Ares Games
Results 1 to 49 of 49

Thread: Xmas Preview - Unofficial Aircraft

  1. #1

    Default Xmas Preview - Unofficial Aircraft

    These are very much pre-Alpha release, and haven't been checked. The only thing I can say to recommend them is that they are consistent with the existing official aircraft stats, and at least one source of performance data. As the committee does deeper research on stats, using multiple primary sources where possible, obviously these may change.
    They also only cover some of the many aircraft now available in 1/200.
    There are many judgement calls and compromises. For example, the M and N decks use 37.5' turns. This can sorta kinda be simulated for aircraft with 45 and 30 degree turns by deleting one of the 45 degree turns from the deck. The maximum is still 75 degrees in 2 cards, but it gives a bit too much nippiness. It's the best we can do for now.

    You'll notice a few other things - some cannon are marked in brackets - (C) for example. These are low velocity, slow-firing guns only good at short range vs small targets like fighters, but almost as likely to hit *somewhere* on a large target as the more accurate high velocity ones. The P-39, 109E, A6M2, and Ki-61 with D armament will get rather hosed by this vs fighters, while remaining nasty vs bombers. There's a reason the P-400 had a 20mm hispano suiza cannon replacing the 37mm of the P-39. Far more effective vs fighter opponents. The same reason the 109F had a 15mm or 20mm high velocity cannon instead of a pair of Oerlikons.

    There was no adjustment for lack of armour or self-sealing tanks in the official WGF aircraft - so these stats don't have one either. We do say which aircraft should be vulnerable here though and recommend some simple house rules.


    Name Man Dam Arm-S Arm-L Ceil Climb Base SSFT Armr Rdl
    Defiant D 17 B(dor) A(dor) 11 5 SF X
    Bleinheim I J* 18 A/A(dor) A/A(dor) 10 6 LF X
    Bleinheim IF J* 18 AB/A(dor) AA/A(dor) 10 6 LF X
    Bleinheim IV J* 19 A/A(dor)+A(ven) A/A(dor)+A(ven) 10 6 LF
    Bleinheim IVF J* 18 AB/A(dor) AA/A(dor) 10 6 LF
    Bf109F4 A 17 CA BA 13 2 SF X
    Bf109G4 Q* 17 CCCB CB 13 2 SF X
    Bf109G6U4 B 17 (DDD)B (DC)B 13 3 SF X
    Fw190A1 Q* 18 CCA CA 13 3 SF
    Fw190A5 F 18 CC(CC)A C(C)A 13 3 SF
    J2M2 Raiden (JACK) G 17 CCCC CC 13 1 SF
    N1K2-J Shiden-Kai (GEORGE) Q 18 CCCC CC 12 2 SF
    CW-21 C 15 BA B 12 2 SF X X
    P-43 H 17 BB B 12 4 SF X
    P-35 K 16 BA B 11 5 SF X X
    A8V1 Type S (D1CK) D 16 B/A A/A 11 5 SF X X
    Hudson 1 J 23 A/A(dor) A/A(dor) 9 7 LF X
    Hudson 3 J 23 A/A(dor)+A(ven)+A(bm) A/A(dor)+A(ven)+A(bm) 9 7 LF X
    Ki-48-I (LILLY) K* 20 A/A(dor)+A(ven)+A(fwd) A/A(dor)+A(ven)+A(fwd) 6 11 LF X X
    Ki-48-II (LILLY) D* 21 A/A(dor)+A(ven)+A(fwd) A/A(dor)+A(ven)+A(fwd) 5 12 LF X
    J1N1C (IRVING) M 20 -/A dorsal -/A dorsal 5 11 LF X X
    J1N1C-KAI (IRVING) M 20 CC (SchrageMusik) 5 11 LF X X
    J* - delete 45' turns
    Q* - delete long sideslips
    K* - delete one 45' turn (each side)
    D* - delete 45' turns, immelman
    SSFT - X - fires don't go out. Smoke becomes fire. These don't have self-sealing fuel tanks
    ARMR - X - any control hit does pilot hit too. These have no protection for crew.
    RDL - X - any smoke hit causes engine hit too. These have glycol-cooled engines.
    (x) - Counts as Long range at short and no long range fire possible vs aircraft with SF bases. Slow, inaccurate cannon, good only vs bombers.
    Last edited by Zoe Brain; 12-27-2013 at 04:32. Reason: A8V-1 deck corrected

  2. #2

    Default

    The only alteration I'd make is one of clarity -- an "X" in a column should indicate the unit *does* have it, rather than it *doesn't*.

  3. #3

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by csadn View Post
    The only alteration I'd make is one of clarity -- an "X" in a column should indicate the unit *does* have it, rather than it *doesn't*.
    The X means they don't have the feature. Self-sealing tanks and armor is the default state for WGS.
    Karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  5. #5

    Default

    FAQ

    How are damage points calculated?
    12 + ( Empty weight in tons x 2 ). For the B-17, it gets a unique bonus for structural strength, the Lanc a minor penalty for lightness (it carried twice the bombload though)

    The J1N1C-KAI had two downward-firing cannon. Where are they?
    Multiple sources say they were usually removed in the field for being useless. If not removed - they're still useless, so omitted.

    The Hudson seems awfully maneuverable. Should it be a J* deck not J?
    By February Sakai had claimed 13 Allied planes. During the spring he pushed his score. By July 22, he had reached 47 victories and on that day he claimed two more. He was flying over the beach at Buna, guarding the men landing there, when a pile of bombs exploded in the men and equipment. He soon saw a Lockheed Hudson coming through the clouds. As he attacked, the pilot of the Hudson used his bomber/transport as a fighter, chasing the Zeros. The tail gunner fired until he was killed by a lucky burst and the Hudson’s doom was sealed. Sakai jumped behind it and flamed the left engine. The Hudson crashed into the jungle, a burning mess.
    In the horizon, he saw a tiny speck, and so they raced after this tiny speck and as he neared, he identified it as a Lockheed Hudson, a twin-engine bomber.

    He thought it was going to be a very easy kill, so he manoeuvred in to shoot it down, and just as he got to the firing distance, he opened up with his guns, hoping to make the enemy bomber turn, and he got the surprise of his life, because the Hudson, just very rapidly, a very sharp U-turn and just came straight at him with all guns blazing.

    "Every forward firing gun in the Hudson opened up in a withering barrage."

    HENRY SAKAIDA: And then he just manoeuvred the Zero right out of the way to escape the line of fire. And after that, all hell broke loose. It was every man for himself.

    SAKAI: We were being attacked. I felt, gosh, this is going to be some fight.

    HENRY SAKAIDA: Sakai had trained his pilots to be very disciplined fighter pilots, but everything that he had taught his subordinates just went out the window. Just totally went out the window. There was mass confusion in the dogfight and there was several times when they almost collided.

    Our Zeros scattered widely, rolling or diving in the different directions. Nothing like this had ever happened before.

    BOB PIPER: As pilots, we don't know today how Warren managed to spin a Hudson on its wingtip like that. We can only surmise that perhaps he practised the technique earlier of pulling the power off on one engine, applying full power on the other, and pivoting it like a pirouette to turn it as sharply and as steeply as he could on the wingtip.

    SAKAI: I caught a glimpse of Lieutenant Sasi. His jaw hung open in astonishment at the audacity of the enemy pilot.

    BOB PIPER: All the time he had to keep that aircraft twisting, turning, climbing, descending, and indeed, Sakai, in his book, describes that he was doing just that and creating as much confusion against the enemy fighters as he possibly could.

    SAKAI: All of us failed to score a single hit. The bomber rolled and soared up and down in violent manoeuvres, with top gunner firing steadily at our planes.

    HENRY SAKAIDA: The dogfight lasted over 10 minutes, which, in fighter pilots' terms, it's like eternity. 10 minutes of just full-bore dog fighting. They could never keep their gun sights on the bomber long enough to hit it.

    BOB PIPER: You've also got to remember that these sort of manoeuvres are very, very tiring on a pilot and require a lot of concentration, and that 10 minutes that Warren fought would have seemed like 10 hours to him. As he turned the controls and pushed the rudders I imagine that he was absolutely exhausted and that his strength was running out even though he had a co-pilot with him.

    Jim Cowan
    JIM COWAN, Warren's brother: He would have said, "To hell with you. I'm going to really get stuck in here." He'd stick his nose into any sort of a fight, not for the love of the fight, so much, as how dare you do this to me?

    DAVID VINCENT, aviation historian: I really get this vision of Warren Cowan and his whole crew being galvanised to try and save their lives. But with a twin-engine bomber, it has some limitations as to what you can do with it. In the account by Sakai he did remarkable things with aeroplanes that just can't be... can't be really imagined how that could have happened, but he did it somehow.

    HENRY SAKAIDA: Their Zeros would have been like these real high-performance sports cars, you know, and the Hudson would have been something like a large truck. The sports car could just turn rings around the truck. Well, the Zeros could turn rings around the Hudson. And the Zero had about 80 miles per hour more speed than the Hudson, so there's no way that Cowan could have outrun the Japanese. So he decided to just stand and fight and he did a miraculous job.

    BETTY SHILLABEER: I thought, why did he have to turn back and chase them? But then he would have been taken anyway. They were after them, so... I don't think they ever would have got out of it.

    SAKAI: I saw the gunner throw his hands up and collapse. Without the interfering stream of bullets from the turret, I closed in to 20 yards and held the gun trigger down, aiming for the right wing. Seconds later, flames streamed out and spread to the left wing.

    HENRY SAKAIDA, Sakai's biographer: I asked Mr Sakai, well, what was your feeling at that time when this was happening? And he said, well, at that moment, when the airplane caught on fire, and it was going down, then that's when he knew, okay, they didn't have a chance. The combat was over, they were going to die.

    So he was watching them intensely and was muttering under his breath. He was saying, "Come on, come on, come on." And I asked him, Well, what did you mean by that? And he said, well, it's like he was hoping that they didn't have to die, that they were such heroes that it was just sad to see them die like that. But then at the same time he knew they were the enemy and so... he felt sympathy for them. You know, they had put up a good fight, now they were going to die, and there was nothing he could do, there was nothing THEY could do.

    JIM COWAN: I didn't know that Warren had been shot down that day. In fact, it was quite some time before any of us knew, because he was posted missing, believed killed, but he was never confirmed until the end of the war when they found his plane.

    HENRY SAKAIDA: After the Cowan combat, the Zeros landed back at base and it caused quite a consternation. The Zero pilots failed in their mission and Sakai told me that a bulletin was issued to other air groups in the area stating that, you can't take these Aussies very lightly. Their fighter pilots are great, but watch out for the Hudson pilots because even when outnumbered, vastly outnumbered, they'll turn against you and they will fight you. And so after that the Zero pilots were very, very careful when they came upon Hudsons, you know.

    You know, Sakai, when I talked to him about the enemy Hudson pilot's flying abilities, he said, "That guy was a master! I mean, he just took his bomber and he flew it like a fighter!" And he'd never seen that done. He said the guy was a tremendous pilot, a tremendous pilot, he knew exactly what he was doing, and if I were to tell Mr Sakai today that the guy was a novice pilot, he would probably shake his head in wonder. That's amazing.
    So no, the J deck is deliberate.

  6. #6

    Default

    I need a pair of Hudson now.
    Gosh, Zoe. You are killing my wallet!

  7. #7

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackronin View Post
    I need a pair of Hudson now.
    Gosh, Zoe. You are killing my wallet!
    Yep a couple of Hudsons would fit real well for early Pacific & New Guinea missions.

    Must get---- more aircraft!!!

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackronin View Post
    I need a pair of Hudson now.
    Gosh, Zoe. You are killing my wallet!
    The ones from HBM are the only ones I know of in 1/200. But I think he has some in stock.

  9. #9

    Default

    Thank you, Zoe, for more excellent work.

  10. #10

    Default

    Let's look at possibly the most complicated case considered by the stats committee.

    The "Brewster Buffalo".
    This had, in various versions, engines ranging from 900 to 1200 hp (nominally), though some were "reconditioned" civil aircraft engines that could get barely 2/3 of their rated hp. So a well-maintained rebuilt 900hp engine might deliver 950, a tired old 1100hp engine barely 700, and a well maintained powerful engine 1200.

    Empty weight varied from under 2000kg to over 2500kg.

    Multiple Versions of this aircraft served in various airforces - so a "NEI Buffalo" might be one of two quite different aircraft.

    Here's what we've come up with. We've tended to give far greater weight to pilots' opinions than raw figures, and gone for "average" rather than "best case". For the Finns, they took clapped-out engines and re-built them completely, improving on the stock as-new performance with minor design changes. Their machine shops were nearby, and excellent. The RAF in SEA on the other hand had virtually no maintenance facilities other than the most basic ones, and the cheap, reconditioned engines of most of their aircraft never came near their rated power. Adding 500kg of extra weight (extra fuel, radios, armour etc) made them much tougher, but this was a plane particularly sensitive to weight.

    Climb rates and ceilings haven't been checked yet - again, an alpha release.

    Name Man Dam Arm-S Arm-L Climb Ceil Base SSFT Armr Rdl
    Finnish 229 Buffalo K 15 BB B 4 11 SF X
    USN F2A2 Buffalo C 15 BB B 4 11 SF X X
    USN F2A3 Buffalo K 16 BB B 5 11 SF
    Dutch 339C Buffalo C 16 BA B 4 11 SF
    Dutch 339D Buffalo D 17 BA B 4 11 SF
    RAF 339E Buffalo I 18 BB B 6 7 SF
    RAF 339E-M Buffalo K 16 B A 4 11 SF X
    RAF 339E-S Buffalo C 15 A A 4 11 SF X

  11. #11

    Default

    Thanks Zoe your information back up on what I have already read.

  12. #12

    Default

    Also from what I have read, prior to the war with japan Australian Bufferlows had been re-armed with 4 Mg's and the 50 cal was removed as the lubricant on the amunition sprayed back onto the pilot canopy, in effect blinding the pilot. As far as I know replacement Bufferlows did not have this modification due to lack of time to modify them. As far as I know all Australian Bufferlows were all destroyed in Malaya. Thought they were still used by the Dutch in defence of Java.

  13. #13

    Default

    Thank you for posting this, Zoe.

    This is a very interesting information, especially for the later versions of the Bf.109 and the Japanese two engined plane.

    You and the stats comitee do a great work.
    Voilŕ le soleil d'Austerlitz!

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zoe Brain View Post
    The Hudson seems awfully maneuverable. Should it be a J* deck not J?
    By February Sakai had claimed 13 Allied planes. During the spring he pushed his score. By July 22, he had reached 47 victories and on that day he claimed two more. He was flying over the beach at Buna, guarding the men landing there, when a pile of bombs exploded in the men and equipment. He soon saw a Lockheed Hudson coming through the clouds. As he attacked, the pilot of the Hudson used his bomber/transport as a fighter, chasing the Zeros. The tail gunner fired until he was killed by a lucky burst and the Hudson’s doom was sealed. Sakai jumped behind it and flamed the left engine. The Hudson crashed into the jungle, a burning mess.




    In the horizon, he saw a tiny speck, and so they raced after this tiny speck and as he neared, he identified it as a Lockheed Hudson, a twin-engine bomber.

    He thought it was going to be a very easy kill, so he manoeuvred in to shoot it down, and just as he got to the firing distance, he opened up with his guns, hoping to make the enemy bomber turn, and he got the surprise of his life, because the Hudson, just very rapidly, a very sharp U-turn and just came straight at him with all guns blazing.

    "Every forward firing gun in the Hudson opened up in a withering barrage."

    HENRY SAKAIDA: And then he just manoeuvred the Zero right out of the way to escape the line of fire. And after that, all hell broke loose. It was every man for himself.

    SAKAI: We were being attacked. I felt, gosh, this is going to be some fight.

    HENRY SAKAIDA: Sakai had trained his pilots to be very disciplined fighter pilots, but everything that he had taught his subordinates just went out the window. Just totally went out the window. There was mass confusion in the dogfight and there was several times when they almost collided.

    Our Zeros scattered widely, rolling or diving in the different directions. Nothing like this had ever happened before.

    BOB PIPER: As pilots, we don't know today how Warren managed to spin a Hudson on its wingtip like that. We can only surmise that perhaps he practised the technique earlier of pulling the power off on one engine, applying full power on the other, and pivoting it like a pirouette to turn it as sharply and as steeply as he could on the wingtip.

    SAKAI: I caught a glimpse of Lieutenant Sasi. His jaw hung open in astonishment at the audacity of the enemy pilot.

    BOB PIPER: All the time he had to keep that aircraft twisting, turning, climbing, descending, and indeed, Sakai, in his book, describes that he was doing just that and creating as much confusion against the enemy fighters as he possibly could.

    SAKAI: All of us failed to score a single hit. The bomber rolled and soared up and down in violent manoeuvres, with top gunner firing steadily at our planes.

    HENRY SAKAIDA: The dogfight lasted over 10 minutes, which, in fighter pilots' terms, it's like eternity. 10 minutes of just full-bore dog fighting. They could never keep their gun sights on the bomber long enough to hit it.

    BOB PIPER: You've also got to remember that these sort of manoeuvres are very, very tiring on a pilot and require a lot of concentration, and that 10 minutes that Warren fought would have seemed like 10 hours to him. As he turned the controls and pushed the rudders I imagine that he was absolutely exhausted and that his strength was running out even though he had a co-pilot with him.

    Jim Cowan
    JIM COWAN, Warren's brother: He would have said, "To hell with you. I'm going to really get stuck in here." He'd stick his nose into any sort of a fight, not for the love of the fight, so much, as how dare you do this to me?

    DAVID VINCENT, aviation historian: I really get this vision of Warren Cowan and his whole crew being galvanised to try and save their lives. But with a twin-engine bomber, it has some limitations as to what you can do with it. In the account by Sakai he did remarkable things with aeroplanes that just can't be... can't be really imagined how that could have happened, but he did it somehow.

    HENRY SAKAIDA: Their Zeros would have been like these real high-performance sports cars, you know, and the Hudson would have been something like a large truck. The sports car could just turn rings around the truck. Well, the Zeros could turn rings around the Hudson. And the Zero had about 80 miles per hour more speed than the Hudson, so there's no way that Cowan could have outrun the Japanese. So he decided to just stand and fight and he did a miraculous job.

    BETTY SHILLABEER: I thought, why did he have to turn back and chase them? But then he would have been taken anyway. They were after them, so... I don't think they ever would have got out of it.

    SAKAI: I saw the gunner throw his hands up and collapse. Without the interfering stream of bullets from the turret, I closed in to 20 yards and held the gun trigger down, aiming for the right wing. Seconds later, flames streamed out and spread to the left wing.

    HENRY SAKAIDA, Sakai's biographer: I asked Mr Sakai, well, what was your feeling at that time when this was happening? And he said, well, at that moment, when the airplane caught on fire, and it was going down, then that's when he knew, okay, they didn't have a chance. The combat was over, they were going to die.

    So he was watching them intensely and was muttering under his breath. He was saying, "Come on, come on, come on." And I asked him, Well, what did you mean by that? And he said, well, it's like he was hoping that they didn't have to die, that they were such heroes that it was just sad to see them die like that. But then at the same time he knew they were the enemy and so... he felt sympathy for them. You know, they had put up a good fight, now they were going to die, and there was nothing he could do, there was nothing THEY could do.

    JIM COWAN: I didn't know that Warren had been shot down that day. In fact, it was quite some time before any of us knew, because he was posted missing, believed killed, but he was never confirmed until the end of the war when they found his plane.

    HENRY SAKAIDA: After the Cowan combat, the Zeros landed back at base and it caused quite a consternation. The Zero pilots failed in their mission and Sakai told me that a bulletin was issued to other air groups in the area stating that, you can't take these Aussies very lightly. Their fighter pilots are great, but watch out for the Hudson pilots because even when outnumbered, vastly outnumbered, they'll turn against you and they will fight you. And so after that the Zero pilots were very, very careful when they came upon Hudsons, you know.

    You know, Sakai, when I talked to him about the enemy Hudson pilot's flying abilities, he said, "That guy was a master! I mean, he just took his bomber and he flew it like a fighter!" And he'd never seen that done. He said the guy was a tremendous pilot, a tremendous pilot, he knew exactly what he was doing, and if I were to tell Mr Sakai today that the guy was a novice pilot, he would probably shake his head in wonder. That's amazing.
    So no, the J deck is deliberate.
    Zoe;
    While this is an impressive feat by this pilot, how many pilots could or did get this kind of performance out of the Hudson.
    Might want to leave this as an Ace ability.
    And also have a different deck for loaded.
    Karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jager View Post
    Zoe;
    While this is an impressive feat by this pilot, how many pilots could or did get this kind of performance out of the Hudson.
    Could - all (as long as the aircraft wasn't war-weary). Doctrine didn't call for it, but experience showed it could be done.

    Did - not many, and a few who tried it with worn out aircraft that had already been overstressed by years of this kind of treatment... well it didn't always end well.



    They were used as transports and anti-sub aircraft mainly. Bombload was pitiful. But they could certainly maneuver, an ability that was useful when inserting agents behind the lines in small fields, and conducting attacks on U-boats.
    Last edited by Zoe Brain; 12-20-2013 at 17:59.

  16. #16

    Default

    I totally agree with Zoe. The Portuguese Air Force had Hudsons and this plane was known to be handled almost like a fighter. I the late sixties there was a saying in the Portuguese AF: "There are fighter pilots, bomber pilots, helicopter pilots and Hudson pilots."

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Doug View Post
    Also from what I have read, prior to the war with japan Australian Bufferlows had been re-armed with 4 Mg's and the 50 cal was removed as the lubricant on the amunition sprayed back onto the pilot canopy, in effect blinding the pilot.
    Worse than that - the .303s were the ones where the lubricant blinded the pilot. The 50 cals just didn't work due to a variety of factors - misalignment in wings, bum solenoids...

  18. #18

    Default

    I can't wait for the release of these new miniatures!

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by richarddaystrom View Post
    I can't wait for the release of these new miniatures!
    You might be waiting a while...as far as I know, Ares has no plans to make any of them, at least for a few years.
    2014 should see the B-17 and Lanc, and then the re-issue of the Spitfire I, Bf109E, A6M2 and Wildcat. After that, maybe.

  20. #20

    Default

    That's why we gotta look for different avenues and that's why we have you, Zoe.

  21. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zoe Brain View Post
    You might be waiting a while...as far as I know, Ares has no plans to make any of them, at least for a few years.
    2014 should see the B-17 and Lanc, and then the re-issue of the Spitfire I, Bf109E, A6M2 and Wildcat. After that, maybe.
    Excited for the release of the heavy bombers... at I'll buy the new Spits, Zeros, 109s, and Wildcats. But I wish they released later model Spits and 109s (Mk.Vs and Gs anyone?). And a Hellcat and Model 52 would be nice as well.

  22. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fast.git View Post
    Excited for the release of the heavy bombers... at I'll buy the new Spits, Zeros, 109s, and Wildcats. But I wish they released later model Spits and 109s (Mk.Vs and Gs anyone?). And a Hellcat and Model 52 would be nice as well.
    I totally agree.

  23. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jager View Post
    The X means they don't have the feature. Self-sealing tanks and armor is the default state for WGS.
    Karl
    That's as may be -- normally in a list, a mark in a column indicates a positive; having it backwards is going to confuse the Mundanes.

  24. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fast.git View Post
    Excited for the release of the heavy bombers... at I'll buy the new Spits, Zeros, 109s, and Wildcats. But I wish they released later model Spits and 109s (Mk.Vs and Gs anyone?). And a Hellcat and Model 52 would be nice as well.
    The Spit Mk V is both visually and in game terms, functionally identical to the Mk I. There may be a difference in empty weight leading to an increase in damage, but I don't think it's enough. 16.8 (rounded up to 17) vs 17.3 (rounded down to 17), speed at 20k ft 565 vs 575 kph (same speed band), that kind of thing. There's more difference between the tropicalised and non-tropicalised models.

    The 109G - different kettle of fish, visually very distinct from the 109E, quite different performance too. I'd like to see both F and G models. You can convert a G to an F with a little filing, but the reverse isn't as easy.

    The absence of the Hellcat is deeply felt - I'd put this at the top of the list, but then we'd need P-38s and P-47s too. There's a huge difference in performance between the P-38C and P-38K, not just in speed, but turn rate. A6M5 is only very slightly different visually from the A6M2 - mainly wingtips rounder - though quite different in construction.

    ADDENDUM - it wouldn't surprise me if the next release after the reprints are the Ki-45 and either the Mosquito or Black Widow.
    Last edited by Zoe Brain; 12-20-2013 at 18:14.

  25. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackronin View Post
    That's why we gotta look for different avenues and that's why we have you, Zoe.
    I'm merely the public face of the stats committee. A lot of people have done a lot of work here, I'm just relaying some of the preliminary results.

  26. #26

  27. #27

    Default

    Unusually for you, Zoe, you forgot that the Spitfire V had a different armament. It had 2x20mm cannon and 4x0.303in machine guns. The Mk Vc could also carry a500lb bomb.

  28. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Naharaht View Post
    Unusually for you, Zoe, you forgot that the Spitfire V had a different armament. It had 2x20mm cannon and 4x0.303in machine guns. The Mk Vc could also carry a500lb bomb.
    There were 4 types of wing fitted to Mk I, II and V. Type A had 8 x 303. B had 2x20mm and 4x303. C could be fitted with either 8 x 303, 2x20mm and 4x303, or 4x 20mm. The last wasn't very successful, so 2x20mm and 4x303 was more usual. D had no armament, but extra fuel.

    The Mk I had the A type wing, but a few were fitted with B type wings.
    by 16 August, 24 cannon armed Spitfires had been delivered. These were known as the Mk IB: Mk Is armed with eight Brownings were retrospectively called the Mk Ia.
    The Mk V had C type wings.
    to continue...
    With the early cannon installation, jamming was a serious problem. In one engagement, only two of the 12 aircraft had been able to fire off all of their ammunition. Further cannon-armed Spitfires, with improvements to the cannon mounts, were later issued to 92 Squadron, but due to the limited magazine capacity it was eventually decided the best armament mix was two cannon and four machine guns (most of these were later converted to the first Mk VBs).
    On to the Mk V
    The VA continued to use the Type A wing with 8 × .303" Brownings...
    The VB became the main production version of the Mark Vs. Along with the new Merlin 45 series the B wing was fitted as standard....
    The VC also introduced the Type C or "Universal" wing ...
    So - both the Mk I and Mk V had either 8x303s or 2x20mm + 4x303s. The difference was the B wing in MkIb and MkVb had 60 20mm rds/gun, the Vc had 120.

  29. #29

    Default

    Here's our list for Nexus Spitfire models:

    Spitfire Mk I, II
    These are MkIa and MkIIa models (no cannon). The MkIb and MkIIb cannon versions require simple conversion (wing gun barrels). The MkIII - only 2 produced. The MkVa is visually similar IMHO, the canopy difference being negligible - the models show the "blown canopy" Mk I and II anyway, just like the Mk V. The MkVb with clipped wings is visually different - wings are clipped, some had cannon. The MkVc is externally identical to the Va. The MkVI pressurised version is also similar enough, again canopy differences the only external ones.
    The LeMesurier "Mk I" model is a bit of a puzzle. It looks like a MkI PR G later known as the PR Mk VII. MkI PRs A-F (PR MkIII-VI) were unarmed. Any of these are "visually similar". Most were converted to the Mk I PR F anyway.
    The PR Mk XIII is also visually similar - only 4 mgs, but at low level, like a Spitfire IX.

    The unarmed PR ones flew at high level, and speeds close to a Mk IXs. They had no armour or armament, just lots of fuel, flying too high for most interceptors to reach. Totally boring from a game perspective, and can be usefully omitted. Few fighters had the speed to catch them at high altitude, and would run out of fuel long before they did anyway.

    The exception was the Mk I PR E (soon replaced by the armed and armoured Mk I PR G) for low-level obliques.

    The tropical versions of all of the above had reduced performance - but not enough to make any difference in the scale of the game - and require conversions of either the nose or radiators under wings and fuselage.

    Summary/Conclusions
    "Untouched"
    Mk Ia (existing)
    Mk IIa (existing)
    Mk Va
    Mk Vc (non cannon)
    Mk VI
    PR Mk VII (Mk I PR G) (existing)
    PR Mk XIII

    Minor Conversion (just add cannon)
    Mk Ib
    Mk IIb
    Mk Vc with cannon

    Conversion Nose
    Mk Va(Trop)
    Mk Vc(Trop)

    Conversion Nose and Cannon
    Mk Vc(Trop) with cannon

    Conversion Nose, Cannon, Clipped wings
    Mk Vb(Trop)

    Conversion Cannon, Clipped wings
    Mk Vb

  30. #30

    Default

    Climb rates and ceilings haven't been checked yet - again, an alpha release.

    Name Man Dam Arm-S Arm-L Climb Ceil Base SSFT Armr Rdl
    G4M2 Betty XA 25 AA+A side+C dor+C tail AA+A side+B dor+B rail 6 10 B X X
    Tu SB2M J* 21 B+A dors + A vent A+A dors + A vent 6 11 HF X X
    DB-3F XA 24 A nose + A dors + A vent A nose + A dors + A vent 7 10 B X X
    IL4M-I XA 24 A nose + A dors + A vent A nose + A dors + A vent 7 10 B X
    IL4M-II XA 24 C nose + C dors + A vent B nose + B dors + A vent 7 10 B

  31. #31

  32. #32

    Default

    Thank you for clarifying that, Zoe. I am sorry. I did not know that the spitfire VA had 8x0.303's.

  33. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Naharaht View Post
    Thank you for clarifying that, Zoe. I am sorry. I did not know that the spitfire VA had 8x0.303's.
    No probs - and no need to be sorry, quite the reverse. If ever you think I've made a mistake, please tell me! I rely on others like yourself to check.

    In this particular case, I happened to be right, but there's no guarantee I will be next time. It also gave me an opportunity to talk about different marks of early Spitfire, their appearance and armament, and to illustrate just how much research the committee has put in to this.

    Even then, we deliberately omitted the Mk III (only 2 built), the never-constructed Mk IV etc.

  34. #34

    Default

    Name Man Dam Arm-S Arm-L Ceil Climb Base SSFT Armr Rdl
    Fokker D.XXI K 15 B A 11 2 SF X X
    Fokker D.XXI (mod) J 15 B A 10 4 SF
    Fokker D.XXI C J 15 (C)(C)A (C)A 10 4 SF X X

    The Dutch D.XXIs were all unmodified. The Danish ones were all cannon-armed, as was serial FR-76 in Finnish service. Finnish D.XXIs from 1941 were mostly modified, with the lower powered engines that were the only ones available.
    The D.XXI could dive vertically though, so should get the Vertical Dive of the Stuka. Maximum speed in a dive was 700 km/h, better than the 109E or even Spitfire I.

  35. #35

  36. #36

    Default

    Zoe i was thinking what would be the philosophy behind having C to B drop for short and long range in case of bomber cannons.
    I was working on Betty, and i noticed that your unofficial/official stats change C cannons to B when they shoot at long range. I was wondering why. C has 42% of zeros in it and seems to be really good to simulate a big hit or no hit. B is a very consistent source of damage (having just 17% of zeros in it), and so it doesn't seem to me to simulate lucky hits at all. I understand B (17% of zeros) / A (27% of zeros) - A and B are similar sources of damage. I honestly don't understand why C/B though, they are different animals. I'd say C/C simulates cannons better. Just an idea ...

    When you want to simulate long range cannon hits, there is an option of making an enhanced C bag with extra zeros added to it, say up to 60 % - or you may just remove the small hits which will do the same thing. But also that may be little too much hastle for casual players.
    Last edited by Honza; 03-19-2014 at 01:10.

  37. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Honza View Post
    Zoe i was thinking what would be the philosophy behind having C to B drop for short and long range in case of bomber cannons.
    I was working on Betty, and i noticed that your unofficial/official stats change C cannons to B when they shoot at long range. I was wondering why.
    To make it consistent with the way Yak 3 and Dewoitine 520 single cannon are treated.
    I'm not real thrilled about the way armament in WGS is treated either.

  38. #38

    Default P 108 Card Request

    All,
    I have been asked to do up a card for a Piaggio P-108 bomber. I have never done up a bomber card, so here's to a challenge. However, I don't have a clue about stats or firing arcs.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	P108_6003446307_3f862a9de5_o.jpg 
Views:	144 
Size:	78.3 KB 
ID:	128488
    Powerplant 4 x 1500h.p. Piaggio P.XII RC35 18 cylinder radials
    Performance: maximum speed at 13,780ft (4,200m) 267mph; cruising speed 199mph; service ceiling 27,885ft (8,500m) maximum range 2187 miles (35250km)
    Weights: empty 38,195lb (17,235kg) maximum t/o 65,885 lb (29,885kg)
    Dimensions: span 104ft 11 3/4 in (32.00m) length 73ft 2in (22.30m) height 19ft 8 1/4 in (6.00m)
    Armament : 8 x 12.7mm (0.5in) machine guns 7,716lb (3500kg) bombload

    Are there any stats for this plane?

    Mike

  39. #39

    Default

    Well, for one: I've seen many pics of the P.108, and none of them ever looked like that.

    The P.108 had a double-stepped nose, with the middle step holding the forward turret (the bombardier's position was below, and projected ahead of, the turret):

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ggio_P.108.jpg .

    Also, the rudder/vertical stabilizer is completely different. Not sure what that pic is of, but it isn't a P.108.

    Armament was: 1x 0.50 forward turret; 1x 0.50 ventral turret; 1x 0.30 each beam position (just abaft the wings); 2x dual-mount 0.50s in remote-operated turrets on each outer engine nacelle (however, these were almost impossible to aim, and were often blocked by the tail).

  40. #40

    Default

    OK,
    Must be the prototype image. The drawings I have relate to the below image more that the above:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	p108Bomber.jpg 
Views:	135 
Size:	132.0 KB 
ID:	128536
    The lower profile doesn't appear to have the nose turret, and could be a transport version, too. And more research referred to a version with a 102mm cannon in the nose?! Forssmann Eindeckker!

    So, despite what the firing arcs might technically be, do we amend the damage or accuracy somehow?

    Mike

  41. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OldGuy59 View Post
    OK,
    Must be the prototype image. The drawings I have relate to the below image more that the above:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	p108Bomber.jpg 
Views:	135 
Size:	132.0 KB 
ID:	128536
    *That* is a P.108 -- the two domes on the back were the positions for the remote-turret operators.

    Quote Originally Posted by OldGuy59 View Post
    The lower profile doesn't appear to have the nose turret, and could be a transport version, too. And more research referred to a version with a 102mm cannon in the nose?!
    [nod] The P.108 C [civil] and T [military] were transport versions; the T had single 0.50s in dorsal, ventral, and each beam position, and with all that could still carry two entire Macchi C.202s (broken down), or 60 passengers (the C could only hold 32), or eight torpedoes, or 12 tons of general cargo. The P.108A "Artigliere" ['gunship'] used the 102mm (actually a rebored 90mm); in addition to the big gun, it was supposed to have the standard defensive armament, plus two radio-guided or three unguided torpedoes.

    However, Italy's production capacity wasn't up to building them en masse -- only 3 Cs, 5 Ts, and 1 A were built.

    Quote Originally Posted by OldGuy59 View Post
    So, despite what the firing arcs might technically be, do we amend the damage or accuracy somehow?
    For the remote turrets, I usually hang a range penalty on them -- short range is considered long; long range is no-go.

  42. #42

    Default

    All,
    First ever Bomber card. With an empty weight of 38,000 lbs, this comes out to 50+ damage [Edit: Updated]? And I couldn't figure out what maneuver deck to give this, so I tried to match speeds with others [Edit: Until we see what the B-17 has, the "XC" is my guess.]. I managed to get the engines right (I think).

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	<acronym title=WGS P-108B Piaggio Card.jpg  Views: 62  Size: 188.2 KB  ID: 130720" class="thumbnail" style="float:CONFIG" />

    The remote twin .303 turrets in the wings are probably wrong, too [Edit: Nope. Not all the guns are single .50s or dual .303s, so "A" damage. The turrets ARE dual .50s! Read more carefully. Sorry for the confusion, Zoe and Chris.]. And there was a serious question about accuracy, and I thought that perhaps at long range, only chits with special damage would hit, but not inflict any special damage. Thoughts? I think not allowing long range shots at all is a bit nasty. But, what do I know, I don't even play WGS.

    The remote wing turrets have 360 degree above, but not below the wings, nor through the props. The remote ventral turret is 360 degrees below, nothing above. No tail guns, at all.

    Please hack away, and I will fix it. [Edit: Thanks Zoe!]

    [Edit: Two different paint jobs, and management cards in my Album.]

    Mike
    Last edited by OldGuy59; 04-23-2014 at 22:00. Reason: Update card stats - yet again!

  43. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OldGuy59 View Post
    All,
    First ever Bomber card. With an empty weight of 38,000 lbs, this comes out to 50+ damage?
    Damage = 12 + (2*EWIT). EWIT is 17.325 so call it 47 damage.

  44. #44

    Default

    Thanks Zoe.

    Any thoughts on the guns and maneuver? Cruising speed around 200 mph, and top around 280-ish?

    Mike

  45. #45

    Default

    Some great work going on here guys and gals. Just goes to show like an iceburg most of the show is out of sight.
    See you on the Dark Side......

  46. #46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OldGuy59 View Post
    Thanks Zoe.

    Any thoughts on the guns and maneuver? Cruising speed around 200 mph, and top around 280-ish?

    Mike
    Use the deck from the B-17, which is comparable in both speed and maneuverability. The Lancaster is a bit more maneuverable.

    Of course until the B-17 comes out, we don't know if that will be an XC or XD deck.

    As for armament - a mount with 2x.50 or 4 .303 guns is B. Single .50 or twin .303 are A, as are single .303. So yes, you got it right first time.

  47. #47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OldGuy59 View Post
    The remote twin .303 turrets in the wings are probably wrong, too
    Everything I read said they were twin 0.50s; the only 0.30s were in the waist positions. It's a bit confusing as Breda-SAFAT built the same gun in both 0.30 and 0.50.

  48. #48

    Raptor's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Manzotti edoardo
    Location
    Bergamo,Lombardia
    Sorties Flown
    97
    Join Date
    Apr 2012

    Default

    Thanks oldguy59,now I can fly with the Italian Flying Fortress
    Thank you very much!!!

  49. #49

    Default

    Attempted to upload the Plane and Management cards in the WWII Custom Card files. Needed to reduce the resolution by quite a bit to get them to load.
    Hope they are useful.

    Mike



Similar Missions

  1. Where on the forum are the unofficial aircraft stats?
    By mbowden23 in forum WGF: General Discussions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-16-2013, 12:15
  2. Unofficial Aircraft - Some thoughts
    By Zoe Brain in forum WGS: House Rules
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-01-2013, 17:07
  3. Unofficial Aircraft Stats Version 4
    By Guntruck in forum WGF: General Discussions
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 04-25-2012, 18:38
  4. Unofficial Aircraft: Otto C1
    By clipper1801 in forum WGF: Historical Discussions
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-06-2011, 17:23
  5. Wings of War Dawn of WW2 Unofficial Aircraft
    By Carl_Brisgamer in forum WGS: General Discussions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-17-2010, 03:14

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •