Carrier fighters

Share your gameplay tips, secret tactics and fabulous strategies with fellow gamers.

Moderators: wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami

Post Reply
munster847284728472
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 12:50 pm

Carrier fighters

Post by munster847284728472 »

Has anyone ever used the J2M Jack as thier main fighters on there Cv's in a non mod game with the latest patches. ls it even possible? What was the result if you have?
User avatar
gladiatt
Posts: 2578
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2008 5:19 pm

RE: Carrier fighters

Post by gladiatt »

ORIGINAL: Munster84728472

Has anyone ever used the J2M Jack as thier main fighters on there Cv's in a non mod game with the latest patches. ls it even possible? What was the result if you have?

As the Jack is an Army fighter, i'm not sure you could fit it on a CV...
herwin
Posts: 6047
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 9:20 pm
Location: Sunderland, UK
Contact:

RE: Carrier fighters

Post by herwin »

ORIGINAL: gladiatt

ORIGINAL: Munster84728472

Has anyone ever used the J2M Jack as thier main fighters on there Cv's in a non mod game with the latest patches. ls it even possible? What was the result if you have?

As the Jack is an Army fighter, i'm not sure you could fit it on a CV...

The designation, J2M, should be a heads up that it was a land-based naval point-defence interceptor.
Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com
herwin
Posts: 6047
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 9:20 pm
Location: Sunderland, UK
Contact:

RE: Carrier fighters

Post by herwin »

By the way, how do the Shinden and Shinden-Kai do against the F6F and F4U? I understand they were considered superior to the F6F3 and comparable with the F4U1 despite a lower top speed.
Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com
User avatar
castor troy
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:17 am
Location: Austria

RE: Carrier fighters

Post by castor troy »

ORIGINAL: gladiatt

ORIGINAL: Munster84728472

Has anyone ever used the J2M Jack as thier main fighters on there Cv's in a non mod game with the latest patches. ls it even possible? What was the result if you have?

As the Jack is an Army fighter, i'm not sure you could fit it on a CV...


the Jack is a Navy fighter but not carrier capable.
User avatar
Mobeer
Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 7:59 pm

RE: Carrier fighters

Post by Mobeer »

John 3rd put J2M fighters onto his carriers when using the Big B mod, not sure if this could be done in a non-modified version.
User avatar
rominet
Posts: 523
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:39 pm
Location: Paris

RE: Carrier fighters

Post by rominet »

ORIGINAL: herwin

By the way, how do the Shinden and Shinden-Kai do against the F6F and F4U? I understand they were considered superior to the F6F3 and comparable with the F4U1 despite a lower top speed.

Yes, after the war, the Shiden has been tested by USSAF and it appeared that it had very good performance, equal or superior than the F6F-3 BUT with high octane degree in fuel.
As the japanese didn't have such good fuel for their own planes during war, the performance of their planes was less good.
Image
User avatar
Japan
Posts: 754
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 1:45 pm
Location: Heaven on Earth (Scandinavia of course)

RE: Carrier fighters

Post by Japan »

ORIGINAL: gladiatt

ORIGINAL: Munster84728472

Has anyone ever used the J2M Jack as thier main fighters on there Cv's in a non mod game with the latest patches. ls it even possible? What was the result if you have?

As the Jack is an Army fighter, i'm not sure you could fit it on a CV...



J2M Jack is a Navy Fighter ... You can put a Carrier Capeble Group onto your CVE's or something... .could work ok as assistanse to your main fleets strike..
AAR VIDEO
THE FIRST YEAR + THE SECOND YEAR
tm.asp?m=2133035&mpage=1&key=&
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17790
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: Carrier fighters

Post by John 3rd »

ORIGINAL: Mobeer

John 3rd put J2M fighters onto his carriers when using the Big B mod, not sure if this could be done in a non-modified version.

I TRIED to do that but then found out they couldn't be used that way. I felt like an Idiot! Only Japanese planes to fly from the CVs are: A6M2, A6M3a, A6M5, and (I think) the A6M8.

Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
User avatar
gladiatt
Posts: 2578
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2008 5:19 pm

RE: Carrier fighters

Post by gladiatt »

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: gladiatt

ORIGINAL: Munster84728472

Has anyone ever used the J2M Jack as thier main fighters on there Cv's in a non mod game with the latest patches. ls it even possible? What was the result if you have?

As the Jack is an Army fighter, i'm not sure you could fit it on a CV...


the Jack is a Navy fighter but not carrier capable.

OOOPS, so bad for me [:o]
Big B
Posts: 4642
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 5:41 pm
Location: Cali
Contact:

RE: Carrier fighters

Post by Big B »

I'm sure the J2M can be used off of CV's in stock - as the J2M is in slot #10 of the Data Base (and therefore carrier capable) in stock - the same as it is in B-Mod.[;)]
ORIGINAL: Mobeer

John 3rd put J2M fighters onto his carriers when using the Big B mod, not sure if this could be done in a non-modified version.
User avatar
Q-Ball
Posts: 7851
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 4:43 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

RE: Carrier fighters

Post by Q-Ball »

I am surprised this isn't mentioned more. But the GEORGE and JACK both can be used off CVs, at least in Big B and Stock.

In those versions, I believe that land-based IJN units are always CV Capable, regardless of what they upgrade to.

Whether you can or not, using J2M or George on CV is highly gamey and should not be done IMO. IRL, they were not CV capable.

I would have no qualms about using the Reppu on a CV, but by then you probably don't have many CV's anyway.
User avatar
Local Yokel
Posts: 1494
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 12:55 pm
Location: Somerset, U.K.

RE: Carrier fighters

Post by Local Yokel »

According to William Green's 'Famous Fighters of the Second World War', a shipboard version of the Shiden, the N1K3-A Shiden 41 was proposed but never built.  The N1K4-J, mounting a NK9H-S Homare powerplant rated at 2000 h.p., was paralleled by a shipboard version, the N1K4-A Shiden 42 (the 'A' standing for carrier fighter).  The Shiden 42's first prototype was completed on 20 Sep 44, the second in the first week of October.  According to Green, this aircraft was accepted for production, but this was not proceeded with due to the destruction of Japan's carrier forces.
 
This is going over somewhat the same ground as another thread, but offers some justification for a mod in which the Shiden 42 could realistically be employed in the late war period as a shipboard fighter by a Japanese player who has managed to conserve his carriers and pilots.  The Shiden 42 would help to make Japanese carrier aviation somewhat more competitive: that's a respectable amount of power being generated by the Homare, assuming the maintainers could make the damn thing work.
Image
User avatar
Shark7
Posts: 7936
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:11 pm
Location: The Big Nowhere

RE: Carrier fighters

Post by Shark7 »

ORIGINAL: rominet

ORIGINAL: herwin

By the way, how do the Shinden and Shinden-Kai do against the F6F and F4U? I understand they were considered superior to the F6F3 and comparable with the F4U1 despite a lower top speed.

Yes, after the war, the Shiden has been tested by USSAF and it appeared that it had very good performance, equal or superior than the F6F-3 BUT with high octane degree in fuel.
As the japanese didn't have such good fuel for their own planes during war, the performance of their planes was less good.

Still they could easily hold their own against the F6F, F4U or P-51 when in the hands of a skilled pilot. Imagine what they could have done with higher grade fuel?
Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'
User avatar
Misconduct
Posts: 1851
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:13 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, Florida
Contact:

RE: Carrier fighters

Post by Misconduct »

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Still they could easily hold their own against the F6F, F4U or P-51 when in the hands of a skilled pilot. Imagine what they could have done with higher grade fuel?
[/quote]

Most japanese planes would handle beautiful against any allied plane with higher grade of fuel, taken the Ki-84, the design was excellent, armored and fast up to 430mph at Alt with upgraded fuel, something japanese didn't do.

I do believe if japanese had plenty Ki-84s and N1K2's with decent fuel, they would of given allies a pretty hard time in the air, even the Ki-61 was tested after the war and found it was dominate early on with bad fuel, and would of been 36mph faster with higher octane fuel.

Japan suffered terribly compared to germany in form of fighter aircraft, Japan rarely used higher octane fuel except for flight testing for purposes of "meeting aircraft specifications" however some of the speeds noted in the flight tests were possible with the higher octane fuel, most of them were re-evaluated after being in production with cheaper grade fuel.

Edit: Think of it this way, if the P-51 mustang used a cheaper grade fuel it would probably not of broken 400mph in level flight at alts. One luxary allies had were higher octane fuel which made the P-51 the 437mph beast it is. Same goes for P-47 Jug, at 425mph at alts, even 450 for the Jug-N model, it would not of broken 400mph even at 30k.
ASUS Maximus IV Extreme-Z Intel Core I7 2800k Corsair Hydro Heatsink Corsair Vengeance DD3 24GB EVGA GTX 580 Western Digital 1.5TB Raid 0 Windows 7
Post Reply

Return to “The War Room”