One Aircraft I'd Love to Spend Perks On

[Letalis]

If I were to build a WWII twin-engine fighter myself, this would be the closest thing to it. Are there other aircraft more "deserving" out there?  Absolutely no argument here. Did the F7F shoot down any aircraft in combat during WWII?  No.
Things are not looking good for this wish...

However comma,
If it were up to me the 47M would be perked vis a vis the C-Hog, not just because of effectiveness but due to small production numbers. Production for those two variants came out to ~130 each yet are common in the MA.  Why? Because they're fun!  Total production of the F7F topped 300 units of all variants, (189 F7F-3s) which is also more than the Ar234 (which I might add was primarily used for photo recon) The Tigercat was deployed in the Pacific pre-VJ Day (photo recon) but saw no combat. Could it have seen combat? Yes.  Admin factors weighed heavily; with the exception of carrier qualification the aircraft was ready to go as a land-based asset much like the Corsair was in '43. Production was simply not a priority and there was no urgent operational need.  My argument for this sexy bird comes down to this: #1 I want to actually spend my perks IE fly the love child of an A-20 and a P-38. Those are some good airplane genes  #2 Both the F7F and the 47M reached operational units in-theater prior to the end of hostilities but the 47M has about a dozen A-A kills credited vs zero for the F7F. The margin is frustratingly small and I personally can't think of a more fun addition to the planeset vaguely meeting inclusion criteria.

[Wildcat1]

Since it saw no combat, it can't be added at this time.

Sure, it had the potential to see combat, but the fact is it didn't. In fact I'm not sure it was in an operational squadron by war's end.

-1

[Westy]

See how the bs about what HTC's supposed criteria is perpetuated?

[Noir]

See how the bs about what HTC's supposed criteria is perpetuated?

why is it BS?

[waystin2]

See how the bs about what HTC's supposed criteria is perpetuated?

What is the criteria then Sir? In four years time I have yet to see a single aircraft/vehicle added that did not see combat in squadron strength. 

[Krusty]

See how the bs about what HTC's supposed criteria is perpetuated?

Westy, nothing supposed about it. For many many many years, if not from the start, they have said, must be a production plane (no prototypes), must have served in at least unit strength (no "2 flew here" etc), and must have seen combat.

No BS about it. No myth about it. Do your own research. You're the one perpetuating a "myth" that there is a myth or any doubt whatsoever.

EDIT: I shouldn't have to tell you. You've been a registered forum member since 2001. You should know this by now as it has been rehashed and discussed countless times over the years.

[guncrasher]

It's a wish post it, who knows if it is the new plane for the 2012 con.  anybody remember the claw?

semp

[Krusty]

The claw took almost no work, and it was stated they got the graphics from an outside source for cheap, and the flight model was so simplistic it took no time at all.

Claw was a freebie, not a real plane.

[Letalis]

I'm a fan of HTC's criteria. A bunch of Go229s flying around would ruin the feel of the game. The F8F and P-80 would also be fun to fly but they don't really have a leg to stand on, the F7F might. Modeling would be a pain compared to the 47M ad -1C but if you do not ask, you will not receive...

[Krusty]

but if you do not ask, you will not receive...

True, true.

[mbailey]

While it doesnt qualify for inclusion, Id love to see what HTC did with the F7F, bet it would be a blast to fly.

But then again, im a 2 engine dweeb 

[caldera]

Westy, nothing supposed about it. For many many many years, if not from the start, they have said, must be a production plane (no prototypes), must have served in at least unit strength (no "2 flew here" etc), and must have seen combat.

No BS about it. No myth about it. Do your own research. You're the one perpetuating a "myth" that there is a myth or any doubt whatsoever.

EDIT: I shouldn't have to tell you. You've been a registered forum member since 2001. You should know this by now as it has been rehashed and discussed countless times over the years.

Have yet to see a actual quote from HTC about the rules for inclusion.  Only people posting that "HTC said so".   I for one would love the F7F and F8F, as well as any aircraft in production during the war.  If they were made to fight in the war, what difference should it make if they were a few weeks too late?

[AAJagerX]

If it was up to me (which it's obviously not) I would define "seeing combat" as being involved (flying) in an active combat theater.  Not necessarily by firing it's guns in anger.  Even if they were only doing recce duty, I'm sure the pilots appreciated the fact that they were definately in a combat setting, and that there were still risks involved with that type of flying.

Now, if THAT was our definition of "seeing combat", and it was in squadron strength, then a big +1.

[Letalis]

If it was up to me (which it's obviously not) I would define "seeing combat" as being involved (flying) in an active combat theater.  Not necessarily by firing it's guns in anger.  Even if they were only doing recce duty, I'm sure the pilots appreciated the fact that they were definately in a combat setting, and that there were still risks involved with that type of flying.

Now, if THAT was our definition of "seeing combat", and it was in squadron strength, then a big +1.

My reasoning exactly. Aerial targets in the PTO (mainland Japan exception) were hard to come by in the closing months.

[SmokinLoon]

I vote the Meteor MkIII before this thing.