Author Topic: Just in case if HTC is ready to make/remake Japanese and USSR planes (Read 736 times)

1K3 · « **on:** November 12, 2005, 11:54:32 PM »

The complete, representative combat planes of Japanese Navy/Army and USSR planes.

Japanese Navy

fighter

A6M2*

A6M3

A6M5*

J2M3

N1K2-J*

bomber

B5N2*

D3A1*

B6N2

D4Y3

G4M2

Japanese Army

fighters

Ki-43-II (technically a mid war plane, Ki-43-I is almost useless)

Ki-44-IIb

Ki-61-Ib

Ki-61-Id*

Ki-84-Ia*

Ki-100

Ki-46

bombers

Ki-21

Ki-67*

VVS (Military Air Forces)

fighters

I-16 type 24

MiG-3

LaGG-3

La-5 (first production La-5 series, same airframe as LaGG-3 fitted for 1,700 M-82 radial engine)

La-5FN* (ultimate La-5. better 360 visibility, powered by 1,850hp M82FN radial engine)

La-7* (same engine as La-5FN, refined aerodynamics)

Yak-9 standard (no Yak-9D or 9M, just yak-9 standard)

Yak-9T*

Yak-9U*

Yak-3

P-39Q-10

attacker/bomber

Il-2 single seat (first series early versions of Il-2. armed with 2x 7.7mm ShKAS, 2x 20mm ShVAK, 8x RS-82 rockets or different bombs weighting up to 600kg.)

Il-2 Type 3* (can we have NS-37 cannon option for this plane?

)

Pe-2

DB-3F (early war bomber of VVS)

* already in AH

Fruda · « **Reply #1 on:** November 13, 2005, 10:12:29 PM »

I'm all for this list.

Krusty · « **Reply #2 on:** November 13, 2005, 10:18:11 PM »

Well it's one thing to round out the flight list with planes throughout the years of the war, but do we really need an A6M2, an A6M3, and an A6M5? The M2 and M5 are almost identical as it is.

And I don't mean to rain on the parade, it's a good list. I just think we don't need EVERY plane, we can use the A6m2 as a place filler for the M3, or the M5 fo the M3. Whatever better fits.

See what I mean? New types, great! Nearly-identical-types-we-already-have-2-of? So-so.

1K3 · « **Reply #3 on:** November 13, 2005, 11:05:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
Well it's one thing to round out the flight list with planes throughout the years of the war, but do we really need an A6M2, an A6M3, and an A6M5? The M2 and M5 are almost identical as it is.

And I don't mean to rain on the parade, it's a good list. I just think we don't need EVERY plane, we can use the A6m2 as a place filler for the M3, or the M5 fo the M3. Whatever better fits.

See what I mean? New types, great! Nearly-identical-types-we-already-have-2-of? So-so.

but but...

I think HTC will be generous enough to give us a bone... the A6M3. Its basically an A6M2 with a bit more powerful engine, a clipped wing from A6M2, and a belt fed cannon that can haold 200 rounds. the M3 fits well in south pacific and rabaul mid war setups.

SuperDud · « **Reply #4 on:** November 13, 2005, 11:45:00 PM »

1K3, it really is a good list but I gotta agree with krusty on this. Adding the 3 won't really add any variation to the game. There really isn't a big difference between the 2 and 5. Yes ammo of coarse, but how you fly them is identical. A 3 would just be like the 2 IMO, with the 5 being the main zero of choice. As for scenarios, the 2 and 5 can cover the spectrum pretty good with no noticable difference. Other than that though, I think the list would probably be my exact 1 too.

Karnak · « **Reply #5 on:** November 14, 2005, 12:24:49 AM »

Krusty,

You must not fly them much if you think the A6M2 and A6M5 are almost identical. The A6M5 is 30-40mph faster and has much heavier firepower as well as some armor. The A6M3 falls inbetween as far as speed goes, has no armor and, depending on the version, may have Type 99 Model II cannon.

Krusty · « **Reply #6 on:** November 14, 2005, 01:04:09 AM »

The only weapons difference between the 2 and 5 in AH is that the 2 has 2x7mms and the 5 has 1x7mm and 1x50cal. Sure there's a speed difference, but for the most part that's the only difference that matters between the two. They are not my main rides, but I've flown 'em often enough.

justin_g · « **Reply #7 on:** November 14, 2005, 01:58:54 AM »

The A6M5 sports better cannon(higher ROF, MV) with more ammo than the A6M2 also.

Krusty · « **Reply #8 on:** November 14, 2005, 02:00:23 AM »

Good to know.

Karnak · « **Reply #9 on:** November 14, 2005, 02:00:44 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by justin_g
The A6M5 sports better cannon(higher ROF, MV) with more ammo than the A6M2 also.

Vastly better cannon. The A6M2 carries the extremely hard to use Type 99 Model Is whereas the A6M5 carries the same Type 99 Model IIs as the N1K2-J does. Saying the cannons are the same is like saying the cannons on the Bf109G-6 are the same as the old cannons on the Bf109E-4.

Tilt · « **Reply #10 on:** November 14, 2005, 06:43:22 AM »

Yes a nice list............

I would prioritise the 44 stuff that is missing............

I see the point about a Yak9 std but think it should be called something there is no real performance difference between a Yak9M and a Yak9D its really a matter of cockpit location..................I would be happy with a Yak9D.

I would prefer the La5F over the so called La5 which suffered disjointed production in both fuelage shapes (Lagg and Lav) and was quickly replaced with the La5F.

I think the La7 should be split into two models representing the two gun packages............. these were not field mods.

I need to check re the early Il2 armament you give............

Ghosth · « **Reply #11 on:** November 14, 2005, 07:43:39 AM »

Well at first glance I agreend that the A6m3 was probably not really needed.

Then I stopped, thought about spits high we currently have in the main.

Ya know if they can have 7 spits, I guess that asking for 3 A6m's is not asking too much. Granted If something has to go, let it be the A6m3, as long as you give me the rest of the list.

But with thiis last release the Japanese and Russian planesets are REALLY showing the lack.

Magoo · « **Reply #12 on:** November 16, 2005, 10:15:59 AM »

I forget, what was the deal with getting new planes out? Was HTC going to redo all the current stuff to AH2 standards first? I mean new models, not variants on a model like we have been getting (and thank you HTC )

Magoo