading up on a P-40 driver's accounts over NG...and in his opinion he considered the Oscar (the IIB version) to be a more dangerous opponent than a Zero because a Zero had wing mounted cannons with limited ammo. Harder to get hit with....the Oscar on the other hand had two .50cal (equiv) guns mounted centerline and could potentially fill your plane with many hits in a short space of time.

Using energy tactics would indeed be the best general tactic to use against an Oscar but setting up such a situation is not as easy to do as is often suggested. Much depended on the initial setup. A key difference in the fighting over Malaya was the absense of an early warning net. This often did not allow RAF units to gain tactical advantage (i.e. altitude advantage) and often the Japanese could catch the slow climbing Allied planes and bounce them. As with the Zero, the Oscar was not as good a diving platform as their opposites, but that doesn't mean it couldn't dive or use energy tactics itself.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Hey, I know. Have a few beers, act like an ass in the private forums as you pressure for a change. Worked for me.[8|] Not!

Changing it would be difficult. The A2A model is very linear in terms of how it represents speed and gun value. The same aspects that make the F4U "uber" even beyond it's historically formidable attributes is the same thing that makes the Ki-43 (and all obsolecent plane types - Ki-27, P-26 etc) flying targets.

[kaiser73]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Hey, I know. Have a few beers, act like an ass in the private forums as you pressure for a change. Worked for me.[8|] Not!

Changing it would be difficult. The A2A model is very linear in terms of how it represents speed and gun value. The same aspects that make the F4U "uber" even beyond it's historically formidable attributes is the same thing that makes the Ki-43 (and all obsolecent plane types - Ki-27, P-26 etc) flying targets.

then why not changing stats of nates and oscars to adapt them to the a2a model?


question: does this apply also to later jap fightedrs, like the upgraded oscar? i mean, they are as useless as nates and oscars?

[Nikademus]

You would have to implement extreme changes in the OOB to have a visible impact. I once experimented with a MVR=40 Nate. A very extreme change that only had very modest impact on the combat results. You'd have to modify more than one stat and it would be a major undertaking to balance it out.

Late model Oscars will do slightly better vs the at start models.