« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8   Go Down

Author Topic: Add BF109T Carrier model?  (Read 2916 times)

Offline Bronk

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9044
Add BF109T Carrier model?
« Reply #45 on: March 22, 2007, 02:27:37 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Viking
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.


BS

B-29
P-39
Early KIs
B25
Betty
410
111
ect ect ect

All these had a much more significance compared to the 109T.
That never flew of a CV.

Bronk
Logged
See Rule #4

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Add BF109T Carrier model?
« Reply #46 on: March 22, 2007, 02:38:15 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Viking
the planes Karnak listed will be hangar queens; ALL the important MA planes have already been modeled.

Try looking up the stats on them before spouting uninformed BS.

Particularly look at the:

B6N2
B7A2 (monster plane compared to any other Japanese or American CV strike aircraft)
D4Y2
Firefly Mk I (quad Hispanos)
SBD2C
Seafire Mk III
Logged
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline DocRoe

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 80
Add BF109T Carrier model?
« Reply #47 on: March 22, 2007, 03:18:55 PM »
hey hey no nee dot be mean all lol


Yes i personally agree with adding the T, BUT will only add it if it has a different performance than the E

does it?

Also the Buffalo and Firefly i STRONGLY feel we should add also the TBD
Logged

Offline Sikboy

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6702
Add BF109T Carrier model?
« Reply #48 on: March 22, 2007, 03:19:19 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by DocRoe
alright... but does anyone know any planes to add to carriers?


Judy, Judy, Judy.

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

Offline Sikboy

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6702
Add BF109T Carrier model?
« Reply #49 on: March 22, 2007, 03:22:51 PM »
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.


When it came to our last full blown "what if" event (CAP), we found that all of the early 109s had favorable handling for CV operations. Granted we didn't have hooks, but the 109e and 109f subbed nicely. And the Stuka was a riot! lol.

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

Offline Viking

  • Personal Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2867
Add BF109T Carrier model?
« Reply #50 on: March 22, 2007, 07:52:51 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Karnak
Try looking up the stats on them before spouting uninformed BS.

Particularly look at the:

B6N2
B7A2 (monster plane compared to any other Japanese or American CV strike aircraft)
D4Y2
Firefly Mk I (quad Hispanos)
SBD2C
Seafire Mk III


Mr. "109T-2 = 109E-7" don't talk to me about spouting BS.

Granted the Judy or Devastator might see a little use if they can haul a lot of ord, but that's the extent of it. While the Firefly does have four cannons it is heavy and can barely manage 300 mph top speed. In reality they will see just as little use in the MA as 90% (or more) of the current plane set.
Logged

Offline Viking

  • Personal Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2867
Add BF109T Carrier model?
« Reply #51 on: March 22, 2007, 08:03:01 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Bronk
BS

B-29
P-39
Early KIs
B25
Betty
410
111
ect ect ect

All these had a much more significance compared to the 109T.
That never flew of a CV.

Bronk



More significance in real life WWII? Yes. More significance in the MA? No … with the possible exception of the B-29 if it’s not perked.

And the 109T did fly off a CV, just not operationally. Operationally it flew off short landing strips on the tiny island of Helgoland and in Norway … where it served until 1944.

Logged

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Add BF109T Carrier model?
« Reply #52 on: March 22, 2007, 08:44:37 PM »
Functionally it was a Bf109E-7 as it saw its extremely limited service.  Yes, there are slight differences, but not very many and it certainly wouldn't be competitive.  It would, in short, see less use than almost my entire list, barring the TBD Devastator, Fulmar Mk I and Swordfish.

The Firefly would be a quad Hispano aircraft off a CV.  That alone would get it use.  And 316mph isn't bad for a strike aircraft.

Look at the B7A2.  The thing is sick for a CV attack plane.

And don't even pretend the Seafire L.Mk III wouldn't see gobs of use.

The D4Y2 is a CV dive bomber that can break 300mph.

The SB2C doesn't handle well, but it carries a lot of ord for a CV strike craft and has two Hispanos in the wings.
Logged
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Wmaker

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5743
      • Lentolaivue 34 website
Add BF109T Carrier model?
« Reply #53 on: March 22, 2007, 09:12:34 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Karnak
Functionally it was a Bf109E-7


Closer to 190E-7/Z because it had GM-1. Longer wings and GM-1...it would perform best at very high altitudes.

Not a reason to get it added for a long long time, though.
Logged
Wmaker
Lentolaivue 34

Thank you for the Brewster HTC!

Offline Benny Moore

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1439
Add BF109T Carrier model?
« Reply #54 on: March 23, 2007, 06:17:18 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Viking
More significance in real life WWII? Yes. More significance in the MA? No … with the possible exception of the B-29 if it’s not perked.


... As if more people would fly the Me-109T than the P-39.
Logged

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Add BF109T Carrier model?
« Reply #55 on: March 23, 2007, 07:05:33 AM »
Agreement upon every bit that Karnak posted :aok
+ Sea Hurricane with quad Hispanos.

(BTW, I remember people posting against the Hurricane being added to AH (1) on the grounds that it would be a hangar queen)
Logged
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Viking

  • Personal Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2867
Add BF109T Carrier model?
« Reply #56 on: March 23, 2007, 10:06:16 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Benny Moore
... As if more people would fly the Me-109T than the P-39.


From carriers - I'm quite sure.
Logged

Offline Viking

  • Personal Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2867
Add BF109T Carrier model?
« Reply #57 on: March 23, 2007, 10:06:48 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Angus
(BTW, I remember people posting against the Hurricane being added to AH (1) on the grounds that it would be a hangar queen)


How ironic.
Logged

Offline Bronk

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9044
Add BF109T Carrier model?
« Reply #58 on: March 23, 2007, 10:29:09 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Viking
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.


Quote
Originally posted by Benny Moore
... As if more people would fly the Me-109T than the P-39.


Quote
Originally posted by Viking
From carriers - I'm quite sure.



No longer a CV aircraft so your point is irrelevant.


Bronk
Logged
See Rule #4

Offline Viking

  • Personal Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2867
Add BF109T Carrier model?
« Reply #59 on: March 23, 2007, 10:35:35 AM »
We have to agree to disagree yet again.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8   Go Up
« previous next »