US aircraft; too many or too few?

[Tac]

Russian, Italian and Japanese planes are already in the game and I would like to see some more models, but I'd prefer to have at least one or two fighters of French, Swiss, Finnish, Dutch (etc) design.

I go for the exotics  

I am very surprised however, at the lack of US variants. I expected to see earlier version of the P51, P47 and P38. And the P40 is certainly overdue (fang nose art fetish..   ), but there are more than enough US fighters now.

Bombers and attack planes from other nations would be very nice to have too.

[LJK Raubvogel]

Yes, I think there are too many US planes right now. And the fact that 4 out of 6 carrier planes are US doesn't help.

What I'd like to see:

Me-410  (you'd have to fight me too flakbait  )
Fw190D-9
Ki-61
Ki-100-II
Il-2 (the 2 seater-M3?)
Pe-2
G.55 Centauro
SM79 Sparviero

------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps

 

[This message has been edited by LJK Raubvogel (edited 02-02-2001).]

[flakbait]

There seems to be a little confusion about the Il-2 Sturmovik, so here's some info:

 

As taken from the Russian Aviation Museum...

Il-2 Type 3

Seating: 2; pilot and rear-facing gunner
Total Production numbers: 36,163

Introduction Date: Type 3; December 1942
Engine: 1,780hp AM-38F
Empty weight: 9,975.8 lbs
Maximum weight: 14,021 lbs

Wing span: 48 ft
Length: 38 ft
Wing area: 126.28 sq/ft

Top speed: 250.8 mph
Range: 474.4 miles
Service ceiling: 11,480 ft

Armament(standard):
2x 23mm VYa cannons, penetration of one inch armor plate steel at 440 yards
2x 7.62mm ShKAS
1x 12.7mm UBT (rear gunner)

Loadout options:
750 kg of bombs
4x RS-82mm rockets OR
4x RS-132mm rockets

Source Link: http://hep2.physics.arizona.edu/~savin/ram/il-2.html

Just for the hell of it, here's the Me-410 specs:

 

Wingspan: 53 feet 7¼ inches
Length: 40 feet 11 1/3 inches
Height: 14 feet 5 inches
Empty weight: 13,550 lbs
Max weight: 23,500 lbs

Engine: 2x DB 603A rated at 1,750hp

Armament(standard):
2x 7.92mm MG-17 w/1,000 rounds each
2x 20mm MG151/20 w/350 rounds each
2x 13mm MG131 w/450 rounds each

Armament(optional; can't resist!):
Me-410 Rustsatz kits: added in addition of standard armament except where noted.

B6-R2: 2, Mk 108 30mm cannons in the bomb bay. Aircraft fitted with Zaunkonig radar in the nose. All normal nose armament deleted.
R2: 2, 30mm Mk. 108 cannons in the bomb bay in addition to normal armament.
R3: 2, 30mm Mk. 103 cannons in the bomb bay in addition to normal armament.
R4: 2, 20mm M.G. 151/20 20mm cannons in the bomb bay, 2 M.G. 151/20 20mm cannons in a pod on the belly behind the bomb bay in addition to normal armament.
U2-R5: 4, M.G. 151/20 20mm cannons in the bomb bay, 2 M.G. 17 7.92mm machine guns in the nose in addition to normal armament
R6: 2, M.G. 151/20 20mm cannons in the bomb bay in addition to normal armament.
B2-U4: 1, Bk 5 50mm cannon in the bomb bay with 21 rounds. M.G. 17 machine guns deleted. Occasionally a Bk 3.7 37mm cannon replaced the Bk 5 with 36 rounds.
R7: All nose armament deleted in favor of reconnaissance cameras.
B-5: Tail guns replaced by a 187 gal. fuel tank. Additional fuel tank mounted in bomb bay. All ordinance carried externally.
Single 1,000kg SB 1000/410 bomb.
Single LT 5b torpedo [1,984 lbs].
Single LT 5i torpedo [1,675 lbs].
2x BT 200 or BT 400 torpedoes.
Single SC 1800 bomb.
Single 780kg SB 800 RS Kurt bomb.
B-1: M.G. 17 machine guns replaced with M.G. 131 guns
B1-U2: M.G. 17 machine guns replaced by M.G. 131 guns. 2, M.G. 151/20 20mm cannons installed in the bomb bay.
B-2/U-2: M.G. 17 machine guns removed. WB containers installed in the bomb bay. Options included:
2x 30mm Mk 108 cannons
2x 30mm Mk 103 cannons
4x 20mm M.G. 151/20 cannons


External ordinance:
2x 300 liter drop tanks
4x WGr. 21 rockets
6x 40mm 39M rockets
2x 250 or 500kg bombs

Typical bomb loads [internal, no R or WB kits]:
8x 50kg
2x 250kg
2x 500kg

1,000 kg bomb load

Speed: 388mph
Service ceiling: 32,800 ft
Range: 1,450 miles

External ord specs can be found here: www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/bombs.html


-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
Delta 6's Flight School
Put the P-61B in Aces High
"For yay did the sky darken, and split open and spew forth fire, and
through the smoke rode the Four Wurgers of the Apocalypse.
And on their canopies was tattooed the number of the Beast, and the
number was 190." Jedi, Verse Five, Capter Two, The Book of Dweeb
 

[Soda]

The MA is a late war world, with perk planes coming it's getting even worse.  Some of these early war birds that were so historically important wouldn't and couldn't survive in the current MA.  Thus, all Hurricanes and BF-110's would be pretty hard pressed to make any effective contribution in the MA.  Some of the current crop of planes have a pretty hard time in the MA already.

They all do deserve to be modelled though, it's just a matter of time and when the initative is taken I bet we get a HA at the same time.  It's great to talk about P-40's, P-39's, etc, but how would one of those do against something like a C-Hog or Me-262... geez.  The US had tonnes of late war stuff, major classes and variants (or so my knowledge indicates), thus we tend to have lots of US iron in AH.

I think your chances of seeing later war birds is far better than seeing a early war bird at this point.  Trying to roll back the clock on the MA just isn't going to work and people will be screaming even louder for a HA (not that that's bad).

Your point is probably accurate flakbait that the US planes have more test data around, but I think that the major reason is that the US had so many late war planes that they are bound to have more modelled in a late war MA.

Maybe I'm wrong, I sure hope all these planes that have been mentioned in this thread and others get modelled, but I just can't imagine some of the truely historically important aircraft even showing up until a HA arrives... they just wouldn't stand a chance so why bother.  A hardy few may fly them from time to time, but it'd become more and more frustrating until you had to revert back to something competitive (i.e a late war ride).

-Soda

[J_A_B]

Oh dear, I mistook Karnak as RAM

--hangs head in shame--

Proof I am not getting enough sleep


J_A_B

[Jekyll]

 

US aircraft had more testing done on them, and some are still flying today. Which means if you don't have the max roll rate of the P-47 at 311mph and 19,551 feet you can easily find out.

And STILL get it wrong!

With all due respect to HTC, the above statement is no justification for modelling US aircraft.

If you look at the 'Rollrates' thread in the Gameplay forum, you'll see that rollrates in AH are as much as 35 degree per second too fast for some aircraft, and up to 20 degree per second too slow for some (anti LW conspiracy again   )

SO, if the NACA data is correct, AH rollrates are woefully incorrect.  If Allied aircraft are modelled incorrectly with so much data available, why bother looking for data at all.

Just pick the first numbers that come out of your head and wait for the community to point out your errors.  Let the community do your research for you  

Then ignore it  

[Pongo]

Jekyll
Put hyde back on..
Your turning into an amazinhunk.

[BBGunn]

Wish someone would retest the P38L!

[brady]

 I feel their are to many US planes, I do not buy the available data BS..no matter how reasionable that reasoning may be...I think it is really just ethnocentrism or a perceived ethnocentrism on the part of the consumer that has fostered this approach to the aircraft that have been modeled thus far.
  I do sense that HTC is moving to rectify this though we have 1 new plane each for Russia and Britain, 2 countries needing some more representation, and I hope we will see some new planes for Italy and Japan soon as well.

My wish list would be something like this:

Ki-84
Me 410
Ki-102
Il-2
TU-4
G-55
SM-79
Beaufighter
tenzen
Ryusei
P-108
Emily
He-115
Short Sutherland
Cant Z.506B
D-9

 

Brady

------------------
 

[This message has been edited by brady (edited 02-02-2001).]

[8-Ball]

The one aircraft I would really like to see is the Ju-87

[Jekyll]

Pongo, can you point out something in my post which is factually wrong?

Or do you just not like the tone of the post?

If the former, please advise where my error lies.

If the latter, well lets just put it down to disappointment in a game which at one time held such great promise  

[BUG_EAF322]

Thanks Tac now gimme a twintailed Fokker G.I.
 

[Pongo]

Jekyll
"Just pick the first numbers that come out of your head and wait for the community to point out your errors. Let the community do your research for you

Then ignore it

"
Is an amazinhunk statement.
The previos post you made then edited out of my other thread about US pilots specificaly being more to prone shootin chutes was also an amazinhunk statement. Guess you didnt like me pointing out that the most notorios allied chute shooter was an Aussi. Probably the only pilot in the war that was famous for shooting pilots under silk. Funny how that works out.
As to changeing the flight models. I dont know anything about flight models. But the way to get them changed is to clearly state your data and source. Keep punting it or coming at it from different angles.
Not to insult the guys that are paying for your flying.
Must be hard for you to represent HTC as a trainer with such a chip on your shoulder.

[Hans]

I would like to see a mix of different nationalities in the game.

As for other nations, a fighter or two is nice, but add more of their bombers and attack planes.  I don't think anybody would firing up the flamethrowers if they're off with the statistics a bit.

All not perked too.

G4M
Ki-84
IL-2m3
Fw-190-D9
Me410
Mosquito 4 (guns and small bomb bay)
Mosquito 6 (no guns, big bomb bay, bomb sight)

I don't think the US needs another plane for now.  They have some good ones.

I can't think of any Italian planes that would be worthwhile in a 1944 timeframe.  The Spavario bomber maybe.