Author Topic: Why the "uberplanes"? (Read 2680 times)

SnakeEyes · « **Reply #30 on:** February 17, 2000, 10:41:00 PM »

The Finns did well for a variety of reasons, most relating the the specific strategies and tactics used, as well as the fact that it really was the Pilot and not the Plane.

The same situation doesn't exist in virtual sims... while we don't get involved in the physical aspects of jerking a plane around the sky, many of us have thousands of hours in our virtual cockpits, and have had the luxury of reading Shaw... hell, the elevation of ACM to a science is a relatively recent phenomenon (I believe the Finger Four formation wasn't even introduced until WW2).

As a result, I fully expect that the F2A pilots would generally get their arses handed to them in AH, WB, or anywhere else the plane was modeled with a reasonable sense of fidelity.

------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=

indian · « **Reply #31 on:** February 17, 2000, 11:55:00 PM »

SnakeEyes keep writeing I like what you are saying. It realy isnt the plane its the skill of the use of the plane. We dont suffer real black outs and when we crash we just go right back up again. Lets have the so called super planes Im sure most got involved in the mop up after WWII ended. If it had a prop could fly and had guns put it in the game.

------------------
Tommy (INDIAN) Toon
Cherokee Indian
Home of The Allied Fighter Wing A.F.W.
A.F.W. Homepage

juzz · « **Reply #32 on:** February 18, 2000, 07:10:00 AM »

This whole argument is really about "Fantasy ACM Arena" planes vs "Historical Recreation Arena" planes.

MiG Eater · « **Reply #33 on:** February 18, 2000, 08:52:00 PM »

What an interesting parallel the demand for "uber" planes has to the real life thinking in the years of WW2 and beyond. The demand back then was for better armed, faster, higher... but mostly faster flying aircraft. The thinking was faster is better and if (insert your favorite side here) had it, the balance would tip in their favor. Just like here! There is one problem in AH though: every side has the same selection of airplanes to keep some sort of play balance and to keep subscribers. Won't be much fun for the Spit 5 and 109F fans (got to be as many of them as superplane fans) to be constantly dodging attacks from considerably faster flying attackers. Remember the virtual rage over the pre .46 version Mustang? At what point does it stop before the demand goes up for turbine powered aircraft to get that sought after edge on the enemy Ta-152's, P-47N's and Tempests? Will we get a "Summer-Fall 1945 Arena" for all these great airplanes? Sure hope so, I'd definately fly there myself.

MiG

Daniko · « **Reply #34 on:** February 19, 2000, 08:07:00 PM »

Isn't it fair to say that between all of us we want it ALL!! And why not. I would love to fly a DO335, a p47n, a p51h, and especially a ta152. BTW Juzz, a ta152 does not = a d9. It had a 13 ft longer wing span and entirely new design to the wing, making it in essence quite a different aircraft. So what if only 200 were built and only some of those saw combat. I would be just as excited about getting the pre-war biplanes from britain and italy, romania etc. that topped out around 200-250mph and were greatly maneuverable. Or a fokker Dxxi flown by the dutch against the invading 109's, or a HE 219 night fighter with it's 6 30mm canons against that awesome looking p61 black widow nightfighter with it's remote control turret.!!! Let's just push Hitech, Pyro and the likes of em to build it all. After all, we are paying them, not the other way around.
Daniko

juzz · « **Reply #35 on:** February 20, 2000, 08:06:00 AM »

Duh. But what about the B? Hmmm...?

The point I made right at the start has been totally overlooked by most it seems.

The fact is most of these super-prop planes will fly just like their "little brother" versions, only 50mph faster. Seems the desire to fly them is really the desire to see that extra 50mph on the dial.

Don't people realise that a fight between a P-47M and P-51H would be exactly the same as between a P-47D and P-51D? You would prefer that same old fight rather than something totally different like Gladiator vs Falco?

[This message has been edited by juzz (edited 02-20-2000).]

Vermillion · « **Reply #36 on:** February 20, 2000, 10:36:00 AM »

Ah but Juzz, why would the fight between the Gladiator and the Falco be any different?

Its just the same fight as a Spitfire versus a Zero, but 50 mph slower and much weaker guns.

I say that partly in jest, but the more I think of it, the more I believe its true.

I personally think there is just as much "mysticism & mythology" associated with the early war planes, as you accuse with the "uber dweebs".

Its all in your personal perspective

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure,
"Real Men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires"

[This message has been edited by Vermillion (edited 02-20-2000).]

juzz · « **Reply #37 on:** February 20, 2000, 11:31:00 AM »

Not really. How similar is a Spitfire to the Gladiator, versus the similarity of the P-47M and P-47D?

Oh, and here's what the USN test centre at Patuxent River, Maryland recommended you do in your Seafire(Spitfire)vs Zero fights.

Quote

Tactics: Never dogfight with the Zeke 52 - it is too manoeverable.
At low altitudes where the Seafire is at it's best, it should make use of its superior rate of climb and speed to obtain a height advantage before attacking.
If jumped, the Seafire should evade by using superior rate of roll. The Zeke cannot follow high speed rolls and aileron turns.

SnakeEyes · « **Reply #38 on:** February 20, 2000, 01:25:00 PM »

Juzz - I guess that'd be like saying that the P-51D flies exactly like the P-51B with a bubble canopy... and that would be incorrect.

IMO Verm has nailed it. There is a "mysticism", perpetuated particularly by a lot of WB Vets, that early war aircraft are somehow more nuanced than latewar aircraft, and that flying one somehow makes you "more macho" or "more vetlike." Similarly, expressing an interest in latewar aircraft get you labeled as a "dweeb" with the implication that you couldn't excel without your "uberplane." IMO this is merely a selfish and deceptive way for these folks to get what they want (early war aircraft) to the exclusion of the desires of others.

Frankly, I'm rather surprised and pleased with the largely positive reception this idea has received here. If anything could get me to reconsider Aces High, flying an F8F, Ta152, P-51H, etc., would be the ticket.

And, of course, there is *always* room for more early war planes too.. but I'm just tired-to-death of hearing this specious argument that somehow early war planes are "different." Every period of the war has its uberplanes... and that doesn't change regardless of whether we're talking 109 or Spitfire versus the Hurricane/P-36/etc., or a 190 versus a Spitfire V, or the Hellcat against the Zeke, or the P-51 versus the 190A8, or the Ta152 against the P-51... IMO the latewar uberplanes are *more* evenly matched than the early war aircraft are.

------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=

[This message has been edited by SnakeEyes (edited 02-20-2000).]

juzz · « **Reply #39 on:** February 20, 2000, 01:59:00 PM »

I'll re-use this one here...

Quote

Kick your table the needle is stuck on your record player..

"don't call me an uberdweeb"

"I'll fly any plane, early or late"

zzzzzzzzz

janneh · « **Reply #40 on:** February 20, 2000, 01:59:00 PM »

Camo said:
"PS: The F2A-1 export model, that the Finns used, had 4x .50's and was about as maneuverable as a Spit V."

According to "Illu", if Finland could have Brewsters in the beginning of the war, no Russian planes could flew in Finland's air space. He stated Brewster was excellent plane and he liked it more than Bf109G-2/G-6!

SnakeEyes · « **Reply #41 on:** February 20, 2000, 04:14:00 PM »

Juzz: I'm not quibbling with your approach, I too will fly anything put in front of me.

What I disagree with is your comment that there is no difference between brands of latewar aircraft. That comment, which is indirectly based on the mysticism that early war aircraft are *somehow* different, is just wrong, IMO.

Riddle me this... how do the differences between the 109D, 109E, and 109F compare with the differences between the P-47C, P-47D, and P-47N?

Or how about combat between a Spit V and a 190A3 as compared with a P-51D fighting a Ta-152?

If there's some "special" difference between the early war matchups that I don't understand, I'd love to have someone enlighten me regarding this.

------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=

indian · « **Reply #42 on:** February 20, 2000, 10:50:00 PM »

What it boils down to is everyone has his favorite plane. I dont realy care for the early war plane set becuse I would get bored at slow speed. I like the newer faster ones thats my choice you some of you guys like the low flying slow early planes. If it is mocho to fly the early plane then why did airplanes get trashed so newer faster ones could be brought in. I had an instructor in A&P scholl that said during WWII they would push planes over the side of carriers to make way for the bigger faster planes. Those planes could still fly.
So when do I get my Brand new F18 Super Hornet.

------------------
Tommy (INDIAN) Toon
Cherokee Indian
Home of The Allied Fighter Wing A.F.W.
A.F.W. Homepage

juzz · « **Reply #43 on:** February 21, 2000, 01:08:00 AM »

How do you know that the early war aircraft aren't different? Noone has ever flown them in an online sim. The late-war stuff we already have before.

The early war planes happen to cover the so far ignored/overlooked airwars; like Barbarossa(I-16, LaGG-3 Yak-1 MiG-3 etc), Malta/Nth Africa(Gladiator, CR.42), the Winter war?(Buffalo, I-16) etc. Even the worlds first ever(and arguably the most important of WW2) air battle, the Battle of Britain hasn't been properly simulated yet!!!

The latewar planes cover 1946 ETO only, since Japan has no real latewar superprops.

The superprops are as obsolete as the biplanes anyway, since Jets killed them off. The only thing the superprops were good for was air racing, and CAS in post WW2 conflicts(Korea). The real use for the superprops in online sims is for "Fantasy ACM Arena" use. Any kind of What If? scenario would have to include JETS if you want to be realistic.

There's the impossible task of modelling planes that saw very little use, or were only in prototype stage(J7W Shinden). Make a list of the superprops, and see how many are American/British/Russian, and how many are German/Japanese... and then some of the German/Japanese are prototypes that you can't model anyway. So you HAVE to limit the types to what was in service in WW2.

One other thing, bomber pilots suffer the most in the superprops era, since the best they can get is the B-29 which the Japanese were managing to shoot down with 1942-level aircraft like the Ki-61. In an Arena setting, planes like the Do-335 would massacre them.

SnakeEyes · « **Reply #44 on:** February 21, 2000, 06:49:00 AM »

Juzz:

A) Who is trying to recreate history? Does the AH arena recreate history? Of course not. Only in historical scenarios is there any reason to necessarily include jets for purposes of realism.

B) Bombers wouldn't suffer any more than they do today. The B-17 is no more equipped to handle a 190A8 than the the B-29 is equipped to handle the Do335... and yet they survive in the arena. And remember, the Do335 has the potential of running into defenders in P47Ms, P51Hs, etc., prior to getting to the buff.

C) Again, getting back to the fact that a Main Arena is not a historical recreation, who says that we need to have competitive superplanes from every power. If we don't have info on anything useful from the Japanese, we'll just have to make due with the uberplanes we can reliably create and there are a reasonable number that we have data for.

D) Additionally, you'll get no argument from me that AH/WB/whatever shouldn't model early war aircraft. The only people arguing the exclusionary approach are the early war fans with regard to the latewar aircraft.

E) You can take the *same* strategic approach to flying late and early war aircraft, it is only the individual tactics that change. I don't think we need to fly a given plane to be able to make a reasonable hypothesis about its capabilities and how to fly it.

F) Finally, as for the WB thing, the reason that no one talks about it there isn't fear... it's just that I'm the only one willing to bang my head up against that brick wall.

------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=