Author Topic: P-63 KingCobra......again  (Read 33579 times)

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
Re: P-63 KingCobra......again
« Reply #300 on: August 29, 2013, 02:51:25 PM »
Bring it  :D


 I didn't notice where you said you would help promote the vote?

Vote vote vote. Here's my list. Bring your list. If you're wanting my personal promotional time, you'll have to wait until after the scenario is done. Do you really need my help there? You seem to have plenty of time on your hands and can type. Get someone to volunteer to be your editor so the message is as clear as it would be loud.

List. Vote. Go, you, go.

Offline Megalodon

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2272
Re: P-63 KingCobra......again
« Reply #301 on: August 29, 2013, 02:53:40 PM »
Vote vote vote. Here's my list. Bring your list. If you're wanting my personal promotional time, you'll have to wait until after the scenario is done. Do you really need my help there? You seem to have plenty of time on your hands and can type. Get someone to volunteer to be your editor so the message is as clear as it would be loud.

List. Vote. Go, you, go.


  :rofl Pawn
Okay..Add 2 Country's at once, Australia and France next plane update Add ...CAC Boomerang and the Dewoitine D.520

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
Re: P-63 KingCobra......again
« Reply #302 on: August 29, 2013, 02:58:29 PM »
Arlo,
In the future, when a wishlist thread asks for a plane or vehicle, there are two proper options on how to contribute....

1) Indicate your support with a +1 or thumbs up, etc.
2) Do nothing.

HTC can see the level of support by the number of people that give it a +1. They can tell when there is no interest because only  a handfull of people reply.

Any other input is spam that makes determining the level of support more difficult. It's not relevant to discuss the logic of why a plane is asked for. Those discussions clog the thread with spam and hide the support or lack there of for the plane.

You spammed my thread to death with nonsense. If you don't understand something...pm me. I'll take all day to explain it to you.  :salute



Hold on, Vinkie. Don't single me out to tell me I didn't post in your thread the way you wanted me to. There's all manner of nonsense in this thread by all sorts of participants that preceded and followed. You, yourself, behaved in such a manner when you chose to defend your wish with everything from Lusche's stats to what you perceive everyone in the MA feels/thinks to even what you're doing this moment. You get to understanding that before you carry on lecturing or teaching me what to do in public.  :aok  :salute

Having said that, you left out the -1s. There's more to a wishlist than +1 or silence.

Pax. No hard feelings. :cheers:
« Last Edit: August 29, 2013, 03:00:53 PM by Arlo »

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
Re: P-63 KingCobra......again
« Reply #303 on: August 29, 2013, 02:59:39 PM »

  :rofl Pawn

No .... promote the vote. Go go go.  :D

Offline Megalodon

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2272
Re: P-63 KingCobra......again
« Reply #304 on: August 29, 2013, 03:05:06 PM »
Okay..Add 2 Country's at once, Australia and France next plane update Add ...CAC Boomerang and the Dewoitine D.520

Offline Saxman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9155
Re: P-63 KingCobra......again
« Reply #305 on: August 29, 2013, 03:21:54 PM »
Arlo,
In the future, when a wishlist thread asks for a plane or vehicle, there are two proper options on how to contribute....

1) Indicate your support with a +1 or thumbs up, etc.
2) Do nothing.


Everyone get that? No more discussion, Vinkman said so.
Ron White says you can't fix stupid. I beg to differ. Stupid will usually sort itself out, it's just a matter of making sure you're not close enough to become collateral damage.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23046
Re: P-63 KingCobra......again
« Reply #306 on: August 29, 2013, 03:28:28 PM »

 Just quoting your position on the A-26 is all... or has it changed.... had nothing to do with my post. 
 :cheers:
Did you bother to read the post of mine from the other thread that you quoted?

Any vote with an American aircraft on it that isn't a complete dud like the TBD would be isn't worth holding the vote as the winner in preordained. Hence, if there is another vote, the A-26 ought not be on it.  To solve this the A-26 should just be added to the queue of units to be added that HTC has.  This accomplishes two things, 1) it gets the A-26 into the game for those who want it and 2) it allows the vote to potentially be an actual contest with an unknown outcome.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Megalodon

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2272
Re: P-63 KingCobra......again
« Reply #307 on: August 29, 2013, 04:47:37 PM »
Did you bother to read the post of mine from the other thread that you quoted?

Any vote with an American aircraft on it that isn't a complete dud like the TBD would be isn't worth holding the vote as the winner in preordained. Hence, if there is another vote, the A-26 ought not be on it.  To solve this the A-26 should just be added to the queue of units to be added that HTC has.  This accomplishes two things, 1) it gets the A-26 into the game for those who want it and 2) it allows the vote to potentially be an actual contest with an unknown outcome.


 Hey you said your picks would beat mine you didn't say any thing about having a separate vote in this thread... so which is it your picks or a separate vote?  :D and  don't forget you paranoia about the MkIa.


Go USA!!!,
Okay..Add 2 Country's at once, Australia and France next plane update Add ...CAC Boomerang and the Dewoitine D.520

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23046
Re: P-63 KingCobra......again
« Reply #308 on: August 29, 2013, 05:14:11 PM »

 Hey you said your picks would beat mine you didn't say any thing about having a separate vote in this thread... so which is it your picks or a separate vote?  :D and  don't forget you paranoia about the MkIa.


Go USA!!!,
I don't have any paranoia about it.  I simply recognize that people aren't asking for it because they are interested in its history or the guys who flew it.  They are asking for it simply because they want a P-51 with cannons.  Same is true for the guys who ask for Spitfires with four cannons.  And A-20s with cannons.

The list I posted in this thread would beat the list you posted in this thread.  The list you dug out of another thread would not.  That is self evident and that you think you have a "gotcha" moment and are crowing about it is silly.

The issue I have with your line of reasoning is that you are claiming to be advocating for what the players want when you push for the Mustang Mk Ia, A-26, P-63 and cannon armed A-20G and contrast yourself to the stuff I ostensibly am pushing, but you include the D.520 and Boomerang as well which are things that definitely don't meet your giving the players what they want criteria.  You could make an even stronger list of "things the players want" by replacing the Boomerang, D.520 and Hs129 on your list with the P-61B, SB2C and M26.  So why is your position so great when you aren't favoring giving the people what they want?

I also note your petty nationalism.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Zoney

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6503
Re: P-63 KingCobra......again
« Reply #309 on: August 29, 2013, 05:20:08 PM »
OK, what is the model of P51 with the cannons please ?  And was it flown and saw combat and got kills in WW2 ?

Thank you.
Wag more, bark less.

Offline Saxman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9155
Re: P-63 KingCobra......again
« Reply #310 on: August 29, 2013, 05:27:16 PM »
A-36, I believe, which was the specialized ground attack variant. There weren't a whole lot of them but they did see combat.
Ron White says you can't fix stupid. I beg to differ. Stupid will usually sort itself out, it's just a matter of making sure you're not close enough to become collateral damage.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23046
Re: P-63 KingCobra......again
« Reply #311 on: August 29, 2013, 05:36:07 PM »
A-36, I believe, which was the specialized ground attack variant. There weren't a whole lot of them but they did see combat.
No, A-36 had machine guns.

Mustang Mk Ia was the British designation.  It did see combat but there were not that many made.  It is an Allison engined version.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
Re: P-63 KingCobra......again
« Reply #312 on: August 29, 2013, 05:41:22 PM »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_P-51_variants



P-51/Mustang IA (NA-91)

The first American order for 150 P-51s, designated NA-91 by North American, were placed by the Army on 7 July 1940.[4] The two XP-51s (41-038 and 41-039) set aside for testing arrived at Wright Field on 24 August and 16 December 1941 respectively.[nb 1] The relatively small size of this first order reflected the fact that the USAAC was still a relatively small, underfunded peacetime organisation. After the attack on Pearl Harbor priority had to be given to building as many of the existing fighters - P-38s, P-39s and P-40s - as possible while simultaneously training pilots and other personnel, which meant that the evaluation of the XP-51s did not begin immediately. However, this did not mean that the XP-51s were neglected, or their testing and evaluation mishandled.[5] The 150 NA-91s were designated P-51 by the newly formed USAAF and were initially named Apache, although this was soon dropped, and the RAF name, Mustang, adopted instead. The USAAF did not like the mixed armament of the British Mustang Is and instead adopted an armament of four long-barrelled 20 mm (.79 in) Hispano Mk II cannon, and deleted the .50 cal engine cowling mounted weapons. The British designated this model as Mustang Mk IA. A number of aircraft from this lot were fitted out by the USAAF as F-6A photo-reconnaissance aircraft. The British would fit a number of Mustang Mk Is with similar equipment.[6]

It was quickly evident that the Mustang's performance, although exceptional up to 15,000 ft (4,600 m), was markedly reduced at higher altitudes. The single-speed, single-stage supercharger fitted to the Allison V-1710 engine had been designed to produce its maximum power at a low altitude. Above 15,000 feet, the supercharger's critical altitude rating, the power dropped off rapidly. Prior to the Mustang project, the USAAC had Allison concentrate primarily on turbochargers in concert with General Electric; the turbochargers proved to be reliable and capable of providing significant power increases in the P-38 Lightning and other high-altitude aircraft, in particular in the Air Corps's four-engine bombers. Most of the other uses for the Allison were for low-altitude designs, where a simpler supercharger would suffice. Fitting a turbocharger into the Mustang proved impractical, and Allison was forced to use the only supercharger that was available. In spite of this, the Mustang's advanced aerodynamics showed to advantage, as the Mustang Mk I was about 30 mph (48 km/h) faster than contemporary Curtiss P-40 fighters using the same engine (the V-1710-39 producing 1,220 hp (910 kW) at 10,500 ft (3,200 m), driving a 10 ft 6 in (3.20 m) diameter, three-blade Curtiss-Electric propeller).[7] The Mustang Mk I was 30 mph (48 km/h) faster than the Spitfire Mk VC at 5,000 ft (1,500 m) and 35 mph (56 km/h) faster at 15,000 ft (4,600 m), despite the British aircraft's more powerful engine.[8]

Although it has often been stated that the poor performance of the Allison engine above 15,000 ft (4,600 m) was a surprise and disappointment to the RAF and USAAF, this has to be regarded as a myth; aviation engineers of the time were fully capable of correctly assessing the performance of an aircraft's engine and supercharger.[9] As evidence of this, in mid-1941, the 93rd and 102nd airframes from the NA-91 order were slated to be set aside and fitted and tested with Packard Merlin engines, with each receiving the designation XP-51B.[10]

[4]^ Kinzey 1996, pp. 7, 17.
[5]^ Kinzey 1996, pp. 7, 17-18.
[6]^ Kinzey 1996, p. 18.
[7]^ Gruenhagan 1980, pp. 178, 180–181.
[8]^ Birch 1987, p. 11.
[9]^ Kinzey 1996, p. 8.
[10]^ Kinzey 1996, pp. 8, 18, 55.

Offline Megalodon

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2272
Re: P-63 KingCobra......again
« Reply #313 on: August 29, 2013, 05:50:13 PM »
I don't have any paranoia about it.  I simply recognize that people aren't asking for it because they are interested in its history or the guys who flew it.  They are asking for it simply because they want a P-51 with cannons.  Same is true for the guys who ask for Spitfires with four cannons.  And A-20s with cannons.

The list I posted in this thread would beat the list you posted in this thread.  The list you dug out of another thread would not.  That is self evident and that you think you have a "gotcha" moment and are crowing about it is silly.

The issue I have with your line of reasoning is that you are claiming to be advocating for what the players want when you push for the Mustang Mk Ia, A-26, P-63 and cannon armed A-20G and contrast yourself to the stuff I ostensibly am pushing, but you include the D.520 and Boomerang as well which are things that definitely don't meet your giving the players what they want criteria.  You could make an even stronger list of "things the players want" by replacing the Boomerang, D.520 and Hs129 on your list with the P-61B, SB2C and M26.  So why is your position so great when you aren't favoring giving the people what they want?

I also note your petty nationalism.
I posted all about its history it served shot down bombed and strafed stuff and you know I certainly don't care about the history right? It wouldnt be simply cannons now would it, there would also be the MkI 4x50,4x30 model in one plane kinda like going to the track and betting on 1 and getting 1a for free.

Both would be pure Allison P=51 love....... I bet the P-63 would make a good showing as well.

True to my opinion I have posted the order that I would like ......that would be ADD 2 countries then add more planes I concede that the 520 and the Boomer aren't going to win will that work for ya?


Yes GO USA

« Last Edit: August 29, 2013, 05:55:04 PM by Megalodon »
Okay..Add 2 Country's at once, Australia and France next plane update Add ...CAC Boomerang and the Dewoitine D.520

Offline Megalodon

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2272
Re: P-63 KingCobra......again
« Reply #314 on: August 29, 2013, 05:52:40 PM »
No, A-36 had machine guns.

Mustang Mk Ia was the British designation.  It did see combat but there were not that many made.  It is an Allison engined version.

A-36 6x50's  dive flaps and eggs saw plenty of combat

240 Mk1a quite a few more than the F4u1c p-47m 152H-1 Brew shall i go on
« Last Edit: August 29, 2013, 06:26:19 PM by Megalodon »
Okay..Add 2 Country's at once, Australia and France next plane update Add ...CAC Boomerang and the Dewoitine D.520