PDA

View Full Version : 109E vs Ki-61 vs Mc-202



Gibbage1
11-24-2009, 09:14 PM
I was thinking about this on the way home tonight. I have never been a fan of the 109, but it has a great engine. I was thinking "If I could re-design a 109, what would it be?"

I figured better canopy/cockpit, smoother lines, wider track undercaradge, and a belly rad. Then I thought "Isent that the Ki-61?". I also remembered the MC-202.

So here we have 3 aircraft, very differant takes on the same tool, a fighter, using the same engine. How differant are they?

Looking up some quick Wiki stats, they all are very similar. Mc-202 seems a little faster, but not by much. So how differant are they?

Here is what I see, just from general stats.

BF-109.
Middle. Not the fastest, or most manuverable.

Mc-202. Faster, but not by much. Less firepower.

Ki-61. More manuverable, but still about the same speed as the 109. Better visibility.

I think I would pick the Ki-61. Same speed, little better firepower then the E4, but no pilot armor. At least the landings would be easier with the wider main gears. Its also got a very usefull bombload. Did the standard E4 have a bomb rack or only the E1B?

Lets discuss. Lets keep this friendly. THAT MEANS NO SPITFIRES!

Waldo.Pepper
11-24-2009, 09:21 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejEmXlonhmw

If I had me druthers I'd fly the Eyetie.

Gibbage1
11-24-2009, 09:49 PM
I forgot to add that the pilot visibility looks a lot better in the Ki-61. Less greenhouse.

Daiichidoku
11-24-2009, 09:55 PM
difficult question, many factors (outside the scope of this post, surely not this thread however, soon:P) favor and detract from all 3

id go "Eyetie" as well, better pit than 109, good pilot and fuel protection/renowned airframe battledamage durability over the ki61, and not-great endurance/range, so i dont spend any more time than i have to in a combat zone; i mean, a guy could get killed out there!

Gibbage1
11-24-2009, 10:05 PM
Im guessing the Eyetie is the 202? Process of elimination and all...

Romanator21
11-24-2009, 10:23 PM
I was reading the little bit of info on the Ki-61 in the "view objects" menu. It says that the designers of the Ki-61 wanted a plane with the focus being durability, rather than maneuverability, at least in comparison to the Zero.

I find it has the toughest structure of any Japanese fighter. The engine has extinguishers (although according to LeBillfish, these should be for the fuel tanks only), and to my knowledge, some metal plate for the pilot (compare to the Zero or Hayabusa which just has an empty void behind the seat).
So, it's reasonably tough, and the most maneuverable of the three.

As for firepower, I don't agree it's better than the 109 E. Our game has 3 types:
2x.303 + 2x.50, 4x.50, and 2x.50+2x20mm. The 20mm armed variant did not make an appearance until 1944 I think, well beyond the lifetime of the Emil series. In any case, firepower is better than that of the Mc.202.

gkll
11-24-2009, 10:28 PM
Anyone have wingloading and powerloading stats for these three? I have numbers for spitfires .... ha ha just kidding... like to use these basic numbers to get some sense of possibilities

For my style (I demand good horizontal turn and favor low wing loading) Ki is looking good. However 202 may be close... 202 did very well against the 'lumbering hurricane' and was known as a close in dogfighter

109 advantages do not suit my style. Oleg also does not think much of 109 E considering how the turn improves in his interpretation of the F model..

horseback
11-24-2009, 10:46 PM
While I prefer the designs of the Ki-61 and the MC 202, both suffered from poorer weapons and particularly in the case of the Ki-61, poor construction and materials. Neither type was as likely to be flyable on a given day as a Bf 109E.

I think that while I'd prefer a Macchi built in Augsberg with a couple of MG FFs in the wings to go with the Bredas, I'll have to go with the 109E.

cheers

horseback

BillSwagger
11-24-2009, 10:49 PM
this is a tough choice Gib,


I flew the Mc 202 against a 109E human opponent, and i kept the fight vertical, which lead to really steep climbs into stalls, where the nose hangs horizontal at very low speeds. The Macchi was effective at this manuever more so than the 109, its a lighter plane, and that lead to just a bit more advantage in the vertical. There was no where for it to go horizontal, its a risk neither pilot would take. I just noticed the speed of the Macchi was enough to get it above in the 109 in close combat, and keep it moving forward enough to stay out of the way of the guns.

here were some trade offs in position, but the frustrating thing about the Macchi is you could fire well placed bursts and the damage is still very minimal. I think its a plane designed more for the vertical defensive maneuver where it must've excelled up and forward than the other choices here.

As for the Ki-61, i've always thought of it as a 109 that the Japanese built. It seems better refined than the 109E, and for that reason i would take the Ki-61 over the 109.

I've never pitted the Ki-61 and the Macchi, but with all the benefits of the additional feature i might think the ki-61 to be the best plane of the three.


Bill

JtD
11-24-2009, 10:52 PM
The 109 is probably the best of the three if you have to fight a war, technically I consider the Ki-61 the best design of them.

ImpStarDuece
11-24-2009, 11:49 PM
My personal preference as an aircraft would be the MC 202:

Lightest of the lot, best speed and climb.

However, the one I'd want to go to war in would be the 109E.

Its important to view the relative merits of the aircraft in relation to their entry into service and their potential opponents.

The 109E, introduced in early 1940, had the French S/E Fighters (MB 151/2, MS 406 and D.520 ), the US Hawk 75, the Hurricane I/II and the Spitfire I/II as potential adversaries.

Only the Spitfire really emerges as an equal opponent (at least on paper). The rest a definately outperformed by the 109.

In comparison, the MC 202, introduced towards the end of 1941, has the Hurricane II, Spitfire I/II/V and P-39, P-40 as potential opponents.

While better than the Hurricane, and (perhaps to a lesser extent) the P-39 and P-40, the Spitfire V has some definite advantages over the MC 202 in terms speed and climb. So, the relative strength of the competition is somewhat better for the 202.

The Ki-61 wasn't introduced until mid-1943. By that time its going to be facing much stiffer opposition.

In the CBI you have the RAF operating Spitfire Vs and VIIIs, Hurricane IIs and P-47s. FB Mosquitos were also an opponent.

The USAAF is flying P-47Cs, P-38G/H and Allison-powered Mustangs, all with major performance advantages.

The USN still flying F4Fs mainly, but F6Fs and F4Us are entering service in large numbers by the end of 1943.

Most of the opposing aircraft clearly outclass the Ki-61. By 1943, 1,175 hp isn't enough to be competitive.

Gibbage1
11-25-2009, 12:02 AM
I agree that by 1943, the Ki-61 was totally out performed by just about everything, but I think its due to its engine, not the design. The design was remarkably refined for a country that had little to no background in inline engines. I think its mainly due to the lessons they learned from the imported BF-109 and He-100(?), but a little late. If they were running a 1600HP engine in it, it would of been DEADLY. Then again, it still needed the fuel to feed it. Later on they made the Ki-100 by fitting a radial engine on it, but it was far too late by then. Only 1500HP, plus the added drag of the radial. The US was running 2000+ HP on there radials by then.

But this is not about there respective timeline, or the aircraft they had to face, but what of the 3 was the better, if having to fight the 3.

Honestly, im suprised by the support the KI and MC are getting. I thought it would be a landslide victory for the BF, but its still a mid 1930's design were the other two were much later, but still with the same engine.

Its a nice study of design, given the same tools I think.

TheGrunch
11-25-2009, 12:06 AM
I voted early 109 because I'm not really on board with the whole dying thing. Assuming we're flying the aircraft against their actual opponents, of course.

Stiletto-
11-25-2009, 12:12 AM
I voted for the K-61, and not that this is part of the voting.. But you got to think about the what if scenario.. What if the Ha-140 engine was mass produced without its teething problems or if the Tony airframe received a late war methanol boosted DB engine? It would be interesting to see find out the performance on such a plane.

Freiwillige
11-25-2009, 01:13 AM
I have to ask why are you comparing...

BF-109E 1939-1940

MC-202 1941 late to 1944

And Ki-61 1943 to 1945

I would think that you would at least compare the 109F if not G models to be comparable.

If that were the case the 109 was always a step ahead of the Japanese\Italian counterparts due to the evolution of the DB-601 to the 605 with all the latest of German supercharger and boost engineering.

All points aside the MC-202\205 aircraft were great engineering as far as airframes were concerned and probably better than Messerschmitt's design but then again the ME-109 series was easy to work on and replace getting the best possible performance vs. cost per aircraft. Then again the Italians always lagged behind a bit with their versions of German engines always getting licenses to produce last years model so to speak.

So I would choose the 109 because for all its faults it was at least as effective as its comparisons for less cost.

TheGrunch
11-25-2009, 01:17 AM
Originally posted by Freiwillige:
So I would choose the 109 because for all its faults it was at least as effective as its comparisons for less cost.
I believe someone mentioned the cost difference between a 109 and a Fiat G.55 in the G.55 thread from around the 4.09m release...the Germans were very impressed with it and considered producing it for their own use until it was pointed out that for each G.55 they could produce 5 109s or something like that.

Freiwillige
11-25-2009, 01:18 AM
Also I would compare the Italian cockpits which like British ones were a nightmare. (Exception Spitfire) With everything seemingly just thrown at the dash with little relevance as to where a gauge ended up.

Also one would point out that German Engineers on the 109 series had used a similar brain to the 190 with most motor control's automated vs the Italian\Japanese that had alot of manual switching since the Germans didn't quite share that technology.

Again the 109 comes to the front.

My 2 cents for what its worth.

Ba5tard5word
11-25-2009, 01:40 AM
You kinda do have to consider what enemies these planes went up against, the 109E definitely had the most advantage in terms of speed and armament.

If I had to pick of the three in Il-2, I would pick the 109E. It's a bit slow compared to later planes but against contemporary opposition it's deadly. It's armament isn't great, its 30 cals are real pea-shooters but they have 1000 rounds so you have plenty of it. I've gotten a few kills in a mission just with my 30 cals, but I've also spent all 1000 rounds filling up an enemy like swiss cheese without getting the kill. Its cannons are pretty powerful but have only 60 rounds so you have to be careful, but when I get practice with the 109E I can usually manage to get several kills in a mission using the cannons.

The Ki-61's top speed at sea level is like 475 which is a joke for 1943-1944 but so it goes. It's very maneuverable and has great visibility in Il-2 though. I don't like its armament, Japanese MG's in Il-2 seem really hard to get enemy planes with for some reason. So for combat I'd prefer the Bf-109E, but the Ki-61 is more enjoyable to fly.

The 202 I don't like much at all, the Italian MG's are just as bad in Il-2 as the Japanese ones for me, and it has .30 cals which are even worse than the Italian .50 cals. It's a zippy enough plane but it likes to lose control in sharp maneuvers. I VASTLY prefer the MC-205, much faster and with better armament, definitely one of my favorite planes in Il-2. I'd take the 205 over any Japanese plane (other than the Ki-84) and over any Bf-109 variant.

Metatron_123
11-25-2009, 06:14 AM
Interesting question. Obviously the comparison is due to the fact that all three had the same engine (the Bf-109F having a later version with increased HP). They were used in slightly different stages of the war.

The Bf-109E was pretty much in the top three fighters of 1940, along with the Spitfire I and A6M2 Zero.

The Macchi was a better performer with the same engine, outclassing P-40s, Hurricanes and being on the same level as the Spit V in the MTO., but having pitiful armament, somewhat negating it's great performance.

Ki-61s may have entered the race later, but their early opponents were not as competitive as one would think, P-40s mostly, and the P-38 though superior in performance being a big target sometimes negated it's advantages.

To conclude, I'd say the Bf-109 was the overall better war-machine in it's time frame,armament considered and also the one easiest to produce and mantain. The DB was after all primarily produced in Germany. It was also replaced exactly at the right time by the Bf-109F (that gave everything it faced a run for its money as far as performance is concerned).

The other two were later machines and slightly better performing in some aspects.

As far as pure performance is concerned, I give it to the Macchi, but it was let down by it's armament, and also used until 1943 when it wasn't too good anymore(of course the allies also had loads of P-40s and Spit Vs still in service).

I'd give range and survivability to the Ki-61, however it wasn't so much a great plane as much as a reasonable one faced with outdated opposition at the time of it's introduction.

So Bf 109E for me, most relevant design for it's time, though it's a close call.

Probably 1 on 1 I'd take the Ki-61, but this is purely in the world of chocolate rivers, fantasy and hyperlobby.

LEBillfish
11-25-2009, 06:45 AM
Originally posted by Freiwillige:
I have to ask why are you comparing...
BF-109E 1939-1940
MC-202 1941 late to 1944
And Ki-61 1943 to 1945

Well let me argue your point, yet to your favor with a different logic.

Though I cannot speak as to the 109 or 202, I can quite in depth as to the Ki-61. The Hien was actually quite a good aircraft in its design and layout. Most of the concepts were very sound, and in many ways it exceeded the 109 (though can't speak as to the 202). So the reason I suppose all of these are lumped together is due to the DB601 design used in all three........Yet there is one very serious flaw in the comparison though all three aircraft have some very strong similarities.

That being......The Ki-61 was a GREAT aircraft......to 1940 standards. Trouble is it never saw combat till mid 1943, so 43 1/2, and by that time was already obsolete as it fired its first round.

If you want a fair idea of such a match up, what say we instead put it into some real perspectives. (again I'm not considering the 202 knowing little of it and not much more of a 109)...

If we took both a Ki-61 & BF109 and ran them side by side in 1939/40, based on design concepts alone the Ki-61 was much more advanced in many regards, and I myself disregarding reliability would go with it.........However, a more fair test would be, "who would of liked to be flying a 109E or 61-I starting in mid 1943 vs. P-38's/40N's/47's/etc.?.....Well I doubt many would take the 109, yet by choosing the Ki-61 that's just what you did.

Where the Ki-61 is lacking was mostly in its manufacturing quality. Bearings, fuel solenoids, filters and so on failing so often that more aircraft failed then flew. Add to that now fighting 1943 era aircraft and tactics, items such as control surfaces quite simply couldn't take the strain, hard dives and Z&B tactics damaging the fabric control surfaces (rudder mostly) to such a degree it was rare to find a servicable Ki-61 intact in that regard and caniballized wrecks and junks from engine failures testament to that.

It doesn't matter that much of its design was more advanced then the 109, as those aspects they shared simply were obsolete by 43.

K2

CUJO_1970
11-25-2009, 07:45 AM
Originally posted by Freiwillige:
I have to ask why are you comparing...

BF-109E 1939-1940

MC-202 1941 late to 1944

And Ki-61 1943 to 1945



Gibbage already answered this question in his first post where he said "I have never been a fan of the 109".

Anyway, we've been through much of this before:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...271069707#6271069707 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/6271069707?r=6271069707#6271069707)

Bremspropeller
11-25-2009, 09:44 AM
Why you compare the Ki-61 to a Bf 109E is beyond me.

Thake the 109F and we have a winner by performance.

All designs are pretty close, though.
The Ki-61 looks best and had it not been for the troublesome power-up, it might have been the best out of the three.

Wildnoob
11-25-2009, 10:07 AM
Agree about the criticism of the comparison. Anyway, regarded to the sim, I'd go with the Ki-61.

Same engine as the BF-109E but with superior aerodynamics: better level speed, dive and control at high speeds.

Apart from the Hei version armamment is lighter, though.

mortoma
11-25-2009, 10:18 AM
The Macchi was hampered not only by really bad guns, but also bad visibility out of the cockpit. Even worse than the 109.

Wildnoob
11-25-2009, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:but no pilot armor.

The Ki-61 featured pilot armor and also self-sealing fuel tanks since the first production model.

JG53Frankyboy
11-25-2009, 10:45 AM
with its better undercarriage the LW would have been most propably more happier at the easternfront with the Mc202/205 than with their Bf109F/G..............
the 202 would have "just" needed canons.

a Mc205 with 2 Mg131 and 2 Mg151/20 would have been a very good aircraft in 1943 at all fronts i belive !
not to forgett if it would have get a bubble canopy............
btw, there was a 109 prototype with radial engine and bubble canopy. that canopy was not put in series production.

for me the Macchies are a marvelous design!
just very complicated to produce , need a lot more hours than the 109s IIRC.
not to forgett they are based on the former Mc200 !


from an aerodynamic standpoint, in high speed behaviour the Ki-61 was AFAIK the most advanced.

BillSwagger
11-25-2009, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Freiwillige:
I have to ask why are you comparing...

BF-109E 1939-1940

MC-202 1941 late to 1944

And Ki-61 1943 to 1945



Gibbage already answered this question in his first post where he said "I have never been a fan of the 109".

Anyway, we've been through much of this before:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...271069707#6271069707 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/6271069707?r=6271069707#6271069707) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

still a good example of how horse power alone is not the only indicator for performance.
There are perfect examples of wing designs, as well as weight, which probably had a lot to do with their roll in combat.

Gibbage1
11-25-2009, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by Freiwillige:
I have to ask why are you comparing...


I explained it. Same engine, differant design. Nothing more.

faustnik
11-25-2009, 01:32 PM
I would pic the old Bf109E4. In combat, I would want the more reliable plane.

GerritJ9
11-25-2009, 02:04 PM
I voted for the Ki-61...... but then, it's a Kawasaki and I have several (no, NOT Ki-61s!) in my garage http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
The main reason NOT to choose the Ki-61 IRL is its engine unreliability. Unfortunately for the Japanese, manufacturing the DB601 was way beyond their industry's capabilities; the Ha-40 was plagued with problems because of the "quality of manufacture". Although I haven't seen any confirmation, presumably Aichi's version of the DB601 had the same problems.

Freiwillige
11-25-2009, 02:48 PM
Okay Gibbage I understand your logic but the 109F series was also powered by the DB-601 engine.

F-0 through F-3 had a DB-601N
F-4 through the rest of the F series had a DB-601E

That stated the F would be a better comparison.

And again the 109 would be the better choice do to reasons listed prior

Saburo_0
11-25-2009, 03:45 PM
Interesting Poll!!
I like all three but voted for the 109. The Macci's guns stink, the Ki-61 is better and a very close 2nd for me. But IIRC the 109 out climbs the Ki(?) I like that. Also have more faith in the German self-sealing tanks and armor.

I also like to match a/c by HP etc. So three with the same engine is about as close as you can get!

Gibbage1
11-25-2009, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by Freiwillige:
Okay Gibbage I understand your logic but the 109F series was also powered by the DB-601 engine.


From my understanding, the F1 and F2 had a similar engine, but F3 and above had 200 more HP. I wanted to compair a series of aircraft, not just spacific models. I may of errored when I specified the E4. You cant compair the F series because later models did have much better engines then the Ki and Mc's, tipping the scales greatly.

As I said, its a compairison of aircraft designs that use the same engine.

Bremspropeller
11-25-2009, 05:03 PM
You cant compair the F series because later models did have much better engines

DB601, just as the others.

Metatron_123
11-25-2009, 05:15 PM
Not the exact same model though, as mentioned by Gibbage

ElAurens
11-25-2009, 05:17 PM
One very important thing in favor of the Ki-61 that no one has mentioned yet is range.

The Ki-61 very handily out distances the other two aircraft.

Gibbage1
11-25-2009, 05:25 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:

DB601, just as the others.

Did you read my entire post, or are you just quick to reply when you read something you dont like? Like I said a few times over, its a question about how to utilize the same engine and power in differant designs. F-3's and above had a good 200+ more HP to work with.

Freiwillige
11-25-2009, 05:36 PM
Originally posted by Metatron_123:
Not the exact same model though, as mentioned by Gibbage

Well then none of them are the exact same model.

The Machi uses a 601Aa built by Alfa Romeo as the R.A.1000 R.C.41-I Monsone
The 109E uses 601A and 601N
And the Ki uses their own licensed yet modified version the 601Aa the Ha-40

Gibbage1
11-25-2009, 05:42 PM
But they all produced about the same HP.

Look. If you want to compair the F4 to the Ki and Mc, make your own thread. Your more then free. But this is about 3 aircraft, with the same engine and HP, but differant designs.

Bremspropeller
11-25-2009, 05:47 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif It's my thread and I cry if I want to.


Well then none of them are the exact same model.

Exactly.

BTW: Inever said "109F-4", I said "109F", which you, dear Gibbage, left out.

Gibbage1
11-25-2009, 06:01 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:

Exactly.

BTW: Inever said "109F-4", I said "109F", which you, dear Gibbage, left out.

Like I said, I left out the F's because it had models with more HP. Lets get back on subject? If you want to hash this out further, make your own thread.

Freiwillige
11-25-2009, 06:31 PM
Okay sticking with your rules and reasoning this is what I get out of it.

Bf-109E Aerodynamically the worst of the three
with both the Macchi and the Ki being more refined and cleaner

Macchi is the worst of the three regarding firepower

And Ki is the best regarding range.

Its quiet an interesting comparison actually.
because all three have great pro's and cons

But if this were a best of breed dog show just deciding which is the best designed fighter of the three I think that the Macchi might win out by a hair. The Italians seem to think that it outperforms the 109E easily in their comparison and I have heard that despite a complicated build it is a masterpiece. One wing is even slightly longer than the other to compensate for engine torque!

Its based off of the well respected and proven MC-200.

And evolved into the MC-205 with the DB-605 engine which by all accounts was a great aircraft as well and more than capable vs its allied counterparts.

Oddly the Ideal aircraft would be an MC-202 with a German designed cockpit\Engine\Weapons and with the Ki-61's range and canopy!

The MC-202\109-61 version!

I_JG78_Max
11-25-2009, 06:31 PM
Well, the F2 went on large Scale Production in March 1941. The F4 started in June 1941. A total number of 2764 109s have been produced in 1941. So the F2 wasn't exactly a rare plane. But you are right about your criteria, since the Friedrichs concept had the DB601E powerplant in mind during conzeptualising. What I would like to know, is why you thougt of a belly radiator as one of your improvements? More effective cooling? I personally think the chin and wing radiator of the 109 were a good idea. Iirc the guys at Rechlin who tested the italian 5 series planes stated that the belly rad made the planes unsuitable for fighterbomber tasks. I'm not claiming that they where right, since there have been fighterbomber versions of italian fighters.

However in this game, if I had to fight one of the other two I wouldpick the Ki61. According to IL-2 compare most manouverable, faster than the E4 but a bit slower than the Macchi, worser climbrate than both other, but then only slighty and a descent arnament for a 1vs1 dogfight. I had a hard time fighting a veteran Ki61 in a Mc202 S3 testing, on the contrary while flying a Ki61 it was much easier to achieve a kill.


Regards,

III/JG27_Max

Gibbage1
11-25-2009, 06:49 PM
During an online campaign I had to fly the MC.202 a few times vs P-40's and Hurricane's and found it VERY capable. You had to peck at them quite a bit, but it was a very stable platform and I did quite well in it. Very well balanced with no bad traits that I could remember other then the firepower and poor reflector gunsight.

I agree, that the best aircraft would be a mutt. German engineered MC-202 with a Ki-61 canopy.

Freiwillige
11-25-2009, 07:23 PM
I cannot fly the Italian birds though because it just sucks firing a slow shooting .50 cal bb gun.

I know that the Breda Sefat was a terrible gun but even German 7.9mm guns seem to perform much better.

Bula
11-25-2009, 07:53 PM
Interesting thread. I fly the Ki61 and MC202 a lot online, so if the question were reworded to, say, which would you choose for online combat (as opposed to "in combat")--this is would be my response*:

1. Unless you keep your speed up, the Macchi is a deathtrap. In any kind of violent maneuvers at lower speeds it seems to bleed E so fast that you'll be in trouble even if your opponent is in a Hurri Mk1. You're good to go against most allied a/c (except alert Spit drivers) if you keep your speed up, but your guns are so poor that slashing attacks generally get you nowhere. It has also been my experience that the Macchi's engine overheats pretty quickly and will seize if you don't knock the prop pitch down and open the rad all the way tout suite--which is a big impediment during an extended dogfight.

2. The Ki61 does not seem to bleed E as much during low speed maneuvers as either the Macchi or the 109E and its engine doesn't overheat as quickly as the Macchi's. I generally fly the Macchi at 85% prop pitch, throttle 90%, and rad full open if I'm tooling around looking for opponents; if I bump up the throttle to 95%, the engine will eventually overheat. With the Ki61, you can keep the prop pitch at 100%, throttle at 95%, and rad at position two and it never seems to overheat. I wish I knew why--after all, aren't the engines almost the same? Finally, the Ki61's mgs seem much better than the Macchi's.

3. The 109E: it doesn't feel as maneuverable as the other two a/c, but the cannon allow you to conduct slashing attacks with a good chance of success. In low speed maneuvers it feels to me that it bleeds E pretty quickly but it also feels as though it recovers E better than the Macchi (but not as well as the Ki61).

Which to choose? Given my cruddy flying skills, the Ki61 is the best. You can yank-and-bank with it and still have a reasonable chance of success against many allied a/c. You also don't have to worry as much that yank-and-bank maneuvers will cost you too much E or send you into a really nasty spin (which can occur with the Macchi if you're not careful).

My heart is with the Macchi, though, but it's just such a tough bird to fly online. It's hard to get kills with it--the mgs are so horribly weak that you really have to hammer your opponents, but most won't give you that kind of time. Any decent Spit driver can simply out turn you and, if the fight goes vertical, your engine may overheat if you find you need to max out the power. The airframe may be tougher than the other two, but the engine seems more prone to battle damage. A few hits in the engine area almost always seems to result in a catastrophic fire for me.

*My comments are based on my subjective experience flying these a/c online. I make no claims to writing scripture here--these are just my impressions.

TheGrunch
11-25-2009, 08:05 PM
Originally posted by Bula:
*My comments are based on my subjective experience flying these a/c online. I make no claims to writing scripture here--these are just my impressions.
Whether you're modest about it or not, that's a really helpful and detailed account, thanks Bula. I'm gonna have to fly the Ki and the Macchi online now, they sound really interesting to fly.
I have to say, I love the looks of them both (not as much as I love the look of the G.55!), but I've always been so disappointed with the Bredas, and for some reason I've just never tried the Ki-61 out.
I remember playing on our LAN against my dad at home, he flew the 202 and I had a hard time hitting him even with a bit of an alt. advantage. That was a long time ago, though, and I don't suppose I was very good, then.

Rickustyit
11-26-2009, 03:26 AM
I'd go for the C.202 "Folgore"...

Just for a simple, great thing: it's (quite a lot) faster than the other 2 birds.

At abour 5000 meters it's 30 km/h faster than the Ki61 and 40 km/h faster than the Bf.109E. And that's quite a lot IMO.
You are faster than Hurri 2, P40 and Spitfire V at all alts.

Add to that its good climb rate and its great diving characteristics, its well harmonized and lack of stiffining controls at high speed and you have a nice warbird in your hands.

Good armour protection all around, even frontal. Decent turn times.

Armament is the bad part about it all.

Speed is everything in the real world. It's nice to know that you can be faster than your major opponents in 1941-1942, especially Spits.

Armament is always secondary IMO.

http://www.ams.vr.it/AircWalkAround/Museo%20Vignadivalle/Varie/Macchi_C.202_03.JPG

Cheers
Rick

Jaws2002
11-26-2009, 12:12 PM
Ki-61 wins with looks alone. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif
Don't even need to talk about good visibility, roomy cockpit, wide track landing gear, cleaner airframe, and much, much longer range.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/%3CFA%3EJaws/ki61color38po.jpg

Freiwillige
11-26-2009, 12:29 PM
Visibility is similar in the Macchi and the Ki.

And the Macci is 30 Kph faster than the Ki on the same power....So how can you say its a cleaner airframe?

Gibbage1
11-26-2009, 05:28 PM
High wing loading = higher speed under the same power, but also higher turn radious. Its a tradeoff. Sure, youll go faster, but you wont turn as well. What's the wing loading for all 3? Also, the Ki has a bigger radiator, and thats more draggy, but keeps the engine nice and cool. Heat is a problem with the Machi in IL2. Whats the point of having a top speed when you cant use it for very long?

Bremspropeller
11-26-2009, 05:53 PM
High wing loading = higher speed under the same power, but also higher turn radious.

Both wrong.


Whats the point of having a top speed when you cant use it for very long?


Thatswhy we have max-power and cruise-settings on engines.

Kettenhunde
11-26-2009, 06:09 PM
Heat is a problem with the Machi in IL2.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

Freiwillige
11-26-2009, 08:19 PM
Kettenhunde?

Heat is a problem in Sim...Reality it had no issues of that type.

But then again Olegs modeling consistency is hit and miss.

Kettenhunde
11-26-2009, 08:31 PM
Ahhh, I get it. It is used as a way to keep you honest.

LEBillfish
11-26-2009, 09:31 PM
Originally posted by Freiwillige:
Visibility is similar in the Macchi and the Ki.

The Ki-61 has much, much better visibility....look at the pics.

K2

Gibbage1
11-26-2009, 09:57 PM
In-game, the Ki-61 has much better pilot vision. Less, smaller framework, and the view from 6 is also a lot better. How it is in real-life, I dont know.

Gibbage1
11-26-2009, 10:02 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

Another quality and insightfull post by Ketten. I really need to stop clicking on "Show Post" after I put you on my ignore list.

Waldo.Pepper
11-26-2009, 10:21 PM
I am moved to comment.


Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Sure, you'll go faster, but you wont turn as well.

I would suggest that the history of air warfare from WW1 until today is the repeated learning that speed is what is important. Not maneuverability.

"Turning is for noobs." M. Richtofen.


Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Whats the point of having a top speed when you can't use it for very long?

Combat is not an air race. The vital top speed is all too an enviable trait to have in the few seconds you need it.

I love the Hien. It is, and always has been my favorite Japanese plane. But in game I have always found it to be a dog. I think of the game edition of this plane as too slow. (Also too slow in roll response.)

I find the 202 faster. Because it is faster I do not care that the rear visibility is poor. I shall stay fast and my speed will obviate/or at least mitigate my need to see behind me.

I don't mind the bb guns. Shoot straighter.

JtD
11-26-2009, 11:54 PM
The Ki-61 can go extremely fast in dives, that's a good feature, too.

Gibbage1
11-27-2009, 02:50 AM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
I am moved to comment.


I was just saying there are trade offs. You can go faster, or you can go slower and turn better. Thats all. I wasent sawing one was better then the other, did I?

As for the heat, my comment was in relation to the sim. You can only use full power on the Mc.202 for a short time before having to power down, thus giving up your advantage. In a prolonged fight, you canloose your speed advantage. Im not saying this is how it is in real life. I dont know. Im not saying this makes one better then the other. Im just saying its a consideration.

Metatron_123
11-27-2009, 05:38 AM
It's a delusion to say armament isn't important. Go shoot a couple of B-17s down with your Bredas. You can? Good for you. Plenty of Regia Aeronautica pilots couldn't.

MM-Zorin
11-27-2009, 06:25 AM
I have one major problem here. The fact that you compare planes that have the same engine, but are hardly of the same era with regards to the knowledge at hand.

Bf 109 was designed in 1934.

Mc 202 was a Mc200 with a closed pit and the DB 601 bolted on (Mc200 being designed in 1936)

Ki61 is based on a request issued in late 1939.

So, what better reason is there to compare these totally different planes? Just remind yourself what two or even five years meant in terms of new technologies and knowledge being gathered in the field of aeronautics in those days.

To get a bit of perspective into this, the Jaguar XK engine was used in its original form in the 1949 Jaguar XK120 and the 1963 Jaguar S-Type. That is 14 years of technology evolution in every field of engineering, yet would you compare the two just because they share the same engine??

Metatron_123
11-27-2009, 07:14 AM
Good point, that's why this discussion can't be strictly about performance otherwise it's irrelevant. It has to be about the performance of each in it's historical context.

For a 1 on 1 strictly performance and armament in the same time period it would have to be something like Ki-61 vs Bf-109G-2/6 vs Macchi 205 in which case the Macchi and Messerschmitt handily outstrip the Kawasaki.

That's why I made a point of mentioning that the Bf-109 always received upgrades at more or less the right time where as the other two not so much.

Gibbage1
11-27-2009, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by MM-Zorin:
I have one major problem here.

Fine. Make your own thread.

BillSwagger
11-27-2009, 12:48 PM
In RL, i don't think that the heating problem of the Macchi was such a problem, and neither was its lighter armament when it came to air to air combat.
In game, i'm able to fly circles around spits and p-40s for the simple fact it holds its energy better, you just can't get caught up in turning too tight just like any other energy fighter. I wouldn't use the Macchi for the simple fact that to get a kill it requires ridiculous amounts of trigger time.
In real life it would've required a decent burst into the cockpit and the fight was over.

The better plane for its era is obviously the 109e, and because of its armament is the better plane for in game use.

The Ki-61, even though better designed was competing against much faster airplanes in 1943.
It actually might be the better the plane of the three, but would i use it in combat, no.
I would take a 1943 model 109, or 1943 Macchi instead, but those aren't offered in the comparison.

Kettenhunde
11-27-2009, 01:51 PM
I have one major problem here. The fact that you compare planes that have the same engine, but are hardly of the same era with regards to the knowledge at hand.

Bf 109 was designed in 1934.

Mc 202 was a Mc200 with a closed pit and the DB 601 bolted on (Mc200 being designed in 1936)

Ki61 is based on a request issued in late 1939.

So, what better reason is there to compare these totally different planes? Just remind yourself what two or even five years meant in terms of new technologies and knowledge being gathered in the field of aeronautics in those days.

To get a bit of perspective into this, the Jaguar XK engine was used in its original form in the 1949 Jaguar XK120 and the 1963 Jaguar S-Type. That is 14 years of technology evolution in every field of engineering, yet would you compare the two just because they share the same engine??


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Saburo_0
11-27-2009, 05:08 PM
Funny how some people can not understand comparing aircraft designs absent the exact real life events. The word hypothetical is important here. I don't know why it is so hard for some people to accept?

When you study Japanese aircraft you realize that the designers had to make due with engines that lacked the horsepower of their counterparts in the USA, and Germany. Similar situation for Italian designers.

The fact that these 3 designs all depend on roughly the same engine and represent 3 different responses to the problem of How do we build a good fighter? Is pretty interesting to me.
The point about the KI being a late design, might have some validity, but you could also argue about the resources and research available to each design team! I suspect Messerschmidt had more money and political influence to work with than either the Italian or Japanese teams.

I suppose we could ask what would a Ki-61 or Mc 202 have flown like with the latest DB engine in them? Would love to find out, but we dont have them in game.

Those of you complaining about the comparison should really learn to relax and think outside the box a bit. Inflexibility leads to rigor mortis. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Freiwillige
11-27-2009, 05:56 PM
Originally posted by Saburo_0:
Funny how some people can not understand comparing aircraft designs absent the exact real life events. The word hypothetical is important here. I don't know why it is so hard for some people to accept?

When you study Japanese aircraft you realize that the designers had to make due with engines that lacked the horsepower of their counterparts in the USA, and Germany. Similar situation for Italian designers.

The fact that these 3 designs all depend on roughly the same engine and represent 3 different responses to the problem of How do we build a good fighter? Is pretty interesting to me.
The point about the KI being a late design, might have some validity, but you could also argue about the resources and research available to each design team! I suspect Messerschmidt had more money and political influence to work with than either the Italian or Japanese teams.

I suppose we could ask what would a Ki-61 or Mc 202 have flown like with the latest DB engine in them? Would love to find out, but we dont have them in game.

Those of you complaining about the comparison should really learn to relax and think outside the box a bit. Inflexibility leads to rigor mortis. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Well we do know with the Macchi. The MC-202 with the latest DB-605 motor became the MC-205.
Add cannons and ta-da. The 205 is essentially the 202

Gibbage1
11-27-2009, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by Saburo_0:
Funny how some people can not understand comparing aircraft designs absent the exact real life events. The word hypothetical is important here. I don't know why it is so hard for some people to accept?


There just a little hurt that there fave model of there fave aircraft was left out, thats all.

ElAurens
11-27-2009, 07:15 PM
Kawasaki was working on their version of the DB 605 for the Ki-61, so that "hypothetical" is not so far fetched as some would like.

With 500 to 600 more BHP the Ki-61 would have been quite the machine. Fast, maneuverable,and long ranged.

It's pretty to think about.

JtD
11-28-2009, 10:40 AM
A DB605 Ki-61 existed and flew, but the Japanese did not manage to get the engine problems solved.

That plane also had a bubble top variant, it's a very good looking plane.

Erkki_M
11-28-2009, 11:34 AM
Of Bf109E, Ki-61 and MC-202... My choice is definately the FW-190!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

Saburo_0
11-30-2009, 05:43 PM
I think it is interesting, that, either the Mc202 or Ki with more firepower (for those like me who can't shoot well!) and/ or the later engines that the 109 got would have been very competitive. It's a what if, rather like what if the Mustang had never gotten the Merlin?

And btw (even though it belongs in it;s own thread) what if Horikoshi had a 2,000 hp radial at his disposal for the Zero? The Reppu? sure looks good on paper.
.
Anywhoo, love all three of these designs, 109, Mc, and the Ki-61. The folks who created them deserve some kudos. I do have to admit that the range of the Ki alone, would make it a much more versatile aircraft. Though on defense this wouldn't matter so much.

Gibbage1
11-30-2009, 08:02 PM
Originally posted by Saburo_0:
And btw (even though it belongs in it;s own thread) what if Horikoshi had a 2,000 hp radial at his disposal for the Zero? The Reppu? sure looks good on paper.


Its not a simple thing to just strap a more powerful engine onto an aircraft. First there is size. More powerful engines are typically bigger. Second, weight. Bigger engine = more weight. Third, is fuel. The bigger engine is more thirsty. Forth, is power. Can your airframe handle that much power? Firth, aerodynamics. Can you take advantage of the extra power?

If you look at the Spitfires development from the I's to the XIV, you will see significant changes to its design both internally and externally. With how light the A6M Zero is, I really think that a 2000HP engine would rip itself right off the moment the pilot firewalled it. Also, speaking with Steve Hinton, who ownes an original Saki powered Zeke, he said the aircraft feels like it will rip itself appart at 300MPH. Thats why Zero's would never follow US aircraft into a dive.

Buzzsaw-
11-30-2009, 11:39 PM
Salute

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this in this comparison of three DB-601 equipped aircraft...

The best plane to use the DB-601 engine was the 109F4.

The Germans didn't switch engines when they went from the E to the F, they switched fuselage and wings.

The F had very similar horsepower levels to the E in the early versions, but was much faster and maneuvered much better, especially at high speeds. It was far more streamlined, much less drag, control surfaces were optimized, overall much more refined.

The 109F was the biggest leap in development for the 109 series, and most experienced 109 pilots remember it as the best balance of speed and maneuverability for its time.

It really was the pinnacle of balanced 109 development, after it, the 109's put on a lot of weight, and maneuverability suffered. (don't take IL-2 FM's as nessesarily correct, remember Oleg models the G2 at 200 kgs less than the real aircraft)

In my opinion, the F4 in the game is just a little better than the Spit V. I have to admit I don't really like flying 109's most of the time, but the F2 and F4 are really beautiful exceptions to that, they just feel right, flying them is a joy.

So my choice of DB-601 equipped types, would be the 109F4.

Gibbage1
11-30-2009, 11:44 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this in this comparison of three DB-601 equipped aircraft...

The best plane to use the DB-601 engine was the 109F4.


According to my sources, the F3 and higher had a 1332HP DB 601E engine. Meaning it put out 200 more HP then the others in the topic. Thats why I didnt include the F series.

Daiichidoku
12-01-2009, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
(don't take IL-2 FM's as nessesarily correct, remember Oleg models the G2 at 200 kgs less than the real aircraft)


Hayate Ace also says that

any source for that?

Ive also heard that German G2s had 1.30 Ata in 1942, but Olegs G2s are 1.42 Ata as the Finns had them (in 1943/44?), can anyone confirm that?

Gibbage1
12-01-2009, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
Hayate Ace also says that

any source for that?

Ive also heard that German G2s had 1.30 Ata in 1942, but Olegs G2s are 1.42 Ata as the Finns had them (in 1943/44?), can anyone confirm that?

For the weight, its been gone over and over, and from what I saw, most people agree that the G2's are a little underweight. But thats another thread or a PM.

M_Gunz
12-01-2009, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
(don't take IL-2 FM's as nessesarily correct, remember Oleg models the G2 at 200 kgs less than the real aircraft)


Hayate Ace also says that

any source for that?

Ive also heard that German G2s had 1.30 Ata in 1942, but Olegs G2s are 1.42 Ata as the Finns had them (in 1943/44?), can anyone confirm that? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unless you are willing to take -all- the tweaks and shortcomings of the shortcuts into consideration it is just troll bait.
Start with necessarily imperfect flight engine and get to best match fit to proper charts and tell me all the numbers will
be exactly what Jane's or other source says. What a joke to pick only the things to support some agenda!

Frankthetank36
12-04-2009, 08:08 AM
I'm gonna have to go with the 109 here just because I haven't tried the other two. The Messerschmitt is one of my personal favorite planes to fly, strikes a good balance between BnZ ability, handling, and armament. The rearward visibility surprisingly is better than alot of the other planes that have neither bubble/bulged canopies nor mirrors.