More Ponies !

[Krusty]

Regardless, this POST is full of people calling bullchit when they see it, and letting the original poster know when they see it.

[Baumer]

Perhaps your using a different definition of the word discussion?

dis·cus·sion
Pronunciation: di-ˈskə-shən
Function: noun
Date: 14th century

1 : consideration of a question in open and usually informal debate

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discussion

I can't have a discussion (informal debate) with you, if you only want to hear your own opinion parroted back at you. There is certainly no reason for you to take your ball and go home, what you should do is provide some evidence to support your opinion. I doubt you'll be able to sway many of the people who have responded so far, but that doesn't matter. If you are able to provide enough evidence that might sway HTC, then you've really done what you wanted to do. Also, I do not see anyone in this post saying that Aces High should not continue to add more aircraft to the game. No one is defending the status quo (in this case), what they are stating is that in their opinion, there are other aircraft that should receive a higher position on the priority list.

[Chalenge]

Sour grapes.

Truth is truth. If AHII also had realistic failure rates you would never fly a 262.

[Krusty]

Nor a number of other planes, as well!

[Saurdaukar]

I love how thread thread exploded as soon as the 109 was attacked. 

[Karnak]

I love how thread thread exploded as soon as the 109 was attacked. 

Well, I am not even a 109 fan and I defended it against the inaccuracies he was stating.

[morfiend]

Perhaps your using a different definition of the word discussion?

dis·cus·sion
Pronunciation: di-ˈskə-shən
Function: noun
Date: 14th century

1 : consideration of a question in open and usually informal debate

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discussion

I can't have a discussion (informal debate) with you, if you only want to hear your own opinion parroted back at you. There is certainly no reason for you to take your ball and go home, what you should do is provide some evidence to support your opinion. I doubt you'll be able to sway many of the people who have responded so far, but that doesn't matter. If you are able to provide enough evidence that might sway HTC, then you've really done what you wanted to do. Also, I do not see anyone in this post saying that Aces High should not continue to add more aircraft to the game. No one is defending the status quo (in this case), what they are stating is that in their opinion, there are other aircraft that should receive a higher position on the priority list.

    But,But,But...150 octane fuel would be so cool

 maybe we can have a disk us ion about that

[moot]

Well, I am not even a 109 fan and I defended it against the inaccuracies he was stating.

How pedantic!

[Die Hard]

Well, I am not even a 109 fan and I defended it against the inaccuracies he was stating.

And which inaccuracies would that be, specifically?

[Guppy35]

No I'm not. You can't seriously argue that the late-1944/1945 P-51's are properly represented in the game. They clearly aren't. What is disingenuous are all these off-topic sidetracks and pointless bickering over details.

Explain to me again which late 44-45 Mustang we are missing?  The H wasn't involved.  You want a P51K?  That was just a D with the aeroproducts prop, produced in Dallas and was considered a bit inferior to the D model due to prop issues.  YOu want the Dallas style flatter bubble canopy? 

You want a non Malcom hood B/C model?  B made in Inglewood CA, C in Dallas TX.  Same bird otherwise.   Performance would be the same if not a bit less then the Malcom hood bird as for some reason the airflow over the Malcom hood actually increased performance a bit.  We had the 'coffin hood' previously and many of us suggested the B/C would get more use if the visibility of the Malcom was there. 

Consider that we have rocket rails on the D Pony.  They didn't see use in 44-45 in the ETO, that's a very late in the game PTO addition. 

Please use the search function and read all the threads on higher octane fuel.  There was some very good and useful information posted there the last 20 times that was discussed.  It wasn't so simple as to say all the Mustangs and Spits were using it.  There was a lot more involved.

IF you want an Allison Mustang, we're not talking 44-45 as outside of some used for Army Co-op or Recce work they were for the most part gone.

So again, help me out here.  What Mustang are we missing?

[Die Hard]

We are missing P-51D and B (or K and C if you prefer) running on 150 octane fuel like they did in late 1944 and 1945. We're also missing a B/C with the Packard-Merlin V-1650-7 and a birdcage B/C. We could also use an early Allison powered one as some people have suggested.

As for 150 octane gas: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,254161.0.html

[Karnak]

And which inaccuracies would that be, specifically?

That it wasn't justified to have so many when there are only cosmetic differences and when we only have two versions of the P-51 Mustang, the greatest WWII fighter ever.

You casually dismissed any and all explanations of the differences almost as though you didn't read anything anybody actually posted.

As to the 150 octane discussion, there was a very lengthy thread about it when the Spitfires were updated and the Spitfire Mk VIII and Spitfire Mk XVI were added.  My take at that time was that the Mk VIII should have been added at +18lbs boost on 100 octane and the Mk XVI should have been added at +25lbs boost on 150 octane.  HTC thought that the +25lbs boost would have made the Mk XVI too powerful to bu uncontrolled (i.e., no perked) in the MA, something that is true.

I would have no problems with them changing the P-51D we have to an earlier block and taking off the rocket rails and limiting it to two 500lb bombs while, at the same time, adding a perked later block P-51D with rocket rails, 1000lb bomb capability and 150 octane fuel.  At the same time they should raise the Spitfire Mk XIV's boost setting to +21lbs boost as it ran on 150 octane so that it might actually justify being perked.

An Allison engined P-51A would be nice at some point, but given the huge disparity in aircraft numbers for each nation, I have to think that is a pretty low priority.


As to the P-51 being the best fighter, I'll leave you with a quote from an American pilot who flew first Spitfire Mk VIIIs and later P-51Ds, both in the USAAF.  "The P-51 can't do what the Spitfire can do, but it can do it over Berlin."   There is no "best" fighter in all circumstances, but the best all round fighter of WWII was the F4U series, not the P-51, Spitfire or Bf109 series.

[Anaxogoras]

Truth is truth. If AHII also had realistic failure rates you would never fly a 262.

Do I need to make a list of all the teething problems that other fighters had before they became reliable?  Heck, that the Germans even got the Me-262 flying while we bombed the snot out of them is impressive.  Why magnify its one shortcoming to obscure the fact that it was years ahead of anything else in the sky?  I still say sour grapes.  You wish it had been designed in the United States, and if it had been, you would be the first to sing its praises.

[moot]

HTC thought that the +25lbs boost would have made the Mk XVI too powerful to bu uncontrolled (i.e., no perked) in the MA, something that is true.

Why oh why couldn't they add the +25lbs alongside the regular one, as a perk...

[Die Hard]

That it wasn't justified to have so many when there are only cosmetic differences and when we only have two versions of the P-51 Mustang, the greatest WWII fighter ever.

There's your mistake: I've never ever said that it wasn't justified to have so many 109's or Spits. In fact I think we need more of them like a 1943 Spit LF IX and a 109G-6/AS.

I was saying it isn't justified to have so few P-51's, and compared it to other important planes in the game that are better represented throughout the war. I also mentioned the P-47's and F4U's; did you also think I was being mean to them? lol

If you're reading all my posts like they are slights then there is something wrong with your reading comprehension. That goes for the rest of you 109 and Spit fanbois too.

You casually dismissed any and all explanations of the differences almost as though you didn't read anything anybody actually posted.

What differences? You never answered that question at all, so I'll ask it again: Which handling differences (that are modeled in AH) are not a direct result of engine or armament changes (weight, bulges, torque, CG etc.) in the 109G-2, G-6 and G-14?

As to the 150 octane discussion, there was a very lengthy thread about it when the Spitfires were updated and the Spitfire Mk VIII and Spitfire Mk XVI were added.  My take at that time was that the Mk VIII should have been added at +18lbs boost on 100 octane and the Mk XVI should have been added at +25lbs boost on 150 octane.  HTC thought that the +25lbs boost would have made the Mk XVI too powerful to bu uncontrolled (i.e., no perked) in the MA, something that is true.

I've already posted a link to one of the most recent threads on the matter posed by Widewing with lots of new documentation being presented. Go read it.

As to the P-51 being the best fighter, I'll leave you with a quote from an American pilot who flew first Spitfire Mk VIIIs and later P-51Ds, both in the USAAF.  "The P-51 can't do what the Spitfire can do, but it can do it over Berlin."   There is no "best" fighter in all circumstances, but the best all round fighter of WWII was the F4U series, not the P-51, Spitfire or Bf109 series.

Have anyone in this thread said the P-51 was the "best fighter"? I don't think so. Again you seem to be making up arguments and attributing them to me. I don't even like the bloody plane.