Author Topic: The 13,862nd Plane Wants List (Read 2555 times)

Rafe35 · « **Reply #15 on:** January 08, 2004, 07:47:18 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by DYGCaps
Also...
Rafe what is the point in having 5 or more models of each plane type? Seriously what good will it do? Theres no reason why we should have all that crap, ya, it would be nice, but while they're modeling each variant of everyplane wouldn't you rather have them working on something else new ?

All aircraft model should fit in Combat Theater and Scenario group. Likely, Axis need more Fighter/Bomber/Tanks than the Allies needs.

Quote

Originally posted by moot
F7F

Grumman F7F Tigercat did not enter the combat in WWII, because I believe there was some problem and they were too late for enter the combat as Grumman F8F Bearcat. They both enter Korea War(1950-1953) and they were successfully in Korea War.

zmeg · « **Reply #16 on:** January 08, 2004, 07:57:15 PM »

F4U-4B P39 KI-43 JU-52

moot · « **Reply #17 on:** January 09, 2004, 05:39:24 AM »

I would ask for it anyway. P51H was nearly the same thing and I think it and the late 47 were on HTC's poll list.

DYGCaps · « **Reply #18 on:** January 09, 2004, 07:42:17 AM »

A note on the B-29

I'm not sure but didn't the 29 have a ridiculous amount of bombs? If so would the addition of it in the MA cause the B-17s, Lancs (and hopefully the new addition of the B-24) to become obsolete?

Halo · « **Reply #19 on:** January 09, 2004, 10:14:57 AM »

The B-29 could carry 20,000 pounds of bombs internally compared with 14,000 pounds for the Lancaster.

Supposedly there was a modification that allowed a B-29 to carry two of the British 22,000-pound bombs underwing, just as some Lancs could carry one of the 22,000-pound bombs.

Come to think of it, let's add the 22,000-pound bomb to the wants list!

gripen · « **Reply #20 on:** January 09, 2004, 10:48:35 AM »

Biplanes please... Oh well, wishfull thinking I suppose.

gripen

frank3 · « **Reply #21 on:** January 09, 2004, 01:40:06 PM »

Swordfish!

Well we can whine what we want, but it doesn't look like HiTech will enable any new planes in AHII.

But do we need new planes to have fun? I don't

Rafe35 · « **Reply #22 on:** January 09, 2004, 02:01:19 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by frank3
Swordfish!

Well we can whine what we want, but it doesn't look like HiTech will enable any new planes in AHII.

But do we need new planes to have fun? I don't

Hitech said that grahic would come first before getting new plane which i probably I dont remember where he did post at and probably at AH2 forum. The new aircraft would be for everyone who would like to fly and it would be fit in for Combat Theater History and Scenario group.

Halo · « **Reply #23 on:** January 09, 2004, 03:47:50 PM »

Not whining. Just letting wants be known for whenever new equipment eventually is added.

United · « **Reply #24 on:** January 10, 2004, 03:56:51 PM »

Quote

As for the B-24...I just want it because I love the plane and for some stupid reason every flight sim skips over it. I have NEVER seen it in a flight sim which is sad considering it flew more missions in WW2 than B-17's.

Gotta agree with you there. Not only did it fly more missions, it was in every theater, and there were more made than the 17. Only reason the 24 isnt the more popular one is because the 17 had more publicity than the 24.

In a quote from "Ball Turret Gunners" on the History Channel, it was similar to this:

"If you put the B-24 and the B-17 in extensive 1 on 1 tests, the B-24 would do much better than the B-17 in every category. But if given the choice to fly either plane into combat, I would choose the B-17. I'd feel safer in a B-17."

So, why not add the B-24??
Not whining, just stating what I feel.

(But the 24 would be nice to add after AH2 is up and working!)

Halo · « **Reply #25 on:** January 10, 2004, 06:32:00 PM »

The B-24 was in a later WarBirds version, wasn't it? Easier to down than the B-17, if I recall correctly, which apparently was the case in real life too.

frank3 · « **Reply #26 on:** January 11, 2004, 07:42:52 AM »

As for my sources, the Fortress and Liberator were perfectly matched to eachother with both having some advantages/disadvantages

For example the B-24 could fly faster and further, but the B-17 could fly higher.
Also the Liberator could carry a greater bombload.
But the defencive guns were pretty matched.

As for the flying/lethalty? I've read somewhere that the B-17 was better in handling and could even steam on with 7 feet of it's wings blown off. The B-24 was harder on the control and because it's structure was based on a Seaplane, the materials were as light as possible, but also pretty weak. Later models had this changed I recall

DYGCaps · « **Reply #27 on:** January 11, 2004, 12:35:55 PM »

Why are graphics and eye candy coming first? They should improve game play and then worry about that stuff

United · « **Reply #28 on:** January 11, 2004, 04:37:53 PM »

Yes, the B-24 could not take as much damage as the 17. In fact, it couldn't take much at all. But, if my research is correct, the B-24 outmatched the 17 in almost every aspect tested, except for damage and reliability.

Puck · « **Reply #29 on:** January 11, 2004, 04:45:35 PM »

So we do this the easy way...

An early model B-24
Late model B-17
Perk bomber B-29

Best of all worlds

Can you have that done by, say, Wednesday, Dale? Thanks. Your Garmin is on its way...