Matrix Games Forums

Anyone care to discuss what the WITP ratings for the Vanguard should be?

Here is an interesting site: http://uncleted.jinak.cz/pdf/china.pdf

Max Speed: 340 MPH
Crz Speed: 290 MPH
Climb Rate: 2520 Ft/Min
Max Alt: 28,200 Ft
End: 274
Mnvr: 32
Durability 28
Max Load: None
Armour: 0
Availability: Sept, 1942
Pool: 129
Build Rate: 0

Here's the official specs...

99's across the board.

This machine is better than a time machine. Or an F-16.

Ok. I may not be as funny as I wish.

Sorry, I won't be able to help with the stats. I couldn't begin to compare individual fighters.

Anyone else? If not, this is what it will be entered as. Don, any advice on slot # and which CAF group (s) can upgrade to it and what aircraft replace it? 1.5 will pork this anyway...[:(]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Anyone else? If not, this is what it will be entered as. Don, any advice on slot # and which CAF group (s) can upgrade to it and what aircraft replace it? 1.5 will pork this anyway...[:(]

Slot question is still in the works - as part of the finalization of the aircraft artwork with Subchaser and TheElf. Once that is defined I'll come back and get the specs above (just in case someone posts additional information in the mean time).

I'll have to look up the history - might be part of 4th Group???

950 miles of range?!?!?! How many hexes are they? Too much for this game?

I've got conflicting range data so far.

The reason i had not included the Vanguard was due to its very heavy operational losses.
The plane was used by 2 US home defense squadrons for 4 months or so and lost something like 31 aircraft operationaly from 2 sqds.

There are persistant rumors that the Chinese pilots disliked the plane so much that it was only used once or twice before being thrown into a dust bin.

Curiously, 1 P66 was found crated in Burma not too long ago.

Anyway, this is why i did not include it in the game.

If we have to have it in the game my formulas give it a 32.5 mnvr rating and then i would subtract 1 point for quality concerns.
So, either a 31 or 32. No armour rating though.

Mike

Bummer, I was hoping this would make it in for the Chinese at least[:(]

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

Bummer, I was hoping this would make it in for the Chinese at least[:(]

I don't see why not. 129 aircraft is alot to just chuck. No one can say what a bunch of 20ish rating Chinese newbie pilots will do to the ops losses in the game either. By Sept 42 I can't see China with too many good pilots unless they turtled for 8 months.

We have the art, we have the data, we have room, and China needs aircraft.

If we have to have it in the game my formulas give it a 32.5 mnvr rating and then i would subtract 1 point for quality concerns.
So, either a 31 or 32. No armour rating though.

What is your formula for calculating the maneuver rating? Also do also have a formula for durability rating?

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

Bummer, I was hoping this would make it in for the Chinese at least[:(]

I don't see why not. 129 aircraft is alot to just chuck. No one can say what a bunch of 20ish rating Chinese newbie pilots will do to the ops losses in the game either. By Sept 42 I can't see China with too many good pilots unless they turtled for 8 months.

We have the art, we have the data, we have room, and China needs aircraft.

True - but we have also upped the P-43 Lancer strength by a bit to compensate for lack of P-66. We might end up doing little more than replacing one (of two) squadrons of P-43 with P-66. Have to go back and read the histories on this one.

ORIGINAL: doktorblood

If we have to have it in the game my formulas give it a 32.5 mnvr rating and then i would subtract 1 point for quality concerns.
So, either a 31 or 32. No armour rating though.

What is your formula for calculating the maneuver rating? Also do also have a formula for durability rating?

Lemurs apparently has worked with Grigsby's data styles before. I just looked at planes already in game with like stats and service period, looked into the histories a bit (how pilots liked it compared to etc...) and made an educated guess as to what the P-66 was. Came within .5 of Lemurs!...whoohoo!

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

Bummer, I was hoping this would make it in for the Chinese at least[:(]

I don't see why not. 129 aircraft is alot to just chuck. No one can say what a bunch of 20ish rating Chinese newbie pilots will do to the ops losses in the game either. By Sept 42 I can't see China with too many good pilots unless they turtled for 8 months.

We have the art, we have the data, we have room, and China needs aircraft.

True - but we have also upped the P-43 Lancer strength by a bit to compensate for lack of P-66. We might end up doing little more than replacing one (of two) squadrons of P-43 with P-66. Have to go back and read the histories on this one.

You know me a bit now Don. Go for P-66! [:D]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

Bummer, I was hoping this would make it in for the Chinese at least[:(]

I don't see why not. 129 aircraft is alot to just chuck. No one can say what a bunch of 20ish rating Chinese newbie pilots will do to the ops losses in the game either. By Sept 42 I can't see China with too many good pilots unless they turtled for 8 months.

We have the art, we have the data, we have room, and China needs aircraft.

I agree with Ron on this. China needs to be fleshed out; particularly the CAF. US Pilots who flew the type on West Coast patrol liked it as a fine aerobatic aircraft. It has a good top speed relative to its adversaries and peers in the Theater. I didn't read anything of heavy ops losses while in US service, they came in India during shipment and test after reassembly as far as I know. The Ops losses by the Chinese could be attributed to the Quality of pilots in the CAF and the more primitive conditions.

I think more research is warranted before a decision is made though. Someone linked me a good site on the CAF I'll look into it more after my PBEM Turn.