TU-2S, the best Bomber in the game.

[danny76]

Yet another reason for a pilot rating level - much like a USTA rating in tennis. Imagine: the higher your rating, the more your ride costs. Note that the unintended consequences might be hilarious. Imagine a 5.0 pilot trying to get to 4.0 level by repeatedly allowing himself to be killed...

Otherwise, most will likely take pride in their rating and enjoy working toward the next one.

I'll be able to fly 262's and b-29's exclusively

[Karnak]

Yet another reason for a pilot rating level - much like a USTA rating in tennis. Imagine: the higher your rating, the more your ride costs. Note that the unintended consequences might be hilarious. Imagine a 5.0 pilot trying to get to 4.0 level by repeatedly allowing himself to be killed...

Otherwise, most will likely take pride in their rating and enjoy working toward the next one.

Doesn't matter how much higher the costs are.  Putting the better pilots in Spit XVIs, La-7s and P-51Ds while newbies are stuck in P-40s, Ki-61s, ect will produce nothing less than a turkey shoot and then discouraged players who don't subscribe.

[danny76]

Doesn't matter how much higher the costs are.  Putting the better pilots in Spit XVIs, La-7s and P-51Ds while newbies are stuck in P-40s, Ki-61s, ect will produce nothing less than a turkey shoot and then discouraged players who don't subscribe.

Wasn't he suggested quite the opposite?

[Karnak]

Wasn't he suggested quite the opposite?

The original suggestion in the chain was that most aircraft should be perked.  That would leave the newbies stuck in the more difficult rides while those of us with lots of perks and decent or better skill would have our skill advantage amplified by also being in much more potent fighters.

[PJ_Godzilla]

Wasn't he suggested quite the opposite?

Indeed, I was. Karnak is, I think, talking about something quite different.

[Zimme83]

I would say that the Tu-2 should not be perked. simply because it isnt fast enough.  Of course are there many situation when u can zoom in an bomb w/o anyone upping in time to catch u but that happens in other bombers too. Most fighters will catch u and when they do will have a hard time shoot u out of the situation.

But as many others here i prefer the "Bat" when i need a smaller and faster bomber and i dont expect too much crap flying around. For strat runs etc is a 4-engine bomber my choise, simply because i like the sight of a fighter jockey dwindling down back to earth whit a trail of smoke behind.

[Jed]

Which should have a better turn rate on the deck, p47dII or a TU?
Say both are at 50% fuel and no bombs

[FLOOB]

I still prefer the ki67, it's tougher and it's faster. So fighters don't have many options except a rear attack, where it's twin 50s and it's 20mm are. Also it carries pedos.

[TonyJoey]

Which should have a better turn rate on the deck, p47dII or a TU?
Say both are at 50% fuel and no bombs

I would like to add on to that, should an A-20 outturn a 51?

[FLOOB]

I would like to add on to that, should an A-20 outturn a 51?

At low speed absolutely.

[PJ_Godzilla]

Empty, the two have wing loadings of around 32 psf. I'd expect the corner speed of the 20 to be lower - and so think Floob is probably correct.

While it may seem counterintuitve that any twin could turn with "the best fighter of the war"  , it isn't, at least unladen, any surprise to me.

Wait 'til we get the Beauwy... It's got an even lower wingloading and lower speed. That one will be a bear at low alts and speeds - and will likely soak up snapshots like a fat girl soaks up... anything you'd care to mention.

[TonyJoey]

So the A20 has a lower wing loading than the 51? Hey, I'm all ears here, honestly I'm not an aeronautical engineer (yet) and am interested in this stuff. As PJ said, it is extremely counterintuitive that a twin engine light bomber like the A20 could outturn a 51.

[Karnak]

So the A20 has a lower wing loading than the 51? Hey, I'm all ears here, honestly I'm not an aeronautical engineer (yet) and am interested in this stuff. As PJ said, it is extremely counterintuitive that a twin engine light bomber like the A20 could outturn a 51.

Not really.  Many bombers have low wing loading.  A-20 couples that with decent power loading.  Just because a plane is heavy doesn't mean it has high wing loading.  The thing that hold the B-17G and Lancaster back is power loading and stick forces.  Even then they probably turn tighter than many fighters, just slower so fewer degrees per second.

[bozon]

Not really.  Many bombers have low wing loading. 

When empty. This is of course because they are designed to load up a few thousand lbs of bombs and still be able to fly. an empty bomber is just an empty shell with lots of wings (and lots of drag for its weight too). In addition, bombers tend to have thicker wings that are better at slow speeds and high AoA.

[Karnak]

When empty. This is of course because they are designed to load up a few thousand lbs of bombs and still be able to fly. an empty bomber is just an empty shell with lots of wings (and lots of drag for its weight too). In addition, bombers tend to have thicker wings that are better at slow speeds and high AoA.

Yes, but empty is the state in question for A-20Gs in AH when flown as fighters.