« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Ju-52  (Read 5972 times)

Offline VonMessa

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11922
Re: Ju-52
« Reply #15 on: March 10, 2011, 08:19:19 AM »
Quote from: MachFly on March 10, 2011, 08:15:36 AM
You might have drunk troops running to the base instead of the town.   :old:

Adds a new dimension to base capture  :lol
Logged
Braümeister und Schmutziger Hund von JG11


We are all here because we are not all there.

Offline Noir

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5964
Re: Ju-52
« Reply #16 on: March 10, 2011, 09:30:30 AM »
+1 every side using the same transports in events is kinda silly...even if the Ju52 is a dog.
Logged
now posting as SirNuke

Offline R 105

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 978
Re: Ju-52
« Reply #17 on: March 10, 2011, 10:41:45 AM »
 I would like to see the JU-52 because it played such a major roll in the European theater of war from the beginning to the end. It was an airliner in Europe well before hostilities started in 1939 and saw service well after the war. It would be a great addition to the AvA for scenarios and it is so ugly that it is beautiful.
Logged

Offline B-17

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2672
Re: Ju-52
« Reply #18 on: March 10, 2011, 04:30:25 PM »
Quote from: Ugly05 on March 10, 2011, 07:42:23 AM
The Junkers Ju. 52/3M with the Pontoons ? Ability to take off land from water would be a different twist to game
 (Image removed from quote.)

maybe it would work... if we did that, then i would have to start a new thread for the sunderland or the catalina   :joystick:
Logged

Offline Raphael

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2010
Re: Ju-52
« Reply #19 on: March 10, 2011, 04:50:47 PM »
Quote from: R 105 on March 10, 2011, 10:41:45 AM
it is so ugly that it is beautiful.

+1 :aok
Logged
Remember 08/08/2012
 Youtube videos - http://www.youtube.com/user/raphael103/featured
Game ID => Raphael
XO of Jg5

Offline AAJagerX

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2339
Re: Ju-52
« Reply #20 on: March 10, 2011, 06:06:31 PM »
Quote from: VonMessa on March 10, 2011, 08:19:19 AM
Adds a new dimension to base capture  :lol

I'd like to see em stumble aimlessly while scattering in all directions, then pass out.
Logged
AAJagerX - XO - AArchAAngelz

trainers.hitechcreations.com

Offline B-17

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2672
Re: Ju-52
« Reply #21 on: March 10, 2011, 10:16:07 PM »
at least theyd be harder to shoot at :aok
Logged

Offline Debrody

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4487
Re: Ju-52
« Reply #22 on: March 11, 2011, 03:19:21 AM »
+1 for tante Ju, along with an update on the c-47
Logged
AoM
City of ice

Offline gyrene81

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11629
Re: Ju-52
« Reply #23 on: March 11, 2011, 05:24:06 AM »
been needed for a long time...  :aok
Logged
jarhed  
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Offline B-17

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2672
Re: Ju-52
« Reply #24 on: March 11, 2011, 04:45:18 PM »
the being able to look inside the wing structure when you lose an aileron would be cool, because i think it has multiple spars, no? and 3 engines is better than 2.
Logged

Offline EagleDNY

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1514
Re: Ju-52
« Reply #25 on: March 11, 2011, 06:36:01 PM »
I'd +1 it with the pontoons and a system to use the ports to do resupply.  Otherwise give me an Me-323.
Logged

Offline LLogann

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4947
      • Candidz.com
Re: Ju-52
« Reply #26 on: March 11, 2011, 06:45:18 PM »
Everybody in this thread realizes that a Goonie Bird, IRL, carries a crapload more than 10 right?

Even with the addition of another C aircraft, it won't be changing the 10 thing. 

+1 btw.
Logged
See Rule #4
Now I only pay because of my friends.

Offline B-17

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2672
Re: Ju-52
« Reply #27 on: March 11, 2011, 07:39:44 PM »
Quote from: EagleDNY on March 11, 2011, 06:36:01 PM
I'd +1 it with the pontoons and a system to use the ports to do resupply.  Otherwise give me an Me-323.

Me 323... that was the massive glider right? the one that kept getting shot down, but could carry 60 troops or something?
Logged

Offline AWwrgwy

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5478
Re: Ju-52
« Reply #28 on: March 11, 2011, 07:55:18 PM »
Quote from: LLogann on March 11, 2011, 06:45:18 PM
Everybody in this thread realizes that a Goonie Bird, IRL, carries a crapload more than 10 right?

Even with the addition of another C aircraft, it won't be changing the 10 thing. 

+1 btw.

Apparently not.


wrongway
Logged
71 (Eagle) Squadron
"THAT"S PAINT!!"

"If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through."
- General Sir Anthony Cecil Hogmanay

Offline Imowface

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1124
Re: Ju-52
« Reply #29 on: March 15, 2011, 04:32:28 AM »
I am all for adding a Ju-52, but we should also keep the Savoia-Marchetti S.M.82 in mind,  although its max speed was only 204mph, it does have a better defensive armament then the Ju, it was probably the most capable axis transport of the entire war, excluding the 323, which the S.M.82 had a much better reputation then
Logged
Ла-5 Пилот снова
NASA spent 12 million dollars to develop a pen that could work in space, Russia went to space with pencils...
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up
« previous next »