PTO Plane List

[Charles Lewis]

You know, if you keep this up, I might just have to shanghai you into playtesting.

[MarkG88]

Nice list Charlie, fantastic research job! I'm really looking forward to this addtion to the MAS family.

Thanks. Most of the new additions were already half done, and just needed a little digging to fill in the blanks. I focused originally on those planes I had Air Force data sheets for and the other performance data I needed to complete a stat block. While I have no intention of including every little variation of every air frame, I do want to include all the major types. That's why I posted the list - to see where interest might lie, as well as highlight oversights (like the Corsair).

Let me just add that it was a painful decision early in MTO development when I cut the night fighters, because I knew then that would mean cutting the P-61 - my personal favorite warbird of WWII. But like I said before, night fighing was a completely different environment, and one that isn't really compatible with the WWII-MAS style.

Yep I remember the convo we had in regards to nightfighters. There are some cool ones out there but it's not viable with the basic MAS style as you note. Maybe down the road we can come up with a special module dealing with this aspect of WWII air-to-air combat. And the P-61 Black Widow was an excellent "high tech" night fighter for its era, nice choice!

[MarkG88]

Found a little more info, though might not be credible, both are from BB forums.

From a flight sim
http://svsl1.hitechcreations.com/smf/in ... 944.0.html

"SpitVs, Seafires and SpitIXs are in deep bandini should their pilots elect to turnfight the FM-2. Indeed, anyone flying a Hurricane IIC quickly learns that even though their Hizooka armed fighter can handle Spitfires, it cannot handle the FM-2"

From The Miniature Page forum
http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=74718

"My father served in the USN as a carrier pilot in WWII. He flew just about all the different planes – Dauntless, Avenger, Helldiver, Hellcat, and the various marks of Wildcats. He maintains thew General Motors Wildcat, FM-2, was the best and most maneuverable of the Navy's WWII fighters."


I'm inclined to believe that the Wildcats were as/more maneuverable than F4U and F6F from other stuff I've read.

Also found this about the P-36 hawk

--In a 1995 interview with World War II magazine, expatriate Czech pilot Frantisek Perina recalled the Hawk's outstanding maneuverability. It could "outmaneuver any German aircraft. If one got on your tail in one 360-degree turn you were behind him." Perina regarded the Hawk as superior to the Hurricane, which he felt was heavier on the controls.--

from
http://curtisshawk75.bravepages.com/

Nice research echo! I'm not suprised the Wildcat was consideraded manuverable (just not as much as Zero lol) but the stuff on the P-36 was new to me and very interesting. The F4U and F6F were all about horsepower and firepower (speed, climb and dive ratings should be decent plus you can't go wrong with 6 machine guns hehe).

-Mark

[echoco]

You know, if you keep this up, I might just have to shanghai you into playtesting.

I don't mind that, I don't mind that much at all

MarkG88

I was surprised at both the account of the P-36 (casual info all says its hopelessly obsolete) and FM-2 I've never thought of Grumman aircraft as maneuverable until the F8F.

All this was sparked by MTO, when CL said it was nearly complete I started reading up on the CA-13 boomerang.

What I noticed is how blured the lines are on maneuverability, what came up constantly was something like above 300 MPH the Zero doesn't roll well (A6M3 roll very well but poor sustained maneuverability) so wildcats, hellcats and others could get away from them by quickly gaining speed in a dive and out turn them.

While the Bf-109 can out roll a spitfire at high speed and spitfire tend to suddenly stall in hard maneuver at low altitude. Beyond the scope of MAS but makes it that harder to compare aircraft capabilities. In general from what I read most aircraft considered as obsolete had very good low level performance.

next plane TBD, I like older planes haha and I don't know much about TBD.

[Charles Lewis]

That's why I added the Speed trait for aircraft. Otherwise, the biplanes would rule the skies.

[MarkG88]

That's why I added the Speed trait for aircraft. Otherwise, the biplanes would rule the skies.

Yep you've really captured "feel" for the WWII era and the speed trait works very well indeed.

[echoco]

from
http://freespace.virgin.net/john.dell/seafire.htm

Seafire as a naval fighter was its poor endurance of only 90 minutes. To keep 12 hours of fighter cover airbourne over a fleet would take at least 8 launches and recoveries per aircraft kept airbourne. This compares with only 3 launches and recoveries needed to keep a Fulmar or Wildcat (with drop tanks) in the air for 12 hours and only 2 for the Japanese Zero with drop tank.

some stuff on F2A, I believe the link above more since the fins did very well with the type.

http://www.warbirdforum.com/faf.htm

Finnish Brewsters weren't Brewster Buffaloes, or Brewster 339's, or F2A-2, which were very bad fighters. They were Model 239's much closer to the original USN F2A-1, which were reported to be delightful to fly.

contradict with this

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/we ... ffalo.html

Most export versions of the Buffalo were based on the F2A-2, but none matched its performance.

339 used by british
http://www.warbirdforum.com/ericbrow.htm
"My feeling after flying the Buffalo was one of elation tinged with disappointment. It was a true anomaly of an aeroplane with delightful manoeuvrability but poor fighter performance. Indeed above 10,000 ft. it was labouring badly."

"The little Buffalo could almost match the Zeke for maneauverability, but was badly outclassed in performance and inferior in firepower. Thus it had little hope of besting the Japanes fighter. In a dogfight, the initiative would rest entirely with the Zeke, which could mix it or break off at will."


Marine F3A-3 pilots at Midway
http://www.warbirdforum.com/vmf221.htm

The Zero fighter is exceptionally maneuverable, with an astounding rate of climb. It is capable of closing the range on an F2A-3 in a climb to such an extent that it seems useless to even try to make more than one pass at any target. It is my belief that they can climb at least 5,000 feet a minute, as these fighters climbing up at me were pointed at an angle of 50o in their climb.

The Zero Fighter is faster in level flight than the F2A-3. It is much more maneuverable that the F2A-3. It can out climb the F2A-3. It has more fire power than the F2A-3.

In general, the Japanese airplanes appear to be very vulnerable to .50 cal. Gun fire. They burst into flame in nearly all cases upon receiving any bullets.

My plane was damaged somewhat, having 72 bullet and cannon holes in it, and I had a very slight flash wound on my left leg.

I'd end up pasting the whole website here, there's a lot of accounts from people who actually flew in combat.

http://www.warbirdforum.com/buff.htm

[echoco]

Same website as before but about the flying tigers this is a mock fight between 339 Buffalo (I think) and P40 (early model)

http://www.warbirdforum.com/dogfight.htm

" Apparently the Buffalos were faster than the Japanese fighters and could out run and dive them but not to the extent of the P-40 could "

[Charles Lewis]

Thanks for the links. Interesting reading, indeed. IIRC, didn't you also post a question about plane specialization? and/or a link to a site full of 3-views. When I went back to respond, that post was gone.

[echoco]

I did post a question but I figured I'd get the answer when I get MTO so I can wait.

Here's the link
http://www.the-blueprints.com/index.php?blueprints/

[Charles Lewis]

thanks for reposting the link

As for plane specialization, by default that is not addressed in MTO and so it is per aircraft (not airframe). Partly because the layout is all but done and large additions are out of the question. Partly because I'm still on the fence on how best to handle it. While there's no question that the handling characteristics between the 109G-5 and the 109G-6 are the same, as basically the only difference is that they secretly replaced the normal machine guns with Folger's cannons, but about the 109C and the 109G?

Right now, I'm leaning towards specialization in an airframe with a time limit. For example, early on, you have a pilot specialize in the 109E. That specialization would apply for one year prior and two years after the introduction date of the airframe chosen. In our example, this would reach back to the 109C, but would not reach forward enough to pick up the 109F (1/39 for the E and 4/42 for the F). However, specializing in the F would reach forward to include both G models.

Does that seem reasonable, or should it simply be a matter of once you've invested in specializing in an airframe, you're good in any of its iterations?

Of course, that raises issues like the A-36 and the P-51B. I think it could be argued that by replacing the Allison engine with the Merlin you ended up with a whole other critter, but they share the same airframe.

I figure it best to bring in additional opinions on this until we can work out something that feels right, and then it'll get officially incorporated in the next expansion. The important thing be that whatever route we go, it is simple and consistent - hallmarks of the MAS system.

[echoco]

I can't make up my mind which way to go. Did this come up during play testing?

The time limit sounds good, it still lets you specialize on both A-36 and P51B doesn't it?

Maybe give the normal +3 to the Bf109E and +1 to other variant within the time limit, max +3 per aircraft (or could only specialize in 1 aircraft), seems too complicated.

[Charles Lewis]

No, it didn't really come up during playtesting. We used the default interpretation which meant specializing was tied to a specific airframe.

The time frame would allow a pilot to specialize in the A-36 and still be able to apply it to the P-51B.

If we implement this, I'll have to include a chart in PTO indicating what planes can share the specialization, since not every will realize that the A-36 and the P-51 are built with the same airframe (for example).

We'll look at this in the PTO playtesting.

BTW, I've added the Ki-51 "'Sonia", Ki-48 IIb "Lily", and Ki-49 Donryu "Helen" to the list, so the Japanese Army has more options.

I've not done the final version of the FM2 Wildcat. When I do, that'll bring the total list to 80 aircraft. If anything else needs to get added at this point, something else will have to come off. (which means the Dutch will be freebies)

[MarkG88]

My earlier thoughts on same airframe/different engine issues: I'm inclined to keep things as simple as possible, the P-51B and A-36 would be separate specializations since that airframe will handle differently based on the engine under the hood.

And didn't the A-36 have airbrakes as well? I seem to recall the A-36 on display at Wright-Patterson Air Museum having airbrakes for dive bombing/ground attack purposes...... but it's been 5+ years since I've last been there.

[echoco]

Thinking about this makes my head hurt, I'm glad I'm not the one who makes the decision :p

I've not done the final version of the FM2 Wildcat. When I do, that'll bring the total list to 80 aircraft. If anything else needs to get added at this point, something else will have to come off. (which means the Dutch will be freebies)

Maybe we should come up with more planes for the list so we get more freebies mwahahaha