What's your Strategy?
https://forums.matrixgames.com:443/
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.
ORIGINAL: CarnageINC
Wasn't the Tony based off of the German Bf-109?
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.
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
ORIGINAL: Miller
Can anyone answer the original question? Why is the Tojo more maneuverable than the Tony?
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.
Ahh...All I have to do is sit back and watch. Thanks Steve.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
ORIGINAL: TheElf
Ahh...All I have to do is sit back and watch. Thanks Steve.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
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.ORIGINAL: castor troy
ORIGINAL: TheElf
Ahh...All I have to do is sit back and watch. Thanks Steve.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
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.
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.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.
Maybe you just suck at WITP....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.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.
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).
ORIGINAL: TheElf
Maybe you just suck at WITP....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).