Author Topic: planes we need  (Read 1817 times)

Offline titanic3

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4235
planes we need
« on: February 14, 2007, 08:38:58 AM »
i think these are the planes and gv that we need in AH

B-25
He-111
Pe-8
H8K Emily
Ju-90 trasnport
IAR-80/81
He-115
Gloster Meteor
Halifax
Fw-200 Condor
A-26 Invader
Do-217
Do-335
Me-410
Catalina Flying Boat
Bristol Beaufighter
P-36 Kingcobra
Short Stirling
Ar-196

   That's about it, i would like at least 2 of those planes

  the game is concentrated on combat, not on shaking the screen.

semp

Offline Spikes

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15853
    • Twitch: Twitch Feed
Re: planes we need
« Reply #1 on: February 14, 2007, 03:02:41 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by titanic3
i think these are the planes and gv that we need in AH

B-25
He-111
Pe-8
H8K Emily
Ju-90 trasnport
IAR-80/81
He-115
Gloster Meteor
Halifax
Fw-200 Condor
A-26 Invader
Do-217
Do-335
Me-410
Catalina Flying Boat
Bristol Beaufighter
P-36 Kingcobra
Short Stirling
Ar-196

   That's about it, i would like at least 2 of those planes


you forgot Yak
i7-12700k | Gigabyte Z690 GAMING X | 64GB G.Skill DDR4 | EVGA 1080ti FTW3 | H150i Capellix

FlyKommando.com

Offline Debonair

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3488
planes we need
« Reply #2 on: February 14, 2007, 03:16:38 PM »
i can get you two of those planes for about $600,000

Offline Benny Moore

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1439
Re: planes we need
« Reply #3 on: February 14, 2007, 05:20:30 PM »
Of that list, only a few were both significantly used and commonly known.  The B-25 and He-111 are the only ones which we "need," as those two ships made a significant contribution (in the case of the He-111, in the bombing of London).

The P-63 was not nearly as significant as the P-39, and the Do-217 was not nearly as significant as the Do-17.  The P-39 and Do-17 would be much more appropriate than the P-63 and Do-217.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2007, 05:25:43 PM by Benny Moore »

Offline Tails

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 604
Re: Re: planes we need
« Reply #4 on: February 14, 2007, 09:37:10 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Benny Moore
Of that list, only a few were both significantly used and commonly known.  The B-25 and He-111 are the only ones which we "need," as those two ships made a significant contribution (in the case of the He-111, in the bombing of London).

The P-63 was not nearly as significant as the P-39, and the Do-217 was not nearly as significant as the Do-17.  The P-39 and Do-17 would be much more appropriate than the P-63 and Do-217.


However, if the P-39 and Do-17 are added, the P-63 and Do-217 could be added as varients. Best of both worlds!

Also, you forgot the P-61B :D
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 Benny Moore

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1439
planes we need
« Reply #5 on: February 15, 2007, 07:37:42 AM »
The P-63 and Do-217 are rather different airplanes which would require a lot of extra effort to model.  The P-61 would be very, very nice (as it is one of my favorite airplanes, taking after my lady with its twin booms), but it really didn't have a significant impact on the air war.  In fact, its most important contribution was probably using its radar to locate damaged B-29s and help them home.

So, personal favorites aside, the only ones we "need," historically, are the P-39, the He-111, and the Do-17.

Offline Odee

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2718
      • 49th Fighter Group
planes we need
« Reply #6 on: February 15, 2007, 08:10:07 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Benny Moore
The P-63 and Do-217 are rather different airplanes which would require a lot of extra effort to model.  The P-61 would be very, very nice (as it is one of my favorite airplanes, taking after my lady with its twin booms), but it really didn't have a significant impact on the air war.  In fact, its most important contribution was probably using its radar to locate damaged B-29s and help them home.

So, personal favorites aside, the only ones we "need," historically, are the P-39, the He-111, and the Do-17.


You forget the historical significance of the A-26 :aok   Best low to medium altitude attack bomber ever made!  Fought in WW2, Korea, Vietnam, and a few others.  Recently retired from the Smoke Eaters forest fire bombers.

B-25 we need for Doolittle raids, and as American counter part for those that can't seem to fly the Mossie.  Besides, I'm kind of fond of her too.

PB-Y Catalina! :aok  I mean seriously now folks, how many float planes we have in the game so far?

P-61, just because nobody has yet to model it, despite the fact it only really fought for 8 months of WW2 and then throughout Korea.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2007, 09:47:17 AM by Odee »
~Nobodee~   Get Poached!
Elite: Dangerous ~ Cmd Odeed

http://www.luxlibertas.com/

Offline Benny Moore

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1439
planes we need
« Reply #7 on: February 15, 2007, 11:04:12 AM »
Again, I love the P-61, but I think it only made twelve kills in World War Two.  But you're right, no aerial combat simulator has ever had the Black Widow, as far as I know.  And we already have the A-20 Havok, so the A-26 is not "necessary."  Like the P-63 to the P-39, it is just a later variant that was less significant.

You need to prioritize.  Aircraft should be included based primarily on their historical significance and usage.  As such, if I was creating a list of fighters to model in a an aerial combat simulator, in order of importance, it would look something like this: Me-109, P-47, Spitfire, P-38, P-40, F6F, P-51, FW-190, Hurricane, F4U, P-39, et cetera.  Obviously there's quite a bit of room for debate about the exact order of such things (some claim that the P-51 "won the war," while I say that the P-47 and P-38 had things covered well enough), but what is certain is that ships like the P-61 and P-63 are near the bottom of the list.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2007, 11:12:56 AM by Benny Moore »

Offline Bronk

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9044
planes we need
« Reply #8 on: February 15, 2007, 11:21:37 AM »
Just a comment on AC importance.

Just think if the US had no P-39 , P-40, and F4f  at the entry of the war.

How wost off would bipes be against the zero and the like?


Bronk
See Rule #4

Offline Benny Moore

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1439
planes we need
« Reply #9 on: February 15, 2007, 11:48:56 AM »
Good point!  The situation would have been hilariously reversed, with the Japs telling their pilots, "No, no!  Do not turning with the roundeye biplanes.  You is must shooting once and then to right blow pass them."

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
planes we need
« Reply #10 on: February 15, 2007, 12:41:03 PM »
We need:

G4M2 (fills gap in early war Japanese set)
Wellington Mk III (usable early war bomber that the Luftwaffe can actually catch)
B-25C (early war bomber the Japanese can actually catch)
P-39 (very widely used fighter)
Ki-43-II-Otsu (very widely used Japanese fighter, heck, even the French used it post war)
Ju188A-2/Do217/He177A-5 (fills mid/late war bomber hole for the Luftwaffe)
B6N2 (fills mid-late war CV torpedo plane gap for the Japanese)
D4Y (fills mid-late war CV dive bomber gap for the Japanese)

Those are the most critical holes that I can see.  There are other, smaller ones, but those are the big ones.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline tedrbr

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1813
planes we need
« Reply #11 on: February 15, 2007, 02:52:03 PM »
I love these long lists we get..... we've seen 1 jeep, the F4U-1A, and a makeover of the B-17 in the past 2 years.  How many additions and make overs do you expect over the next 2 years?  We'd like to see every plane used added to the plane set, but we are not going to see that.  And it has been stated that one future priority is the makeover of existing planes (like what was done with 1A and B-17), rather than new additions.

Think carefully; if we are only going to possibly see a very few planes possibly added in the foreseeable future, what should they be?  What roles should they fill?

* First of all, both the bomber pilots and GV drivers could each use an additional perk ride added to spend perk points on.

* Lots of Early War suggestions often are made.  
Maybe good for some early war senerios, but really, neither the SEA events, nor either the Early War or Late Ware Arenas, get anywhere the draw that the 2 LW arenas do.   So, is directing limited development time to a Spanish Civil War or Early War era plane which won't see use in LW a very good use of this limited resource?   If we were going to see an effort from HTC to add to the plane set a number of planes, then sure, some EW planes would be great.  But if we might only see 1 to 3 planes added over the next 2 or 3 years?  


A few comments on those mentioned:

Quote
B-25 we need for Doolittle raids

Which is why you won't see it.  People will want CV-launched ones, no matter those planes were running chopped with light loads.  Nothing a standard B-25 can do that B-26 or B17 can't do in game now.

Quote
Catalina Flying Boat

Nothing more than a Hangar Queen.  After a few fun little trips, you would not see them again.  We don't do S&R missions.  No Maritime Patrols.  No subs to depth charge.  Go load up a Catalina in FS 9 or X.

Quote
Fw-200 Condor

A dedicated long range Maritine Patrol Plane?  No formations the way they operated.  4,600 bomb load.  Henschel Hs 293 anti-ship guided missiles are not going to be modeled.  Anti-shipping operations not a big deal in-game.... a few drone barge convoys is all.  Doubt they will model the airborne radar.  Very limited nitch use and ultimately a Hangar Queen.  Any heavy bomber formation can do the job this could in arenas.

Quote
He-111

Nice Spanish War edition.  Obsolete by Battle of Britain.  Might see some use in EW, and some senerios... but EW does not see very many pilots, and is not taking off as a war arena.  Ultimately, another Hangar Queen except some limited use.

Quote
P-61 Black Widow

We don't have night time in the arenas.  This was a night fighter and bomber interceptor.  Made use of radar to make attacks - model airborne radar in-game?  Doubt it.  Nothing in game presently supports the operational environment this thing operated in.  Hangar Queen.

Quote
Ju188A-2/Do217/He177A-5 (fills mid/late war bomber hole for the Luftwaffe)

* Guided missiles Henschel Hs 293 or Fritz X will prevent addition of He-177 like  nook will prevent the B-29.  
* Ju188A2 would be LW only, minor improvement of Ju88.  A high altitude fast heavy bomber with poor defensive armaments.   Late Ju-188's were very high altitude high speed bombers..... which is yet another reason given as to why the B-29 will not be added to the game.
* Do217 Fritz X missiles might axe this idea.  Heavier load and faster than Ju-88.  
Ultimately though, buff pilots need a perk ride other than the Ar-234, and none of these really rate, except maybe the He-177 with guided munitions.... which we are not going to see..... rate perk points.


Of note:

D4Y (fills mid-late war CV dive bomber gap for the Japanese)
And it gives the CV force a decent dive bomber.  Faster than other CV attack planes offered now.  Could carry half the load of a TBM.

P-36 Airacobra or P63 Kingcobra -  This could be added, but I'd give it Russian skin and put in Russian plane set.  They got more use out of them both, and second highest Allied Ace was Russian flying the P-36 (and possibly P-63).  A decent EW addition that could see LW use.


The two I push for the most:

A-26 Invader  One of the few WWII perk-worthy bombers that could be added for buff pilots to spend perk on (especially since we aren't going to see the B-29 or He-177).  Both the glass-nosed C-model penetration bomber and pathfinder and solid nose B model attack bomber could be done.  B-model also has option for a 75mm nose cannon, manually loaded, with 20 rounds held in racks.  14 forward firing .50's another option for B-model.  6K bombload, rockets, even 2 torpedos as load out options.

Much more than just another A-20 Havoc.  50% more power, 50% more ord and more ord options. Ultimate strafer.  Ultimate penetration bomber.  And buff pilots need something other than the Ar234.  And for the investment of development time, you get TWO perk worthy bombers.... a cheaper C-model, and a more expensive B-model.


And the one not seen here yet.

German 88mm Flak36  Early War, but useful through LW.   Manned puffy ack for field defense and force buffs off deck, and able to defend against high buffs.   Manned indirect artillery.   Long range direct fire weapon vs GV's.   Even against TGs that roll up on the shore line.   Strong offense, multi-use, weak defense, poor maneuverability and fire only from stopped (deployed) position.  Lightly perked to prevent overuse.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2007, 03:18:56 PM by tedrbr »

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
planes we need
« Reply #12 on: February 15, 2007, 02:59:44 PM »
The Ju188A-2 is much faster (about 80mph) than the Ju88 and has MUCH better defensive firepower, 20mm and 13mm guns instead of 7.92mm guns and the 20mm is in a full turret.

It also had a heavier bomb load.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline tedrbr

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1813
planes we need
« Reply #13 on: February 15, 2007, 03:13:54 PM »
The turret had one of the two 13mm, not the 20mm which was in the nose.  The placement of the weapons still left lower flanks and sides undefended.

Junkers Ju 188
Origin: Junkers Flugzeug und Motorenwerke AG
Models: Ju 188A, D, E
Crew: Five
Final Delivery: 1945-46
Number Produced: 1,130
Model: Junkers Jumo 213A
Type: 12-Cylinder inverted liquid cooled vee
Number: Two    Horsepower: 1,776 hp

Loaded:
   Ju 188A & D: 33,730 lb. (15,300 kg)
Maximum Speed:
   Ju 188A: 325 mph at 20,500 ft. (6250m)
Service Ceiling:
   Ju 188A: 33,000 ft. (10,060m)
Range with 3,300 lb. (1500kg) bomb load:
    Ju 188A & E: 1,360 miles (2160 km)
Armament: Typical.
   1x 20mm MG 151/20 cannon in nose. (not in the top turret)
   One 13mm MG 131 machine gun in dorsal turret.
   One 13mm MG 131 machine gun manually aimed from rear dorsal position.
   One 13mm MG 131 machine gun or twin 7.92mm MG 81 machine gun manually aimed from rear ventral position.

Payload: Typical.
6,614 lb. (3000kg) of bombs internally or two 2,200 lb. (1000kg) torpedos under inner wings.

Quote
"The Ju-188" from Tactical and Technical Trends

A report on the Luftwaffe Ju-188 twin-engine bomber, from Tactical and Technical Trends, No. 39, December 2, 1943.

[DISCLAIMER: The following text is taken from the U.S. War Department publication Tactical and Technical Trends. As with all wartime intelligence information, data may be incomplete or inaccurate. No attempt has been made to update or correct the text. Any views or opinions expressed do not necessarily represent those of the website.]
   
THE JU-188

A specimen of the Ju-188, twin-engine bomber, which is currently being encountered in small numbers over England, has been examined, and a number of probable differences from its predecessor, the Ju-88, are described below.

The nose appears to have been re-designed to accomodate the increased armament and provide better pilot vision, showing a smoothly curving line in place of the usual angular faceted nose and stepped-up windshield.

The wing span is believed to be approximately 72 feet 6 inches and the wing tips nearly pointed, although those of the stabilizer and elevators are square. The fin and rudder are higher and wider than the Ju-88 and square in appearance, resembling somewhat the Ju-87. A large trimming tab is a noticeable feature of the rudder. Some modification of the top line of the fuselage is effected by a power-operated gun turret which is incorporated in the cockpit, similar to the installation in the Do-217. The landing gear is of the standard oleo-pneumatic retractable type and the tail wheel is also fully retractable. The leading edge of the wings were fitted with balloon cable cutters.

The aircraft is powered by two BMW 801 G-2 14-cylinder aircooled radial engines, fully rated and fitted with three-bladed metal propellers. The fuel tank installation is the same as in the Ju-88 with a normal capacity of 146 U.S. gallons in the wing tanks. Possible additional capacity of 325 gallons in the forward bomb compartment and 181 in the rear bomb compartment gives a maximum supply of 952 gallons. The fuel of any individual tank may be jettisoned through the operation of a selector switch on the instrument panel. Performance estimates, which are approximately 15 per cent higher than corresponding figures for the Ju-88 equipped with Jumo 211 J engines, include maximum emergency speeds of 285 mph at sea level and 325 mph at 20,000 feet. Ranges, with 771 gallons of fuel are 800 miles at cruising speed of 254 mph and 1,200 miles with a weak mixture economical cruising speed of 232 mph. Service ceiling is estimated to be between 33,000 and 34,000 feet.

The armament is considerably more powerful than that of the Ju-88. There are two 13-mm MG 131s, one in a dorsal power-rotated turret with a perspex dome, similar to that installed in the Do-217, and the other in a manually-operated ring fitted with a bullet-proof glass shield in the dorsal rear of the cockpit. One 20-mm MG 151, with limited movement, is mounted in the nose and twin 7.9-mm MG 81s are installed in the ventral position, firing aft.

As the forward bomb compartment was apparently fitted with a long-range tank, the bomb load probably consisted of ten 110-pound bombs carried in the rear bomb compartment and two 2,200-pound and two 1,100-pound bombs in four carriers, two fitted externally under each wing. The bomb doors are operated by an electric motor, a new feature in German aircraft.

The armor found consisted of plate protection for the back, shoulders, and head of the pilot, a bullet-proof windshield for the radio operator, another plate behind the radio set, and a curved plate on the floor.

The presence of A.S.V. (air-to-surface vessel apparatus) may indicate the use of the aircraft for antishipping operations.

The Ju-188 has participated in the recent hit-and-run raids over England and may be encountered by convoys in the near future.  



Slightly larger bomb load than B-17.  Higher speeds.  Shorter legs.  Possibly higher ceiling.  A few heavier weapons than B-17, but poorer coverage areas and fewer overall weapons and firepower.  All in all, if we are only going to maybe see a very few additions to the plane set in AHII..... the Ju-188 is not one of the planes I'd argue for.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2007, 03:17:20 PM by tedrbr »

Offline zorstorer

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 950
planes we need
« Reply #14 on: February 15, 2007, 03:15:21 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by tedrbr
...Lots and lots of stuff here...


Remember one thing...new planes are not about what is needed or will be used in the MA's.  Play some scenarios and you will see the need for the planes you like to call hanger queens.  The He111 and Do17 come to mind for the very popular BoB scenario.  No fun trying to chase down the hotrod of the sky (Ju88) with a Hurri Mk1 ;)

Oh well we will get what HT gives us and most will be happy just to get something and others will still biatch about it.