So how is our P-39 coming?

[Denholm]

^ Doesn't know. ^

[MajIssue]

Originally posted by Bronk

Great screenshot Bronk (if were only true) The 2 week thing is a hoot!

Wife: Not tonite honey... tomorrow

[Relorian]

I hope to god that if the B-29 is added its only to the high alt interception form of the game and NOT the main areanas.


However feel free to add the buffalo, peashooter, p39 and He-111 to the MA's so we have something new

[Rich46yo]

Originally posted by Relorian
I hope to god that if the B-29 is added its only to the high alt interception form of the game and NOT the main areanas.


However feel free to add the buffalo, peashooter, p39 and He-111 to the MA's so we have something new

                        And add to the list of MA available aircraft that nobody flies?

[Relorian]

Early War arena my friend, midwar too.

And Id fly it in the MA just like i do the A6M, P40, P-51b, F4U-1...

Frankly ANYTHING and everything would be better than adding the b-29 into the areans. Im already tired of hearing noobs chant "We want a nuke". Plus there are alot of other more signifigant aircraft from ww2 that need to go in BEFORE the b-29 is even thought of to go in.

[Rich46yo]

Originally posted by Relorian
Early War arena my friend, midwar too.

And Id fly it in the MA just like i do the A6M, P40, P-51b, F4U-1...

Frankly ANYTHING and everything would be better than adding the b-29 into the areans. Im already tired of hearing noobs chant "We want a nuke". Plus there are alot of other more signifigant aircraft from ww2 that need to go in BEFORE the b-29 is even thought of to go in.

                                  How many are usually in EW? 20? 30? 40?

                                  Its not so much the 29 its the fact we only have 1 perk bomber. Which is not fair. Of course one could also argue the B-29 made a larger impact in the war then the buffalo, P-39, and 111 put together. And no Im not including nukes. We dont need nukes and I never heard anyone seriously ask for them. And im getting tired of people getting called a "nuke wanting noob" everytime they ask for the B-29.

                               What other left out aircraft could possibly be more significant then the B-29? The Brewster Buffalo?  Talk about a hangar queen in waiting.

                              I'd gladly trade the B-29 for an A-26 and a TU-2. I got no problem with that. But the P-39 is just a P-40 in another name and unless your one of the 10 in early war whos going to fly it?

                            Ive seen a P-40 in the air once. The commies stuck a 37mm on the 39 so I guess we can then call it a slower Yak 9U.

                           I dont care what they do as long as they supply another perk bomber.

[Relorian]

                                  Its not so much the 29 its the fact we only have 1 perk bomber. Which is not fair. Of course one could also argue the B-29 made a larger impact in the war then the buffalo, P-39, and 111 put together.


What other left out aircraft could possibly be more significant then the B-29? The Brewster Buffalo?

 I'd gladly trade the B-29 for an A-26 and a TU-2. I got no problem with that. But the P-39 is just a P-40 in another name and unless your one of the 10 in early war whos going to fly it

What other left out aircraft could possibly be more significant then the B-29? The Brewster Buffalo?

 I'd gladly trade the B-29 for an A-26 and a TU-2. I got no problem with that. But the P-39 is just a P-40 in another name and unless your one of the 10 in early war whos going to fly it?
 

So i guess you dont mind discounting a plane we made huge numbers of and sent to russia for lend/lease and a german bomber that played a large part in the war in favor of a plane that came into the war late in the game and that is designed for an altitude that you cannot attain in this game? Laugh.

The TU-2 and HE-111 were in service LONGER than the b-29. They did more for bombing than the b-29 in my opinion. The only reason the 29 gets more props and acclaim is that it "won" the war.  Yes we need more perk bombers but the b-29... oh hell no. Id rather fly a blackburn skua or a swordfish mk.1 over something that once added will be complained about due to the lack of ONE type of bomb that was only used twice.

Also I dunno what train of thought derailed in your head but calling the p-39 a  p-40 with another name is just funny as all hell. I suggest you look at the p-39 and then the p-40. There are quite a few differences in the planes, the armmament and engines. The soviets used the p-39 with great effect and id gladly fly it in any arena along with any other early war fighter than use a b-29. If you want heavy bombing use the lancaster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-39_Airacobra
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-40

[Rich46yo]

Really? What were the differences? Performance-wise they were similiar right? Gunwise? Didnt the P-39 only have 4 0.50s? Either way they were both only effective in early war and were both outclassed by 1942. Actually 1941.

                             You have a right to wish for anything you want. Let me also point that out. Im not saying you cant wish for anything if you do want it.

                           I believe HTC doesn't have an obligation to history for including aircraft into the game because they were "lend leased", sold, or churned out like sausages.

                          I believe they have a obligation to provide aircraft to their $15 a month customers that these same customers will actually fly.

                         How often do you fly the P-40? Or an aircraft with similar performance? How often do you even see them in the air? What does the P-39 offer that will make it any different? If I remember right they both used the same engine anyways right? And why would anyone jump into the P-39 with a 37 mm cannon when they can jump into the Yak 9T instead? Which is almost as fast an armed almost the same.

                      BTW I was right. Both the 40 and 39 used the Allison 1710. Nothing "de-railed in my head" and if you cant have an adult conversation then I'll leave you to your fantasies.

                            The Fairey Swordfish was in the war to. Is AH required to include that piece of crap?

[Relorian]

The swordfish was far beyond a "Piece of crap" but it got the job done. The British using those outdated planes helped to knock out the Bismark.

The P-39 and P-40 may have used the same engine but they were unique aircraft and being that it was a hugely used plane, it should be honestly included. Its faster than the Yak, carried more guns than the yak (4x.50 cal, 1x 37 or 20mm cannon) and had enough models including a naval version. I also think it would make a better addition than the B-29. We do NOT need another american bomber at all plus it would carry more ord than the Lancaster, rendering it useless. Lancasters max bombload in game is 14 1k bombs. The B-29's max load was 20k bombs. Infact it would render most other bombers useless other t

Its been voted on by the users and while it lost out to the B-25, it still did fairly well.

As for flying the P-40... I fly one frequently. I see them frequently as well on the MA's. They fare well in combat if you know how to fly em. Most of the time its the P-40E but ive also seen the other version more these days.

Id write more but Im about to pass out on my keyboard.

[BlauK]

The pieces of crap are fun to fight with when the opponent also has a piece of crap.

Rich here seems to suggest that only the fastest, best armed and most maneuverable planes are worth something. What is the difference when the opponent has a similar plane at MA anyways? Go Cart races can be just as fun as (even often more fun than)  Indy car races. This means that early war fights can be great.. heck the WW1 fights I used to fly were really something.

But, let's all wish for F-16!!!.. then we all would have fun
My point is that adding one super plane throws others of the same category to trash. Adding a weaker plane to the set adds strength and power to all the existing better planes.

What "this game needs" at the moment is NOT another Ami bomber. There are plenty already. IMO it needs to fill the biggest gaps in the plane set regarding the whole WW2 air war. It need more different kinds of opponents to shoot down for the lacking eras. Many of us already have our favorites to fly in anyways.

Thus, IMO, one creates more "hangar queens" by adding a new super plane than by adding weaker planes, which some of us enjoy as bigger challenges, and which add variety to what others can engage and shoot down with their "this is my 15$ La-7:s" or what ever they fly.

[moot]

What HTC needs is a cloning machine, so they get through whatever it is that's holding them back from releasing more planes like they used to.

[Denholm]

And this would take how long to make?

[Redlegs]

Itll be here in 2 weeks.

[Rich46yo]

Heres another one putting words in my mouth.

                        Im not "suggesting" anything. What Im saying is why introduce an airplane that nobody will fly? And why introduce early war airplanes whos performance is already duplicated by other early war airplanes already modeled?

                        Early war fights might be occasionly great except for the fact that almost nobody fights them. Can you imagine jumping into a swordfish? And attacking a CV?

                     And now your babbling about an F-16?

                    The B-29 would be heavily perked and would be no more disruptive then the 262. Even better, guys would actually fly it. The B-29 would infuse new interest in the strat war both in bombing and defending and would renew interest in bombers in general.

Originally posted by BlauK
The pieces of crap are fun to fight with when the opponent also has a piece of crap.

Rich here seems to suggest that only the fastest, best armed and most maneuverable planes are worth something. What is the difference when the opponent has a similar plane at MA anyways? Go Cart races can be just as fun as (even often more fun than)  Indy car races. This means that early war fights can be great.. heck the WW1 fights I used to fly were really something.

But, let's all wish for F-16!!!.. then we all would have fun
My point is that adding one super plane throws others of the same category to trash. Adding a weaker plane to the set adds strength and power to all the existing better planes.

What "this game needs" at the moment is NOT another Ami bomber. There are plenty already. IMO it needs to fill the biggest gaps in the plane set regarding the whole WW2 air war. It need more different kinds of opponents to shoot down for the lacking eras. Many of us already have our favorites to fly in anyways.

Thus, IMO, one creates more "hangar queens" by adding a new super plane than by adding weaker planes, which some of us enjoy as bigger challenges, and which add variety to what others can engage and shoot down with their "this is my 15$ La-7:s" or what ever they fly.

:

[humble]

Originally posted by Rich46yo
Really? What were the differences? Performance-wise they were similiar right? Gunwise? Didnt the P-39 only have 4 0.50s? Either way they were both only effective in early war and were both outclassed by 1942. Actually 1941.

                             You have a right to wish for anything you want. Let me also point that out. Im not saying you cant wish for anything if you do want it.

                           I believe HTC doesn't have an obligation to history for including aircraft into the game because they were "lend leased", sold, or churned out like sausages.

                          I believe they have a obligation to provide aircraft to their $15 a month customers that these same customers will actually fly.

                         How often do you fly the P-40? Or an aircraft with similar performance? How often do you even see them in the air? What does the P-39 offer that will make it any different? If I remember right they both used the same engine anyways right? And why would anyone jump into the P-39 with a 37 mm cannon when they can jump into the Yak 9T instead? Which is almost as fast an armed almost the same.

                      BTW I was right. Both the 40 and 39 used the Allison 1710. Nothing "de-railed in my head" and if you cant have an adult conversation then I'll leave you to your fantasies.

                            The Fairey Swordfish was in the war to. Is AH required to include that piece of crap?

If/when the P-39 comes it will be a suprisingly dominant plane in the MA. It's performance at lower altitudes was actually quite good and its unusual engine placement made it very nimble. The P-39 was an exceptionally good turner and at lower altitudes its overall performance is very good. The real question will be which models are chosen and what setting are used. The russians heavily used a Q model with a 1420 hp allison engine and were a bit more pragmatic regarding manifold pressure often running engines well above U.S. specs.

However even the D model will be a good MA ride. Overall the P-39 will be a more significant threat then any of the yaks we have....