Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 151 to 195 of 195

Thread: WGS Unofficial aircraft list Version 1.0

  1. #151

    Sixer's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Ryan
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Sorties Flown
    30
    Join Date
    Mar 2012

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Пилот View Post
    Just watched episode 1. Urge to play WoG while drinking beer and eating pancakes
    That is exactly why I brought up the show. Who wouldn't want to play Wings of War with those planes, after seeing that show?

    The plot and characters of the show don't get any less absurd, but the Dogfighting is good through at least Episode 4, which is where most of my intense, "How do I convert these to Wings of War"? focus rested.

  2. #152

    Sixer's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Ryan
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Sorties Flown
    30
    Join Date
    Mar 2012

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jager View Post
    To be honest, when I open the file I see a lot of words and numbers all over the screen. Can you format it better? Even in a word file, though that's read-only for me would be better.
    Karl
    Sorry about that; I forgot that tabs are often inconsistently represented across individual computers. Here's a Word file, instead.

    WoW Stats.docx Views: 7 Size: 6.5 KB">The Magnificent Kotobuki Aircraft WoW Stats.docx

  3. #153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sixer View Post
    As an old Wings of War player, and Dogfighting enthusiast, I've since found good reason to further flesh out some of the Japanese fighters, and would love some help in this regard.
    See, I ran across this anime that's a must see for any fan of Dogfighting, called, "The Magnificent Kotobuki"; if you don't believe that it's a must see, click here, and fast-forward to 9:15, for when the planes take off, and the combat starts; then, once all the planes have re-boarded the carrier, go back to 8:09, for the historically accurate flight-check sequence; you'll be glad you did.
    Anyway, most of these aircraft aren't represented in WoW/WoG in the specific, historically accurate, models used; I've gone to some effort to work some of that out, and I'd love some feedback on what I've put together, as there are some differences from the existing list, and some potentially worthy inclusions, as well.

    Try to make your text editor's window widescreen and/or landscape; tabs may need adjustment; a Word file is also available, in a later post.
    Attachment 263545
    Did a quick wiki check; so this is an anime version of Crimson Skies? Could be an interesting game.
    Karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  4. #154

    Sixer's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Ryan
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Sorties Flown
    30
    Join Date
    Mar 2012

    Default

    Certainly in that vein, yeah. A squadron of 6 cute girls operate a Squadron of 6 Mark 1a Hayabusas under contract to "Ouni Company" (a shipping and transport Company that occasionally engages in light Mercenary work, as the need and financial incentive arises), which operates a landing deck equipped carrier dirigible called the "Hagoromo". All the aircraft are authentic WWII aircraft, and appear to perform as they would in the real world (they take a very "Girls und Panzer" approach to the combat). Even if you're not into the "cute girls being cute" part of the show, the combat scenes are absolutely worth it.

    What I'm really looking for is some constructive criticism of the stats I've worked up, and whether they are in-line with the other WWII historical aircraft. While, in theory, I'd love to do a commercial release of a "Kotobuki" themed game, I can't imagine I'd be able to work the licensing stuff out, so I'm content to work up the stats, and release some entirely unofficial fan scenarios; but I should really get the authentic WWII planes finished first, before I try and put some polish on the rest of the stuff.

  5. #155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sixer View Post

    What I'm really looking for is some constructive criticism of the stats I've worked up, and whether they are in-line with the other WWII historical aircraft.
    All of the aircraft, bar one transport, the bomber and the trainer biplanes, have stats for them in the unofficial stats list. This includes the Hayabusas of various marks, which were cards published by Nexus, (and available as AIM models), so official, the Hayate and Ki-64 (official Nexus models), the Ki44 Shoji (coming soon as an official Nexus model, apparently), the Shiden (AIM unofficial), Ki-27(AIM unofficial)

    I didn't recognise the bomber, I thought initially it was a Ki48.

  6. #156

    Sixer's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Ryan
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Sorties Flown
    30
    Join Date
    Mar 2012

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zoe Brain View Post
    All of the aircraft, bar one transport, the bomber and the trainer biplanes, have stats for them in the unofficial stats list. This includes the Hayabusas of various marks, which were cards published by Nexus, (and available as AIM models), so official, the Hayate and Ki-64 (official Nexus models), the Ki44 Shoji (coming soon as an official Nexus model, apparently), the Shiden (AIM unofficial), Ki-27(AIM unofficial)

    I didn't recognise the bomber, I thought initially it was a Ki48.
    See, that's part of why I'm posting here. The current unofficial stats for the Hayabusa Mark 1a has the same Maneuver Deck as the Mark IIb, in spite of Wikipedia saying that the top speed for the 1a was a good 25 MPH slower. Wouldn't the "K" Maneuver Deck be more appropriate?

    I don't see the Kawanishi N1K1-J "Shiden" on the list, which is a pretty important "ally" plane in the series.

    I'd like to get at least some feedback as to whether or not the stats I've put together on my own are correct or incorrect, and, if not, why, so I can better construct the additional unrepresented planes..

  7. #157

    Default

    The Kawanishi N1K1-J George is in the Army planes on the UAC file; my bad.
    The K deck would be too slow for the Ki-43-I. The C deck at ~315mph is between the Mk.I speed (309) and the Mk.II speed (329).
    As I posted Ryan, the file doesn't come through on my computer. Here's a partial screen shot of what I see:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Capture2.jpg 
Views:	110 
Size:	113.2 KB 
ID:	263769

    So if you can put your stat data in a word or doc file, I can look at it.
    Karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  8. #158

    Sixer's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Ryan
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Sorties Flown
    30
    Join Date
    Mar 2012

    Default

    Jaeger, it's in Post 152.

    I see the N1K2, but not the N1K1-J. Wikipedia mentions that the K2 is a little faster, but it isn't clear by how much.
    Last edited by Sixer; 03-04-2019 at 14:17.

  9. #159

    Default

    OK, got it (page shift caught me, sorry).
    And yes, I did miss the K2. I have at least one source that would indicate it needs a different deck. Plus I just got the Osprey duel: Hellcat vs. Shiden/Shiden-KAI.
    So let me check those for it, and I'll post here.
    Probably Wednesday (my day off).
    Karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  10. #160

    Sixer's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Ryan
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Sorties Flown
    30
    Join Date
    Mar 2012

    Default

    Are there any official stats for planes using the Type 99-2 Cannon, rather than just the Type 99-1?

  11. #161

    Default

    The short answer is: Since they are both 20mm cannon, they have the same effect, a C chit at short range, and an A chit at long.
    For more on guns, and how multiple ones work, see post 138:
    https://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/sh...l=1#post496750

    The longer one is that there has been debate in the past about how the guns work in WGS, and how cannon seem to be overpowering, esp the D class (37-50mm).
    Many of the larger cannons are lower in MV or or have terrible ballistics, making it much harder to score a hit in fighter vs. fighter combat.
    This is less of a problem against big bombers, their usual reason for using such.
    The German Mk 108 is a prime example.
    It's mostly been decided to leave well enough alone, as trying to fix this would add alot of chrome it a relatively simple and clean game.
    Karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  12. #162

    Sixer's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Ryan
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Sorties Flown
    30
    Join Date
    Mar 2012

    Default

    The Type 99-1 was more or less equivalent to the MG FF autocannons in the BF 109s, but the Type 99-2 was a beefier gun, fed with 20x101RB Cartridges instead of the BF 109 equivalent's 20x72RB, improving both Rate of Fire and Muzzle Velocity. After factoring in things like interruption to Rate of Fire, and Muzzle Velocity (and neglecting the explosive rounds, I'm afraid), I estimated that the Type 99-2 Cannons should work out to about a 1.5x multiplier, when they replace it as a Cowling Mounted, Interrupted gun. Is that a mistaken approach, for some reason?

  13. #163

    Default

    As I said, the game designer didn't account for such differences, and while there has been some discussion on the differences in weapons stats vs. the damage dealt, I can't recall any house rules on the matter.
    If you want to propose some house rules for this, go for it. I would, however, be cautious in my approach. Figure what the base line for each damage chit would be, in terms of RoF and kinetic energy delivered (probably using the base MV). I would use the average gun(s), or at least the most common used in the war.
    I know both the classic "planes on wheels" game, Mustangs and Messerschmitts, and the Fighting Wings games use this as a means to determine damage. In fact, if I was inclined to look into this, I would just tabulate the gunfire factors for each
    aircraft weapon from FW, and use that. Not something I have time for right now, though.

    Back to the N1K1/K2: I have to conclude that both models are close enough in speed to use the same deck. The data indicting higher speeds (up to 410mph) came from USAAF tests, and probably had the plane(s) fueled with 100+ octane gas.
    The Japanese could supply no greater than 85 octane by this stage of the war, giving the lower performance.

    Karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  14. #164

    Default

    Ryan; I did a quick look through at the Kotobuki file; I didn't have a lot of time today, as I'm trying to prep for a game Saturday.
    A couple things stood out: Like the N1K2, the J2M3 Raiden has the wiki spec of 417mph. If you read the note, that was with 92 octane gas that the US test team used.
    With the 85 (or less) octane the Japanese could get, the speeds were much less. So the wiki article really needs to be edited.
    So the H deck is most appropriate for historical games. If you want the best that the plane could do, that's a different story.
    Same reason I didn't do stats for the Ki-43 Mk.III; only a couple of prototypes were made.
    If you'd like input based on this, it will take a bit of time.
    Karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  15. #165

    Sixer's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Ryan
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Sorties Flown
    30
    Join Date
    Mar 2012

    Default

    The Ki-43 Mk.III is pretty important; they’re featured in three consecutive episodes, one of which features a truly massive airbattle; the opposing force, numbering at least two full Squadrons, consists entirely of Ki-43 Mk.IIIs, and just a few Suiseis.

    The Octane issue is one I hadn’t considered, and you’re right to mention it. While the exact Octane used in the show hasn’t been mentioned, Episode 7 is all about fuel quality, as the company’s favorite fuel supplier gets sabotaged, and... well, things happen. On that basis, it could be reasonable to say they are using better fuel, and therefore, I could just go with the wiki numbers, but I should certainly start from a historically accurate basis.

    I appreciate contributions to this; thank you for your patience!

  16. #166

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sixer View Post
    The Ki-43 Mk.III is pretty important; they’re featured in three consecutive episodes, one of which features a truly massive airbattle; the opposing force, numbering at least two full Squadrons, consists entirely of Ki-43 Mk.IIIs, and just a few Suiseis.

    The Octane issue is one I hadn’t considered, and you’re right to mention it. While the exact Octane used in the show hasn’t been mentioned, Episode 7 is all about fuel quality, as the company’s favorite fuel supplier gets sabotaged, and... well, things happen. On that basis, it could be reasonable to say they are using better fuel, and therefore, I could just go with the wiki numbers, but I should certainly start from a historically accurate basis.

    I appreciate contributions to this; thank you for your patience!
    Ki-43 IIIa
    10 prototypes produced (May 1944-Aug 1945)
    Never put into production.
    Max speed: 576 km/h (358 mph at 21,900ft)
    Cruising speed: 442 km/h (275 mph)
    Ceiling: 11,400m (37,400ft)

    Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War, Rene J. Francillon, Naval Institute Press, 1990
    ISBN 0-87021-313-X

    With 10 prototype planes, not a significant player in the war, IMHO.

    PS: For comparison: Ki-43 IIb
    2,500+ produced (June 1942-Aug 1945)
    Max speed: 530 km/h (329 mph at 13,125ft)
    Cruising speed: 440 km/h (273 mph)
    Ceiling: 11,200m (36,750ft)

    PPS: The publication isn't clear about some of the production numbers.
    Nakajima produced 10 Ki-43 IIIa prototypes, but no production aircraft.
    Tachikawa built two Ki-43 IIIb prototypes in the spring of 1945, but the write-up describes production of both the IIb and the IIIa at the same factory. Total for the two types at that factory is given as 2,629 from May 1943 to Aug 1945. With the IIIa prototypes listed as produced in May 1944, perhaps up to half of the total Tachikawa production could have been IIIa's.
    Last edited by OldGuy59; 03-06-2019 at 17:06.
    Mike
    "Flying is learning to throw yourself at the ground and miss" Douglas Adams
    "Wings of Glory won't skin your elbows and knees while practicing." OldGuy59

  17. #167

    Default

    All the sources I've seen state the Mk.III was a prototype only; 12 made total.
    I haven't read why they didn't proceed with it, but by late '44, 358mph wasn't anything to brag about, and better planes were to be had with the scarce resources.
    There's an interesting article on the wwII aircraft performance site about tests on planes with 150 grade fuel, which I assume is 150 octane.
    http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...rade-fuel.html
    Karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  18. #168

    Sixer's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Ryan
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Sorties Flown
    30
    Join Date
    Mar 2012

    Default

    The setting of “The Magnificent Kotobuki” is clearly not Japan; it’s clearly a parallel world of some kind, as evidenced by the English/Greek mixed lettering on their text, the use of money in the form of Pounds and Cents, and, most glaring of all, the live dodo bird (which, amusingly, is the official Captain of the Hagoromo, as dictated by the whim of the ball-busting female CEO of the Company, who wants to let the official “First Officer” know exactly what she thinks of him, by making him subordinate to the Crew Mascot). While the scenery might indicate Mongolia, I suspect it has more in common with the American Southwest. The fighters themselves are supposedly of “Yufang” origin rather than Japanese, but, assuming the “Parallel World” theories hold up, it was probably some operational codename the Japanese Army/Navy Airforces used while they were stuck there, pumping out planes for a war they might never get back to; Japanese Companies do similar things when they test out the product markets of another country, like “Nissan” did with “Datsun”; and the last thing the Japanese needed was an additional front to the war; so I assume that name was used by the Japanese for strictly plausible deniability purposes. For all intents and purposes, the aircraft are of historically accurate construction, even if their quantities (two full flights of Mark III Hayabusas as part of a Mercenary/Piracy “Company”) and applications (Army Fighters being used on a Dirigible Carrier, of all things, rather than a Navy Fighter) are a bit wonky.
    My intent in posting here is to get the “Historically Accurate” part right, and apply the deviations only as appropriate (for instance, Air Pirates are known to re-pack spent cartridges, which would certainly up the malfunction rate of their guns). So the matter of there being so few Hayabusa Mark IIIs in the war is a bit moot for my purposes, even if it means that there isn’t likely to be more than one official Mark III card, for that reason.

  19. #169

    Default

    Devastator (Wikipedia) has wingspan of exactly 50ft 0in. Is it HF base?

  20. #170

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Пилот View Post
    Devastator (Wikipedia) has wingspan of exactly 50ft 0in. Is it HF base?
    Normal Fighter. It's right on the borderline.

    As for the Hayabusa IIIa, use an A deck.
    This is based on the logic that a Hayabusa was about as maneuverable as an A6M, and an A6M could turn with a Spitfire V at low speeds. In one test, while the outcome was even, the Spitfire was bent due to over gee.
    Last edited by Zoe Brain; 03-10-2019 at 17:56. Reason: Misread HF as F

  21. #171

    Default

    Point is that Nakajima Kate (50ft 11inch) and basically the same role, goes to HF base. Plus, Devastator's wing area is bigger then Kates. Maybe Devastator should go to the HF, at the end?

  22. #172

    Default

    I have both the torpedo bombers as HF bases. The tie-breaker was their maneuverability (or lack thereof).
    Karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  23. #173

    Default

    Thank you!

    I have also some doubts with Catalinas. Unofficial stats do not make difference between models, but only between periods - "to mid-1943" and "from mid-1943". I understand that as "all models had the same armament, but in 1943 everything changed and all Catalinas (disregarding model) received new, wider, arcs of fire and even some extra MGs".

    Is that simplyfied view true, or is there some difference between models?

    Long story short: what would be arcs of fire for PBY 5 and PBY 5A in june 1942 (having in mind both models were produced at the same time)?

  24. #174

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Пилот View Post
    Thank you!

    I have also some doubts with Catalinas. Unofficial stats do not make difference between models, but only between periods - "to mid-1943" and "from mid-1943". I understand that as "all models had the same armament, but in 1943 everything changed and all Catalinas (disregarding model) received new, wider, arcs of fire and even some extra MGs".

    Is that simplyfied view true, or is there some difference between models?

    Long story short: what would be arcs of fire for PBY 5 and PBY 5A in june 1942 (having in mind both models were produced at the same time)?
    In a futile effort to find decent reference top-down drawings of PBY-5s, I have found this:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	CatalinaLR71.PBY-Catalina-Variantes.jpg 
Views:	73 
Size:	150.8 KB 
ID:	264379

    My take on the Catalina, of any variant (I'm NOT a member of the Unofficial Stats Committee):
    The above drawing shows three variants of the PBY-5(A), and I can't determine from these how the firing arcs are wider? There could be different firing arcs, and depending on the plane, and the service (RAF, RAAF, RCAF, RNZAF, USN, etc...) different weapons (single and twin gun mountings), but most would only be 'A' mountings, even with twin .30 cals (.303 Vickers), or single .50 cals. You could, depending on your reference, widen the nose arc?

    The image above seems to show a ventral hatch in the tail of all PBY-5(A)s, for a tail gun, but how many were used, and how effectively? In game terms, this would add a ventral firing arc to the tail. Not hard to add, really.

    I don't have enough info, nor decent images, to determine why the change was made to the bubble turret on late PBY-5As. The early PBY-5s could have had a low profile flat-top turret, as I have seen some 1939 images with them. This drawing perhaps shows that flat-top turret:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	CatalinaLR53.PBY-5a.jpg 
Views:	71 
Size:	80.8 KB 
ID:	264380
    Note: I think the above image actually shows the late model PBY-5A engine nacelles with air scoops, so I have no idea how accurate this.

    Pub crawl at the Comox Air Force Museum on Wednesday...
    Mike
    "Flying is learning to throw yourself at the ground and miss" Douglas Adams
    "Wings of Glory won't skin your elbows and knees while practicing." OldGuy59

  25. #175

    Default

    I did found some fire arcs for PBY 5A or 6A, but I'm not sure do they count in 1942...

  26. #176

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Пилот View Post
    Thank you!

    I have also some doubts with Catalinas. Unofficial stats do not make difference between models, but only between periods - "to mid-1943" and "from mid-1943". I understand that as "all models had the same armament, but in 1943 everything changed and all Catalinas (disregarding model) received new, wider, arcs of fire and even some extra MGs".

    Is that simplyfied view true, or is there some difference between models?

    Long story short: what would be arcs of fire for PBY 5 and PBY 5A in june 1942 (having in mind both models were produced at the same time)?
    The change in firing arcs is due to the installation of the nose turret, which only started with late-model PBY-5s and 5As. (I suspect mostly 5As, but I can't verify). The turret was sometimes retrofitted in the field.
    Given that most of the production were 5s and 5As, and this started in 1040, I would say most 'Cats' that saw action would be those. So the firing arcs for June '42 would be the "pre-1943" ones.
    The blisters didn't really change the firing arcs of the waist guns; they greatly improved visibility for the search crews.

    Karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  27. #177

    Default

    If you ever come to Belgrade, I owe you beer. More than one

  28. #178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Пилот View Post
    If you ever come to Belgrade, I owe you beer. More than one
    I would most enjoy that.
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  29. #179

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OldGuy59 View Post
    In a futile effort to find decent reference top-down drawings of PBY-5s, I have found this:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	CatalinaLR71.PBY-Catalina-Variantes.jpg 
Views:	73 
Size:	150.8 KB 
ID:	264379

    My take on the Catalina, of any variant (I'm NOT a member of the Unofficial Stats Committee):
    The above drawing shows three variants of the PBY-5(A), and I can't determine from these how the firing arcs are wider? There could be different firing arcs, and depending on the plane, and the service (RAF, RAAF, RCAF, RNZAF, USN, etc...) different weapons (single and twin gun mountings), but most would only be 'A' mountings, even with twin .30 cals (.303 Vickers), or single .50 cals. You could, depending on your reference, widen the nose arc?

    The image above seems to show a ventral hatch in the tail of all PBY-5(A)s, for a tail gun, but how many were used, and how effectively? In game terms, this would add a ventral firing arc to the tail. Not hard to add, really.

    I don't have enough info, nor decent images, to determine why the change was made to the bubble turret on late PBY-5As. The early PBY-5s could have had a low profile flat-top turret, as I have seen some 1939 images with them. This drawing perhaps shows that flat-top turret:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	CatalinaLR53.PBY-5a.jpg 
Views:	71 
Size:	80.8 KB 
ID:	264380
    Note: I think the above image actually shows the late model PBY-5A engine nacelles with air scoops, so I have no idea how accurate this.

    Pub crawl at the Comox Air Force Museum on Wednesday...
    Well, the pub crawl was a bust. Two specific books on PBYs didn't have the information, nor top-down drawings of any PBY 5As, let alone drawings of different versions of the 5As. There were two books on US Navy aircraft, they also did not have many drawings, and few three-view types.

    So, I have what I have.
    Mike
    "Flying is learning to throw yourself at the ground and miss" Douglas Adams
    "Wings of Glory won't skin your elbows and knees while practicing." OldGuy59

  30. #180

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jager View Post
    The short answer is: Since they are both 20mm cannon, they have the same effect, a C chit at short range, and an A chit at long.
    For more on guns, and how multiple ones work, see post 138:
    https://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/sh...l=1#post496750

    The longer one is that there has been debate in the past about how the guns work in WGS, and how cannon seem to be overpowering, esp the D class (37-50mm).
    Many of the larger cannons are lower in MV or or have terrible ballistics, making it much harder to score a hit in fighter vs. fighter combat.
    This is less of a problem against big bombers, their usual reason for using such.
    The German Mk 108 is a prime example.
    It's mostly been decided to leave well enough alone, as trying to fix this would add alot of chrome it a relatively simple and clean game.
    Karl
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	N1K1_Kyofu-210Kokutai_Sonoike-Card.png 
Views:	41 
Size:	242.9 KB 
ID:	265132
    [Edit: Updated with Damage]
    Last edited by OldGuy59; 03-24-2019 at 21:04.
    Mike
    "Flying is learning to throw yourself at the ground and miss" Douglas Adams
    "Wings of Glory won't skin your elbows and knees while practicing." OldGuy59

  31. #181

    Rabbit 3's Avatar Squadron Leader Scotland.
    Captain

    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Robert
    Location
    Lothian
    Sorties Flown
    900
    Join Date
    Apr 2011

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Пилот View Post
    Guys, what is exact size of bomber base (B)?

    Also, check me if I'm wrong, please:

    Fighter base (F) is 67mm x 43mm

    Heavy fighter base (HF) is 67mm x 86mm

    Balloon base is 195mm x 90mm (19.5 cm x 9cm)

    @ Karl

    What do you think about editing post #1 and puting base sizes there?
    This got me thinking about base sizes since some time ago I bought some supposedly compatable bases from a third party manufacturer (not Keith or LITKO) then discovered something of a size variation between them and standard bases.
    Some variation was discovered even between different production runs from the same manufacturer.

  32. #182

    Default

    OK, Ryan. Sorry to leave you hanging. Life got away from me.
    For both the N1K2, the J2M3, if you assume high octane gas, use the R deck on both.
    And I agree with Zoe that the Hayabusa IIIa, should use the A deck.

    Now I have to wonder what happened to the other Japanese aircraft performances late war, and when they had to go to lower octane fuels.
    Karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  33. #183

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OldGuy59 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jager View Post
    OK, Ryan. Sorry to leave you hanging. Life got away from me.
    For both the N1K2, the J2M3, if you assume high octane gas, use the R deck on both.
    And I agree with Zoe that the Hayabusa IIIa, should use the A deck.

    Now I have to wonder what happened to the other Japanese aircraft performances late war, and when they had to go to lower octane fuels.
    Karl
    Karl,
    What would you like to see on the above card?
    Mike
    "Flying is learning to throw yourself at the ground and miss" Douglas Adams
    "Wings of Glory won't skin your elbows and knees while practicing." OldGuy59

  34. #184

    Default

    Well, hits is 17. It's a historical card, right? So everything else is fine.
    If Ryan wants cards for the Magnificent Kotobuki game, he should contact you.
    Unless I missed something, all the planes he listed in the file, other than the N1K2 and J2M3 should use the official or already posted unofficial stats.
    I don't have evidence that the stats I found for earlier planes were different than historical, and would be better with high-octane fuel.
    My wondering was if they would be worst due to lower octane fuels.
    Karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  35. #185

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jager View Post
    Well, hits is 17. It's a historical card, right? So everything else is fine.
    If Ryan wants cards for the Magnificent Kotobuki game, he should contact you.
    Unless I missed something, all the planes he listed in the file, other than the N1K2 and J2M3 should use the official or already posted unofficial stats.
    I don't have evidence that the stats I found for earlier planes were different than historical, and would be better with high-octane fuel.
    My wondering was if they would be worst due to lower octane fuels.
    Karl
    Thanks, Karl. Card updated above.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	CatalinaLR53.PBY-5_FlatTurret_Work.jpg 
Views:	38 
Size:	64.9 KB 
ID:	265136
    Last edited by OldGuy59; 03-24-2019 at 22:07.
    Mike
    "Flying is learning to throw yourself at the ground and miss" Douglas Adams
    "Wings of Glory won't skin your elbows and knees while practicing." OldGuy59

  36. #186

    Sixer's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Ryan
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Sorties Flown
    30
    Join Date
    Mar 2012

    Default

    Thanks for all the feedback, guys; I really appreciate it.

    Anyone have anything for the N1K2 and the J2M3? Those are pretty important.

    I'd love to have some card art done, particularly of the quality OldGuy59 is demonstrating, but I'll save that imposition for when there are actual stats; I figure I need at least everything required to run a scenario of, "Rahama's Longest Day", which is easily the biggest fight in the series.

  37. #187

    Sixer's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Ryan
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Sorties Flown
    30
    Join Date
    Mar 2012

    Default

    Zoe Brain, Jaeger, for the Hayabusa IIIa, why Deck A, and not Deck G, which is more equivalent to Deck C, but faster? Or was Deck C not that great a choice for the Hayabusa to begin with, and it should be using something more like a slower version of Deck A?

  38. #188

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sixer View Post
    Thanks for all the feedback, guys; I really appreciate it.

    Anyone have anything for the N1K2 and the J2M3? Those are pretty important.

    I'd love to have some card art done, particularly of the quality OldGuy59 is demonstrating, but I'll save that imposition for when there are actual stats; I figure I need at least everything required to run a scenario of, "Rahama's Longest Day", which is easily the biggest fight in the series.
    Noted above:
    Quote Originally Posted by Jager View Post
    OK, Ryan. Sorry to leave you hanging. Life got away from me.
    For both the N1K2, the J2M3, if you assume high octane gas, use the R deck on both.

    Karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  39. #189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sixer View Post
    Zoe Brain, Jaeger, for the Hayabusa IIIa, why Deck A, and not Deck G, which is more equivalent to Deck C, but faster? Or was Deck C not that great a choice for the Hayabusa to begin with, and it should be using something more like a slower version of Deck A?
    Zoe did make her point in post 170, and I usually defer to her opinion.
    Now, that said, if you look at the ratio between high and low speeds, which is one measure of maneuverability in the game, the E deck (Yak-1) is probably the closest in the 360mph group.
    I would have to look at the P/W ratio and WL to see if that might be better, but I'm inclined to go with the A deck.
    Note: We really can't refute the designer's choice of decks, though we can ask questions about his choices. So the Hayabusa is a C deck.
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  40. #190

    Default

    Having looked into the data, I concur with Zoe; the Mk.III, if it had flown, would use the A deck.

    Karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  41. #191

    Sixer's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Ryan
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Sorties Flown
    30
    Join Date
    Mar 2012

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jager View Post
    Having looked into the data, I concur with Zoe; the Mk.III, if it had flown, would use the A deck.

    Karl
    Is that to say, in a hypothetical world where backwards compatibility didn't matter, that the Mark 1s and Mark 2s would use slower versions of Deck A, rather than Deck C, and that the only reason we aren't doing that here is official precedent from the core game?

  42. #192

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sixer View Post
    Thanks for all the feedback, guys; I really appreciate it.

    Anyone have anything for the N1K2 and the J2M3? Those are pretty important.

    I'd love to have some card art done, particularly of the quality OldGuy59 is demonstrating, but I'll save that imposition for when there are actual stats; I figure I need at least everything required to run a scenario of, "Rahama's Longest Day", which is easily the biggest fight in the series.
    I don't have anything for the N1K2, nor the J2M3.

    Hmmm...
    There is an Official Painting thread for the N1K2, but no request for a card to me: Official Kawanishi N1K Shiden (George) Painting Thread
    And also an Official Painting thread for the J2M3, also no request for a card to me: Official Mitsubishi J2M Raiden Painting Thread

    Note: If you'd like cards, top-down images of the paint jobs, as well as the names of units and crew would also be helpful (read 'essential'), not just stats, to create a decent card.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	<acronym title=WGS Card-Ki43-Oscar-25thSentai_2S.jpg  Views: 22  Size: 209.1 KB  ID: 265301" class="thumbnail" style="float:CONFIG" />
    Mike
    "Flying is learning to throw yourself at the ground and miss" Douglas Adams
    "Wings of Glory won't skin your elbows and knees while practicing." OldGuy59

  43. #193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sixer View Post
    Is that to say, in a hypothetical world where backwards compatibility didn't matter, that the Mark 1s and Mark 2s would use slower versions of Deck A, rather than Deck C, and that the only reason we aren't doing that here is official precedent from the core game?
    WE don't know all the reasons Andrea made the decks the way he did. The only way that I can pick decks is to match characteristics to existing official planes. An existing deck can be modified by dropping a card or cards deemed too maneuverable for the plane, based on historical record and stats. Except for some discussion, like needing a 60 degree turn for the zero, cards are not added, except for dive bomb cards for non-I deck dive bomb capable planes.
    The game designer says the C deck, so that's it. You are, of course, welcome to mod your decks as you like. Your table, your rules.

    Karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  44. #194

    Default

    The plane art is not mine, I stole it from a Kotobuki Squadron web site:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	WoG_Nakajima_Ki43_Kylie2Sa.jpg 
Views:	18 
Size:	174.1 KB 
ID:	265314
    Mike
    "Flying is learning to throw yourself at the ground and miss" Douglas Adams
    "Wings of Glory won't skin your elbows and knees while practicing." OldGuy59

  45. #195

    Sixer's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Ryan
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Sorties Flown
    30
    Join Date
    Mar 2012

    Default

    OldGuy59, if you're that eager to do such good work, then maybe we should start up a new thread for the card art. XD

    https://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/sh...521#post499521
    Last edited by Sixer; 04-01-2019 at 17:54.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234


Similar Missions

  1. WGF Latest version of Aircraft statistics available
    By Guntruck in forum Hobby Room
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 02-18-2014, 15:45
  2. Latest version of Unofficial stats are up!
    By Guntruck in forum WGF: Historical Discussions
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 07-25-2012, 12:48
  3. Unofficial Aircraft Stats Version 4
    By Guntruck in forum WGF: General Discussions
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 04-25-2012, 18:38
  4. Aircraft Stats version 3.1.3 uploaded
    By Guntruck in forum WGF: General Discussions
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 03-14-2012, 13:09

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
  •