PDA

View Full Version : What do you think of the Kawanishi N1K?



Superjew1
07-11-2009, 02:23 PM
Ive flown this plane maybe all of 15 minutes, I like how it packs a punch with its four 20mm cannons, it runs out of ammo quickly though so you have to be a sniper with your bullets.

Havent seen how well it absorbs battle damage.

Any ideas on how this plane compares to the zero?

I didnt know the Japanese turned out a decent fighter plane that could down hellcats during the war. Man how the war might have turned out different if they had feilded these planes early war and their carriers werent caught refueling/rearming during the battle of midway with little anti-aircraft cover.

Ba5tard5word
07-11-2009, 02:35 PM
I don't like its auto-flaps--they go to combat flaps whenever you pull back slightly on the stick, it's meant to give you better control in tight turns I guess. As a result when I'm on an enemy's tail and trying to maneuver my scope over him, the flaps will deploy automatically and make my nose rise up sharply and make it really difficult to get a hit in. Otherwise it's a nice plane and about 100kph faster than the Zero.

Get Hardball's Aircraft Viewer to compare different planes, it's really useful.

JtD
07-11-2009, 02:43 PM
The N1K is good, about as good as the F6F. It's somewhat better down low, somewhat worse up high. All in all, however, it is too slow. That's probably the biggest flaw. The low speed means it is not effective against the late war opposition of F4U's, P-38, P-47 and P-51. The lack of high altitude performance also means it's not good as an interceptor, the B-29 is actually faster at altitude. It can cope with carrier based bombers such as the TB-3 as well as medium bombers like the B-25 and intruders like the A-20 fairly well. All in all it's an unimpressive plane for a 1944 design.

Compared to the A6M it certainly is a big step forward, being somewhere between 50-80 km/h faster at most altitudes. It also packs roughly twice the punch and has a superior high speed handling. It doesn't have the superb low speed turn of the A6M, but in 1944 this is not important.

A Japanese Navy equipped with N1K fighters and B7A bombers would certainly have been more costly for the USN. However, it is unlikely that even had these planes been the main models by the end of 1941, that they had made a significant difference. The Japanese completely failed to assemble fuel supplies prior to the war and during the war failed to protect their merchant shipping to an extend that fuel shortages crippled Navy operations as early as 1942. I don't see how some fancy planes on a few rare carriers could overcome that problem.

BillSwagger
07-11-2009, 02:46 PM
the auto flaps do seem a bit sensitive.
It is better than the zero in many ways, speed, turning, and cannons, but most of all it can carry 4 5hundies.

Ba5tard5word
07-11-2009, 03:12 PM
top speeds I got from Hardball:

N1K2 (the version you can fly in-game)
top speed sea level: 551 kph
top speed 5200m: 595 kph

F6F
top sp sea lvl: 512 kph
top sp 7100m: 615 kph

Ki-84
sea level: 578
6200m: 685

F4U-1D Corsair
sea level: 565
7000m: 673

J2M5
sea level: 568
7300m: 697

A6M7 Zero Model 62 (1945)
sea level: 461
5900m: 551



So yeah does look like the N1K1 is best at sea level. The F6F in game I can barely get to 490kph at sea level. The Corsair can have a high top speed at sea level but it's so heavy that it takes a while to get there, and loses speed quickly--the N1K I think is better at keeping speed up, so are the Ki-84 and J2M.

danjama
07-11-2009, 03:15 PM
The George was the one Japanese plane i was looking forward to getting one day, and then we finally got it, but it was ruined by the auto-flaps, and so i never fly it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

Without those, it would be a dream plane for me.