New fighters

[Tank-Ace]

I would like to request the

IAR-80C
342mph at 23K
6.6minutes to 5000m
4 7.92mm mgs and 2 Mg151/20's

Fiat G.55
417 with WEP at 23k
8.57mins to 7000m
2 12.7mm cowl mounted MG's
3 Mg151/20's (one engine mounted (250 rpg), two wing mounted (200))

And hopefully the Re.2005
421mph at 23k
3900'/min
2 12.7mm cowl mounted MG's
3 Mg151/20's (one engine mounted (150 rpg), two wing mounted (200))

[Karnak]

-1 to all three at this time.

Re.2005 might not even qualify at all.

[Tank-Ace]

Why and the Re.2005 barely qualifies, depending on if you call "sqadron strength" multiple mixed squadrons.

[Raphael]

wowowo! oye! do not say no to the IAR

[Tank-Ace]

Don't worry Raphael, if I'll add something with severly limited prospects in the MA to the list, and then he'll come around  .

[Karnak]

Don't worry Raphael, if I'll add something with severly limited prospects in the MA to the list, and then he'll come around  .

You already did, the IAR-80C.

Try finding some things that actually fought the war for a change.

It would be like somebody constantly saying no to your neigh useless in the MA Panzer III and demanding the M-26 Pershing and Centurion, then arguing that the Centurion really does count for whatever reason.

[Tank-Ace]

what? I said HOPEFULLY the Re.2005. I don't know if HTC will take the multiple mixed squadrons thing or not.


IAR-80 wouldn't be much worse than the spit-9, Yak-9T, P-39Q, etc.



Again, why not?

[Karnak]

343mph is slower than the Spitfire Mk Ia, let alone the 408mph Spitfire Mk IX.  The Yak-9T and P-39Q are both significantly worse than the Spitfire Mk IX.


As to the Re.2005, why do you want the Panzer III and not the Centurion?

[Tank-Ace]

Because i would use the panzer III, and I wouldn't use the centurion, same way I haven't really used the Tiger II. I have more than enough perks for it, it would easily let me get my k/d up off the deck, but thats not what I'm going for.


As to the IAR-80 speed, thats was actually the IAR-81C, I think. The bombrack caused significant penalties in speed, climb, and acceleration. And even if it is correct, its still not much or any worse than the Hurricane, 109E, A6M, Brewster, I-16, and a couple others.

[Karnak]

Because i would use the panzer III, and I wouldn't use the centurion, same way I haven't really used the Tiger II. I have more than enough perks for it, it would easily let me get my k/d up off the deck, but thats not what I'm going for.


As to the IAR-80 speed, thats was actually the IAR-81C, I think. The bombrack caused significant penalties in speed, climb, and acceleration. And even if it is correct, its still not much or any worse than the Hurricane, 109E, A6M, Brewster, I-16, and a couple others.

No, it isn't much worse, better than most of that list actually.  That said, how many Bf109E-4s, Hurricane Mk Is, I-16s, A6M2s or A6M3s do you see?

I don't have anything particular against adding it, I just think we need other things first. My quip was based on your claim that I'd support your list if you put something that wouldn't get used significantly in the MA when your list already had such an aircraft.

We know the G.55 is on HTC's list as it has taken part in at least on of the two votes for the next aircraft to be added.  Personally, I would rather see an Italian aircraft that saw service in more representative numbers, but I am not going to stomp my feet in dismay if the next preview shots HTC give us are of the G.55.

The Re.2005 would be a new level of rarity, beating out even the Ta152 and Me163.  At least it would give me the shot to go full out to get the Mosquito FB.Mk XVIII added as its production run of 27 would no longer be an issue.

[gyrene81]

karnak, i'm not surprised. not everything included has to be a late war 500mph monster. talk about low production and obsolesence, only 40 b239s were ever created and they were obsolete by western standards before they got into combat. total production numbers for all models of brewster f2a's was somewhere around 500, and only the b239s sent to finland recorded any real success with them. according to the ah speed charts that thing doesn't hit 320mph level at any alt. so how would something like the iar-80c that was at least as fast as the a6m5 and could compete against many of the early war plane set not deserve consideration? it was just as significant to romania during the war as the brewster was to finland, with total production of all models in the range of 400, it served on the eastern front from 1941 to 1944.

personal idealism aside, try looking at the merits of a plane based on its capability against its contemporaries.

as for the re.2005 after all the discussions on that plane, everyone who has paid attention already knows there were more than 20 built, it served in squadron strength and saw combat. it was supposedly very successful too.


personally i'd like to see more "pre-1941" aircraft included. there was a war going on before the u.s. entered it and there were a good number of aircraft deemed "obsolete by 1941" being used by many countries to defend their homelands.

[Karnak]

karnak, i'm not surprised. not everything included has to be a late war 500mph monster. talk about low production and obsolesence, only 40 b239s were ever created and they were obsolete by western standards before they got into combat. total production numbers for all models of brewster f2a's was somewhere around 500, and only the b239s sent to finland recorded any real success with them. according to the ah speed charts that thing doesn't hit 320mph level at any alt. so how would something like the iar-80c that was at least as fast as the a6m5 and could compete against many of the early war plane set not deserve consideration? it was just as significant to romania during the war as the brewster was to finland, with total production of all models in the range of 400, it served on the eastern front from 1941 to 1944.

personal idealism aside, try looking at the merits of a plane based on its capability against its contemporaries.

as for the re.2005 after all the discussions on that plane, everyone who has paid attention already knows there were more than 20 built, it served in squadron strength and saw combat. it was supposedly very successful too.


personally i'd like to see more "pre-1941" aircraft included. there was a war going on before the u.s. entered it and there were a good number of aircraft deemed "obsolete by 1941" being used by many countries to defend their homelands.

I have no idea what you are talking about.  I am certainly not the one advocating for rare, ultra-potent aircraft here.  That would be Tank-Ace.

[Debrody]

You post theese three rides every week?

[gyrene81]

I have no idea what you are talking about.  I am certainly not the one advocating for rare, ultra-potent aircraft here.  That would be Tank-Ace.

you're right...

At least it would give me the shot to go full out to get the Mosquito FB.Mk XVIII added as its production run of 27 would no longer be an issue.

but that's a rare occurrence for you lately...any other time you're just railing against everything that isn't something you're interested in. to illustrate, one of your arguments against the the iar-80 was speed...

343mph is slower than the Spitfire Mk Ia, let alone the 408mph Spitfire Mk IX.  The Yak-9T and P-39Q are both significantly worse than the Spitfire Mk IX.

and yet the fairey firefly at 316mph...

I think the Firefly would be a good addition as well, but I doubt it would need to be perked.  Its performance envelope is much poorer than the F4U-1C.  316mph top speed is nothing to crow about, that is about the same as a Hurricane Mk I.The four Hispanos would be nasty though.

or has there been some progression since that time?

[M0nkey_Man]

You post theese three rides every week?

Determination: Never underestimate it