somes planes that never get use

[Anaxogoras]

the "easy mode" planes have their place in defense too. excellent aircraft for very quick launch and immediate fights.

Actually, defenders is exactly what the easy-mode aircraft are.  The main arena is a lousy simulation of WW2 combat.  No one wants to play hit and run forever, and so people start furballing, which is defensive fighting.  It's no wonder that low-wingloading aircraft excel in the arena, but were not nearly as effective in actual war conditions.

[CAP1]

Hear, Hear!
I see Boston's quite a bit as a quick response bomber unit. Good rate of climb and reasonably fast. No real defensive guns, but that's part of the trade.
If I was going to pick a bomber that you don't see often, it would be the B25-C.

How about adding the Mk IX or Mk XVI version of the Mosquito? A "glass nosed" version of the Mossie would be great 

i see both versions of the b25 quite often in response to inbound gv's

[MachNum]

i see both versions of the b25 quite often in response to inbound gv's

Excellent.
I always see the H model of the B25 upping to attack GVs, so I'm happy to hear that the C model gets some use.

[CAP1]

Excellent.
I always see the H model of the B25 upping to attack GVs, so I'm happy to hear that the C model gets some use.

ya, probably the wrong choice, but i do see it.

[BaldEagl]

It's no wonder that low-wingloading aircraft excel in the arena, but were not nearly as effective in actual war conditions.

You're saying that the Spitfire wasn't a succesful combat aircraft?  Or the Zero?

[Anaxogoras]

Nope, read what I said with a little more nuance.  If the main arena were an accurate representation of actual WW2 combat, you'd have to conclude that the Spitfire was the best fighter of the war, period.  On the other hand, in reality, e.g. the RAF was desperate to get the Luftwaffe 190s to slow down and dogfight, which they wouldn't do.

[Karnak]

Nope, read what I said with a little more nuance.  If the main arena were an accurate representation of actual WW2 combat, you'd have to conclude that the Spitfire was the best fighter of the war, period.  On the other hand, in reality, e.g. the RAF was desperate to get the Luftwaffe 190s to slow down and dogfight, which they wouldn't do.

That is only true if you limit your discussion of reality to Spitfire Mk Vs vs Fw190s.  Read some Fw190 pilot comments about Mk IX and later Spitfires.

[Angus]

What did they comment???

[Anaxogoras]

That is only true if you limit your discussion of reality to Spitfire Mk Vs vs Fw190s.  Read some Fw190 pilot comments about Mk IX and later Spitfires.

Certainly, a faster Spit is a better Spit for real war, even if it turns worse than previous models...And that's the point, turning performance wasn't a very valuable trait if it meant a sacrifice in other areas, like speed and roll.

[BaldEagl]

Somehow I would think that if the Spitfire was'nt a succesful combat aircraft it wouldn't be the only one that was in production when WWII began and was still in production when WWII ended.  In fact it was still in production into the '50's.  That's quite a commitment to something that's not among the best fighter aircraft of the time.

[Anaxogoras]

Good, because I never said it wasn't successful.

Baldeagl, with all due respect, you have a habit of interpreting me uncharitably, and of glossing over important details in what I write.  It's important to always interpret everyone as charitably as possible, otherwise you're arguing against a straw-man.

Specifically:

It's no wonder that low-wingloading aircraft excel in the arena, but were not nearly as effective in actual war conditions.

You're saying that the Spitfire wasn't a succesful combat aircraft?

Talk about putting words into someone's mouth, and the words you insert indicate a very dumb and uneducated opinion.  Think about that.

The best part is that I specifically denied that the Spitfire wasn't a successful fighter:

Nope, read what I said with a little more nuance.

And then you still persist in attributing that belief to me.  You are incorrigible.

[832725]

p-39d

bostonIII

spit 1

can anyone think of anything else?

i got one the Me-163 maybe the b-24 too.

[Masherbrum]

I might change my handle to a Greek Philosopher and then show everyone how snoot I can be.   Wait, I realize my stay on this planet is a short one and will forgo trying to THINK "I'm better than someone else."

Why you guys continue to argue with this masterful troll named Anaxorgoras is beyond me?   When cornered he will cease fire with the snobbery and shout "Straw-man!", "Ad hominem", "red herring", etc.   

Actually, defenders is exactly what the easy-mode aircraft are.  The main arena is a lousy simulation of WW2 combat.  No one wants to play hit and run forever, and so people start furballing, which is defensive fighting.  It's no wonder that low-wingloading aircraft excel in the arena, but were not nearly as effective in actual war conditions.

My suggestion, you AREN'T a philosopher, stop trying to sound like one.   This quote of yours is "Ad hominem" at your finest.   BTW, "wing loading" is two words, not your choice of usage.

[halo342]

i got one the Me-163 maybe the b-24 too.

the 484th runs mass b24 raids weekly

163 only if there is an HQ raid going on

[AquaShrimp]

You're an idiot when you say P-39D, that thing would own you any day. You think it stinks because it doesnt have uber wep. But the 39D has a firm foot hold in AHII, and in the right hands, can easily hold it's own in the MA.  

Thats the stupidest saying in the world.  That could apply to any plane, even the Wright Flyer.