Author Topic: Variants and New Planes we really need... (Read 1411 times)

Seagoon · « **on:** December 09, 2004, 12:15:01 PM »

How about a thread on aircraft we need rather than simply want or dream about -

#1 NEED - More transports - particularly Axis ones. This has been a crying need particularly for scenario use for years, TOD is going to always remain slightly silly if both sides are flying the C47!

We need the Ju52 and a German Half-track.

#2 NEED - More Axis Bombers I was happy to see the KI67 added to give us a grand total of two non-perk Axis level bombers and hoped it would be the start of a trend.

Then we got the B24 making the current non-perk Score:
Allied Level Bombers - 6
Axis Level Bombers - 2

We need the Betty and the HE111. An Italian Bomber would be a big early war scenario help as well, but I'd be happy just to not have to endure seeing the Ju88 Skinned to be everything in the German and Japanese inventory.

I'll let you guys add your thoughts.

- SEAGOON

Urchin · « **Reply #1 on:** December 09, 2004, 12:27:58 PM »

Some kind of halfway decent Spitfire.. either a IX LF (clipped wing, make it easy to tell the difference), or Spit 14.

Early war Russian stuff, a lot more Japanese stuff.

P-39, early war P-38.

Then we can start on the "wierd" planes... more esotoric LW stuff, P-61, Meteor (though the Meteor I would suck it up).

straffo · « **Reply #2 on:** December 09, 2004, 12:31:12 PM »

I prefer Urchin list

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #3 on:** December 09, 2004, 12:59:20 PM »

P40N too.

Seagoon · « **Reply #4 on:** December 09, 2004, 02:28:48 PM »

Genuine question: why is it that any discussion of planes we need degenerates into a planes I want wish list?

Do we need a fourth SPITFIRE variant? Why? What genuine lack would it meet? What scenario or even MA hole would the p40N plug?

Example: You have your fourth child but only have two bedrooms, additionally the roof is beginning to leak, and you strongly suspect termites in the deck. You call in a general contractor for recommendations. His answer? "Well sir, you definitely are going to need a wide-screen TV, a jet ski, and probably a tree stand out front."

Oy Vey.

- Seagoon

Urchin · « **Reply #5 on:** December 09, 2004, 02:35:03 PM »

Lol... I[/i] don't want a Spit, I think the arena needs one. Our Spit 9 and Spit 5 are basically the same plane now that the Spit 5 has had its engine uprated with AH2. Both of them are to slow to be competitive in the MA. An unperked Spit 14 or Spit IX LF (which was, by the way, by far the most numerous varient of the Spit 9.. our "vanilla" Spit 9 made up the first couple hundred, except it is a bastardized version of that one) would make 350-355 or so on the deck, which is fast enough for it to be competitive with the '45 speed demons.

Why do we NEED[/i] any Axis buffs? Maybe a G4M, sure. Other than that I think we are ok... Germany didn't do much in the way of "strategic bombing".. and bombers take like 4 times the amount of work that fighters do.

What would a Ju-52 accomplish? Why isn't a reskinned C-47 good enough?

frank3 · « **Reply #6 on:** December 09, 2004, 02:35:42 PM »

I go for more axis bombers too.

But do we need more spitfire variants? We already what, 5 or so?

thrila · « **Reply #7 on:** December 09, 2004, 02:38:26 PM »

The new spit would fill the biggest gap in the RAF planeset. It will give the RAF it's mainstay fighter of 43 and 44. Not only would the spit LF IX be great for scenario's and ToD it will also be popular in the MA.

Perhaps you shouldn't jump to conclusions so quickly next time seagoon.

Guppy35 · « **Reply #8 on:** December 09, 2004, 02:59:22 PM »

Amen to that. AH is a low alt Tac airwar for the most part. A Spit LFIXe is made for that.

The Spit IX we have now just doesn't cut it as a 1942 Spit IX with 1945 armament.

Clip the wings, broad chord rudder, E wing, Merlin 66 please.

Dan/Slack

Seagoon · « **Reply #9 on:** December 09, 2004, 03:25:37 PM »

Hi Thrila,

I'm genuinely not trying to be contentious, but I just can't buy that the P40N and a new Spit are anything but "things we'd like to have." For need I'm using the definition - "A state that requires supply or relief; pressing occasion for something; necessity; urgent want." Thus I don't even mean, "something that would be popular in the MA." Admittedly we live in age that confuses want with need on a regular basis, but we should be able to produce at least one small thread that focuses on equipment that would meet a lack rather than fulfill desires shouldn't we?

We have plenty of allied fighters (admittedly the Russian plane set is weak, I'll certainly go with Urchin there) - 30 at my last count - and many of them are comparable. By contrast we have ONE (1) unarmed transport aircraft - and its allied.

Thus if I were to go with the logic at hand, I would have to assume that 30 brands of Soda isn't enough, and that we have a genuine need for more, but that one brand of beer is ample and that there is no need for more (as long as you can change the label).

If I can carry on with the analogy, you want yet another brand of soda and the research and development required to come up with it mean we never get another brand of beer.

Eh... I guess I'll have to get used to Bud after all. Someone hand me a Newcastle Brown label for my can.

- SEAGOON

Urchin · « **Reply #10 on:** December 09, 2004, 03:56:28 PM »

Serious question. Lets say HTC says, "Wow, Seagoon has a point" and introduces a new Russian unarmed transport, a new German unarmed transport, a new Japanese unarmed transport, and a He111 in the next patch.

What does that bring to the table?

How is any of that going to stand out from what we already have?

Personally, I only really see the need[/i] for a single kind of unarmed troop transport. Likewise, we don't need a German M3, or a Russian M3, or a Japanese M3. We just need one halftrack to run troops around in on the ground, all the rest of them serve basically the exact same function in the exact same way.

Now, if you think we need[/i] more GVs, I'd agree with you. We could use an American tank (Sherman would be good), a British tank (dunno to much about em), even a Japanese light tank would be fun. But my point is all those tanks are different. They have different guns, different speeds, different armor. People would use them differently. Even if they aren't any good (like the M8), they still bring something unique to the table.

We don't need[/b] a He111, in my opinion. Basically the Ju88 does the same thing. Same speed, same defensive guns, same bombload.

Every fighter we don't have is basically unique.. the CT can use tons more fighters for the holes it has in different planesets (p-39, early P-38 and you can run a 1942 New Guinea/Solomons campaign, etc.).

The Japanese planeset needs tons of planes. The Ki-43, Ki-44, J2M, etc.. all bring something unique to the table. They may not get much play in the MA (the Ki-84 certainly isn't), but they'd be a godsend for running scenarios and the CT.

A Ju-52 does the exact same thing as a C-47. It drops troops and supplies. We can just repaint the C-47 in German colors and call it a German C-47.. we don't really need any more transport planes. Yea, there were tons of them... and as soon as HTC gets done modelling every single bomber, fighter, and tank that was in WW2, he might even start modelling them.

Sikboy · « **Reply #11 on:** December 09, 2004, 04:38:52 PM »

D4Y

-Sik

gear · « **Reply #12 on:** December 09, 2004, 04:52:56 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Urchin

A Ju-52 does the exact same thing as a C-47. It drops troops and supplies. We can just repaint the C-47 in German colors and call it a German C-47.. we don't really need any more transport planes. Yea, there were tons of them... and as soon as HTC gets done modelling every single bomber, fighter, and tank that was in WW2, he might even start modelling them.

Check out the thred "german goon".
I submitted it last night:aok

Raptor · « **Reply #13 on:** December 09, 2004, 05:32:05 PM »

I think what we need are Japanese and Russian planes.
Japanese did do high alt level bombing and we would benefit from some early, as well as late, Japanese bombers. Also the fighter planeset is lacking too, we have some late war fighters and early war fighters, we need a Ki43 or 44.
Russians didnt do that much strategic bombing and focused more on close ground support so we need more attack aircraft for the Soviets. We could use some more Russian Fighters as well, Mig-3 and Yak-3 are first that come to mind.
All countries need more GVs.
Sherman first that comes to mind and possibly a Japanese tank.

ah who am I kidding WE NEED THE B29!!!!!!

gear · « **Reply #14 on:** December 09, 2004, 06:35:05 PM »

Messerschmitt Me 264

In 1937, the Messerschmitt development department started work on Projekt 1062 (which later became the Me 261), a long range aircraft used for record distance attempts and eventually reconnaissance duties. Simultaneously, another long range aircraft was in the development stage, Projekt 1061, which was to be powered by four individual engines, and have a range of 20000 km (12428 miles). Due to more important projects in development at the time (mainly the Bf 109 and 110), Projekt 1061 was only sporadically worked on until late in 1940. The German Naval Warfare Department wrote to Reichsmarschall Göring on August 10, 1940 that long range aircraft with a range of at least 6000 km (3728 miles) would be needed to reach the planned German Colonial Reich in central Africa. Also, about this time the RLM issued a requirement for long range aircraft with a range of at least 12000 km (7457 miles), to reach from French bases to the United States, in anticipation of the coming war with the U.S. Therefore, the work on Projekt 1061 was stepped up, with Willy Messerschmitt on December 20, 1940 informing designers Wolfgang Degel, Paul Konrad and Waldemar Voigt of the requirements for this long range aircraft. The initial requirements were for a 20000 km (12428 miles) range, capability for military and civilian roles, at least a 5000 kg (11023 lbs) bomb load to be carried in an internal bomb bay, smaller bombs to be carried externally on under-wing pylons and to have a very clean airframe.
On January 22, 1941, the General Staff of the Luftwaffe demanded a long range aircraft for the submarine war. The Focke-Wulf Fw 200, Heinkel He 177, Blohm & Voss BV 222 and Messerschmitt Me 261/264 were to all be compared to find the best aircraft for this purpose. Because of its overoptimistic performance and weights data, the RLM chose the Me 264 as the best choice. Several schemes were proposed by the Messerschmitt design bureau to extend the range of the Me 264, including towing one Me 264 by another to altitude, in flight refueling by a second Me 264, adding two more engines bringing the total to six and using take-off rocket pods for overload takeoff conditions. With these recommendations, it was felt that a range of 18100 km (11247 miles) and a bomb load of 5000 kg (11023 lbs) could be achieved, and a range of 26400 km (16405 miles) without any bombload. Armament for both versions would have consisted of remote controlled turrets with either MG 131 or MG 151.
The Me 264 V1 had a very "clean", all metal fuselage with a circular cross section throughout. Just behind the extensively glazed nose and cockpit was a galley, crew rest area and walkway to the rear of the plane above the lower, enclosed bomb bay. The wings were shoulder mounted, slightly swept back and tapered. They contained a single main spar and one auxiliary spar, with the wing loads being transferred through the main spar and two auxiliary bulkheads into the fuselage. The entire fuel supply was stored in the large wings. All control surfaces were conventional, including split flaps on the inner wing. The tailplane, with its twin fins and rudders, was electrically adjustable during flight. A tricycle landing gear system was designed, which was unusual for such a large aircraft at this time. A single nose wheel was used, although testing had been done for a twin nose wheel configuration using a converted Bf 109.