PDA

View Full Version : More flyable Japanese fighters for PF+AEP+FB



XyZspineZyX
07-24-2005, 12:58 AM
Mr Maddox & co
Is it your intention to incease the amount of Japanese fighters available in the above simulation, & if you are I hope they have a bit more overall grunt than the A6M-2 or the KI-043.So far on the first missions of campaigns I have burned to death or my plane has been cut in half, generally done by imperialistic American flying the Wildcats. (When facing Hellcats or Corsairs I generally start sucking my thumb, curl into the fetal position & hide under the desk)
I am amazed how the japanese fighters burn, I suppose this is what you get with no self sealing fuel tanks & a lack of plane armour.
I really hope you & your team give us japanese fighter pilots more fighters in the next patch
so we can compete on better terms with those dreaded Yankees.
Thankyou for the wonderful sim, I used to make model planes as a kid & have pretend dogfights with them, this sim is the closest to realistic aerial combat in WW2 I will ever get to. Thank you.

XyZspineZyX
07-24-2005, 12:58 AM
Mr Maddox & co
Is it your intention to incease the amount of Japanese fighters available in the above simulation, & if you are I hope they have a bit more overall grunt than the A6M-2 or the KI-043.So far on the first missions of campaigns I have burned to death or my plane has been cut in half, generally done by imperialistic American flying the Wildcats. (When facing Hellcats or Corsairs I generally start sucking my thumb, curl into the fetal position & hide under the desk)
I am amazed how the japanese fighters burn, I suppose this is what you get with no self sealing fuel tanks & a lack of plane armour.
I really hope you & your team give us japanese fighter pilots more fighters in the next patch
so we can compete on better terms with those dreaded Yankees.
Thankyou for the wonderful sim, I used to make model planes as a kid & have pretend dogfights with them, this sim is the closest to realistic aerial combat in WW2 I will ever get to. Thank you.

Gibbage1
07-24-2005, 02:12 AM
Well truth be told, the Japanese really did not have a fighter that was even competitive but the Ki-84, and you already have that. Japanese were not prepaired to fight a war with the USA and they were on the recieving end of a big butt whoopen soon after Pearl Harbor and never was much of a thread. Mariana's Turkey Shoot?

JG53Frankyboy
07-24-2005, 03:56 AM
yes, sure, nevertheless hopefully soon at least the IJNAF will get with the J2M3 and/ore N1K2-J an laternative to the A6M............

to give the main USN fighter, the F6F , a better show http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kocur_
07-24-2005, 07:38 AM
And it would be Shoki-ng nice to have Ki-44 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Especially that late one with 40mm guns...

Utchoud
07-24-2005, 08:35 AM
The Japanese fighter doctrine was formed over China. Pilots facing agile and weakly armed aircraft flown by the Chinese (Curtiss Hawk, I-152, I-16 type 10, Gladiator,...) required planes that were fast and maneuverable, and well-armed if possible. Japanese tactic was based on individual dogfights. A Japanese pilot had to avoid being hit. Armor protection and self-sealing tanks were sacrificed.

At the start of the war in the Pacific, the Japanese were engaging less experienced allied pilots who were easy to lure into an individual dogfight. The Japanese mastered this method and were almost always victorious.

Later, when the Americans took an advantage in numbers and employed better team tactic, the tide has turned. The Japanese also had to start to fight in teams, and the lack of armor protection became a huge disadvantage. It is more difficult to avoid being hit when you fight against a team.

The late-war Japanese fighters offer at least an average protection - try the Ki-84, Ki-61 or Ki-100. I've heard some Japanese late-war planes are arriving in the next add-on, probably the Mitsubishi J2M.

Utchoud

Stigler_9_JG52
07-24-2005, 11:02 PM
Jacks and Georges are really about the only late war japanese iron missing. Both highly competitive...but the Jacks were basically used as high alt B-29 interceptors, so they'll instantly qualify as a "shouldn't oughta be there". The Georges, often called "Super Zekes" gave good account of themselves in the later stages of the war, but are kind of like the Ki-84s: too few, too late, and of poor manufacturing quality due to problems in the Japanese home islands.

The other two important types missing are Ki-44 Shoki (the early war version that was tested as early as 1942 in the Dutch East Indies, and the later model that served in the Phillipines for the most part) and the Ki-45 Toryu, "the Japanese 110".

Erm, you can fly Toryus, Shokis and Jacks in Target:Rabaul (http://www.targetware.net), if you have a mind to. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But, basically, if you're gonna fly Japanese, and do it historically, choose your outfit (Army or Navy) and choose your fighter based on that (Oscar and Tony for Army, Zero for Navy). Like the 109/190 tandem for the Germans, these are far and away the most common and representative planes. (By the way, when do we get the Tony with 20mm cannon, which accounted for about a THIRD of total type production????) Other countries had a lot more different types to explore.

VW-IceFire
07-24-2005, 11:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dasriech:
Mr Maddox & co
Is it your intention to incease the amount of Japanese fighters available in the above simulation, & if you are I hope they have a bit more overall grunt than the A6M-2 or the KI-043.So far on the first missions of campaigns I have burned to death or my plane has been cut in half, generally done by imperialistic American flying the Wildcats. (When facing Hellcats or Corsairs I generally start sucking my thumb, curl into the fetal position & hide under the desk)
I am amazed how the japanese fighters burn, I suppose this is what you get with no self sealing fuel tanks & a lack of plane armour.
I really hope you & your team give us japanese fighter pilots more fighters in the next patch
so we can compete on better terms with those dreaded Yankees.
Thankyou for the wonderful sim, I used to make model planes as a kid & have pretend dogfights with them, this sim is the closest to realistic aerial combat in WW2 I will ever get to. Thank you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Which fighter do you propose. The most common Zero was the A6M2 in the first year or so of the war. The Ki-43 served in combat units from nearly the start to the end of the war. These are the bread and butter of the two Japanese services.

Neither were well protected and burned easily when hit. The idea being to be more manueverable and thus not get hit.

XyZspineZyX
07-24-2005, 11:45 PM
The NIK2J, the J2M3, & the KI44, I can remember many years ago making the George & the Tojo out of model kits 1/72 scale from Husegawa. I really like the lines of the NIK2J Shiden it is a departure from the graceful lines of the Zero & Oscar. Plus four 20mm cannon do appeal.

sapre
07-25-2005, 12:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
Jacks and Georges are really about the only late war japanese iron missing. Both highly competitive...but the Jacks were basically used as high alt B-29 interceptors, so they'll instantly qualify as a "shouldn't oughta be there". The Georges, often called "Super Zekes" gave good account of themselves in the later stages of the war, but are kind of like the Ki-84s: too few, too late, and of poor manufacturing quality due to problems in the Japanese home islands.

The other two important types missing are Ki-44 Shoki (the early war version that was tested as early as 1942 in the Dutch East Indies, and the later model that served in the Phillipines for the most part) and the Ki-45 Toryu, "the Japanese 110".

Erm, you can fly Toryus, Shokis and Jacks in Target:Rabaul (http://www.targetware.net), if you have a mind to. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But, basically, if you're gonna fly Japanese, and do it historically, choose your outfit (Army or Navy) and choose your fighter based on that (Oscar and Tony for Army, Zero for Navy). Like the 109/190 tandem for the Germans, these are far and away the most common and representative planes. (By the way, when do we get the Tony with 20mm cannon, which accounted for about a THIRD of total type production????) Other countries had a lot more different types to explore. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We ALLREADY have the 20mm armed Tony.
I think it was Ki-61 Hei.

JG53Frankyboy
07-25-2005, 04:25 AM
Stigler is not very precise.
the missing variant , he is talking about, is the Ki-61-Tei.
it had a slightly longer fuselage , two 20mm Ho-5 in the nose and two 12,7mm Ho-103 in the wings (like the Ki-100).
this variant made close to the half of the whole Ki61-I production.
the Ki-61Hei was only made 388 times.
but so far the Tei and Hei have roughly the same performance - i alway "fake" the Tei with the Hei in my late war missions............


and that the Ki-43-II&III (the main fighters of the IJAAF , ~5000 build !) are not flyable in PFm is realy a pitty http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
we hhave not much maps to use them - but fighting with these later Hayabusas over Okinawa and Kyushu against F6F would be a blast http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

A.K.Davis
07-25-2005, 10:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sapre:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
Jacks and Georges are really about the only late war japanese iron missing. Both highly competitive...but the Jacks were basically used as high alt B-29 interceptors, so they'll instantly qualify as a "shouldn't oughta be there". The Georges, often called "Super Zekes" gave good account of themselves in the later stages of the war, but are kind of like the Ki-84s: too few, too late, and of poor manufacturing quality due to problems in the Japanese home islands.

The other two important types missing are Ki-44 Shoki (the early war version that was tested as early as 1942 in the Dutch East Indies, and the later model that served in the Phillipines for the most part) and the Ki-45 Toryu, "the Japanese 110".

Erm, you can fly Toryus, Shokis and Jacks in Target:Rabaul (http://www.targetware.net), if you have a mind to. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But, basically, if you're gonna fly Japanese, and do it historically, choose your outfit (Army or Navy) and choose your fighter based on that (Oscar and Tony for Army, Zero for Navy). Like the 109/190 tandem for the Germans, these are far and away the most common and representative planes. (By the way, when do we get the Tony with 20mm cannon, which accounted for about a THIRD of total type production????) Other countries had a lot more different types to explore. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We ALLREADY have the 20mm armed Tony.
I think it was Ki-61 Hei. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He means Ki-61-I-Tei, which had a modified fuselage and two Japanese 20mm cannons in the engine cowling and two 12.7mm cannons in the wing. This was one of the major production variants, but was not included in PF because it would have required changes to 3D model.

LEBillfish
07-25-2005, 01:31 PM
Starting to see a bit of confusion....The 1d was actually though seeming similar to the 1a-c was actually a major redesign. Tail was enlarged and made detachable, fusalage was lengthened by I believe 19cm, tail wheel was "designed" fixed not just blocked down. Also, most of the changes were internal wherein it was very very simplified. As to guns on it it had 20mm Ho cannon "in the wings" retaining the 12.7 in the fusalge...they even tried 30mm on a few. It was also the "first" to have been documented to be capable of carrying bombs.

However they had massive problems getting engines, so deliveries were late. Late delivery is what helped inspire the IJA to finally state they had had enough, and forced the building of the Ki-100 from Ki-61-II planes awaiting Ha-140 engines.

So to make the Ki-61-I-Id, or Ki-61-II would be a bit of a change...though we actually have "most" of the Ki-61-II in the Ki-100/somewhat.....

All and all, any of those would be probably new models....Personally, I'd like to see our 1a-1c fixed first.

JG53Frankyboy
07-25-2005, 01:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEBillfish:
.............. As to guns on it it had 20mm Ho cannon "in the wings" retaining the 12.7 in the fusalge.............. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

are you sure ?
i ALWAYS reading the Ki-61-Id has same weapon arrangement like the Ki-100 - canons in nose, heavy MGs in wings.

LEBillfish
07-25-2005, 02:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEBillfish:
.............. As to guns on it it had 20mm Ho cannon "in the wings" retaining the 12.7 in the fusalge.............. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

are you sure ?
i ALWAYS reading the Ki-61-Id has same weapon arrangement like the Ki-100 - canons in nose, heavy MGs in wings. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My mistake, you are correct....the Ho 5 was simply an upscaled Ho 103 and was indeed put in the fusalgae from 1d on....The 30mm of which there are no firm numbers I can find on other then "1 or more" was put in the wings....

That would be a beast huh?...2x20mm in the nose 2x30mm wings...yikes.

A.K.Davis
07-25-2005, 02:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEBillfish:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEBillfish:
.............. As to guns on it it had 20mm Ho cannon "in the wings" retaining the 12.7 in the fusalge.............. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

are you sure ?
i ALWAYS reading the Ki-61-Id has same weapon arrangement like the Ki-100 - canons in nose, heavy MGs in wings. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My mistake, you are correct....the Ho 5 was simply an upscaled Ho 103 and was indeed put in the fusalgae from 1d on....The 30mm of which there are no firm numbers I can find on other then "1 or more" was put in the wings....

That would be a beast huh?...2x20mm in the nose 2x30mm wings...yikes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ki-84c http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

nakamura_kenji
07-25-2005, 03:58 PM
i think there ki-44-III prototype model that was fitted with 2x30mm or 2x40mm in the wing ^_^ big gun were not rare design idea.

LEBillfish anyone ever contact oleg about ki-61 missing 30mph?

JAF77_Gamera
07-25-2005, 05:42 PM
Just make the Ki-43 II flyable!

JG53Frankyboy
07-25-2005, 05:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nakamura_kenji:
...........
LEBillfish anyone ever contact oleg about ki-61 missing 30mph? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i did , and he answered they would look behind it - but also mentioned it could be that they used different sources and didnt updated the object viewer. we have to see...........

nakamura_kenji
07-25-2005, 06:44 PM
i hope do correct it everything read say that ki-61 was faster than ki-100 but the ki-100 better accelerating right now we have ki-100 that aceelerate faster and is significantly quicker also v_v that extra make difference when engage hellcat and corsair

Stigler_9_JG52
07-25-2005, 11:23 PM
At any rate, I find it rather convenient to trot out the old "needed 3D modifications" to not include the 20mm version of Tony in the sim; but they sure made sure the just-as-rare/late cannon Corsair made it in.

And, also, they "found time" to create an I-185, which by all rights shouldn't even be CLOSE to making the plane list.

Feathered_IV
07-26-2005, 06:21 AM
As well as the Raiden, I'm particularly hoping for a flyable Ki-27 Nate. This one is the missing link to a whole bunch of Khalkhin Gol & China/Burma and Singapore scenarios. Interesting stuff! Of course for sheer looks I'd rather the A5M http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif But I know that a flyable Claude to Olegs standards will probably never happen in our lifetime.

How nice it would be to see a "Forgotten Fighters" add-on one day that brings all these interesting aircraft to the fore!

God knows I'm so sick of all those constantly reproduced, Eurocentric, western front machines. Don't get me wrong though. I'll still buy BoB when it comes out. And I'll think it a catastrophe of the highest order if I can only get it on the second day of its release. But in my heart, I'll still be wishing for that A5M and a stretch of blue water to fly it over.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Sturm_Williger
07-26-2005, 07:20 AM
The Ki-27 would be nice to have - I remember that's the first plane I "flew" in the first campaign I flew in Aces of the Pacific.

More cr@p planes !

Chuck_Older
07-26-2005, 07:02 PM
Ki-27 is essential.

Luftwaffe_109
07-29-2005, 07:01 PM
Bump

Hoarmurath
07-29-2005, 07:27 PM
For the IJA, it would be really nice to have the following :

nakajima Ki 27 "Nate" 3400 produced
nakajima Ki 44 "Tojo" 1200 produced
kawasaki Ki 45 "Nick" 1700 produced

For the IJN, these :

mitsubishi A5M "Claude" 1100 produced
mitsubishi J2M "Jack" 500 produced
kawanishi N1K J "George" 1400 produced

As you can see from the production numbers, these planes can hardly be considered as unimportants...

p1ngu666
07-29-2005, 11:06 PM
a few zero varients missing too i think http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

think they made about 200 1c corsairs, 300+ ki84C...

p1ngu666
07-29-2005, 11:06 PM
oh and ki43 II had armour and self sealing fuel tanks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

JG53Frankyboy
07-30-2005, 12:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
a few zero varients missing too i think . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes, one of the best http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
the Model 22.

ElAurens
08-01-2005, 07:42 PM
I want the Ki 27 badly, but I can just see the flames here when/if we ever get it. Why? It could turn inside the KI43, an aircraft that many here think is overmodeled in the turn.

IJAAF pilots initially thought the KI43 was an ill handling aircraft compared to the KI27.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Feathered_IV
08-02-2005, 03:40 AM
I know, I want the Ki-27 so much it makes my toes curl http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

nakamura_kenji
08-02-2005, 11:01 AM
my list in order wish have

ki-61-ID same arament as ki-100 ie 20mm nose not wing like hei
ki-43-II
ki-44
n1k2J
j2m3
ki-27

A.K.Davis
08-02-2005, 12:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nakamura_kenji:
my list in order wish have

ki-61-ID same arament as ki-100 ie 20mm nose not wing like hei

(Would require a new external, and possible changes to cockpit. Work on external never started.)

ki-43-II
(Would require a new cockpit. Work started, but abandoned/rejected.)

ki-44
(Would require external and cockpit. No known work on either.)

n1k2J
(Would require external and cockpit. Strong hints that both are in progress, possibly near completion.)

j2m3
(Would require cockpit. Significant progress seen.)

ki-27
(Would require cockpit and external. Progress seen on external, unknown for cockpit.) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Anything that is not near completion at this point stands zero chance of inclusion in PF. As you can see, only a few of the above have even a marginal chance. Give it up people.

ElAurens
08-02-2005, 04:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by A.K.Davis:

Anything that is not near completion at this point stands zero chance of inclusion in PF. As you can see, only a few of the above have even a marginal chance. Give it up people. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Davis, you are really a buzzkiller... And not much fun overall.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

nakamura_kenji
08-02-2005, 05:21 PM
A.K.Davis there reason why i said wish list if i being realistic we probably only get j2m3 if we never get russian addon even very doubtful p_q

A.K.Davis
08-02-2005, 06:31 PM
Sure, I understand, but wishlist with no basis in reality belong in General Discussion. The totally over-the-top requests for additional content in ORR are getting a bit out of hand.

shinden1974
08-03-2005, 04:04 PM
well, I don't have a 'wishlist', there's IJA/N planes that may make the sim or not and I hope all the ones that do have a chance do:

N1K2-J-there must be some priority to it has it's still being worked on though no external is in game yet.

J2M3-SaQson has stated that this plane will be in the game as flyable at some point, I hope sooner rather than later with me learning some russian!

Ki-27-everybody wants this one and the fact it is also being worked on (possibly as part of the small russian-japanese theater of war in the add-ons?) was good news.

plus some AI's

If none of them make it...tough, But it would leave a significant hole in the sim for me.

Feathered_IV
08-08-2005, 05:50 AM
*bump*

darkhorizon11
08-11-2005, 05:55 PM
I would dig a jet or prop Shinden since we already have some wacky Luftwaffe planes why not some wacky Japanese planes too? And a Ki-27 would be grand too.

goshikisen
08-11-2005, 07:42 PM
Toryu... it'd be interesting to fly a twin-engined Japanese fighter.

Realistically we're looking at the Raiden flyable, George N1K2J flyable and possibly a Nate AI. These have all appeared in credible updates by those in the know at one time or another.

ATG_BreN
08-12-2005, 03:19 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

DIRTY-MAC
08-15-2005, 10:36 AM
The J2M-3 will be a nice surprice,
I think it will be a real monster down low
fast, climb like a rocket and a good turner if compared to American fighters.

Stigler_9_JG52
08-15-2005, 02:39 PM
But of course, Jacks should be used at HIGH alts, trying to intercept American B-29s dropping huge quantities of incendiaries over Japan.

(...as if anyone cares about using planes in their proper historical roles...)

faustnik
08-15-2005, 02:48 PM
The Ki-43II was the most important JAAF fighter of the war. I don't understand why it wasn't modeled from the start?

I would really like the Ki-43I but, the tube sight ruins it for me. The tube sight is the ultimate SA eliminating device.

MAILMAN------
08-15-2005, 05:41 PM
There were more F4U-4's (6 x .50) and F4U-4B's (4 x 20mm) than F4U-1C's in combat. 200 F4U-1C were in combat. So if you are a IJA & IJN aficionado be thankful that the 2450 HP F4U-4 was INCORRECTLY not included in this sim. It would out perform anything the Japanese had late war (except Japan's version of the ME-262 which never got put in production), it participated at Okinawa and attacks against the Japanese homelands.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
At any rate, I find it rather convenient to trot out the old "needed 3D modifications" to not include the 20mm version of Tony in the sim; but they sure made sure the just-as-rare/late cannon Corsair made it in.

And, also, they "found time" to create an I-185, which by all rights shouldn't even be CLOSE to making the plane list. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

nakamura_kenji
08-15-2005, 05:52 PM
this thread about japanese plane want talk about why not get american plane please do else where

ki-43-II plane i really wish had been include ingame that and ki-44 but have little chance of get either p_q

any japanese plane i very happy with if added assuming it flyable ai not worth much v_v

JG53Frankyboy
08-15-2005, 05:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
The J2M-3 will be a nice surprice,
I think it will be a real monster down low
fast, climb like a rocket and a good turner if compared to American fighters. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

wait till the canons are emtpy, after 60 rounds http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

nakamura_kenji
08-15-2005, 05:57 PM
flying ki-43 and ki-61-ko you learn be acurate 4x60 plenty ammo ^_^

ImpStarDuece
08-15-2005, 06:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
But of course, Jacks should be used at HIGH alts, trying to intercept American B-29s dropping huge quantities of incendiaries over Japan.

(...as if anyone cares about using planes in their proper historical roles...) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

B-29 were also used at medium altitudes as well.

LeMay had several raiding forces stripped of their defensive armament and sent them in with reduced crews at 12-15,0000 feet against urban targets like Tokyo, Osaka and ***uoka.

The Superfortress, like almost any plane of the war, was pushed by circumstances into roles that it wasnt expressly designed for. Raids from China and the Pacific quite often operated well below the 30,000 feet that we normally associate with a B-29 raid.

Grey_Mouser67
08-15-2005, 06:18 PM
There are many, many missing aircraft that would be significant to any Pacific theater game...

Ki-43II as mentioned is huge
Ki-44
Ki-45
Ki-48
Ki-27
Ki-21
Nell
Jill
Judy
Kate

All flyable...

equally missing on the US side are
early P-38F,G,H
F4U-4
Flyable Avenger
Helldiver
B-25 Gunship's
might make an argument for devastator

The things that really get me going is a lack of certain land masses...
Solomon Chain...Rabual
Where is the rest of New Guniea?
Burma...anyone ever here of Burma?
A couple of choice Island chains too
Philippines would have been a stretch but not as much as Singapore and Hawaii

Then as long as there is a good rant...lets talk about ships or lack there of....somewhere in this war there were cruisers...I'm certain of it because my grandpa served on the USS Nashville and I've read about the Mogami etc...no japanese subs, no barges, no PT boats.

The biggest issue with PF as best I can describe it is a lack of continuity in any front...could have picked on island chain like the Solomons and made an entire sim on it...or Burma or the Island hopping campaign...but we got a little of this, a little of that...got Planes for the Flying Tigers but no Ki-43's or Ki-21's let alone a map to use...we got Hawaii, but sorry, one battle that was more of an ambush than a battle doesnt count.

Yes we need more flyable Japanese planes...no doubt...we need a campaign. Many maps in PF don't have a base from which to fly both sides from??? New Guinea with no Huon Peninsula? No battle of Bismark Sea...no Lae, No Wewak...no P-38G either...a Ki-43II and Ki-44 would be sweet!

This sim is begging for a PFII to be released!

p1ngu666
08-15-2005, 09:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
But of course, Jacks should be used at HIGH alts, trying to intercept American B-29s dropping huge quantities of incendiaries over Japan.

(...as if anyone cares about using planes in their proper historical roles...) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

B-29 were also used at medium altitudes as well.

LeMay had several raiding forces stripped of their defensive armament and sent them in with reduced crews at 12-15,0000 feet against urban targets like Tokyo, Osaka and ***uoka.

The Superfortress, like almost any plane of the war, was pushed by circumstances into roles that it wasnt expressly designed for. Raids from China and the Pacific quite often operated well below the 30,000 feet that we normally associate with a B-29 raid. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yeah, they removed some of the 50cals http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
luckily it worked out, otherwise he woulda been linched.

surprised they let it happen tbh, time away from home makes u do funny things i guess http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Dtools4fools
08-16-2005, 05:12 AM
Any flyable Japanese plane will do for me. The more cr@p the better. I love'em; puny guns and a few hits take'em down. You really have to avoid getting hit and you really have to aim those little pea shooters.

Missing Burma and Philippine map are a big, big drawback as well. Not only that I have visited both countries at least 10 times http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif but both countries would provide scenarios for early war and late war planes. Heck, just make those maps, can't be that difficult; and don't forget over 80% were covered by jungle those days, so put a lot of trees this time...

*****

DuxCorvan
08-20-2005, 11:50 AM
As I'm tired of repeating:

Don't expect too much. If then we get more than expected... Bonus! Great! We'll be happy and grateful.

But if we go on and on building up our fantasies, then they won't be able to satisfy us, no matter what we get in the end.

Relax. Even if it's not much, it will be actually MORE than what we have now.

Enough for me.

If we start actually playing this awesome game instead of playing with our imagination the ideal game we all would like to have, but is beyond any developer's posibilities, then we'll enjoy it as it deserves.

Put your feet on earth, and your hearts in the air, and enjoy the best WW2 air combat sim ever made. Not the best imaginable, but the best ever available.

Thank you, Oleg & co.

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2005, 08:53 AM
Wow the biggest thread I have started, I am glad it got all the support & hope the developers read this & take note, if they do great if they dont "oh well" nothing ventured nothing gained as they say.

If the released info about the new flyable planes is correct I would say it is being aimed at the online gamers, especially with the flyable italian planes, the tempest & mosquito, a pfeil,the jacks appearance is wonderful news, it has a cockpit so it will be flyable. I would love to see the new george as flyable, who knows. As far as I am concerned I hope everything is speculation & suprises still await us all.

From a dedicated off line campaign player, who has the 56k internet conection. BUMP

TAGERT.
08-25-2005, 09:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dasriech:
Mr Maddox & co
Is it your intention to incease the amount of Japanese fighters available in the above simulation, & if you are I hope they have a bit more overall grunt than the A6M-2 or the KI-043.So far on the first missions of campaigns I have burned to death or my plane has been cut in half, generally done by imperialistic American flying the Wildcats. (When facing Hellcats or Corsairs I generally start sucking my thumb, curl into the fetal position & hide under the desk)
I am amazed how the japanese fighters burn, I suppose this is what you get with no self sealing fuel tanks & a lack of plane armour.
I really hope you & your team give us japanese fighter pilots more fighters in the next patch
so we can compete on better terms with those dreaded Yankees.
Thankyou for the wonderful sim, I used to make model planes as a kid & have pretend dogfights with them, this sim is the closest to realistic aerial combat in WW2 I will ever get to. Thank you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>On one condition, you give me the F4u-4 and then you can give the IJN any wizz bang dream machine they had or wanted to have and the F4u-4 will deal with it no problem.. even the Kikka!

p1ngu666
08-25-2005, 09:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dasriech:
Mr Maddox & co
Is it your intention to incease the amount of Japanese fighters available in the above simulation, & if you are I hope they have a bit more overall grunt than the A6M-2 or the KI-043.So far on the first missions of campaigns I have burned to death or my plane has been cut in half, generally done by imperialistic American flying the Wildcats. (When facing Hellcats or Corsairs I generally start sucking my thumb, curl into the fetal position & hide under the desk)
I am amazed how the japanese fighters burn, I suppose this is what you get with no self sealing fuel tanks & a lack of plane armour.
I really hope you & your team give us japanese fighter pilots more fighters in the next patch
so we can compete on better terms with those dreaded Yankees.
Thankyou for the wonderful sim, I used to make model planes as a kid & have pretend dogfights with them, this sim is the closest to realistic aerial combat in WW2 I will ever get to. Thank you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>On one condition, you give me the F4u-4 and then you can give the IJN any wizz bang dream machine they had or wanted to have and the F4u-4 will deal with it no problem.. even the Kikka! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
nice new sig btw http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

whats burma like? certain areas of burma would be really good, interesting terrain http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

RAF photo recon planes mapped burma, or a area of it about 3x the size of england http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

hurricanes served till the end of the war in burma

JG53Frankyboy
08-25-2005, 09:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TAGERT.:
.......On one condition, you give me the F4u-4 and then you can give the IJN any wizz bang dream machine they had or wanted to have and the F4u-4 will deal with it no problem.. even the Kikka! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

well, there is a difference http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
lot of japanese pilots here would be satisfied with some medicore planes like Ki-43-II flyable, Ki-44 ore J2M3 flyable.
even a flyable N1K1-J is only dangerous for a Hellcat http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

and at least ONE Japanese Army bomber as AI , like Ki-21 - http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

no possible japanese fighter that is not included in the game so far can ever reach the performance of the already in game Ki-84 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
it was nippons best- if it flew http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

and with the comming P-47D LAte (ore how ever it will be named) you can fake a little bit the P-47N over Kyushu http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2005, 12:14 AM
Banzai!!!!

Slickun
08-29-2005, 11:45 AM
I think the coming P-47 will be much more like the P-47M rather than the N. N was bigger, accelerated and climbed very poorly.

Rolled better, zoomed better. Just about the longest legs in the war. Very, very fast abovbe 25,000 feet.

I want the 80" map P-51's from Iwo.

Hoarmurath
08-29-2005, 12:01 PM
I want this for the fun :

http://www.angel.ne.jp/~tochy/airplane/image/f1m2_01.jpg

and this for the performances :

http://www.ipms-phx.org/reviews/08/rex1.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Daiichidoku
08-29-2005, 01:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
I want this for the fun :

http://www.angel.ne.jp/~tochy/airplane/image/f1m2_01.jpg

and this for the performances :

http://www.ipms-phx.org/reviews/08/rex1.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


cant agree more...cant remember tho, is the biplane a Pete? i aways get confused with the Glen


seeing as how engine problems arent in FB, ala' I-185, then how about the prototype Rex instead, with the contra props? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

ElAurens
08-29-2005, 04:07 PM
I agree 100% with Hoarmurath.

Especially for the Pete.

I love floatplanes.

Xiolablu3
08-29-2005, 05:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dasriech:
Mr Maddox & co
Is it your intention to incease the amount of Japanese fighters available in the above simulation, & if you are I hope they have a bit more overall grunt than the A6M-2 or the KI-043.So far on the first missions of campaigns I have burned to death or my plane has been cut in half, generally done by imperialistic American flying the Wildcats. (When facing Hellcats or Corsairs I generally start sucking my thumb, curl into the fetal position & hide under the desk)
I am amazed how the japanese fighters burn, I suppose this is what you get with no self sealing fuel tanks & a lack of plane armour.
I really hope you & your team give us japanese fighter pilots more fighters in the next patch
so we can compete on better terms with those dreaded Yankees.
Thankyou for the wonderful sim, I used to make model planes as a kid & have pretend dogfights with them, this sim is the closest to realistic aerial combat in WW2 I will ever get to. Thank you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Which fighter do you propose. The most common Zero was the A6M2 in the first year or so of the war. The Ki-43 served in combat units from nearly the start to the end of the war. These are the bread and butter of the two Japanese services.

Neither were well protected and burned easily when hit. The idea being to be more manueverable and thus not get hit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem is ,Icefire, that the Zeros are NOT that manouvrable in the game.

Take a Spit up against a Zero, the Spit will outrun and out roll it. I dont know if this should be the case or not? (I would suspect that the Zero should be able to outmanouvre most planes in the game)

p1ngu666
08-29-2005, 05:44 PM
the spit should do both those things. and yes zero isnt great in the turn, sometimes i can do well tho. much improved from the pile of poo it was in 3.x anyways

ImpStarDuece
08-29-2005, 06:25 PM
The Zero had VERY large alierons which slowed its rate of role considerably. In fact, it was one of the slowest rolling fighters of the war.

It also topped out at around 340-350 mph at best altitudes, mostly because it never got an engine larger than around 1,100 hp. In comparison, Spitfire Mk Vs had a maximum top speed of about 370-380 mph at altitude and around 320 at Sea Level. Spitfire Mks IX/VII could hold about 405 mph at altitude and around 340mph at Sea Level.

Badsight.
08-29-2005, 10:33 PM
boy ! some people sure dont want the japanese planes to increase in number

which is sad they have to be biased instead of realising that all planes are fun to fly

as much of a fan as i am of the stubby raiden , its ammo load is near worthless , its going to be flyable soon instead of the Shiden but you cant really complain with more now can you : )

ever since 2001 i have hoped for the ultimate in WW2 A/C . . . . . . .

but sadly the Shinden wont be seen in FB-PF http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/6228/fig1.jpg

better for some to never have to face this plane i guess

JG53Frankyboy
08-29-2005, 11:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
the spit should do both those things. and yes zero isnt great in the turn, sometimes i can do well tho. much improved from the pile of poo it was in 3.x anyways </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
it all depends on its fleon speed !

till 300km/h IAS , its a wonderfull turner - above , well , a London bus can outmanouver you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Hoarmurath
08-30-2005, 12:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight.:
boy ! some people sure dont want the japanese planes to increase in number

which is sad they have to be biased instead of realising that all planes are fun to fly

as much of a fan as i am of the stubby raiden , its ammo load is near worthless , its going to be flyable soon instead of the Shiden but you cant really complain with more now can you : )

ever since 2001 i have hoped for the ultimate in WW2 A/C . . . . . . .

but sadly the Shinden wont be seen in FB-PF http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/6228/fig1.jpg

better for some to never have to face this plane i guess </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is especially what we don't need in PF... Another "what if" plane.

Badsight.
08-30-2005, 01:29 AM
why not ? what is so bad that makes "what-if" planes un-needed ?


the Bf-z & especially the Go-229 are much fun to fly - who can deny otherwise ? , & who can say the I-185 is anything but awesome ?

name a single plane that has hurt the sim ?

even a what if ?

you cant , all the planes add to the game in one way or another . so would a Shinden

lose the elietisim

JG53Frankyboy
08-30-2005, 01:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight.:
why not ? what is so bad that makes "what-if" planes un-needed ?


the Bf-z & especially the Go-229 are much fun to fly - who can deny otherwise ? , & who can say the I-185 is anything but awesome ?

name a single plane that has hurt the sim ?

even a what if ?

you cant , all the planes add to the game in one way or another . so would a Shinden

lose the elietisim </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

sure, every plane would be welcome, if a "what if" , a prototype ore what else - proplem:
the manpower that is needed to ad these "toys" in comparison to the historical mass used planes that are not flyable so far or are not in game at all http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Luftwaffe_109
08-30-2005, 03:06 AM
I would certainly love to see the Shinden, its a lovely and exotic aircraft.

nakamura_kenji
08-30-2005, 04:00 AM
maybe shinden get made for bob as that allow thrid part plane ^_^

i think i try make either ki-64
http://www.ijaafpics.com/JB&W/Ki-64-1s.jpg

or A7M reppu
http://www.ijnafpics.com/JB&W3/A7M-7.jpg

Slickun
08-30-2005, 07:44 AM
Your English is better than my anything else!

Dtools4fools
08-30-2005, 11:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">whats burma like? certain areas of burma would be really good, interesting terrain </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Something like this:
Pics (http://www.worldisround.com/articles/165879/index.html)

Even being German (grown up in Switzerland) Far East is my favourite in IL-2.
Any plane out of this theater would be a great addition. Some early war japanese. Whatever.
The planes I flew most often so far are Bewster, Ki-43, Zero, Wildcat...
Very seldom take up late war planes, very seldom German stuff. Easern front my favourites were Bwester, Il-16.


And more maps. Burma, Philippines.

o0kami
08-30-2005, 01:39 PM
yes would be nice to see more expansions to the east

here is a list of aircraftthat would be nice to have

Yokosuka P1Y Ginga
Nakajima J1N1-S Gekko
Kawasaki Ki-45 Toryu
Nakajima Ki-49 Donryu
Mitsubishi G3M
Kawasaki Ki-48
Mitsubishi Ki 21 IIb
Mitsubishi Ki 67 Hiryu
Nakajima C6N1-S Saiun
Nakajima B6N2 Tenzen
Nakajima B5N
Aichi B7A Ryusei

darkhorizon11
09-02-2005, 02:41 PM
Unfortunately Pacific Fighters has an incomplete planeset and shipset. Mostly because it was leaked.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

Theres plenty of planes on both sides missing. I do commend the team on the maps though, although theres still some missing overall we got the majority for the Pacific Theater and even the some SE Asia maps that aren't really part of that theater. Honestly I almost wished they had just waited 3 more months before releasing PF and were able to add some more stuff, especially what everyone waited so long for in 4.02m.

p1ngu666
09-02-2005, 03:04 PM
the maps are also iffy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

shinden1974
09-02-2005, 03:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
Unfortunately Pacific Fighters has an incomplete planeset and shipset. Mostly because it was leaked.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

Theres plenty of planes on both sides missing. I do commend the team on the maps though, although theres still some missing overall we got the majority for the Pacific Theater and even the some SE Asia maps that aren't really part of that theater. Honestly I almost wished they had just waited 3 more months before releasing PF and were able to add some more stuff, especially what everyone waited so long for in 4.02m. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm glad this got bumped and all, since I hope to beat this horse to death until a Shiden Kai is in the sim.

I'm confused now, the incomplete plane/ship set is because of the leak?I thought it was the rush, or no one could finish project, or...reason #478

...nothing personal, but throwing around the reason for us not getting this or that, after it has been debated to death is getting pretty old.

This thread should stick to reality, heres what we will get if everything works out absolutely perfectly (PTO):

flyable:
Ki-27
J2M3
J2M5
N1K2-Ja
B6N

AI only:
A5M
Ki-21

Here's what we will get if everything blows up in the PTO fans face:

flyable:
J2M3...maybe...in the russian add-on.

...that's it.

JG53Frankyboy
09-02-2005, 04:45 PM
you are very pessimistic http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

i count on that (dont ask me why):
J2M3 as flyable
B6N as AI
Ki21 as AI

in free AdOns

Ki-27 as flyable
NiK2-J as flyable
in the "Russian" AdOn , form what i belive we will see them in west earlier ore later - thinking of the very long time till BoB will be released , i heard late 2007 in german forum !!!!

and to complete the Zero familie , a A6M3 Model22 would be very nice:
only litle bit slower than the Model 32 , but turnradius like Model21 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"easy" to make:
-fuselage of the in game A6M3 (wich is a Model 32)
-give it a hook(it was carrier based also)
-wings of Model21
-cockpit is the same ( http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )
-at ruddertrimm
-give it 100rpg for the 20mm canons
-&gt; voila...

it was a very important Zero variant , used in 1943

shinden1974
09-02-2005, 06:42 PM
Your right, the A6M3 model 22 (and 22a) could be an easy add (honestly I have no idea how difficult changes to a 3d model can be in this game, it could be very difficult to do). Hope they throw it in there someday like the 'boost' variants we've been seeing lately.

I'm not really pessimistic, I just notice that the PTO isn't a big priority with the team as far as the free add-on is concerned. I'm not entitled to what I want in the add-on, nor does Oleg owe me the 'right' add-on...but the contents are going to disappoint me and most PTO fans.

The planes in the add-on are going to be planes that the developers have been wanting and been waiting for...Ju-88, Do-335, Mc-202, Mc-205, Fokker...etc. These planes have been waiting a long time to get in and it's about time...but for us Pacific fans it looks like the important and valuable Japanese and RAF planes that fought in the pacific will always play second fiddle to obscure aircraft like the Do-335, Go-229, YP-80, Tb-3 and assorted other aircraft that did nearly squat all war long.

Even the USN/USAAF has an excellent if incomplete planeset, at least every fighter that participated in numbers. It would be nice to have ALL the variants, but at least the plane is there.

I think every PTO guy would scream over a Ki-44, a Skua or a barracuda (theres an allied torpedo bomber!).

Maybe things will look up if support continues (well I guess they already are since we are getting a lot, for free!)

nakamura_kenji
09-02-2005, 07:05 PM
flyable ki-44 and ki-43-II are wosrt omission on japanese side i think and yet have AI ki-46 dinah probably becuase someone thought look prtty v_v

o0kami
09-03-2005, 08:20 PM
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/green/wave/94-1.jpg

i say we should have this one instead or this one

http://www.ne.jp/asahi/green/wave/senden.jpg

hehehe wonder what the allies would say about those

Badsight.
09-04-2005, 03:13 AM
too cool! - is what this Kiwi has to say : O

p1ngu666
09-04-2005, 08:43 AM
they look cool http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

barracuda was also a dive bomber http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

jeroen_R90S
09-04-2005, 12:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nakamura_kenji:
flyable ki-44 and ki-43-II are wosrt omission on japanese side i think and yet have AI ki-46 dinah probably becuase someone thought look prtty v_v </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ki-45 is also sorely missing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif My favorite plane from AOTP. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
http://www.todo-aviones.com.ar/japones/toryu/Ki-45-34.jpg

Jeroen

ElAurens
09-04-2005, 12:02 PM
I will never ever fault Japanese aero designers. Given the state of their manufacturing base and the sometimes poorly thought out specificatins given them by the military, they did an amazing job. And had many very clever solutions for sometimes conflicting needs.

I shudder to think how different it could have been had their industry been able to deliver state of the art processes and had the miltary had not had such outdated and short sighted views.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

o0kami
09-04-2005, 03:39 PM
yes ACe over Pacific was nice with all the planes

http://www.tok2.com/home/avionics/aotp/plane6.png
http://www.tok2.com/home/avionics/aotp/411220-sake.png
http://www.tok2.com/home/avionics/aotp/plane12.png

and with the add on 1946 pack it even better

http://www.tok2.com/home/avionics/aotp1946/j7w-b29.png
http://www.tok2.com/home/avionics/aotp1946/plane5.png

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2005, 04:28 PM
Quick question on the K1 100 KO, did this plane ever make active service in Japan? I had never heard of this plane until patch 4.01
And the NIK2 George & the J2M3 Jack did they serve in the Japanese army or Navy airforce?

JG53Frankyboy
09-04-2005, 04:40 PM
as a Ki-100 overview

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki100.html


the Army gave all its planes that Ki-X desigantion - so, the George and JAck were Navy planes.

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2005, 05:37 PM
Well it would be fantastic if both the George & the Jack were included in the plane release of the next patch, then we would have more fighter section when flying the IJN single player fighter campaign.

On another not will this patch be the last of the series for the combined install or will we continue to recieve the brilliant support from Maddox games? I gather the companies focus will be switching to BOB

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2005, 05:55 AM
bump http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2005, 06:16 AM
The last "BANZAI" from the land where Kangaroos run free & drop bears drunk on bundy hunt swedish campers
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2005, 08:40 AM
bump http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

rugame
10-27-2005, 05:25 PM
MMMMMMMMMM BUNDY

oh bump for more Jap kites.

Nimits
10-27-2005, 06:33 PM
Seriously, late war IJN planes most sorely missed are the D4Y and B6N. We arguable need some flyable early war fighters (A5M, Ki-27) as much or more than a Jack or George.

XyZspineZyX
10-27-2005, 07:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nimits:
Seriously, late war IJN planes most sorely missed are the D4Y and B6N. We arguable need some flyable early war fighters (A5M, Ki-27) as much or more than a Jack or George. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cricky!!!
its been a long time since I had my head in a book & I cant remember what a B6N or a D4Y is, but I have allways been a fighter buff, Thats why I really believe the sim needs a flyable George, it has been said the flyable jack may be made available as a cockpit has been done, all depends if the developers wish to release it. In my opinion the George is a sad ommision & I really hope it is eventually made flyable

shinden1974
10-27-2005, 11:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dasriech:
Cricky!!!
its been a long time since I had my head in a book & I cant remember what a B6N or a D4Y is, but I have allways been a fighter buff, Thats why I really believe the sim needs a flyable George, it has been said the flyable jack may be made available as a cockpit has been done, all depends if the developers wish to release it. In my opinion the George is a sad ommision & I really hope it is eventually made flyable </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The B6N is a torpedo bomber and all around attack plane. The D4Y is a dive bomber, a fairly slick looking in-line engine job (Though I think they shove a radial on it eventually) both are late war.

Agreement about the George. It puts the IJN in the map late war, It will be a lot more fun to fly against also.

I'm very confident we'll see the Jack, the only worry is that it may be released for one of the russian add-ons. I hope not, this one has been finished for some time.

The George (N1K2-Ja) cockpit was very close to finished when I last heard about it 4+months ago...so it may be finished already. If SaQson's around he may enlighten us to it's status. I hope it makes it.

XyZspineZyX
10-28-2005, 12:11 AM
So do I. The first thing I thought about was the N1K2Ja George when I considered buying the sim, but not flyable, only a beautiful screen shot when installing the sim & AI flying around in the campaigns.

On the upside the KI084 Frank is flyable, I am very pleased with that. With the IJN campaigns I edited the flyable plane list so I could fly the A7M-62 & 63 models, that was one thing the lack of japanese fighters encouraged me to do, Learn how to insert flyables into the campaigns
Which is a good thing

Browning50cal
10-28-2005, 06:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nakamura_kenji:
this thread about japanese plane want talk about why not get american plane please do else where

ki-43-II plane i really wish had been include ingame that and ki-44 but have little chance of get either p_q

any japanese plane i very happy with if added assuming it flyable ai not worth much v_v </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That sounds like hostility Harold. And we don't like hostility, do we?

No John, we don't.

I personally think that an F8F would complete the PF line up. Hmm... Talking about Japanese planes is boring. I'll just go back to shooting them all down. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
12-12-2005, 01:02 PM
This needs a bump to compete with all these Italian plane fanatics.

We want the Shiden!!!!!
We want the Raiden!!!!

& anything else remotely JAPANESE
I mean after all it is PACIFIC FIGHTERS
& not "Airwar over the Mediteranian" is it

jeroen_R90S
12-13-2005, 01:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by o0kami:
yes ACe over Pacific was nice with all the planes

http://www.tok2.com/home/avionics/aotp/411220-sake.png
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

AOTP rules!
Cheers, I'll have the sake with you! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

XyZspineZyX
01-16-2006, 07:17 AM
Bumpity bump
Must keep up with the Italians after all they havnt got a theatre yet
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

269GA-Veltro
01-16-2006, 09:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dasriech:
Bumpity bump
Must keep up with the Italians after all they havnt got a theatre yet
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't remember anymore how many times i've kid to have the Kate flyable......is one of my favorite WW2 aircraft. So, NP here! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Bump!

darkhorizon11
01-16-2006, 11:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
as a Ki-100 overview

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki100.html


the Army gave all its planes that Ki-X desigantion - so, the George and JAck were Navy planes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the read I give a bump to the b version I'd love to have it. Great late war UBI aircraft for the Japanese that would have seen combat. Plus work would be much less than modeling a whole new aircraft.

nakamura_kenji
01-17-2006, 06:42 AM
main difference ki-100-I-otsu from ki-100-I-ko be rear teardrop canpoy no brillant but much much better ki-100-I-ko/ki-61 no see back six anything v_v

see pic
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/Ki100_1.jpg

ki-100-II-ko much better high alt proformance, streamline shape but make little on few prototype before end war

ki-61-II, ki-61-I-tei also be nice but much doubt get p_q

MercilessFatBoy
01-17-2006, 09:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Well truth be told, the Japanese really did not have a fighter that was even competitive but the Ki-84, and you already have that. Japanese were not prepaired to fight a war with the USA and they were on the recieving end of a big butt whoopen soon after Pearl Harbor and never was much of a thread. Mariana's Turkey Shoot? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i am sure many death pilots disagree wiht you, and perhaps the finest japanese fighter was N1K2J-J SHIDEN KAI, the finest interceptor was the Raiden....

finest fighter before and afther the join of usa in the pacific war, was the zero... till the corsair ofcurse, turkey shoot was the reesult just of the bad leadership japan had of wich we are all happy about.... if they had hold of their carriers and pilots and wait for a better naval fighters witch they never cared to develope because of their glorious propaganda.... not because of their inavility to design a new one

XyZspineZyX
01-17-2006, 04:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nakamura_kenji:
main difference ki-100-I-otsu from ki-100-I-ko be rear teardrop canpoy no brillant but much much better ki-100-I-ko/ki-61 no see back six anything v_v

see pic
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/Ki100_1.jpg

ki-100-II-ko much better high alt proformance, streamline shape but make little on few prototype before end war

ki-61-II, ki-61-I-tei also be nice but much doubt get p_q </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is one of the best looking japanese fighters I have ever seen, Its in the same class as the Frank, Jack & George.
That would be awesome to have modelled as flyable in game (keep dreamin das keep dreamin)

From dedicated late model Japanese fighter zealot

OUSU

darkhorizon11
01-21-2006, 03:12 PM
Well hopefully we'll see something in the new patch, I count two more flyable if you include the Russian add-ons.

Two more non-flyable, better than nothing if you ask me.