Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Carrier fighters

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> The War Room >> Carrier fighters Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Carrier fighters - 3/4/2009 3:12:17 PM   
munster847284728472

 

Posts: 15
Joined: 3/4/2009
Status: offline 		Has anyone ever used the J2M Jack as thier main fighters on there Cv's in a non mod game with the latest patches. ls it even possible? What was the result if you have?
Post #: 1
RE: Carrier fighters - 3/4/2009 3:27:49 PM   
gladiatt


Posts: 2576
Joined: 4/10/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Munster84728472

Has anyone ever used the J2M Jack as thier main fighters on there Cv's in a non mod game with the latest patches. ls it even possible? What was the result if you have?


As the Jack is an Army fighter, i'm not sure you could fit it on a CV...

(in reply to munster847284728472)
Post #: 2
RE: Carrier fighters - 3/4/2009 4:02:35 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: gladiatt


quote:

ORIGINAL: Munster84728472

Has anyone ever used the J2M Jack as thier main fighters on there Cv's in a non mod game with the latest patches. ls it even possible? What was the result if you have?


As the Jack is an Army fighter, i'm not sure you could fit it on a CV...


The designation, J2M, should be a heads up that it was a land-based naval point-defence interceptor.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to gladiatt)
Post #: 3
RE: Carrier fighters - 3/4/2009 4:10:33 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline 		By the way, how do the Shinden and Shinden-Kai do against the F6F and F4U? I understand they were considered superior to the F6F3 and comparable with the F4U1 despite a lower top speed.


_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 4
RE: Carrier fighters - 3/4/2009 5:22:30 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: gladiatt


quote:

ORIGINAL: Munster84728472

Has anyone ever used the J2M Jack as thier main fighters on there Cv's in a non mod game with the latest patches. ls it even possible? What was the result if you have?


As the Jack is an Army fighter, i'm not sure you could fit it on a CV...



the Jack is a Navy fighter but not carrier capable.

_____________________________


(in reply to gladiatt)
Post #: 5
RE: Carrier fighters - 3/4/2009 8:04:30 PM   
Mobeer


Posts: 662
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline 		John 3rd put J2M fighters onto his carriers when using the Big B mod, not sure if this could be done in a non-modified version.

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 6
RE: Carrier fighters - 3/4/2009 8:10:32 PM   
rominet


Posts: 523
Joined: 10/23/2007
From: Paris
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

By the way, how do the Shinden and Shinden-Kai do against the F6F and F4U? I understand they were considered superior to the F6F3 and comparable with the F4U1 despite a lower top speed.



Yes, after the war, the Shiden has been tested by USSAF and it appeared that it had very good performance, equal or superior than the F6F-3 BUT with high octane degree in fuel.
As the japanese didn't have such good fuel for their own planes during war, the performance of their planes was less good.

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 7
RE: Carrier fighters - 3/4/2009 9:35:41 PM   
Japan


Posts: 754
Joined: 10/26/2007
From: Heaven on Earth (Scandinavia of course)
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: gladiatt


quote:

ORIGINAL: Munster84728472

Has anyone ever used the J2M Jack as thier main fighters on there Cv's in a non mod game with the latest patches. ls it even possible? What was the result if you have?


As the Jack is an Army fighter, i'm not sure you could fit it on a CV...




J2M Jack is a Navy Fighter ... You can put a Carrier Capeble Group onto your CVE's or something... .could work ok as assistanse to your main fleets strike..

_____________________________

AAR VIDEO
THE FIRST YEAR + THE SECOND YEAR
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2133035&mpage=1&key=&

(in reply to gladiatt)
Post #: 8
RE: Carrier fighters - 3/5/2009 6:13:04 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobeer

John 3rd put J2M fighters onto his carriers when using the Big B mod, not sure if this could be done in a non-modified version.


I TRIED to do that but then found out they couldn't be used that way. I felt like an Idiot! Only Japanese planes to fly from the CVs are: A6M2, A6M3a, A6M5, and (I think) the A6M8.



_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Mobeer)
Post #: 9
RE: Carrier fighters - 3/5/2009 7:58:46 AM   
gladiatt


Posts: 2576
Joined: 4/10/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: gladiatt


quote:

ORIGINAL: Munster84728472

Has anyone ever used the J2M Jack as thier main fighters on there Cv's in a non mod game with the latest patches. ls it even possible? What was the result if you have?


As the Jack is an Army fighter, i'm not sure you could fit it on a CV...



the Jack is a Navy fighter but not carrier capable.


OOOPS, so bad for me

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 10
RE: Carrier fighters - 3/7/2009 3:16:07 PM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline 		I'm sure the J2M can be used off of CV's in stock - as the J2M is in slot #10 of the Data Base (and therefore carrier capable) in stock - the same as it is in B-Mod.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobeer

John 3rd put J2M fighters onto his carriers when using the Big B mod, not sure if this could be done in a non-modified version.


(in reply to Mobeer)
Post #: 11
RE: Carrier fighters - 3/8/2009 5:33:56 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline 		I am surprised this isn't mentioned more. But the GEORGE and JACK both can be used off CVs, at least in Big B and Stock.

In those versions, I believe that land-based IJN units are always CV Capable, regardless of what they upgrade to.

Whether you can or not, using J2M or George on CV is highly gamey and should not be done IMO. IRL, they were not CV capable.

I would have no qualms about using the Reppu on a CV, but by then you probably don't have many CV's anyway.

_____________________________


(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 12
RE: Carrier fighters - 3/9/2009 2:46:44 AM   
Local Yokel


Posts: 1494
Joined: 2/4/2007
From: Somerset, U.K.
Status: offline 		According to William Green's 'Famous Fighters of the Second World War', a shipboard version of the Shiden, the N1K3-A Shiden 41 was proposed but never built.  The N1K4-J, mounting a NK9H-S Homare powerplant rated at 2000 h.p., was paralleled by a shipboard version, the N1K4-A Shiden 42 (the 'A' standing for carrier fighter).  The Shiden 42's first prototype was completed on 20 Sep 44, the second in the first week of October.  According to Green, this aircraft was accepted for production, but this was not proceeded with due to the destruction of Japan's carrier forces.

This is going over somewhat the same ground as another thread, but offers some justification for a mod in which the Shiden 42 could realistically be employed in the late war period as a shipboard fighter by a Japanese player who has managed to conserve his carriers and pilots.  The Shiden 42 would help to make Japanese carrier aviation somewhat more competitive: that's a respectable amount of power being generated by the Homare, assuming the maintainers could make the damn thing work.

_____________________________




(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 13
RE: Carrier fighters - 3/9/2009 3:56:23 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rominet


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

By the way, how do the Shinden and Shinden-Kai do against the F6F and F4U? I understand they were considered superior to the F6F3 and comparable with the F4U1 despite a lower top speed.



Yes, after the war, the Shiden has been tested by USSAF and it appeared that it had very good performance, equal or superior than the F6F-3 BUT with high octane degree in fuel.
As the japanese didn't have such good fuel for their own planes during war, the performance of their planes was less good.



Still they could easily hold their own against the F6F, F4U or P-51 when in the hands of a skilled pilot. Imagine what they could have done with higher grade fuel?

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to rominet)
Post #: 14
RE: Carrier fighters - 3/9/2009 5:51:24 PM   
Misconduct


Posts: 1864
Joined: 2/18/2009
From: Cape Canaveral, Florida
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7



Still they could easily hold their own against the F6F, F4U or P-51 when in the hands of a skilled pilot. Imagine what they could have done with higher grade fuel?


Most japanese planes would handle beautiful against any allied plane with higher grade of fuel, taken the Ki-84, the design was excellent, armored and fast up to 430mph at Alt with upgraded fuel, something japanese didn't do.

I do believe if japanese had plenty Ki-84s and N1K2's with decent fuel, they would of given allies a pretty hard time in the air, even the Ki-61 was tested after the war and found it was dominate early on with bad fuel, and would of been 36mph faster with higher octane fuel.

Japan suffered terribly compared to germany in form of fighter aircraft, Japan rarely used higher octane fuel except for flight testing for purposes of "meeting aircraft specifications" however some of the speeds noted in the flight tests were possible with the higher octane fuel, most of them were re-evaluated after being in production with cheaper grade fuel.

Edit: Think of it this way, if the P-51 mustang used a cheaper grade fuel it would probably not of broken 400mph in level flight at alts. One luxary allies had were higher octane fuel which made the P-51 the 437mph beast it is. Same goes for P-47 Jug, at 425mph at alts, even 450 for the Jug-N model, it would not of broken 400mph even at 30k.

< Message edited by Misconduct -- 3/9/2009 5:53:30 PM >

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 15
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> The War Room >> Carrier fighters Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.766