P-47M, a perked jug.

[Wingnutt]

what gap does the C hog and the -4 fill?

they are just better versions of the F4U that carry a perk price..


no different than what the M would be..


the "gap" to be filled is the same gap that existed before then N came around..

the N was apparently expected to be the "next step" for the jugs..  but insted its actually a step back in more ways than not considering its inferior performance in MA type combat..

so I guess the gap to be filled is rather obvious..

the M would be what people were hoping for from the N.

[Karnak]

The P-47M fills no gap.  Period.

There are some aircraft in AH that also fill no gap, but the only ones comparable to the lack of gap that the P-47M would fill are the Me163 and the Ta152.  The fact that there are non-gap fillers in the planeset does not justify the addition of yet another when there are huge gaps to fill.  Even the C.205 and F4U-1C were produced in higher numbers than the P-47M.


Sure, add the P-47 M, but it should be way, way,way[/i], WAY[/i] down the priority list.

[Wingnutt]

I dont understand what the deal is with "it doesent fill a gap"

as if we have plane A and C but not B..

well.. thats dumb..

we have the middle of the pack jugs..  

compared to the spitfires where we have the worst, middle, and best..

same for the corsairs...

we have the best corsair, the best Spit, the best 190 (arguably)
 so having the best jug aswell makes sense..

also, i think what should also carry some weight is the fact that its a plane people will actually want to fly, and will be competitive in the MA..

its no like some of the planes that are a MUST HAVE because they played some important role in the war,  but in the MA they collect dust..

also, as stated the jug was among the top produced aircraft in the war, and one of the most versatile..  the M model being the icing on the cake of the lineage..

the cake must have icing dammit.

[Rebel]

Okay, karnak- what do you think should be #1 on the priority list?  

I don't see why this is such a huge issue, honestly- it's a minimum effort "nice to have" addition.  

Are there other planes that could be added?  Oh hell yes- He111, P-63, P-61, a number of Japanese planes, the MiG-3...the list goes on.  

What's the biggest gap that we have in the current planeset, in your opinion?

[Wingnutt]

no rebel, hes right, what we REALLY need are obsolete bombers and other novelty aircraft that nobody will fly except on rare occasions or scenarios because they are utterly useless in the MA.. those should be high priority..

I mean look how many AWSOME  rides we have that every one flys all the time and enjoy so much..



like the C202, the 109E4, 190F8, P-40B, SBD, F4F-4, TBM, spitty I,

Hurricane I, A6M2,  B5N2, D3A1..

you seldom see any of those rides in the MA.. they are as rare as a rook below 20K.

but here we have the M which would be not only goof enough to hand with the best, but would be good enough to be perked.. a VIABLE MA fighter capable of hanging with the big dogs that dominate the MA.


there has been no argument against the M that holds a drop of water..

any stated argument against that has been made for its ineligibility regarding its rareness, or impact on the war, reliability, or otherwise... are moot, considering many aircraft already in the game were equally rare, had minuscule impact, or were less reliable.

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by Wingnutt
there has been no argument against the M that holds a drop of water..

any stated argument against that has been made for its inelegibility regarding its rareness, or impact on the war, reliability, or otherwise... are moot, considering many aircraft already in the game were equally rare, had minuscule impact, or were less reliable.


if you were to take all of the "reasons" for the M not being worthy of being in the game, and filter the existing plane set according to the same standards..  

impact on the war

reliability

rareness/production numbers


you would find many of the rides we already have dont "fit the bill" by the standards..

That we have 4 versions of the Jug would suggest that other birds would come first.

I'd love a Spitfire XII.  All the logic used to justify the M fits even more for the XII.  1943-44 bird.  Tangmere Wing flew it and was high scoring wing in the fall of 43.  100 built and saw combat etc etc.  

But as much as I'd love it, I understand it's not top of the list as there are comparable Spits.  It's my all time favorite bird, but I wish for others first to fill out the 'gaps', not just to add another hotrod for the late war.

Might as well argue for the Spit 21 then since it was operational.  Can you imagine the whines with a 4 cannon Griffon Spitfire?

[Wingnutt]

C202, the 109E4, 190F8, P-40B, SBD, F4F-4, TBM, spitty I,

Hurricane I, A6M2,  B5N2, D3A1..

all of these "fill gaps"

in the MA,... all of them are worthless..'


filling gaps is really only useful for.. filling gaps..

it doesn't necessarily make the game any better, doesent give the vast majority of players anything to really look forward to...

[angelsandair]

Well, the M jug probably see alot of use and it is probably reliable anyways.
This post is smarter than my one about a jug having 4 or 6 20mm hispanos

[Krusty]

Originally posted by Wingnutt
there has been no argument against the M that holds a drop of water..

This should be

Originally posted by Wingnutt
I completely ignored or totally didn't understand on any level the argument(s) against the M that hold noticable weight..

[Wingnutt]

Originally posted by Krusty
This should be

wow thats clever..

no really, kudos..  you showed me..

every argument for why the M should not be in the game doesn't hold any water because there are plenty of planes already in the game that "violate" he same "rules" (opinions) that are stated..

rareness?

3 cannon LA7

unreliable?

262 and 163

didn't make a difference in the war?

163, 262 + LOTS of other planes



those are the 3 main knocks against the M that keep coming up..   though in various different, long winded ways.. but its all the same arguments over and over..  and its not really an argument..

you cant say a plane doesnt belong based on conditions that would also aleniate about 1/4 of the current existing plane set.  doesnt make any sense

[Wingnutt]

I also find it interesting, reading some of the other threads started in this forum..

it seems when someone wants a new plane, the same people always pop in on the thread telling the thread starter they are an idiot for wanting such a [INSERT BIASED OPIONATED ASSERTION HERE] in .. what is presumably THEIR game..

since nobody want the "RIGHT" planes added, maybe re-route some of the time and energy you people spend pissing on other people's ideas, and come up with some of your own.

[angelsandair]

The only reason that is even kind of reasonable that I have heard was from like 10 ppl

"ONLY LIKE 130 WERE ISSUED!!!!!!!! OMG!!!!!!!"
Well The 163 was worse on those terms with the fact that 300 were issued and 1/3 would blow up

[thrila]

we don't have the best spit or 109 modelled, so i'm not sure you can use that as an argument.

[Elfie]

Might as well argue for the Spit 21 then since it was operational. Can you imagine the whines with a 4 cannon Griffon Spitfire?

Now you're making me slobber all over myself.....wtg man.....

[Rebel]

Wingnutt- sorry bro, but ya need to calm down a little bit buddy

We're on the same side here, but getting emotional ain't gonna solve anything.

I understand the limited numbers argument, and I understand how people can sit there and think "oh wow! another American ride!  Grrreat!".  

All I'm saying is that a high performance P-47 that's viable in the MA as a perked plane would be pretty damn cool.