Author Topic: Add BF109T Carrier model? (Read 3031 times)

Nilsen · « **Reply #30 on:** March 22, 2007, 06:27:35 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
A6M3 Zero
B6N2 "Jill"
D4Y2 "Judy"
F6F-3 Hellcat
Firefly Mk I
Fulmar Mk I
SBD2C Helldiver
Seafire Mk III
Skua Mk I
Swordfish Mk I
TBD Devastator

Iffy:
B7A2 "Grace"

Very good list. The Firefly and Helldiver are "needed" for sure

Kev367th · « **Reply #31 on:** March 22, 2007, 08:10:42 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by DocRoe
alright... but does anyone know any planes to add to carriers?

Clipped Seafire L III with a Merlin 55M.

Ghosth · « **Reply #32 on:** March 22, 2007, 08:13:41 AM »

Excellent List, HT, Pryo make it so please.

Or we will spawn endless threads about B-25's, B-29's Nooks, you name it.
We CAN make your life hell. Or you can give us a bone, a couple of bones. Small ones.

Choice is yours.

Whisky58 · « **Reply #33 on:** March 22, 2007, 08:30:38 AM »

DocRoe - nothing to stop you landing any of the 109s on a carrier in the game. At least then you will get a feel for half the experience of something that never happened.
Why do you want a cv based 109? We've got plenty of capable planes already - I don't see it filling a gap. I'd have to vote no on this one.
Regards.

Viking · « **Reply #34 on:** March 22, 2007, 11:35:51 AM »

Why would anyone wote "no" on having more content added to the game?

Karnak · « **Reply #35 on:** March 22, 2007, 11:59:53 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
Why would anyone wote "no" on having more content added to the game?

For the same reason we'd vote no for an F-15 or X-Wing Fighter. They aren't part of WWII. Remember, the F-15 or X-Wing would be "more content".

Whisky58 · « **Reply #36 on:** March 22, 2007, 12:05:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
Why would anyone wote "no" on having more content added to the game?

Well if we assume HTC have limited resources ie our subscriptions, then I think if more carrier based planes were to be introduced there are better candidates than a plane that was never used as a carrier based plane - see above lists.
If HTC have more money & time than they know what to do with then fine let's have every plane that ever flew in WW2.
I would vote "no" cos I'd rather see my money spent on something else.
Just my humble opinion.

Viking · « **Reply #37 on:** March 22, 2007, 12:47:41 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
For the same reason we'd vote no for an F-15 or X-Wing Fighter. They aren't part of WWII. Remember, the F-15 or X-Wing would be "more content".

F-15 or X-Wing weren’t part of WWII as you say, but the 109T was. Your comparison is silly.

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
A carrier enabled 109T would be great for what-if scenarios and campaigns. The plane existed and was flown operationally. How many were made is irrelevant. That the carrier was never finished is irrelevant. This is a game.

Quote

Originally posted by Whisky58
Well if we assume HTC have limited resources ie our subscriptions, then I think if more carrier based planes were to be introduced there are better candidates than a plane that was never used as a carrier based plane - see above lists.
If HTC have more money & time than they know what to do with then fine let's have every plane that ever flew in WW2.
I would vote "no" cos I'd rather see my money spent on something else.
Just my humble opinion.

I agree that there are other planes and vehicle that should be added first, but that doesn’t mean the 109T shouldn’t be on the list. There is a finite number of planes used in WWII.

Whisky58 · « **Reply #38 on:** March 22, 2007, 12:54:25 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking

I agree that there are other planes and vehicle that should be added first, but that doesn’t mean the 109T shouldn’t be on the list. There is a finite number of planes used in WWII.

Just out of interest Viking, where would you rank the 109T as a priority in Karnak's list of cv planes we don't have?

Viking · « **Reply #39 on:** March 22, 2007, 01:01:33 PM »

Near the bottom somwhere.

Karnak · « **Reply #40 on:** March 22, 2007, 01:12:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
Near the bottom somwhere.

Bf109T wasn't part of WWII either. It only saw service as a Bf109E-7. All the naval gear was taken out.

Angus · « **Reply #41 on:** March 22, 2007, 01:21:25 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kev367th
Clipped Seafire L III with a Merlin 55M.

That would be nasty

Bronk · « **Reply #42 on:** March 22, 2007, 01:27:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Whisky58
Just out of interest Viking, where would you rank the 109T as a priority in Karnak's list of cv planes we don't have?

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
Near the bottom somwhere.

How about the very bottom, as it never flew off a CV.

Bronk

DocRoe · « **Reply #43 on:** March 22, 2007, 01:55:17 PM »

well dude why would you want the f4f? for the same reason i want the 109T DUH!! lol

to fly it and if we cant have it how about the Buffalo? or ANY of the others although i would prefer some British carrier planes, w/e is cool

is there not a sea modified hurricane?

Viking · « **Reply #44 on:** March 22, 2007, 02:10:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
Bf109T wasn't part of WWII either. It only saw service as a Bf109E-7. All the naval gear was taken out.

No they served as 109T-2, and they retained the longer wings and the strengthened landing gear. The hook, catapult gear and some instrumentation were removed.

If Pyro et al insists on historical combat configuration by removing the hook and catapult gear a 109T-2 will still be welcome for scenarios. I find it silly that you people “refuse” to add this plane since I have flown 109F’s and 109G’s off carriers in campaigns. ALL the planes Karnak listed will be hangar queens; ALL the important MA planes have already been modeled. The only … ONLY … purpose these planes will have in the game is in historical and dynamic scenarios and campaigns, and in dynamic campaigns a German carrier has popped up several times.