Author Topic: When will the LW get a real Jabo? (Read 887 times)

Karnak · « **Reply #45 on:** January 31, 2002, 05:39:53 PM »

eddiek,

Why do we need a sub-sub-type for each aircraft?

We have the F-8 airframe and it should have as many of the "U" packs as possible.

funkedup · « **Reply #46 on:** January 31, 2002, 06:05:09 PM »

Hazed, you are right, I meant 500 kg x 1 + 250 kg x 2.
And overloaded doesn't mean the plane can't take off or fly. It just means you are over the maximum "book" gross takeoff weight. Performance will suffer. When you put that much weight on an already overweight airplane with tiny wings, it's not going to be easy or pleasant to fly. I'm sure a guy like you can understand that but I expect to hear some complaining from the average dweeb when he tries to take off with all that stuff loaded.

hazed- · « **Reply #47 on:** January 31, 2002, 07:15:29 PM »

vv funkedup i see what you mean but after reading your post i went looking to see if i could find some info on the way the 190 handled with max weight, i read about those torpedos and then that massive 1800kg+2x300ltr DTs loadout and thought to myself it cant have been overly difficult to fly.

so i attacked guns blazing

and on a lighter trawl..........

If i was to start questioning what was possible for the overloaded planes I might well question the maximum loadouts on the F4u's and f6fs taking off of carriers in AH.
After all the carrier in AH is by no means the same length as the ones used in WW2 is it? Im not entirely sure but I think the AH deck is far shorter but its still possible to take off fully loaded(e.g. F4uc, 2000lb+4x3.5in rockets+400rds of 20mm cannon and full fuel weighs what?) in the US stuff.Was this ever attempted in real life i wonder?
True you can see photos of heavily laden F4u's etc but they could be land based for all I know.Can I have evidence to support this inclusion in the game? if no one can show it in evidence then what would be a reasonable compromise?

I'll settle for a few more loadout options on the 190f8 or am i being greedy here?(insert Billy Connolly)

Fariz · « **Reply #48 on:** January 31, 2002, 07:44:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Wotan
fariz stuka is not a jagdbomber its a specialized ground attack aircraft original designed for near verticle bombing. Adapted later as a tank killer.

Ground attack aircraft aren't always fighterbombers.

Thanks for info

BTW, I ment Ju87G.

Also, if you luftwhiners will keep asking for more uber planes I will send HTC some booz to model he123 as your only and main jabo and fighter plane!

Fariz

Wotan · « **Reply #49 on:** January 31, 2002, 08:15:45 PM »

i would fly a he123

add a couple of polish russian bi-planes e might get a polish campaign going...

ju87g i think had 6 rounds per gun not really a jabo either

should be one hell of a tank destroyer though...atleast fer rudel it was

Steven · « **Reply #50 on:** January 31, 2002, 08:20:01 PM »

In my opinion, yer all worried about the wrong F8. I'm holding out for an F-8 Crusader in good ol' USMC 'Nam markings. That's just the ticket for some Jabo.

Wilbus · « **Reply #51 on:** February 01, 2002, 08:00:55 AM »

The U usualy often describes that the factory put the racks for the bombs there instead of the mechanics on the field, manu of the different U variants didn't have any performance difference, just loadout.

Don't quite understand the people who rack down on us for requesting historical loadouts, you so anti "not your plane" that you can't accept what other people want?

Glasses · « **Reply #52 on:** February 02, 2002, 01:42:36 AM »

Something else to take account and might be considered much more difficult to portray is, perhaps, adding loadout options which ommit the total wheights of the ammo and MG131 pods. Also, of course, fuel load so perhaps the overall take off ground roll and performance may decrease but I do believe once the airplane is in the air on cruise speed it will fly smooth,you won't be able to maneuver much but you'll leave a nice dent on the Bishit Gang machine.