Author Topic: Who thinks aircraft that did not see Combat In WW2 should be modeled?  (Read 1435 times)

Offline Sunchaser

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 179
Who thinks aircraft that did not see Combat In WW2 should be modeled?
« Reply #15 on: December 01, 2001, 11:02:00 AM »
No.
or Yes but wait until the next century.

Offline Raubvogel

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3882
Who thinks aircraft that did not see Combat In WW2 should be modeled?
« Reply #16 on: December 01, 2001, 11:56:00 AM »
Well, thanks for trying to categorize us Westy, but you are very wrong as far as I am concerned. If I wanted to tip the scales in my favor, I'd say 'yes!', bring em on! That would give us the Ho229, the He162, the big Gotha flying wing, Me163, etc, etc. I don't want em because I could care less about how the P-51X would have performed against the Meteor MkXXVIDCD. The history of the battles and the planes and men who fought them is what interests me.

Offline Nashwan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1864
Who thinks aircraft that did not see Combat In WW2 should be modeled?
« Reply #17 on: December 01, 2001, 01:24:00 PM »
Quote
Why? Because several planes (such as the DO335, P51H, Meteor, P80, P82, F7F, F8F, Tempest V, SeaFury, late mark Spitfires.. for several off the top of my head) were definately in mass production and deployed to combat units and on the line. Well before wars end in September of 1945.
Tempest V doesn't belong in that list. It was deployed and scored it's first victories in June 44. It went on to shoot down a couple of hundred enemy aircraft, hundreds of V-1s, and carried out thousands of ground attack missions.
Did you mean the Tempest II?

Offline funkedup

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9466
      • http://www.raf303.org/
Who thinks aircraft that did not see Combat In WW2 should be modeled?
« Reply #18 on: December 01, 2001, 02:30:00 PM »
Westy, FYI:

616 Sqn Meteors F. Mk. I flew CAP and fought the V-1 over Britain from July 1944.  Remember that the Luftwaffe was still periodically sending aircraft (e.g. Ar 234) over Britain until April 1945.  From January 1945 a Meteor F. Mk. III detachment from 616 Sqn was deployed to Belgium with the 2nd TAF, flying combat patrols, where they were joined in March by Meteors F. Mk. III of 504 Sqn.  The Luftwaffe chose not to challenge the Meteors over the Reich, so they ended up doing ground attack missions against the remaining pockets of German resistance.  So the Meteor was most definitely a WWII combat aircraft, albeit a rare one.

[ 12-01-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]

Offline K West

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1445
Who thinks aircraft that did not see Combat In WW2 should be modeled?
« Reply #19 on: December 01, 2001, 04:26:00 PM »
I stand corrected on the Meteor and the Tempest. I was refering to the 1945 versions that were substantially better performing than thier 1944 predecessors.

 Raubvogel I'm not categorising anyone. I've just seen the same people or same personality types (those who align themselves with a specific nationality) consistantly draw the line at "seen combat."

 As for the planes you mentioned? I'm all for the huge cargo plane. But the GO229 that only saw one, two at most, prototypes?  Sure. If I can have the Northrop MX324/334 so there  :p   In reality the GO229 was a plane that was never in production and never deployed to front line units and wouldn't qualify under anyone's conditions for being a WWII combat aircraft be it "produced and deployed" or the more restrictive "saw combat".

 The Allies also had more aircraft just as advanced and in development than the Germans and Japanes combined. Even mores for heavy, fast long range bombers.  I wouldn't mind a DeHavilland Vampire jet myself, a P-80 or a P-82.

 All of the aircraft I mentioned were in mass production and deployed..  I did miss including the HE-162 and that was an aircraft that is defacto a produced and deployed airplane in WWII. It just didn't come right to mind but by all means add it. I'd fly it too! I'm not "Allied."  You'll never see me have a sigfile linking me with a nationality in any online game. And as for the ME-163 I think (hope) HiTech already has plans to bring it on in a special role  :)  Just a hunch on my part.

 Westy

Offline funkedup

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9466
      • http://www.raf303.org/
Who thinks aircraft that did not see Combat In WW2 should be modeled?
« Reply #20 on: December 01, 2001, 05:20:00 PM »
Meteor F. Mk. III IS the better performing 1945 version.   :)

Offline Durr

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 247
      • http://us.geocities.com/ghostrider305
Who thinks aircraft that did not see Combat In WW2 should be modeled?
« Reply #21 on: December 01, 2001, 05:28:00 PM »
I think the AH should limit itself to World War 2 aircraft that saw at least some service.  The reason is that there has to be a line drawn somewhere.  If we can have all the late war jets, then why not Korean War jets.  If Korean war jets, why not the F-4 Phantom, or the F-15 Eagle.  There has to be a line somewhere.  Personally, I think the game should stick with WW2 planes.  I understand what people are saying when they say that the MA isnt a WW2 sim, but in a way it is.  Maybe a more accurate way to put it would be a WW2 themed sim.  There has to be some criteria about what, and what not to include in the game.  I dont know for sure but I suspect that the majority in here would rather see mostly conventional prop planes from the WW2 era flying around in the MA, rather than a skyful of strange prototypes that never or barely saw service.  I think the Me-163 has a role to play since it is such a limited use weapon.  Given a few minutes of fuel and limited ammo load and lightly perked, the 163 could be a good defense against high flying bombers.  Other than that, I would prefer to see no more late war planes at least until all the mainstays of WW2 are modelled.  I would like to see a lot more earlier war planes especially since I love flying in the scenarios and for those we need the standbys that actually did most of the work in WW2.  For the MA, I think that the so called "uber planes" from late war should be mildly perked (8 perks or so), and the bonus, or eny value, for using the earlier war planes upped as an incentive to fly them.  Everybody is entitled to their opinion and that is mine.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Who thinks aircraft that did not see Combat In WW2 should be modeled?
« Reply #22 on: December 01, 2001, 05:58:00 PM »
Westy,

The A7M2 Reppu "Sam" had enterend production, though only a few production models were completed befor we destroyed the factory.  Would the Reppu be included in your category?
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline jpeg

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 441
      • http://www.steveo.us
Who thinks aircraft that did not see Combat In WW2 should be modeled?
« Reply #23 on: December 01, 2001, 07:31:00 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Raubvogel:
Not just no, but HELL NO.

My sentiments exactly.
I would rather have HTC staff work on aircrafts that flew in WWII. Ju87 comes to mind... you get my point.

Offline Jack55

  • Parolee
  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 297
Who thinks aircraft that did not see Combat In WW2 should be modeled?
« Reply #24 on: December 01, 2001, 07:40:00 PM »
Yes, and please model only those that were built in significant numbers.  If there weren't at least 1000 of a particular type, it shouldn't be modeled. An example of a significant plane: P-47D-30RA.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Who thinks aircraft that did not see Combat In WW2 should be modeled?
« Reply #25 on: December 01, 2001, 08:16:00 PM »
Quote
If there weren't at least 1000 of a particular type, it shouldn't be modeled.

Pardon me, but that is very silly.

It eliminates many, many interesting aircraft and forces the sim to only have the same aircraft that every other sim has.

Do you realize how many of the aircraft in AH fail to meet that requirement?

A6M5b Zero-Sen
Ar234B
C.205 Folgore
F4U-1C Corsair
Fw190D-9
Fw190F-8
Ki-67 Hiryu "Peggy" (comming in 1.09)
Lancaster MkIII with 50 cal tail turret
N1K2-J Shiden-Kai
Ostwind
Seafire MkIIc
Spitfire F.MkIX
Ta152H-1
Tempest MkV

All of these were produced in numbers less than 1000.

[ 12-01-2001: Message edited by: Karnak ]
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Kweassa

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6425
Who thinks aircraft that did not see Combat In WW2 should be modeled?
« Reply #26 on: December 01, 2001, 08:28:00 PM »
In service, actual combat reports(not just test flight, one patrol duty stuff..).. that is about as lenient as I can get.

 Anything going further is "Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe".

 ...

 Late war variants, we have enough.
 
 Please, mid/early war models, please.

Offline Jack55

  • Parolee
  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 297
Who thinks aircraft that did not see Combat In WW2 should be modeled?
« Reply #27 on: December 02, 2001, 12:26:00 AM »
Perk those insignificant, low-run aircraft even if they did heat-up there guns.  AH should focus on the planes that fought the war.  :)

Offline K West

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1445
Who thinks aircraft that did not see Combat In WW2 should be modeled?
« Reply #28 on: December 02, 2001, 10:10:00 AM »
Absolutely Karnak, if it was into actual production. Did it ever get deployed? Even the ones made?

Westy

Offline Steven

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 681
      • http://members.cox.net/barking.pig/puke.htm
Who thinks aircraft that did not see Combat In WW2 should be modeled?
« Reply #29 on: December 02, 2001, 12:26:00 PM »
Yes for only the F8F Bearcat.  <g>
No to all the reast.  ;-)