Just checked it in IL-2-compare and its a nasty little bird, Turns on a dime and climbs like a demon. and it will be flyable in the next patch i believe..

I've installed the new SAS stand-in pit for it yesterday which makes it unofficially flyable until TD release the correct pit (hopefully with US-made reflector gunsight). Initial impressions- it matches, for the most part, initial climb of A6M2-21 and Ki.43-I but bleeds energy very quickly and loses ground in sustained climb (not sure this sustained climb behaviour is quite correct). If handled carefully, you can still turn and bank it at about 160-170 kph IAS (try THAT in a Buffalo....); recovers quickly from a stall. Except towards the rear, view from pit is quite good- very little canopy framing to block line of vision. Can turn WITH A6M2 and Oscar, but cannot outturn them. Top speed seems to be about equal to Ki.43-I, which is correct. DO NOT get hit by the A6M2's 20mm ammo, it starts to burn very easily- fuel tanks are vulnerable. I haven't discovered yet whether the Interceptors were retrofitted with back/head armour or armour glass windscreens in real life, presumably the IL2 Interceptor has neither. They did receive reflector gunsights however (Source: "Het verlies van Java, een kwestie van Airpower" by Dr. P.C. Boer).

Above tested in QMB with 100% fuel load, one Interceptor against three opponents i.e. A6M2-21s or Ki.43-Ibs. Further testing required, though.

Looks nice, if a little weird. The AI ones are very agile, as you'd expect. I think I'll wait for the proper flyable, I don't much like mod flyables with iffy cockpits, and perhaps dubious FM.

As far as I know AI and flyable use the same FM, so there is no question of dubious FM involved.
I agree with the weird appearance though- always thought the rear fuselage looked a bit iffy, too thin.

quote:

Originally posted by GerritJ9:
As far as I know AI and flyable use the same FM, so there is no question of dubious FM involved.
I agree with the weird appearance though- always thought the rear fuselage looked a bit iffy, too thin.

No they don't. The AI uses a heavily cut down FM.

Hmm It should climb much better than the Zero and Ki43. It should also have either a 7mm or 9mm backplate armour, cant remember wich one.
I have a see through blueprint of it with backplate armour. will look it up.

quote:

Originally posted by Aimail101:

quote:

Originally posted by GerritJ9:
As far as I know AI and flyable use the same FM, so there is no question of dubious FM involved.
I agree with the weird appearance though- always thought the rear fuselage looked a bit iffy, too thin.

No they don't. The AI uses a heavily cut down FM.

What,even the new planes from 409? I doubt that very much,but hopefully DT can confirm this?

quote:

Originally posted by GerritJ9:
I've installed the new SAS stand-in pit for it yesterday which makes it unofficially flyable until TD release the correct pit (hopefully with US-made reflector gunsight).

If you have data about reflector gunsight it is good time to show it here or PM me.

quote:

Initial impressions- it matches, for the most part, initial climb of A6M2-21 and Ki.43-I but bleeds energy very quickly and loses ground in sustained climb (not sure this sustained climb behaviour is quite correct).

Curtiss claimed some impressive numbers for climb( I believe they were lying just like in many other cases) but these claims were for initial climbs. If you check RL times to 4000m or 5000m these times are still excellent but nowhere near what you would expect if you look at initial climb figures only.

In Il2 compare( I know that it's not 100% correct but it can give you rough idea about performance)Ki43 have ~19,5 m/s climb rate which will give you ~3min 25sec to 4000m, RL CW21 need ~4min to 4000m. So Ki43 should catch you in climb if its performance in game is correct.

Anyway, CW-21 FM in game is tweaked to suit AI, when plane become flyable FM will be changed slightly.

quote:

I haven't discovered yet whether the Interceptors were retrofitted with back/head armour or armour glass windscreens in real life, presumably the IL2 Interceptor has neither. They did receive reflector gunsights however (Source: "Het verlies van Java, een kwestie van Airpower" by Dr. P.C. Boer).

In game pilot have some armor protection.

quote:

If handled carefully, you can still turn and bank it at about 160-170 kph IAS (try THAT in a Buffalo....); recovers quickly from a stall. Except towards the rear, view from pit is quite good- very little canopy framing to block line of vision. Can turn WITH A6M2 and Oscar, but cannot outturn them. Top speed seems to be about equal to Ki.43-I, which is correct. DO NOT get hit by the A6M2's 20mm ammo, it starts to burn very easily- fuel tanks are vulnerable.

IMO that is correct, I tested it often in AI fights between Zero and CW21. Zero is doing somewhat better if skill is same mostly because of better firepower. If Zero's are Aces against Rookies than you have massacre like in RL.

But as you might guess I'm biased when it comes to CW-21 because it was my task to import it in game and make FM.

FC

quote:

No they don't. The AI uses a heavily cut down FM.

That's a common misconception.

They did in the old days. It changed around 4.01 or somewhere like that. Some of the very oldest AI's like the Zwilling still have simplified FM.

quote:

Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
So what do you think of the new CW-21B?

I think it's a lovely plane.
And it will be most interesting to fly it vs Japanese aircraft both online and offline.

I remember outturning, instantenous turns tho, some Oscars online in Spitfire people were yelling "omg haxor", now I suppose they are going to be surprised even more because Demon is here to stay and turn .

In game Ai is as nimble as A6M2's, and those are nimblest Ai of them all... really crazy aerobatic stuff especially in vertical.

The info about the fitting of the reflector gunsight comes from Dutch air historian P.C. Boer's book "Het verlies van Java, een kwestie van Airpower". P.C. Boer has interviewed many ML veterans over the years and studied all surviving documentation (including Japanese info) so his info is probably the best available. Unfortunately his book does not specify the type/manufacturer of the gunsight, only that it was US-made and the same as fitted to the ML's Brewsters. Even more unfortunately, his books have only been published in Dutch. However, I can look up the relevant page and scan it for you if that helps. I will try to find out which gunsight was fitted (manufacturer/type).

quote:

Originally posted by GerritJ9:
As far as I know AI and flyable use the same FM, so there is no question of dubious FM involved.
I agree with the weird appearance though- always thought the rear fuselage looked a bit iffy, too thin.

Not true, AI use a simpler FM and when a plane is made flyable it gets a more refined FM. At least that's what happened when Oleg ruled the roost. Unless Daidalos takes the easy way out, I'd think they have been doing the same.

quote:

Originally posted by GerritJ9:
Unfortunately his book does not specify the type/manufacturer of the gunsight, only that it was US-made and the same as fitted to the ML's Brewsters.

Solid info on this should be good enough... we already have Dutch Brewster in game, no? It has nice reflector gunsight already fitted, so...

Er..... no, we don't have the Dutch B-339C or D in the game, but the RAF's B-339E which is fitted with the standard British-made RAF reflector gunsight. (The Dutch Brewsters differed in several ways from the B-339E: different armament (two .50s in the wings and two .30s in the fuselage) plus capability to carry two 50 kg bombs, which the RAF B-339E could not carry (in this sense the 1C Buffalo, which has an optional load of two 50 kg bombs, is a bit of a mix between B-339C/D and E); different equipment (the RAF specified lots of "useful and necessary" extra stuff such as flare chutes and flare bins for instance), as a result the B-339E weighed about 250 kg more than the B-339C/D; the Ds had 1200 hp engines rather than the 1100 of the Cs and Es.)

Anyway, while the standard RAF reflector sight is nice, it most definitely is NOT the correct type for the Interceptor- the P-40E or F4F-3 type would be closer to the mark. As stated above, I hope to be able to find out more about the correct type.

Good luck m8.

I took a 109E-4 and a Ki-43 up against it on ace settings and the AI was pretty much meat on the table.

Put an experienced human in it and it will make for some fun fights though...and it is always great to have a new historical plane added to the sim.

I was suprised at how easily it lights up though.

The CW isn't flyable, that's what I think about it...

quote:

Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
I took a 109E-4 and a Ki-43 up against it on ace settings and the AI was pretty much meat on the table.

Put an experienced human in it and it will make for some fun fights though...and it is always great to have a new historical plane added to the sim.

I was suprised at how easily it lights up though.

Now that you mentioned it... I find all new planes lights somewhat easier than old planes... I think they have better DM .
I-15<->I-153 is a good example... I-15 will start to smoke much sooner.
Re.2000 is also a regular smoker... Fokker so-so, I-16 is tougher little bird.
CW-21 burns often too...

But in general their DM is *I think* better than those in old planes.

Bump!