Author Topic: No, we need these..  (Read 1339 times)

Offline Kweassa

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6425
No, we need these..
« on: July 25, 2006, 11:26:48 AM »

I-16


Yak-7A


LaGG-3


Yak-1B


La-5


Yak-9D


Yak-3


 ..

 IMO the bare minimum for filling up the gaping hole in the VVS fighter set.

Offline Revor

  • Parolee
  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 91
No, we need these..
« Reply #1 on: July 25, 2006, 01:59:47 PM »
Although we already have a few of those planes that are listed I am all for the need of more soviet planes.

Offline Bronk

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9044
No, we need these..
« Reply #2 on: July 25, 2006, 02:02:02 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Revor
Although we already have a few of those planes that are listed I am all for the need of more soviet planes.



:huh

No we dont. look a little closer .



Bronk
See Rule #4

Offline Furball

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15781
No, we need these..
« Reply #3 on: July 25, 2006, 02:24:45 PM »
no mig-3?
I am not ashamed to confess that I am ignorant of what I do not know.
-Cicero

-- The Blue Knights --

Offline viper215

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1076
      • http://www.bops.us
No, we need these..
« Reply #4 on: July 25, 2006, 04:16:43 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Bronk
:huh

No we dont. look a little closer .



Bronk


LA-5 ring a bell?
- Viper215 - Birds of Prey - Falcon Wing -
               - www.bops.us -

Offline Tilt

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7358
      • FullTilt
No, we need these..
« Reply #5 on: July 25, 2006, 04:46:52 PM »
The picture puporting to be an la5 is actually a picture of an La7..........

we dont have an la5 or and La5F ...........
Ludere Vincere

Offline Sikboy

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6702
No, we need these..
« Reply #6 on: July 25, 2006, 04:53:11 PM »
Though I'm a total Yak-man in game (well, WAS a total Yak-man anyhow) I don't think we'll really need any of the 7 series. I think I'd rather just have a contemporary -1. And, as has been mentioned swapping the 9M for the 9D makes everything easier  for HTC.  

-Sik
You: Blah Blah Blah
Me: Meh, whatever.

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
No, we need these..
« Reply #7 on: July 25, 2006, 05:53:17 PM »
We don't need a Yak1, Yak3, Yak7, and 3-5 types of a Yak9. I'm sorry, despite some differences, they are mostly the same.

I can definitely see an argument for a Yak1 or a 3, but not both. Then I can also see arguments for maybe a different 9, but if we already have 2 -9s already, why do we need the 7? Also why do we need the long-range D?

I agree we need some more soviet planes, but we don't need EVERY soviet plane. Just my logic.

I think the same applies to the LA series. We don't need an LA5, an LA5F, and LA5FN, and an LA7. I'd rather see the LA5FN re-engined to the LA5, or -5F. The FN is too close to the 7 as-is. (*opinion alert!*)

I would like to see an earlier LA, we just don't need every minor update.


Like I said, just my logic.


P.S. Pe2 for AH2!

Offline Iron_Cross

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 431
No, we need these..
« Reply #8 on: July 25, 2006, 06:08:24 PM »
What!? No Pe-2, or Pe-8, mentioned at all.  Shame on you all. :p

After reading up on the Yak-3, IMHO I think it may be lightly perked.  Faster than the Yak-9(witch isn't to far behind the LA-7 already), climb like a lost Angel(climb to 10000m-11 min.), better roll than the FW-190, a sustained turn rate of 21.2 degrees/sec, best performance under 13K.  This thing will give the LA-7 a hard time in the MA, probably knock it out of contention for the top three UberPlanes.

The Yak-3 has excelent handeling characteristics, and was given to novice pilots who reported that it was very easy to fly.

I WANT IT Give it, give it, give it!!!!!  :D

Offline Bronk

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9044
No, we need these..
« Reply #9 on: July 25, 2006, 06:16:36 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by viper215
LA-5 ring a bell?



Big difference between La-5 and La5fn.  So yea we have none of the planes asked for.



Bronk
See Rule #4

Offline Debonair

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3488
No, we need these..
« Reply #10 on: July 25, 2006, 07:31:47 PM »
Yak-1b will bring teh hot babes to AH:) :) :) :) :cool: :cool: :t :t

Offline Tails

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 604
No, we need these..
« Reply #11 on: July 26, 2006, 12:41:09 AM »
All those single engine fighters, and no MiG? I'm insulted!
BBTT KTLI KDRU HGQK GDKA SODA HMQP ACES KQTP TLZF LKHQ JAWS SMZJ IDDS RLLS CHAV JEUS BDLI WFJH WQZQ FTXM WUTL KH

(Yup, foxy got an Enigma to play with)

Offline mipoikel

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3521
      • http://www.llv32.org
No, we need these..
« Reply #12 on: July 26, 2006, 04:27:55 AM »
I-16 and I-15 pls.
I am a spy!

Offline frank3

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9352
No, we need these..
« Reply #13 on: July 26, 2006, 04:31:49 AM »
One of those things is actually called a 'Lag'??

I wouldn't fly that!

Offline FrodeMk3

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2481
No, we need these..
« Reply #14 on: July 26, 2006, 04:56:37 AM »
...Hmmmm, the ruski contingent already has some pretty good ACM aircraft, But apart from the IL-2, NO real ground attack birds. I mean, all of the previously mentioned(Lagg-3, Yak 1, I-16, etc.) are great from the prospect, that they would'nt own the MA like a horde of LA-7's would.

     Actually, If it is alot of time and effort to model a new plane, It would probably be wise to add a light bomber like a Pe-2, or IL-4, or Tu-2. I would guess that these would be the only Red airforce planes alotted for awhile, before the team would have to go back to more USAAF, RAF, or japanese planes(P-39, though, would just need a skin change to a red star, to fly in the VVS.)

     So, depending on how many that HTC is willing to add, aim for what you need most, So that you might get one.;)