Next: the Brewster

[mora]

Nice, the replys start with squeaking and then comes a hijack...

[2bighorn]

I'm sorta baiting for someone to prove me wrong.  I'd never heard of the plane till someone mentionned it in a thread much like this one.  Gonna go read up on it.  Personaly though, I think the Finns deserve the Brewster way more than the tiny number of french players do the D520.. As far as I can tell anyway.

Well, when it comes to French planes, M.S.406 had more impact, more were build (1000+ vs 900+), and it has seen more combat as well (used by Finns also).

Either way, Brewster, MS406 and D520 should all be low priority. They'd be ok for few selected scenarios, but otherwise, typical hangar queens.

There are huge gaps in Russian, German (bombers) and Japanese sets which should be filled first (IMHO).

[moot]

That sums it up well enough, thanks Barbie.. Sorry for derailing, Mora.

[angelsandair]

Say good-bye to the La-7 

If one considers 420 mph at 21,000 feet poor performance. Let's face it, 95% of all engagements in AH2 are below 20,000 feet.

The answer to the La-7 is the P-63A Kingcobra. Similar climb and low-level speed, but the P-63 is nearly as maneuverable as the FM-2. Add four .50 cal MGs and a 37mm cannon.

These two fighters would be very equal except that the La-7 could not afford to turn-fight with the P-63, and the P-63 has a big range advantage, plus the ability to haul a 500 pound bomb (or a drop tank).

So, how fast does the P-63A climb? Well, for comparison, let's look at the F6F-5. It requires 7.7 minutes to climb to 15,000 feet. In contrast, the P-63A can get to 25,000 feet in 7.3 minutes! The P-51D requires near twice as long (13 minutes) to reach 30,000 feet.

When the Soviets first began flying the P-63, they found the tail to be weaker than that of the P-39. Bell developed a kit for strengthening the tail and Bell technicians made field modifications to those planes in service. That change was immediately incorporated into the production line as well.

Pilots who flew the P-63, and had time in the other major U.S. types, generally agreed that the P-63 was far and away the best performer at low to medium altitudes. Not surprising, the pilots flying it at the Joint Fighter Conference differed from rave reviews to outright dislike (the only thing the JFC ever proved was that every monkey prefers his own banana).

Since more than 3,300 P-63s were built, and it saw combat (with the Free French and Soviets) in far greater numbers than the F4U-1C or Ta 152H, I think it would be an excellent candidate for inclusion in the AH2 plane-set someday.

My regards,

Widewing