How about some extra gap fillers?

[Saxman]

Probably the worst Zero of the lot.  The only real increased benefits of the Model 32 was the increased roll rate, slightly higher dive speed and the extra 100 rounds for each of the 20mm cannons.  The negatives were decreased maneuverability and range (due to decreased lift and smaller fuel tank) which stood out during the Solomons Campaign in 1942 and wasn't considered all that success that it only saw short operational service with only 340 or so produced.


ack-ack

The A6M3 Model 22 would be a better performer. The question is would she be different enough from the Model 52? One way or another, I think the A6M3 would be a good addition to bridge the two variants we have, however the value of the Model 32 is she'll give greater variety, even if her performance suffers.

[Perrine]

The A6M3 Model 22 would be a better performer. The question is would she be different enough from the Model 52? One way or another, I think the A6M3 would be a good addition to bridge the two variants we have, however the value of the Model 32 is she'll give greater variety, even if her performance suffers.

I say let's get both A6M3s.  To differentiate HTC just needs to add the label 'model' after A6M# series, for example:

A6M2 Model 21
A6M3 Model 22
A6M3 Model 32
A6M5 Model 52

[Imowface]

109G5as is the same as 109G6as pretty much, if I recall correctly, when it came to 109G's odd numbers = pressurised cabins for high altitude bomber interception with very few other differences.

[Krusty]

The A6M3 was intended to have better performance... It didn't. It was within 10mph of its predecessor at peak, but because of the new engine had a big dip (like the A6M5 but slower). The engine mount required removal of one aux fuel tank, reducing weight, but the clipped wings reduced climb, so the net gain was zero. The pilots disliked it because it had shorter range and less manuverability (their bread and butter) so the wingtips were added back, and another fuel tank shoe-horned in there.....


Again, net gain almost zero.

The only reason for the A6M3 would be the 10mph gain and the extra ammo in the wings (100rpg instead of 60). Pretty sad reason to include an entire other model, but we've gone on less.



P.S. Do some researching before you request these things... If you had done any checking at all you'd see that we HAVE the I-16 Type 18 (it's one of our weapons loadouts), that the 190A6 is identical to the 190A5, but that our in-game 190A-5 is severely slower than the real deal so it wouldn't matter anyways. You would have realized that the P-39N was basically identical to the P-39Q only it had .30 cal wing guns like the P-39D (which doesn't matter because soviet aces like Pokryshkin removed the wing guns regardless of the letter on the plane).

You would have found that the F6F-3 late models in the production run already had the engine with WEP, that was maintained on the F6F-5, but a streamlined cowling gave it 4mph more speed. You would have found that most folks want the F6F-3 because it would be LIGHTER than the F6F-5 and turn even better.

Or how about you would have learned that there was no real difference between the H and the J -- it was mostly a cosmetic where it had engines that looked "G" and performance that looked "J." It fills no gap.

The P-47D-5, you might have learned, was so short-legged it could barely get to the European continent and back. That said, all the early P-47D models were retrofitted in the field with kits to give them the latest improvements, until there was really no distinction between a D-5 and a D-11, for example.


Seriously, you might do some more research (no, real actual reading) and then at least see what's been wished for a million times already.


It may be harsh, but I felt it needed to be said.

[321BAR]

i want the a6m3s just for the historical setups. nothing more really. everyone knows that if M-18s flew, then id stay in this game forever...

[gyrene81]

Don't mind Krusty, he gets stuck in a private version of "factual versus useful", sometimes the big picture gets lost in the muck. It's a game, not a simulator (as I've been repeatedly told) so regardless of whether or not one of the resident aviation experts finds an aircraft useful for the arcade arenas, doesn't mean it wouldn't at least add to the list of cartoons that could be used to enhance the fun factor on the special events. If AH were more of a simulator, the specs Krusty state would a lot more useful.

(at least there wasn't another Spitwad on the list)

[Perrine]

(at least there wasn't another Spitwad on the list)

There were spits on the original post

RAF
spitfire 2 (a great matchup against bf109f2)
spitfire lf5 (a spit 5 with chopped wingtips, higher engine power suited only for low altitude)
spitfire 12 (would be nice as a perk plane in mid war arena, basically a spit with clipped wing and detuned griffon engine from spit14)

Fleet Air Arm
seafire lf3 (basically a navalized spitfore lf5)

[gyrene81]

There were spits on the original post


(Image removed from quote.)
(Image removed from quote.)
(Image removed from quote.)

LMAO, damn I missed them...I quit reading after seeing the "useful aircraft". 

[Seadog36]

The A6M3 was intended to have better performance... It didn't. It was within 10mph of its predecessor at peak, but because of the new engine had a big dip (like the A6M5 but slower). The engine mount required removal of one aux fuel tank, reducing weight, but the clipped wings reduced climb, so the net gain was zero. The pilots disliked it because it had shorter range and less manuverability (their bread and butter) so the wingtips were added back, and another fuel tank shoe-horned in there.....


Again, net gain almost zero.

The only reason for the A6M3 would be the 10mph gain and the extra ammo in the wings (100rpg instead of 60). Pretty sad reason to include an entire other model, but we've gone on less.



P.S. Do some researching before you request these things... If you had done any checking at all you'd see that we HAVE the I-16 Type 18 (it's one of our weapons loadouts), that the 190A6 is identical to the 190A5, but that our in-game 190A-5 is severely slower than the real deal so it wouldn't matter anyways. You would have realized that the P-39N was basically identical to the P-39Q only it had .30 cal wing guns like the P-39D (which doesn't matter because soviet aces like Pokryshkin removed the wing guns regardless of the letter on the plane).

You would have found that the F6F-3 late models in the production run already had the engine with WEP, that was maintained on the F6F-5, but a streamlined cowling gave it 4mph more speed. You would have found that most folks want the F6F-3 because it would be LIGHTER than the F6F-5 and turn even better.

Or how about you would have learned that there was no real difference between the H and the J -- it was mostly a cosmetic where it had engines that looked "G" and performance that looked "J." It fills no gap.

The P-47D-5, you might have learned, was so short-legged it could barely get to the European continent and back. That said, all the early P-47D models were retrofitted in the field with kits to give them the latest improvements, until there was really no distinction between a D-5 and a D-11, for example.


Seriously, you might do some more research (no, real actual reading) and then at least see what's been wished for a million times already.


It may be harsh, but I felt it needed to be said.

You make my point~ the D-15 was the first significant "factory improvement" with under wing hard points, more power and efficient propeller, hence the request for a later model razorback. Range is really inconsequential in this game for the majority of engagements. The F6F-3 did not carry HVAR rockets and first saw action in January 43. The same time early C and D 47's debuted, and even without the single drop tank, they had a 150nm greater radius than the spitfire.



As you yourself admitted the FW190A-5 is clearly not an early war bird/perked or not. I've got over 15 often read and re-read books just on the thunderbolt and I have a pretty good grasp on the operational development. This game has some obvious inconsistancies in the aircraft found in the different arenas, which is really kind of irrelevant considering in the main arena's outside AvA, FSOs and Historical special events, the random mix of allied and axis aircraft and vehicles negates most of the realism in the game

[Spikes]

No we need more Mossies and Spits and Ponies and Jugs before we get ANY more axis or Russian planes.

[Seadog36]

Regardless, I like Krusty and his contributions~ make some more razorback skins and ram them through, and lets get a D-22/23 one of the most numerous 47 models, and don't forget to fly in the Black Thursday SEA.

[Perrine]

but that our in-game 190A-5 is severely slower than the real deal so it wouldn't matter anyways.

Real fw190a5 mirrors that of fw190a8 in speed and climb.
It would be a rude awakening to fw190a5 flyers (aces high version) here when suddenly you can't do sustained veritical zoom climb.  
Soviet fighter pilots say the fw190s they encountered only shoot 'n scoot like n00bs in aces high and didn't respect it as much as the 109.

EDIT: I can't find  "start und notleistung" (WEP) climb rate on real, german fw190a5 data
Does that mean WEP can only be applied on horizontal flight to achieve max speed?

You would have found that most folks want the F6F-3 because it would be LIGHTER than the F6F-5 and turn even better.

Would love to have f6f3 as pure carrier fighter while f6f5 could be relegated as a fighter bomber

there was no real difference between the H and the J -- it was mostly a cosmetic where it had engines that looked "G" and performance that looked "J." It fills no gap.

My guess is that p38h mirrors performance of p38j below 12,000 feet but not above that.  Correct me here if i'm wrong

[Wmaker]

P.S. Do some researching before you request these things... If you had done any checking at all you'd see that we HAVE the I-16 Type 18 (it's one of our weapons loadouts),

Once again, priceless.

No, AH does NOT have a Type 18. Our I-16 clearly has M-63 power plant while the Type 18 was powered with a M-62. The Types AH I-16 represents through different load outs are 24, 28, 29.

Krusty, I suggest you either take on a helluva lot more humble attitude and start doing some reading...or stay quiet.

Source: Yefim Gordon's and Keith Dexter's book on I-16 for example.

[321BAR]

Real fw190a5 mirrors that of fw190a8 in speed and climb.
It would be a rude awakening to fw190a5 flyers (aces high version) here when suddenly you can't do sustained veritical zoom climb.  
Soviet fighter pilots say the fw190s they encountered only shoot 'n scoot like n00bs in aces high and didn't respect it as much as the 109.

EDIT: I can't find  "start und notleistung" (WEP) climb rate on real, german fw190a5 data
Does that mean WEP can only be applied on horizontal flight to achieve max speed?

Would love to have f6f3 as pure carrier fighter while f6f5 could be relegated as a fighter bomber

My guess is that p38h mirrors performance of p38j below 12,000 feet but not above that.  Correct me here if i'm wrong

the A model 190s are overweight compared to charts of plane weights. i forget by how much. and the A8 is heavier than the A5. real 190A5s were actually better than they are in the game

[Ack-Ack]

Or how about you would have learned that there was no real difference between the H and the J -- it was mostly a cosmetic where it had engines that looked "G" and performance that looked "J." It fills no gap.

It fills in a nice gap, it's the bridge between the old P-38s and the newer P-38s (J and L).  It also had 200+ more horsepower, WEP and faster than the G.  Also, the H would be an important addition for PTO scenarios and FSOs as it was the G and the H that broke the back of the IJAAF and the IJNAF in New Guinea and Solomons area.


ack-ack