View Poll Results: What would YOU fly into combat?

Voters
42. You may not vote on this poll
  • 109E3/E4

    17 40.48%
  • Mc.202

    8 19.05%
  • Ki-61

    17 40.48%
  1. #1
    I was thinking about this on the way home tonight. I have never been a fan of the 109, but it has a great engine. I was thinking "If I could re-design a 109, what would it be?"

    I figured better canopy/cockpit, smoother lines, wider track undercaradge, and a belly rad. Then I thought "Isent that the Ki-61?". I also remembered the MC-202.

    So here we have 3 aircraft, very differant takes on the same tool, a fighter, using the same engine. How differant are they?

    Looking up some quick Wiki stats, they all are very similar. Mc-202 seems a little faster, but not by much. So how differant are they?

    Here is what I see, just from general stats.

    BF-109.
    Middle. Not the fastest, or most manuverable.

    Mc-202. Faster, but not by much. Less firepower.

    Ki-61. More manuverable, but still about the same speed as the 109. Better visibility.

    I think I would pick the Ki-61. Same speed, little better firepower then the E4, but no pilot armor. At least the landings would be easier with the wider main gears. Its also got a very usefull bombload. Did the standard E4 have a bomb rack or only the E1B?

    Lets discuss. Lets keep this friendly. THAT MEANS NO SPITFIRES!
    Share this post

  2. #2
    Waldo.Pepper's Avatar Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    5,176
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejEmXlonhmw

    If I had me druthers I'd fly the Eyetie.
    Share this post

  3. #3
    I forgot to add that the pilot visibility looks a lot better in the Ki-61. Less greenhouse.
    Share this post

  4. #4
    difficult question, many factors (outside the scope of this post, surely not this thread however, soon:P) favor and detract from all 3

    id go "Eyetie" as well, better pit than 109, good pilot and fuel protection/renowned airframe battledamage durability over the ki61, and not-great endurance/range, so i dont spend any more time than i have to in a combat zone; i mean, a guy could get killed out there!
    Share this post

  5. #5
    Im guessing the Eyetie is the 202? Process of elimination and all...
    Share this post

  6. #6
    I was reading the little bit of info on the Ki-61 in the "view objects" menu. It says that the designers of the Ki-61 wanted a plane with the focus being durability, rather than maneuverability, at least in comparison to the Zero.

    I find it has the toughest structure of any Japanese fighter. The engine has extinguishers (although according to LeBillfish, these should be for the fuel tanks only), and to my knowledge, some metal plate for the pilot (compare to the Zero or Hayabusa which just has an empty void behind the seat).
    So, it's reasonably tough, and the most maneuverable of the three.

    As for firepower, I don't agree it's better than the 109 E. Our game has 3 types:
    2x.303 + 2x.50, 4x.50, and 2x.50+2x20mm. The 20mm armed variant did not make an appearance until 1944 I think, well beyond the lifetime of the Emil series. In any case, firepower is better than that of the Mc.202.
    Share this post

  7. #7
    Anyone have wingloading and powerloading stats for these three? I have numbers for spitfires .... ha ha just kidding... like to use these basic numbers to get some sense of possibilities

    For my style (I demand good horizontal turn and favor low wing loading) Ki is looking good. However 202 may be close... 202 did very well against the 'lumbering hurricane' and was known as a close in dogfighter

    109 advantages do not suit my style. Oleg also does not think much of 109 E considering how the turn improves in his interpretation of the F model..
    Share this post

  8. #8
    horseback's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    5,052
    While I prefer the designs of the Ki-61 and the MC 202, both suffered from poorer weapons and particularly in the case of the Ki-61, poor construction and materials. Neither type was as likely to be flyable on a given day as a Bf 109E.

    I think that while I'd prefer a Macchi built in Augsberg with a couple of MG FFs in the wings to go with the Bredas, I'll have to go with the 109E.

    cheers

    horseback
    Share this post

  9. #9
    this is a tough choice Gib,


    I flew the Mc 202 against a 109E human opponent, and i kept the fight vertical, which lead to really steep climbs into stalls, where the nose hangs horizontal at very low speeds. The Macchi was effective at this manuever more so than the 109, its a lighter plane, and that lead to just a bit more advantage in the vertical. There was no where for it to go horizontal, its a risk neither pilot would take. I just noticed the speed of the Macchi was enough to get it above in the 109 in close combat, and keep it moving forward enough to stay out of the way of the guns.

    here were some trade offs in position, but the frustrating thing about the Macchi is you could fire well placed bursts and the damage is still very minimal. I think its a plane designed more for the vertical defensive maneuver where it must've excelled up and forward than the other choices here.

    As for the Ki-61, i've always thought of it as a 109 that the Japanese built. It seems better refined than the 109E, and for that reason i would take the Ki-61 over the 109.

    I've never pitted the Ki-61 and the Macchi, but with all the benefits of the additional feature i might think the ki-61 to be the best plane of the three.


    Bill
    Share this post

  10. #10
    JtD's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    3,898
    The 109 is probably the best of the three if you have to fight a war, technically I consider the Ki-61 the best design of them.
    Share this post

Page 1 of 9 123 ... Last ►►