Author Topic: Sea Cane IIC  (Read 10561 times)

Offline Ardy123

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3417
Re: Sea Cane IIC
« Reply #60 on: March 02, 2012, 12:47:51 AM »
Better in what regard? More historically significant arguably but normal length wings and slats + no spoilers = boring.

I'll admit, I'm quite ignorant when it comes to the accomplishments of British CV groups in WW2 and their impact, but the 109E7 did see a lot of action in both the BoB and in operation Barbarossa, both significant military operations in ww2.
Yeah, that's right, you just got your rear handed to you by a fuggly puppet!
==Army of Muppets==
(Bunnies)

Offline nrshida

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8581
Re: Sea Cane IIC
« Reply #61 on: March 02, 2012, 01:01:12 AM »
I'm not arguing against the E-7, if the improved engine and provision for a droptank etc. are the only significant changes to the E-4 then it could be as economical an addition as some of the P-47 variants we got, I'm definitely be in favour of more early war variants.

I'm also not disagreeing with the point that Guppy's driving at, of course he's right. I'm just saying that the 109T would be different and fun, from the flight simulation and combat aspects of the game.

"If man were meant to fly, he'd have been given an MS Sidewinder"

Offline Ardy123

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3417
Re: Sea Cane IIC
« Reply #62 on: March 02, 2012, 01:16:53 AM »
I'm not arguing against the E-7, if the improved engine and provision for a droptank etc. are the only significant changes to the E-4 then it could be as economical an addition as some of the P-47 variants we got, I'm definitely be in favour of more early war variants.

I'm also not disagreeing with the point that Guppy's driving at, of course he's right. I'm just saying that the 109T would be different and fun, from the flight simulation and combat aspects of the game.

I'm not against the 109T-2 at all, I just think its a much harder sell considering there are other planes with much more relevancy that are missing. That being said, I think the focus should be on more Japanese planes such as the Oscar (ki-43) etc.. which were produced in much greater numbers than either the 109T or the OPs wish.


Yeah, that's right, you just got your rear handed to you by a fuggly puppet!
==Army of Muppets==
(Bunnies)

Offline Bruv119

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15667
      • http://www.thefewsquadron.co.uk
Re: Sea Cane IIC
« Reply #63 on: March 02, 2012, 01:20:30 AM »
jesus! 

how many more times have I got to say it !!   

thread ---  topic   --- rails   <---  Sea hurricane.

Shida be a gent and start your own discussion.
The Few ***
F.P.H

Offline nrshida

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8581
Re: Sea Cane IIC
« Reply #64 on: March 02, 2012, 01:42:16 AM »
Once you've set the late war super-competitive monster plane Wishlist faction aside (which seems to be running out of things to request anyway), that leaves the 'historical significance' faction and the 'not necessarily significant but interesting and entertaining' faction.

I think both should be considered when deciding what to include. But I think it is mute point anyway, given the rate at which new aircraft are included.



Shida be a gent and start your own discussion.

Well sometimes topics wander into related areas and that is probably healthy too. I have made my comments regarding the Sea Hurricanes also. Best of luck with your request.


"If man were meant to fly, he'd have been given an MS Sidewinder"

Offline Rob52240

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3770
      • My AH Films
Re: Sea Cane IIC
« Reply #65 on: March 02, 2012, 01:52:00 AM »
+1
If I had a gun with 3 bullets and I was locked in a room with Bin Laden, Hitler, Saddam and Zipp...  I would shoot Zipp 3 times.

Offline LCADolby

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7313
Re: Sea Cane IIC
« Reply #66 on: March 02, 2012, 07:23:16 AM »
jesus! 

how many more times have I got to say it !!   

thread ---  topic   --- rails   <---  Sea hurricane.

Shida be a gent and start your own discussion.

Ah hello again Rule 5 paradox  :devil
JG5 "Eismeer"
YouTube+Twitch - 20Dolby10


"BE a man and shoot me in the back" - pez

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
Re: Sea Cane IIC
« Reply #67 on: March 02, 2012, 08:37:08 AM »
Bruv119,

One of the general rules of this forum is that there cannot be a thread about a British airplane that does not become a discussion/request for a German airplane.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline JVboob

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 723
Re: Sea Cane IIC
« Reply #68 on: March 02, 2012, 04:27:27 PM »
i agree with sea hurrie but not the cannoned version i like the 8 303s and if its fuel injected i will have a new low and slow tnb hurrie of death. the mk1 gets annoying when you pull negitive gs but i love the plane. +1 for the sea hurrie we need more naval aircraft period
"Sighhhhhhhhhh, office closed do to ice for a day, And I miss a thread like this.."HiTech
Armed N Hammered 2002-2003
JG44 Night Hawks/JV44 Butcher Birds 2003-2009
49th Fighter Group fightn' 49ers Feb2012-present
138th FW Tulsa, OK 2009-2015

Offline hawkeyeluke13

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 59
Re: Sea Cane IIC
« Reply #69 on: March 02, 2012, 05:16:49 PM »
personnaly , too slow for carrier ops

Offline Tank-Ace

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5298
Re: Sea Cane IIC
« Reply #70 on: March 02, 2012, 08:07:30 PM »
Bruv119,

One of the general rules of this forum is that there cannot be a thread about a British airplane that does not become a discussion/request for a German airplane.


God forbid we segway into a related and relevent area of discussion.

His Majesty, the King  :cheers: ( :rolleyes:).
You started this thread and it was obviously about your want and desire in spite of your use of 'we' and Google.

"Once more unto the breach"

Offline Fish42

  • AvA Staff Member
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 862
Re: Sea Cane IIC
« Reply #71 on: March 03, 2012, 05:49:38 AM »
That picture is of Seafires or Spitfires.  Not a Hurri in it.

ah your right... ok 1 bad pic for 3 good ones :D







oh, one more.




« Last Edit: March 03, 2012, 06:09:44 AM by Fish42 »

Offline Fish42

  • AvA Staff Member
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 862
Re: Sea Cane IIC
« Reply #72 on: March 03, 2012, 06:01:53 AM »
Now I am not saying they should be added but they where still in active service well into 44. Wildcats did not replace them on HMS Nairana until September 1944.

I personally would love to have the IB and the Canadian 12gun hurries. But saying that the IIc meet all HTCs needs for inclusion.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
Re: Sea Cane IIC
« Reply #73 on: March 03, 2012, 08:47:48 AM »
How much action did they see?  Were they relegated to escort carriers on the Atlantic convoy routes where they saw little action or were they seeing significant combat?

In my opinion, the most significant British carrier aircraft by far was the Seafire Mk III of which 1200 were built, far more than all of the Sea Hurricanes combined and almost 1000 more than the Seafire Mk II we have.  The last dogfight of WWII was between A6M5s and Seafire Mk IIIs.

However, it is not 'politically correct' to ask for a Spitfire variant on these forums, so....
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Fish42

  • AvA Staff Member
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 862
Re: Sea Cane IIC
« Reply #74 on: March 03, 2012, 09:04:00 AM »
thats pretty active for a squad of 6 planes.

Quote
On 31 December 1943, the squadron transferred to the escort carrier HMS Nairana, returning ashore at RNAS Hatston and RNAS Machrihanish (HMS Landrail) in January 1944. Most of 1944, however, was spent onboard Nairana, on Atlantic convoy duties and on the Gibraltar Run. The squadron also served in 1944 with a successful submarine Hunter-Killer Group in the North Atlantic under the overall command of Captain Frederick Walker. In May–June 1944, three Ju 290s were shot down.[7] In August 1944, the squadron became involved in the Murmansk Convoys to and from RNAS Hatston, where it faced the most dangerous flying conditions of the war, and attacked two U-Boats and shot down four enemy aircraft

thats 835 NAS^