Author Topic: We should have the P59!!! (Read 719 times)

99Blomup · « **on:** February 21, 2003, 10:31:27 PM »

The P59 was the version of the german me262..i think it would be awsome to have in aces high.
This site shows its stats!!!
P59 Facts

gatso · « **Reply #1 on:** February 22, 2003, 06:32:33 AM »

Blo, they only built 60 because they were rubbish!

Look up the Gloster Meteor and the He 162. Both much better candidates for a jet.

Cyas later

Gatso

Raubvogel · « **Reply #2 on:** February 22, 2003, 09:36:28 AM »

Dude that thing is slower than most of the piston engine planes in the arena.

Ack-Ack · « **Reply #3 on:** February 22, 2003, 07:07:13 PM »

The P-59 was slower than most of the piston fighter planes of the time and did not see one day of action during the war.

We would better be served if we were to get the Meteor to balance out the Allied side for jets.

It would be cool though if we could get the V-1 Buzzbomb.

Ack-Ack

MrWimpy · « **Reply #4 on:** February 23, 2003, 09:30:09 AM »

Bell P-59 Stats
Top speed: 413mph at 30,000 feet
Total built: 3-XP-59A
13-YP-59A
20-P59A
30-P59B

Classification at time of production delivery: Fighter TRAINER.

Like everyone else said, it never saw action.

I'd rather see the P39/P400 in AH2.

Ridge · « **Reply #5 on:** February 24, 2003, 07:17:03 PM »

He162 would be cool, but its flight characteristics were akward, and with a balsa wing, it was easily destroyable; mostly relying on speed for escape and small size for hit likeliness.

MrWimpy · « **Reply #6 on:** February 25, 2003, 05:30:51 AM »

Actually, in post war evaluation by the RAF, they said the HE-162 was a dream to fly and a stable gun platform. And they did say that it's small size would make it very difficult to hit.

It did see limited service near the end of the war, but I don't know if that justifies putting it in AH2.

How about adding the Ohka/Baka Flying bomb.

Dowding · « **Reply #7 on:** February 25, 2003, 08:07:01 AM »

If we are going to have another jet, it should be the Meteor III, IMO.

MrWimpy · « **Reply #8 on:** February 25, 2003, 09:13:32 AM »

Actually, I think it's more likely that the first message was by someone who either can't type, or else English is a 2nd language, and he/she/it is not all that good at it either.

MrWimpy · « **Reply #9 on:** February 25, 2003, 09:17:27 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dowding
If we are going to have another jet, it should be the Meteor III, IMO.

I gotta admit, for Allied jets, it was the only one to see combat service. And while it was not as fast as the 262, it had a heck of a lot more range, normal range of the MkIII being 1340 miles.

I guess we can hope.

viking73 · « **Reply #10 on:** February 25, 2003, 01:12:07 PM »

The P-80 would be better than the P-59. The P-80 actually flew some combat sorties, flying out of Italy in 1945 (i believe). It never encountered any enemy aircraft.

P-80 History

MrWimpy · « **Reply #11 on:** February 25, 2003, 02:49:26 PM »

And because the British Gloster Meteor WAS in service AND combat before 1945, it's the best choice for an Allied jet fighter to be in AH2.

BUT, I think we need more biplanes. The Gloster Gladiator, the Fiat CR32/42 series, and maybe even the Grumman F2F.

viking73 · « **Reply #12 on:** February 25, 2003, 09:29:07 PM »

Mrwimpy, an interesting idea on the biplanes. Did the F2F see action?

MrWimpy · « **Reply #13 on:** February 25, 2003, 10:21:39 PM »

First, my BIG mistake was it should have been the F3F, not the F2F, and it did see action in China with the Chinese Air Force.

Also, I don't remember how many, but the RAF's greatest Ace of WWII, Marmaduke St. Pattle (of South Africa) shot down a good number of his 50+ victories in the Gladiator. And there were a number of Italian aces who started in the CR32/42 series.

I think the biplanes could give the others a run for their money in a dogfight. While they were slower, they could also turn tighter than the faster monoplanes.

While I'm thinking of it, the Russians had a biplane fighter that saw action in early WWII as well. The Polikarpov I-15/I-15bis. The last version of the I-15 had retractable landing gear. One of the few biplane fighters (along with the Grumman F3F) that did.
Most had fixed undercarriage.

I read where a tactic the Russians used was they would fly the I-15bis with the undercart down until they engaged the enemy, then retract it, giving them less drag, more speed, and generally surprising the other side. I guess it worked for at least the first few encounters.

Arlo · « **Reply #14 on:** February 25, 2003, 11:35:06 PM »

Agree wholeheartedly. It's good to see a kindred spirit. You're just wrong about one thing. You're not the worst pilot in AH.