Author Topic: Question to HTC (Read 1399 times)

JAWS2003 · « **on:** November 22, 2005, 11:19:41 PM »

IF P-51 B got the Malcolm Hood, why didn't BF 109 G6 get the Erla Haube?

Erla Haube ( Galland Hood) BF-109 G6

Karnak · « **Reply #1 on:** November 22, 2005, 11:32:06 PM »

Because it is supposed to represent an early Bf109G-6 from early/mid 1943. That is also why it lacks the 30mm cannon option.

The Bf109G-14 and Bf109K-4 both have the Erla Haube though, so you get that. Also the Bf109G-6 does have a halfway step between the standard 109 pilot armor and the Erla Haube.

JAWS2003 · « **Reply #2 on:** November 22, 2005, 11:37:36 PM »

Then why is P-51B representing 1944 when there is P-51D in the game?

Karnak · « **Reply #3 on:** November 23, 2005, 12:51:35 AM »

Good question.

1K3 · « **Reply #4 on:** November 23, 2005, 12:54:15 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by JAWS2003
Then why is P-51B representing 1944 when there is P-51D in the game?

hmmmm

backed by popular demand i guess?

A alot of people requested for that feature.

JAWS2003 · « **Reply #5 on:** November 23, 2005, 01:15:14 AM »

What does popular demand have to do with history? Are we modeling here history where we agree with it and popular demand when we don't?

Guppy35 · « **Reply #6 on:** November 23, 2005, 01:16:49 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by JAWS2003
Then why is P-51B representing 1944 when there is P-51D in the game?

Cause the 51B is a 44-45 bird. It flew alongside the D. And the Malcom hoods were showing up on them as early as March of 44.

Photo from the 359th FG in the late Fall of 44, after the November change to the more swept back nose markings.

Note two B/Cs along with the D models. One with a Malcom and one regular.

Last kill of the war in the ETO was by a Malcom hooded F6C Mustang and that was May 45. They were there to the end.

JAWS2003 · « **Reply #7 on:** November 23, 2005, 01:27:33 AM »

I know Malcolm Hood was used but was only used in ETO, and is not the most produced version. This was a modification because of the bad visibility. Field modification at the begining. Just like Erla Haube for the G6.

Guppy35 · « **Reply #8 on:** November 23, 2005, 01:34:25 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by JAWS2003
I know Malcolm Hood was used but was only used in ETO, and is not the most produced version. This was a modification because of the bad visibility. Field modification at the begining. Just like Erla Haube for the G6.

And the 1943 G6 apparently didn't use the Erla Haube, that came later. IUt's kind of like the Spit V guys wanting to have the better version from 43. But the one we got is from 41 so we deal with it.

I was flying the G6 tonite just to see how the 109s felt and really enjoyed it. I didn't notice that the visibilty was a problem. It sure seemed as good as the 38G I usually fly.

Why is the Malcom bugging you anyway? Since ToD seems to be the primary reason for the work on 51s, 190s and 109s, and that has an ETO bias which would include the Malcom hood and allow the skinners to expand their efforts to those birds and it fits for the RAF Mustang IIIs that were operating from England since they all had the Malcom.

JAWS2003 · « **Reply #9 on:** November 23, 2005, 01:40:58 AM »

Then they should call it Mustang III and make another one with the cage canoppy as P-51B. If they want to be historical acurate.....and fair.

1K3 · « **Reply #10 on:** November 23, 2005, 01:44:34 AM »

by the way did majority of Mustang IIIs and IVs used 150 octane fuel to achieve approx 390mph speed on deck?

Guppy35 · « **Reply #11 on:** November 23, 2005, 10:07:20 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by JAWS2003
Then they should call it Mustang III and make another one with the cage canoppy as P-51B. If they want to be historical acurate.....and fair.

Sounds like a great idea. Certainly I would have like that for the skinners in particular, but no complaints that we've just got one.

Sometimes we don't get all the potential options.

OOZ662 · « **Reply #12 on:** November 25, 2005, 05:08:48 AM »

1. You ever seen how long it takes to make a new plane for AH? Go make one and get back to us on it.
2. This game is NOT what you think of as "historical." It's a balance (maybe not all that even) of fun vs historical. The three gun version of the LA7 was almost never seen, but it's in the game. B24s didn't drop a full salvo of bombs from 2,000 ft onto a T34 sitting on a spawn point either.
3. There is a scheme behind all of this. ToD is going to come eventually, and the corect planes need to be there. Remember; the Germans were there the whole war making planes like madmen, the US showed up in the middle and only made a couple airframes in comparison.

JAWS2003 · « **Reply #13 on:** November 25, 2005, 10:32:33 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by OOZ662
1. You ever seen how long it takes to make a new plane for AH? Go make one and get back to us on it.
2. This game is NOT what you think of as "historical." It's a balance (maybe not all that even) of fun vs historical. The three gun version of the LA7 was almost never seen, but it's in the game. B24s didn't drop a full salvo of bombs from 2,000 ft onto a T34 sitting on a spawn point either.
3. There is a scheme behind all of this. ToD is going to come eventually, and the corect planes need to be there. Remember; the Germans were there the whole war making planes like madmen, the US showed up in the middle and only made a couple airframes in comparison.

If is so hard to make one why didn't make the right one in the first place? The one they made is not the main version. The main version of P51B had a BAD VISIBILITY all around. That version should have been made. The way it is now it has an advantage over it's historical enemies that the majority of it's pilots DID NOT HAVE! Sorry to say it, but his does not look like balance to me, it looks more like bias.

moot · « **Reply #14 on:** November 25, 2005, 11:36:40 AM »

Prove your case to htc or play another game?