Author Topic: Gloster Meteor  (Read 11934 times)

Offline Zacherof

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3993
Re: Gloster Meteor
« Reply #45 on: September 12, 2013, 05:50:19 PM »
You can use it historically - vulch uppers. Great stuff.
your just mad its like a faster tighter turning 190D :P
In game name Xacherof
USN Sea Bee
**ELITE**
I am a meat popsicle

Offline Bruv119

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15667
      • http://www.thefewsquadron.co.uk
Re: Gloster Meteor
« Reply #46 on: September 13, 2013, 12:09:54 PM »
You can use it historically - vulch uppers. Great stuff.

Too bad, the Red Airforce has no bomber, also the Red Army is represented by two variants of one tank. Maybe thay have seen a little bit more action, than the Meteor - as it might be safe to say, the large majority of the war happened on the eastern front.

 :lol

I've always said we need the Tu-2 / pe-2 and was a big supporter of the yak-3.    We were talking late war fighters and having the LA7 and yak3-9u I think they have it covered now unless there were some other soviet planes that have passed me by.

The meteor vs 262 fights would add something to late war,  you wouldn't see me vulching in it unless your a wabbit!
The Few ***
F.P.H

Offline bangsbox

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1017
Re: Gloster Meteor
« Reply #47 on: September 13, 2013, 05:29:55 PM »
No V1! No meteor!

Offline Tank-Ace

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5298
Re: Gloster Meteor
« Reply #48 on: September 13, 2013, 06:29:51 PM »
I'd say the G.55, Ki-44-II, J2M3 or 5, P-63 and Re.2005 are all credible for the LWA as well.  We are getting down to the dregs though.

G-10, 190A-9, G-6/AS, some of the night-fighters would also be decent, if not dominant.
You started this thread and it was obviously about your want and desire in spite of your use of 'we' and Google.

"Once more unto the breach"

Offline Butcher

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5323
Re: Gloster Meteor
« Reply #49 on: September 13, 2013, 06:35:57 PM »
G-10, 190A-9, G-6/AS, some of the night-fighters would also be decent, if not dominant.

Why night fighters? We have no night time in Aces high - secondly the only way I'd vote on night time if you cannot move your GAMMA either.
JG 52

Offline Tank-Ace

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5298
Re: Gloster Meteor
« Reply #50 on: September 13, 2013, 06:39:18 PM »
Because you can still fly your night fighter during the day time. Its not like direct sunlight would cause the wings to rip off, the pilot to hallucinate, and ultimately lead to spontaneous and catastrophic combustion.

If ground attack and flipping V-1's counts as combat, so should fighting actual aircraft when the sun is down. None of them are really a part of Aces High as they were done in real life, so I see no reason to discriminate against night fighters.
You started this thread and it was obviously about your want and desire in spite of your use of 'we' and Google.

"Once more unto the breach"

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
Re: Gloster Meteor
« Reply #51 on: September 13, 2013, 08:07:31 PM »
The only nightfighters that might be competitive at all are the Mosquito Mk 30 and the P-61B.  There is a slight chance the Ju88G might be as well.  If we're going there the Ki-100 and Ki-102 might be as well.

But I think with these we're really pushing into aircraft that need more skill to use or are more specialized.  That is true of the Bf109G-6/AS as well as it is nothing but a Bf109G-6 at AH combat alts.  I can't comment on the Fw190A-9.  I don't think the Bf109G-10 will ever be added to AH, but it would make the shortlist were it to be added.

Spitfire F.21 as well, but likewise I don't see it ever being added.

Ok, Seafire L.Mk III, and that may very well be added at some point as there were a respectable 1200 built.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Tank-Ace

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5298
Re: Gloster Meteor
« Reply #52 on: September 13, 2013, 08:27:59 PM »
The K-4 would need little modification to become a late model G-10. Its not going to be a priority, but its definitely a competitive, almost dominant, LW fighter we could still add. An early model G-10 would use most of the existing visuals from the G-6 or G-14, and essentially just drop in the K-4's engine.
You started this thread and it was obviously about your want and desire in spite of your use of 'we' and Google.

"Once more unto the breach"

Offline Butcher

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5323
Re: Gloster Meteor
« Reply #53 on: September 13, 2013, 09:41:53 PM »
The K-4 would need little modification to become a late model G-10. Its not going to be a priority, but its definitely a competitive, almost dominant, LW fighter we could still add. An early model G-10 would use most of the existing visuals from the G-6 or G-14, and essentially just drop in the K-4's engine.

Actually considering the K-4 and G-10 were two totally different aircraft, yeah...

The G-10 is not dominant, the K-4 was better.

The G-10 came after the K-4.

The G-10 is not better then the K-4 in performance, turn radius, climb.

Its actually not better then the K-4 in anyway other then it carries a 20mm cannon.

What part of this do you NOT understand? Sure you can request it, but the P-63 will actually be added in Aces high LONG before the G-10 will ever be.

Please.......do........me.... ......a..........favor....... ..trying........to........get .......it.......through...... .your.........head....... 109G-6/AS.......... Better........request........ ..
JG 52

Offline Franz Von Werra

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 410
Re: Gloster Meteor
« Reply #54 on: September 13, 2013, 10:21:09 PM »
He-162 Volksjager all the way, saw combat! 320 built! <--- adds to late war! I wont vulch rabbits either! ;)

fuel burn 1x please! - '1x Wednesdays?'

Offline Bruv119

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15667
      • http://www.thefewsquadron.co.uk
Re: Gloster Meteor
« Reply #55 on: September 14, 2013, 08:00:46 AM »
luft whiners get out of the meteor thread!   
The Few ***
F.P.H

Offline nrshida

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8594
Re: Gloster Meteor
« Reply #56 on: September 14, 2013, 08:03:46 AM »
I wont vulch rabbits either! ;)

Well no, you'll be too busy watching your wooden parts unglue.

"If man were meant to fly, he'd have been given an MS Sidewinder"

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
Re: Gloster Meteor
« Reply #57 on: September 14, 2013, 09:23:55 AM »
Well no, you'll be too busy watching your wooden parts unglue.



Coming unglued. That's apropos.  :)

Offline Shifty

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9377
      • 307th FS
Re: Gloster Meteor
« Reply #58 on: September 14, 2013, 09:53:49 AM »
Anyone recall how much of an epic FAILURE this plane was?

The only combat it saw was against gravity.

JG-11"Black Hearts"...nur die Stolzen, nur die Starken

"Haji may have blown my legs off but I'm still a stud"~ SPC Thomas Vandeventer Delta1/5 1st CAV

Offline Tank-Ace

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5298
Re: Gloster Meteor
« Reply #59 on: September 14, 2013, 02:59:14 PM »
He-162 Volksjager all the way, saw combat! 320 built! <--- adds to late war! I wont vulch rabbits either! ;)

(Image removed from quote.)

Only issue is lack of documentation. I don't think anyone really questions that the few they could fuel up were thrown into combat, but does it meet de facto requirements?
You started this thread and it was obviously about your want and desire in spite of your use of 'we' and Google.

"Once more unto the breach"