109-g6/u4 N

[Butcher]

*ShruG* Ok (though you don't seem to have a recommendation on how to limit such
via skin selection). The real point is, 109s didn't fly off a sailing CV. Any model. Ever.
The Ts had their hooks stripped and were essentially Es, not deploying from carriers.
(It's not worth Dale's time to model an E with slightly longer wingspan.) Corsairs flew off
sailing CVs.

What part of not having an historical leg to stand on did you not get?

 

I would stick to the 109E we have now, far better plane and less weight. the 109T is an obsolete piece of junk when it arrived, the E-7N would be a better version to add. It would certainly give a possible Battle of britain 1941 scenario - I believe if the Luftwaffe waited until the E-7 was readily available with drop tanks, it would of had much larger success over Britain being able to escort the bombers. I know the E-7 had the 300L drop tank, but didn't the N model come with bombs?

/can't remember sorry

[Arlo]

I would stick to the 109E we have now, far better plane and less weight. the 109T is an obsolete piece of junk when it arrived, the E-7N would be a better version to add. It would certainly give a possible Battle of britain 1941 scenario - I believe if the Luftwaffe waited until the E-7 was readily available with drop tanks, it would of had much larger success over Britain being able to escort the bombers. I know the E-7 had the 300L drop tank, but didn't the N model come with bombs?

/can't remember sorry

Got me. I'd have to research it. I think BoB is relatively well balanced, as is
(with the slight exception of the Ju-88 model). A nail-biter fits the bill.

 

[edit] "Later variants of the Es introduced a fuselage bomb rack or provision for
a long-range drop-tank, and used the DB 601N engine of higher power output."

^ Green 1980, pp. 41–45, 63–64, 76–81, 82–83

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Bf_109

[ReVo]

*ShruG* Ok (though you don't seem to have a recommendation on how to limit such
via skin selection). The real point is, 109s didn't fly off a sailing CV. Any model. Ever.
The Ts had their hooks stripped and were essentially Es, not deploying from carriers.
(It's not worth Dale's time to model an E with slightly longer wingspan.) Corsairs flew off
sailing CVs.

What part of not having an historical leg to stand on did you not get?

 

We land and re-arm Lancasters and 234's on CV's all the time. We have magical puffy ack and radar guided field ack, we also have bombers that can converge every gun into a 2moa dot at 1.5k and drop an entire field in two passes from 35k. There is surprisingly little about the MA that is historical, so why all the hate on this one thing?

[Tank-Ace]

No, it wasn't carrier borne.  It never had carrier gear operationally and its carrier was never finished.

But we can dream, can't we?

Also, an A6M5b will dominate the Bf109E (Bf109T), much less something like the F6F-5 or any F4U.

Kind of missed the sarcasm.

[Arlo]

We land and re-arm Lancasters and 234's on CV's all the time. We have magical puffy ack and radar guided field ack, we also have bombers that can converge every gun into a 2moa dot at 1.5k and drop an entire field in two passes from 35k. There is surprisingly little about the MA that is historical, so why all the hate on this one thing?

You're confusing historical aircraft requests with game design. Those things are done because
players are taking advantage of what cannot be coded out or because coding has limitations when it
comes to human fallibility/grey areas. That's a huge difference from asking Dale to code 'what ifs.'
When the 'what if' arena is introduced then there you go. Lead the charge without those of us who
are more into practical history not getting in your way.  

[Karnak]

we also have bombers that can converge every gun into a 2moa dot at 1.5k

No we don't.  Learn about what you're babbling about before speaking and revealing yourself as somebody who gets their information on how the game works from channel 200.

[ReVo]

No we don't.  Learn about what you're babbling about before speaking and revealing yourself as somebody who gets their information on how the game works from channel 200.

While a slight exaggeration it's not far from the truth.

[ReVo]

You're confusing historical aircraft requests with game design. Those things are done because
players are taking advantage of what cannot be coded out or because coding has limitations when it
comes to human fallibility/grey areas. That's a huge difference from asking Dale to code 'what ifs.'
When the 'what if' arena is introduced then there you go. Lead the charge without those of us who
are more into practical history not getting in your way.  

This is not some concept aircraft that only ever lived in technical drawings, or something that was a one-off prototype. It's a real aircraft, designed to operate off a carrier, that saw service. (Granted not off a CV)

[Karnak]

While a slight exaggeration it's not far from the truth.

It is vastly far from the truth.

The guns on a single bomber do not converge, they fire parallel to each other.  The guns from each bomber in the formation cross at 500 yards.  There is no pinpoint anything anywhere at anytime.  There isn't even an attempt at pinpoint anything in the system.

At 1500 yards you might hit with the guns from your bomber.  The guns from the drones are going to be wasting ammo.

This is not some concept aircraft that only ever lived in technical drawings, or something that was a one-off prototype. It's a real aircraft, designed to operate off a carrier, that saw service. (Granted not off a CV)

Fly a Bf109E-4.  It'll feel very similar.  The Bf109T that saw service had its naval gear removed, so yes, asking for a CV capable Bf109T is like asking for a prototype.

[Arlo]

This is not some concept aircraft that only ever lived in technical drawings, or something that was a one-off prototype. It's a real aircraft, designed to operate off a carrier, that saw service. (Granted not off a CV)

And I've said, time and again, it's essentially an E with slightly longer wings
that had it's hook removed and what few were made were sent to shore operated
109 units. You asking it to be modeled any other way doesn't have an historical leg
to stand on. You asking it to be modeled to historical perspective is a waste of
Dale's time.

I know you get it, you just don't want to. 

The shortage of 109 models in the game must feel oppressive (to some). 

[ReVo]

And I've said, time and again, it's essentially an E with slightly longer wings
that had it's hook removed and what few were made were sent to shore operated
109 units. You asking it to be modeled any other way doesn't have an historical leg
to stand on. You asking it to be modeled to historical perspective is a waste of
Dale's time.

I know you get it, you just don't want to.  

The shortage of 109 models in the game must feel oppressive (to some).  

I understand what you're trying to say, which is you dislike the idea because it wouldn't be 100% historically accurate to allow the 109T to up from a CV. My point is that there is almost nothing historically accurate about the MA so why not simply give us this aircraft with the tailhook and call it a day since it did see service. If you want to be historically accurate then we should at the very least implement a system where all F4U variants are perked when you launch them from a CV since pretty much all of them had their tail hooks removed and were as a direct result unable to land on carriers.

[Karnak]

I understand what you're trying to say, which is you dislike the idea because it wouldn't be 100% historically accurate to allow the 109T to up from a CV. My point is that there is almost nothing historically accurate about the MA so why not simply give us this aircraft with the tailhook and call it a day since it did see service. If you want to be historically accurate then we should at the very least implement a system where all F4U variants are perked when you launch them from a CV since pretty much all of them had their tail hooks removed and were as a direct result unable to land on carriers.

Now you're just making stuff up.

[Arlo]

I understand what you're trying to say, which is you dislike the idea because it wouldn't be 100% historically accurate to allow the 109T to up from a CV. My point is that there is almost nothing historically accurate about the MA so why not simply give us this aircraft with the tailhook and call it a day since it did see service. If you want to be historically accurate then we should at the very least implement a system where all F4U variants are perked when you launch them from a CV since pretty much all of them had their tail hooks removed and were as a direct result unable to land on carriers.

Not trying to say, am saying. That reflects you really don't understand. Using the
MA environment to back up a 'what if' wish is not a solid foundation for your
argument in my opinion. Besides, it's not really up to me. You could try to appeal
and get me on your band wagon but it's as unlikely as Dale and co. (the powers
that be) giving you a 109 to fly off the arena CVs in. But if you feel like this is worth
your time, good luck.  

p.s. You need to buff up on  you F4U history. Start here:

"VF-17 kept its Corsairs, but was removed from its carrier, USS Bunker Hill, due to perceived difficulties in supplying parts at sea.[38] In November 1943, while operating as a shore-based unit in the Solomon Islands, VF-17 reinstalled the tail hooks so its F4Us could land and refuel while providing top cover over the task force participating in the carrier raid on Rabaul. The squadron's pilots landed, refueled, and took off from their former home, Bunker Hill and the USS Essex on 11 November 1943.[39]

Twelve USMC F4U-1s arrived at Henderson Field (Guadalcanal) on 12 February 1943. The U.S. Navy did not get into combat with the type until September 1943, and the Royal Navy's FAA would qualify the type for carrier operations first. The U.S. Navy finally accepted the F4U for shipboard operations in April 1944, after the longer oleo strut was fitted, which finally eliminated the tendency to bounce.[40] The first Corsair unit to be based effectively on a carrier was the pioneer USMC squadron VMF-124, which joined Essex. They were accompanied by VMF-213. The increasing need for fighter protection against kamikaze attacks resulted in more Corsair units being moved to carriers.[41]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_F4U_Corsair

Not an 'almost' nor a 'coulda/woulda/shoulda' like the 109T.  

[ReVo]

Le Sigh..

Sorry Latrobe, but Arlo and his backup singer Karnak say we can't have it because it's far too silly.

[Arlo]

Le Sigh..

Sorry Latrobe, but Arlo and his backup singer Karnak say we can't have it because it's far too silly.

Ah, no more 109T vs. F4U comparison to make a sell, I see.  You may be getting over that case
of silly, after-all.