GATT: MC.205

[gatt]

[back in town ...]

Leonid,

yes I red the PYRO news and actually I'm crossing my fingers about the C.205.  This baby could reach 400mph at 20,000ft and climb there in 5'30" (combat load) .... and dont forget the 2x12,7mm and 2x20mm MG151-20.
Not bad for an early '43 a/c ...


------------------
Gatt
4°Stormo CT

In the afternoon we again did this (strafing) and what I have dreamt of happened. A single CR42 took off and climbed up to engage me. We had a dogfight below the clouds and immediately over the aerodrome. It lasted a long time, about ten minutes. He was very good and much above the average italian. We believe he was a famous italian ace who had a crack squadron of CR42's. I'm very glad to say that he managed to bail out successfully when I finally finished him off."
2/Lt Talbot
274 Hurricane Sqn

[Sorrow[S=A]]

I strongly think the next plane should be a medium bomber. We have the heavy bomber but far too many fighters around right now. My vote is for the Mosquito, failing that I would love any German bombers.

------------------
If your in range, so is the enemy.

[Jekyll]

OK, if we're going to get really silly    I vote for the german Sanger.

Never heard of it????  Well it was a prototype german sub-orbital bomber, operating altitude of approximately 100,000 feet, with liquid hydrogen/oxygen as fuel and oxidant.  Top speed approximately 25,000 mph and a range of over 20,000 miles.  Of course, it only ever reached the wind-tunnel stage of development, but it saw just as much combat in WW2 as the F8F Bearcat  

------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron
www.users.bigpond.com/afinlayson/index.htm
'feel the heat .......'

[Vermillion]

ANNOUNCER: And Jekyll adeptly parries the "I want a BearCat aguement"

<crowd breaks into a polite golf clap>

 

------------------
Vermillion
WB's: (verm--), **MOL**, Men of Leisure,

[Minotaur]

How about a Hawker Tempest MK5 or a Ki-84?

Mino

[Windle]

Werewolf I agree with your above post - as long as you realize the F4U-4 Corsair reached the frontlines half a year before the war was over.


 


------------------
~Lt. Jg. Windle~

VF-17 The Jolly Rogers 8X
      Skychrgr@aol.com    

[fats]

Windle:

It wasn't the cannon equiped F4U-4 ( forgot the letter thingy, was it -4B? )... Ruy did quite nice job at proving that those didn't see combat in any numbers, he had access to sources for some book writer or something like that, not by far near as much as a Ta 152H for example. If you compare % of number of operational planes/total number of operational planes in respective air forces at the time.


//fats

[Vermillion]

Fats, I watched that whole debate over in Warbirds about the F4U-4B and its use in combat, and I don't know who to believe.

Each side had "DEFINITIVE" proof   and it seemed to just go to a stalemate.

Personally, I don't mind the -4B, and believe it saw combat, and didn't think it was much of an terror uber plane in WB's.  At least the sources I own definitely state that and give squadron numbers, and no it doesn't say -1C.  

So I dont' mind its inclusion in a planset, or that matter for the mixed MG/Cannon armed Hellcat (nightfighter version).

Of course I also don't mind the Ta152H, and have always wanted to see what it could do in a Sim. I dont' think that a person can argue it never saw combat when the plane at the Garber facility they are currently restoring, had repaired damaged to its tail assembly, believed to be combat related.

Its when you get to planes that everyone can agree didn't make combat that it starts to bother me, for instance the BearCat, TigerCat, or the Hawker Sea Fury. All are excellent planes and would make for a really interesting "What If, 1946 Arena", but for a main arena would be somewhat out of place.

All just my humble opinons, feel free to disagree or even agree if you are feeling kind today.

------------------
Vermillion
WB's: (verm--), **MOL**, Men of Leisure,

[Lephturn]

Hmmm.. some want a bomber, some a fighter...

Pick the P47.. its both. <G>



------------------
Lephturn
The Flying Pigs

[Windle]

Affirmative on the F4U-4 seeing substantial combat but not the F4U-4B.  Anyone can write a book - not everyone prints the facts. I was under the impression that as many as 200 F4U-4B's had entered the Pacific Theater before VJ day.  After exhaustive research I haven't found any evidence of this.  I've gone so far as to order the microfilm reel of F4U-4B history cards from the Navy Historical Center to confirm their dates of inception. In 12 months when I actually get the reels I'll let ya know.  

If a cannon armed Corsair is to be added to the planeset it has to be the F4U-1C.  There were only a couple hundered of them produced but ALL of them saw combat toward the end of the Pacific conflict.  One Marine pilot even landed a 4 kill sortie in one.  

I say roll with the F4U-1C and also the Ta-152 whatever it's worth.  The Ta-152's strength was at high altitude and I rarely go up there anyway.  

I stand behind the idea of 'if it saw combat during WWII then it should be modeled' - period.

....of course if only 10 were produced and only 5 of those saw combat then it should be the LAST plane to be modeled.   When it comes to modeling the rarest combat planes they should be left until last.  It would be rediculous to see a sky full of Ta-152's or F4U-1C's and not a single FW-190D or F4U-1A in flight.  

Don't count anything out, just be wise about when its time to count it in.


 

------------------
~Lt. Jg. Windle~

VF-17 The Jolly Rogers 8X
      Skychrgr@aol.com    

[-kier-]

Il2 Sturmovik (sp? Leonid?)

[indian]

The F4U-4 did see plenty of combat mostly ground attack but its still combat. I personally like all planes built during WWII weather they saw combat or not. The intor to the game said vintage WWII not WWII combat airplanes. If it few and it has info on it put it in the game. The F4U-4B was only the british version of the F4U-4 not any real difference, mainly shorter wings.

------------------
Tommy (INDIAN) Toon
  Cherokee Indian
My Homepage
Where you can find the Key Commands in  files for Word6 Wordpad and text mode.

indians Homepage

Aces High Word6 and Wordpad Doc's available on my web site.

[Jekyll]

I like Keir's idea of the Sturmovik.  We need to have something a little different for the next plane, and the IL-2 would certainly be different.

I can just imagine all those VVS pilots braving the ack to knock down fields  

------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron
www.users.bigpond.com/afinlayson/index.htm
'feel the heat .......'

[leonid]

-kier- & Jekyll,

I dunno about the Il-2 just yet.  It was mainly a ground attack vehicle.  Yes, that would include airfields too, but the present state of ack would make it a very tough venture for the Sturmovik, if not suicide, since the Il-2 was relatively slow.

For my own satisfaction I'd like to see a few things happen before the Il-2 is introduced:

1. A radar 'dead' zone from ground level to 100m.

2. Reduced icons for aircraft flying at 100m or below.  This also goes for dots.  I think the current black dot is too obvious.

3. Ack that is less deadly.  Also, maybe, introduce a server timer for airfield ack such that upon arrival of enemy aircraft all ack is delayed for so many minutes (5?), then once the last enemy aircraft departs the airfield ack delay timer is reset until the next arrival of enemy aircraft.

4. The air-to-ground rocket model needs to be refined.

Of course, I'm almost certain that these issues will be addressed by HTC.  It's just a matter of time really.  In fact, with the exception of an ack delayer, most of these issues were satisfactorily dealt with in the WB engine, so I'm quite confidant about them being resolved in a similar fashion.

I think right now the goal at HTC is to get the flight, gunnery and ground model down pat, then move on to the next agenda at hand.

Pushing the Il-2 out at this point might make it a frustrating experience.  Unless, they suddenly change field capture to ground vehicles ...
 


------------------
129 IAP VVS RKKA

[Jekyll]

I've been a proponent of an ack delay for a long time now.  Historically, low level attacks on airfields were a viable proposition, the idea being to scream in at low level before the enemy ack gunners could get to their posts or react.

But I don;t think we need a 5 minute delay.  A 30 second to 1 minute delay should be ample.  Airfield ack is by default in a 'non-alert' state, and 1 minute after the first enemy aircraft enters its firing envelope, it goes active.  It remains active until, say, 15 or 30 minutes after the last fighter leaves the envelope, and returns to its dormant state.

It would make low-level 'rhubarb' type attacks a possibility, and if we ever get aircraft stored in hangers or revetments rather than spawning on the runway .... well, can you say 'Operation Bodenplatte' ???

------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron
www.users.bigpond.com/afinlayson/index.htm
'feel the heat .......'