Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Seagoon on December 09, 2004, 12:15:01 PM
-
How about a thread on aircraft we need rather than simply want or dream about -
#1 NEED - More transports - particularly Axis ones. This has been a crying need particularly for scenario use for years, TOD is going to always remain slightly silly if both sides are flying the C47!
We need the Ju52 and a German Half-track.
#2 NEED - More Axis Bombers I was happy to see the KI67 added to give us a grand total of two non-perk Axis level bombers and hoped it would be the start of a trend.
Then we got the B24 making the current non-perk Score:
Allied Level Bombers - 6
Axis Level Bombers - 2
We need the Betty and the HE111. An Italian Bomber would be a big early war scenario help as well, but I'd be happy just to not have to endure seeing the Ju88 Skinned to be everything in the German and Japanese inventory.
I'll let you guys add your thoughts.
- SEAGOON
-
Some kind of halfway decent Spitfire.. either a IX LF (clipped wing, make it easy to tell the difference), or Spit 14.
Early war Russian stuff, a lot more Japanese stuff.
P-39, early war P-38.
Then we can start on the "wierd" planes... more esotoric LW stuff, P-61, Meteor (though the Meteor I would suck it up).
-
I prefer Urchin list :)
-
P40N too.
-
Genuine question: why is it that any discussion of planes we need degenerates into a planes I want wish list?
Do we need a fourth SPITFIRE variant? Why? What genuine lack would it meet? What scenario or even MA hole would the p40N plug?
Example: You have your fourth child but only have two bedrooms, additionally the roof is beginning to leak, and you strongly suspect termites in the deck. You call in a general contractor for recommendations. His answer? "Well sir, you definitely are going to need a wide-screen TV, a jet ski, and probably a tree stand out front."
Oy Vey.
- Seagoon
-
Lol... I[/i] don't want a Spit, I think the arena needs one. Our Spit 9 and Spit 5 are basically the same plane now that the Spit 5 has had its engine uprated with AH2. Both of them are to slow to be competitive in the MA. An unperked Spit 14 or Spit IX LF (which was, by the way, by far the most numerous varient of the Spit 9.. our "vanilla" Spit 9 made up the first couple hundred, except it is a bastardized version of that one) would make 350-355 or so on the deck, which is fast enough for it to be competitive with the '45 speed demons.
Why do we NEED[/i] any Axis buffs? Maybe a G4M, sure. Other than that I think we are ok... Germany didn't do much in the way of "strategic bombing".. and bombers take like 4 times the amount of work that fighters do.
What would a Ju-52 accomplish? Why isn't a reskinned C-47 good enough?
-
I go for more axis bombers too.
But do we need more spitfire variants? We already what, 5 or so?
-
The new spit would fill the biggest gap in the RAF planeset. It will give the RAF it's mainstay fighter of 43 and 44. Not only would the spit LF IX be great for scenario's and ToD it will also be popular in the MA.
Perhaps you shouldn't jump to conclusions so quickly next time seagoon.;)
-
Amen to that. AH is a low alt Tac airwar for the most part. A Spit LFIXe is made for that.
The Spit IX we have now just doesn't cut it as a 1942 Spit IX with 1945 armament.
Clip the wings, broad chord rudder, E wing, Merlin 66 please.
Dan/Slack
-
Hi Thrila,
I'm genuinely not trying to be contentious, but I just can't buy that the P40N and a new Spit are anything but "things we'd like to have." For need I'm using the definition - "A state that requires supply or relief; pressing occasion for something; necessity; urgent want." Thus I don't even mean, "something that would be popular in the MA." Admittedly we live in age that confuses want with need on a regular basis, but we should be able to produce at least one small thread that focuses on equipment that would meet a lack rather than fulfill desires shouldn't we?
We have plenty of allied fighters (admittedly the Russian plane set is weak, I'll certainly go with Urchin there) - 30 at my last count - and many of them are comparable. By contrast we have ONE (1) unarmed transport aircraft - and its allied.
Thus if I were to go with the logic at hand, I would have to assume that 30 brands of Soda isn't enough, and that we have a genuine need for more, but that one brand of beer is ample and that there is no need for more (as long as you can change the label).
If I can carry on with the analogy, you want yet another brand of soda and the research and development required to come up with it mean we never get another brand of beer.
Eh... I guess I'll have to get used to Bud after all. Someone hand me a Newcastle Brown label for my can.
- SEAGOON
-
Serious question. Lets say HTC says, "Wow, Seagoon has a point" and introduces a new Russian unarmed transport, a new German unarmed transport, a new Japanese unarmed transport, and a He111 in the next patch.
What does that bring to the table?
How is any of that going to stand out from what we already have?
Personally, I only really see the need[/i] for a single kind of unarmed troop transport. Likewise, we don't need a German M3, or a Russian M3, or a Japanese M3. We just need one halftrack to run troops around in on the ground, all the rest of them serve basically the exact same function in the exact same way.
Now, if you think we need[/i] more GVs, I'd agree with you. We could use an American tank (Sherman would be good), a British tank (dunno to much about em), even a Japanese light tank would be fun. But my point is all those tanks are different. They have different guns, different speeds, different armor. People would use them differently. Even if they aren't any good (like the M8), they still bring something unique to the table.
We don't need[/b] a He111, in my opinion. Basically the Ju88 does the same thing. Same speed, same defensive guns, same bombload.
Every fighter we don't have is basically unique.. the CT can use tons more fighters for the holes it has in different planesets (p-39, early P-38 and you can run a 1942 New Guinea/Solomons campaign, etc.).
The Japanese planeset needs tons of planes. The Ki-43, Ki-44, J2M, etc.. all bring something unique to the table. They may not get much play in the MA (the Ki-84 certainly isn't), but they'd be a godsend for running scenarios and the CT.
A Ju-52 does the exact same thing as a C-47. It drops troops and supplies. We can just repaint the C-47 in German colors and call it a German C-47.. we don't really need any more transport planes. Yea, there were tons of them... and as soon as HTC gets done modelling every single bomber, fighter, and tank that was in WW2, he might even start modelling them.
-
D4Y
:)
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Urchin
A Ju-52 does the exact same thing as a C-47. It drops troops and supplies. We can just repaint the C-47 in German colors and call it a German C-47.. we don't really need any more transport planes. Yea, there were tons of them... and as soon as HTC gets done modelling every single bomber, fighter, and tank that was in WW2, he might even start modelling them.
Check out the thred "german goon".
I submitted it last night:aok
-
I think what we need are Japanese and Russian planes.
Japanese did do high alt level bombing and we would benefit from some early, as well as late, Japanese bombers. Also the fighter planeset is lacking too, we have some late war fighters and early war fighters, we need a Ki43 or 44.
Russians didnt do that much strategic bombing and focused more on close ground support so we need more attack aircraft for the Soviets. We could use some more Russian Fighters as well, Mig-3 and Yak-3 are first that come to mind.
All countries need more GVs.
Sherman first that comes to mind and possibly a Japanese tank.
ah who am I kidding WE NEED THE B29!!!!!!
-
Messerschmitt Me 264
(http://www.luft46.com/prototyp/264-14.jpg)
(http://www.luft46.com/prototyp/264-1.jpg)
(http://www.luft46.com/prototyp/264-11.jpg)
(http://www.luft46.com/prototyp/264-19.jpg)
In 1937, the Messerschmitt development department started work on Projekt 1062 (which later became the Me 261), a long range aircraft used for record distance attempts and eventually reconnaissance duties. Simultaneously, another long range aircraft was in the development stage, Projekt 1061, which was to be powered by four individual engines, and have a range of 20000 km (12428 miles). Due to more important projects in development at the time (mainly the Bf 109 and 110), Projekt 1061 was only sporadically worked on until late in 1940. The German Naval Warfare Department wrote to Reichsmarschall Göring on August 10, 1940 that long range aircraft with a range of at least 6000 km (3728 miles) would be needed to reach the planned German Colonial Reich in central Africa. Also, about this time the RLM issued a requirement for long range aircraft with a range of at least 12000 km (7457 miles), to reach from French bases to the United States, in anticipation of the coming war with the U.S. Therefore, the work on Projekt 1061 was stepped up, with Willy Messerschmitt on December 20, 1940 informing designers Wolfgang Degel, Paul Konrad and Waldemar Voigt of the requirements for this long range aircraft. The initial requirements were for a 20000 km (12428 miles) range, capability for military and civilian roles, at least a 5000 kg (11023 lbs) bomb load to be carried in an internal bomb bay, smaller bombs to be carried externally on under-wing pylons and to have a very clean airframe.
On January 22, 1941, the General Staff of the Luftwaffe demanded a long range aircraft for the submarine war. The Focke-Wulf Fw 200, Heinkel He 177, Blohm & Voss BV 222 and Messerschmitt Me 261/264 were to all be compared to find the best aircraft for this purpose. Because of its overoptimistic performance and weights data, the RLM chose the Me 264 as the best choice. Several schemes were proposed by the Messerschmitt design bureau to extend the range of the Me 264, including towing one Me 264 by another to altitude, in flight refueling by a second Me 264, adding two more engines bringing the total to six and using take-off rocket pods for overload takeoff conditions. With these recommendations, it was felt that a range of 18100 km (11247 miles) and a bomb load of 5000 kg (11023 lbs) could be achieved, and a range of 26400 km (16405 miles) without any bombload. Armament for both versions would have consisted of remote controlled turrets with either MG 131 or MG 151.
The Me 264 V1 had a very "clean", all metal fuselage with a circular cross section throughout. Just behind the extensively glazed nose and cockpit was a galley, crew rest area and walkway to the rear of the plane above the lower, enclosed bomb bay. The wings were shoulder mounted, slightly swept back and tapered. They contained a single main spar and one auxiliary spar, with the wing loads being transferred through the main spar and two auxiliary bulkheads into the fuselage. The entire fuel supply was stored in the large wings. All control surfaces were conventional, including split flaps on the inner wing. The tailplane, with its twin fins and rudders, was electrically adjustable during flight. A tricycle landing gear system was designed, which was unusual for such a large aircraft at this time. A single nose wheel was used, although testing had been done for a twin nose wheel configuration using a converted Bf 109.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
Early war Russian stuff, a lot more Japanese stuff.
P-39
And the Brewster, preferably the model 239...
Sorry Urchin, I quoted only the parts from your list that fitted my idea of what's needed next. ;)
-
Originally posted by Urchin
Serious question. Lets say HTC says, "Wow, Seagoon has a point" and introduces a new Russian unarmed transport, a new German unarmed transport, a new Japanese unarmed transport, and a He111 in the next patch.
What does that bring to the table?
Its a good question, but the premise is fundamentally flawed.
The primary German transport the JU52/3m was not unarmed. Most midwar models had a 13mm MG131 in the dorsal position and two 7.9s for the windows on either side. Additionally, the JU52/3m carried a bombload of at least 500kg.
The plane is very different from the C47 - its armed, has three engines, is 20mph slower, and has very different flight characteristics. To say, "skin the C47 and you have a JU52" would be like me saying "skin the C205 and you have another mid-war Spit variant."
Similiarly, there are countless German Sd.Kfzs (halftracks) that had more armor than the M3 and a few assault varieties capable of carrying both troops and fielding some good weapons (20mms, multiple MGs, etc.) combinations. All would add interesting elements as well as providing genuine and needed axis equipment to the MA and TOD.
Incidentally, I've checked, repainting the old Pacer will not make it into a Mini-Cooper. ;)
- SEAGOON
-
Urchin,
The Spitfire LF.Mk IX with 100 octane fuel at +18lbs boost did 336mph on the deck. The Spitfire LF.Mk IX with 150 octane fuel at +25lbs boost did about 355mph on the deck. However HTC has never chosen to model anything with 150 octane fuel, not even the perk Spitfire Mk XIV that really needs it to be survivable with the gangbang icon.
SeaGoon,
I think the Ju52-3M is more in the range of 45mph slower than the C-47A. It would be a good addition, but I don't know how much usage it would see.
I'd like to see the
Ju188A-2: A very good Axis bomber with a good payload.
Bf109G-14: Closes the biggest gap in the Bf109 set.
Spitfire LF.Mk IX or Spitfire LF.Mk VIII or Spitfire LF.Mk XVI: Closes the biggest gap in the Spitfire set.
P-38F: Adds an early P-38 so we don't have to fight the mid 1944 L every time.
Yak-1: Earlier version of the Yak.
I-16-24: Early war Russian fighter.
Pe-2FT: Mid war Russian bomber
G4M2: Early war Japanese bomber
B-25C: Early war American bomber that the Japanese might actually be able to intercept.
Wellington Mk III: Early war British bomber that the Luftwaffe might actually be able to intercept.
Ki-43-II-Otsu: Most important IJA fighter, numerically.
-
Hi Karnak,
I agree with your list with the exception of the 109 G14 and Spit LF IX. Bringing up the Russian, Japanese, and Italian planesets is a must! I do tend to think we need more non-US bombers (although I'll freely admit that the B-25 is a logical and good addition).
How about GVs? I've already said I believe we need the Sd.Kfz, and we are going to see the Sherman - of that I have no doubt, but on the needs side. What marked absences do we have? Seems to me that GV indirect fire would be an asset, I'd love to see the Priest added to the GV set at some point (along with a better indirect fire system).
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by frank3
But do we need more spitfire variants? We already what, 5 or so?
The same reason why we have a similar number of 109G's instead of 1 generic one.
Originally posted by Karnak
Ju188A-2: A very good Axis bomber with a good payload.
Bf109G-14: Closes the biggest gap in the Bf109 set.
Spitfire LF.Mk IX or Spitfire LF.Mk VIII or Spitfire LF.Mk XVI: Closes the biggest gap in the Spitfire set.
P-38F: Adds an early P-38 so we don't have to fight the mid 1944 L every time.
Yak-1: Earlier version of the Yak.
I-16-24: Early war Russian fighter.
Pe-2FT: Mid war Russian bomber
G4M2: Early war Japanese bomber
B-25C: Early war American bomber that the Japanese might actually be able to intercept.
Wellington Mk III: Early war British bomber that the Luftwaffe might actually be able to intercept.
Ki-43-II-Otsu: Most important IJA fighter, numerically.
Add: Beaufighter Mk21
Tronsky
-
Regarding the Spit LFIXe. Let's be clear on something. If the concern is the number of Spit variants. I'm sure there isn't one Spit fan out there who wouldn't give up the 1942 Spit FIX with the 44 E wing, in a heartbeat for an LFIX.
So consider it a trade in for a more accurate model of Spit IX :)
That way the number of Spit variants doesn't change if that's an issue
Dan/Slack
-
Like to see an uncastrated F6F-5. Several sources list it's true top speed at 20,000 feet as being 400+mph, and yet our version will barely hit 375mph with WEP.
P-39
P-63
Brewster Buffalo
Oscar
Oh, and PERK the LAG. Can't see the sense in perking the Spit XIV and not that ultimate low-level dweeb plane. :D
-
How about the A6M3 version of the Zero? Some consider it the best balanced version, better than the -M2 or -M5.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Like to see an uncastrated F6F-5. Several sources list it's true top speed at 20,000 feet as being 400+mph, and yet our version will barely hit 375mph with WEP.
Grumman F6F-5 'Hellcat' 400+???? what resourcre says that?
(http://www.mucheswarbirds.com/image79.jpg)
Performance Range: 945 miles 1,521 km
Cruise Speed: 168 mph 270 km/h 145 kt
Max Speed: 380 mph 611 km/h 330 kt
Climb: 2,980 ft/min 908 m/min
Ceiling: 37,300 ft 11,368 m
http://www.orgsites.com/ca/cafsocalphoto/_pgg3.php3 (http://www.orgsites.com/ca/cafsocalphoto/_pgg3.php3)
http://aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/specs/grumman/f6f-5.htm (http://aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/specs/grumman/f6f-5.htm) http://frenchnavy.free.fr/aircraft/hellcat/hellcat.htm (http://frenchnavy.free.fr/aircraft/hellcat/hellcat.htm)
-
Ju188 good choice.
(http://www.warbirdpictures.com/LCBW4/Ju188-D2-9s.jpg)
Ju-188A-2: Identical to the A-1 except for deletion of dive bombing equipment. It was powered by the Jumo 213A-1 engine driving VS-111 paddle blade propellers. It was equipped with 4 under wing ETC bomb racks. The upper turret could be equipped with the optional 20mm Mg 151. :aok
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
Add: Beaufighter Mk21
Then you may as well add the Ju88p:aok
-
Gear,
Without going into a lot of detail, I'll mention that the early F6F-3 had a faulty airspeed indicator system that consistently read 20 knots lower than the F4U-1 even when the two aircraft were flying side by side at the same speed.
To keep the Navy off their back about the "perceived" performance gap between Hellcat and Corsair, Grumman simply copied the Corsair airspeed indicator system.
As to sources that list the -5's airspeed as exceeding 400mph there are actually several:
1. The Grumman F6F-5's pilot manual lists it as 405mph between 19,000 and 20,000 feet altitude. If you ask him real nice, F4UDOA might e-mail you a copy of it.
2. Performance results taken from tests run by Chance Vought. That's right, the very company that built the Hellcat's main competition for Naval contracts listed the Hellcat's top speed as being greater than 400mph. Chance Vought was given some Hellcats so that its strengths might be compared to those of the Corsair, and thus fixes for some of the Corsair's more glaring deficiencies might be remedied.
3. Tests were conducted in late 1944 between a -5 Hellcat and a Zero 52 at NAS Patuxent River, Maryland. The results were published in the Air Command Weekly Intelligence Summary, Allied Technical Air Intelligence Unit, South East Asia, "Flight Trials of Zeke 52," December 17, 1944.) Since the Air Intelligence people were supplying vital information to our combat pilots which would help them fight enemy aircraft and live, I hardly think they would provide them with false or misleading information. This test gave the top speed of the -5 Hellcat as 409mph at 21,600 feet, which was 75mph faster than the Zero 52's top speed of 335mph at 19,000 feet.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
To keep the Navy off their back about the "perceived" performance gap between Hellcat and Corsair, Grumman simply copied the Corsair airspeed indicator system.
If I remember correctly the "corsair" installation didn't worked very well on the Hellcat :)
-
Straffo,
The first installation didn't work correctly because it did not copy the Corsair system completely. A modification was made, which made it an almost exact copy. This second system worked so well it was incorporated into the Hellcat production line.
Regards, Shuckins
-
I will have to agree that Japanese and Russian planes are what is need to balance out the aircraft set. While not all of these would be useful in the MA they are needed for the CT and Events.
TOP PRIORITY
JAPANESE: OSCAR, GRACE, BETTY, TOJO, JACK, JUDY, NICK
Big need for the late war carrier planes.
RUSSIAN: Lagg-3, MIG-3, I-16, Pe-2 (or3), IL-4, TU-2
Russian set needs attack planes and early war fighters.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECONDARY
AMERICAN: P-39D, B-25C, BUFFALO, HELLDIVER, DEVESTATOR
ITALIAN: Cant Z.1007, MC.200, RE.201, SM.79
FRANCE: D.520, MS.406
GERMNAY: HE-177, DO-217
POLAND: PZL P.24, PZL P.11, PZL P.37
UK: Wellington, Whirlwind, Barracuda
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADDITIONS TO WHAT WE HAVE:
37mm cannons to Stuka to make JU-87G
Panzerblitz rockets for Fw-190F series
Multiple small bomb racks for 109's & 190's
800kg bomb for KATE
Bomber version of Mosquito
Early War version of P-38
Mannable 5" singles on the Destroyers
Mannable 88's at the fields with G2A & G2G ammo
Carrier hook for the Sea Hurricane
JU-52 Transport (with gun armament & version to use as a bomber)
We can really get along for awhile without another "Ubber Bird" version of the Spit, P-51D, P-47, Corsair & ME-109, & FW-190 and definately the B-29.
-
Jester, your list is very very good!
Add some earthquake bombs for the Lancaster though ;)
Anyway, to this from Guppy I belive:
"Regarding the Spit LFIXe. Let's be clear on something. If the concern is the number of Spit variants. I'm sure there isn't one Spit fan out there who wouldn't give up the 1942 Spit FIX with the 44 E wing, in a heartbeat for an LFIX. "
Why give up something that is already there. Our Spit is the high alt variant with a bastard weaponset. So keep it and add a IXLF with clippedness as an option, or the bloody fabulous Mk VIII, - shorter span.
Except, expect whining, for the messer boys and the lala's are in trouble :D
-
Beyond skins, is there anything which the player base can contribute to the game?
if not, any plans to enable it to do so? I too would like to see a Mossie buff (but you knew that).
Cheers,
Scherf
-
Not that i know of scherf. If there was a mossie bomber it would be the only bomber i would fly.:)
Why do some people regard modelling the spit LF IX as offensive? It was the RAF's mainstay fighter from '43 onwards. I'm not exactly sure why Jester thinks it's uber either. Also jester, your choices of the whilrwind and barracuda is just bizarre- they add nothing to the RAF. The RAF's biggest gap is the Spitfire LF IX (or something similar).
-
My list:
Betty
He 111
P 36
P 39
Ki 43
Ju 52
Apart from that im happy for any early or mid war adition that adds a new aspect. The MA got b24 and ki84, now the scenarios realy need something.
ciao schutt
-
Originally posted by Jester
We can really get along for awhile without another "Ubber Bird" version of the Spit, P-51D, P-47, Corsair & ME-109, & FW-190 and definately the B-29.
What make the IX LF über ?
Especially if you consider the D9 G10 51D are already availlable freely.
Originally posted by Shuckins
Straffo,
The first installation didn't work correctly because it did not copy the Corsair system completely. A modification was made, which made it an almost exact copy. This second system worked so well it was incorporated into the Hellcat production line.
Regards, Shuckins
Yep , if I remember correctly there was some circumstance where it displayed 0 airspeed but the hellcat was not stalling :)
-
Colt .45, please.
-
Originally posted by thrila
Not that i know of scherf. If there was a mossie bomber it would be the only bomber i would fly.:)
Why do some people regard modelling the spit LF IX as offensive? It was the RAF's mainstay fighter from '43 onwards. I'm not exactly sure why Jester thinks it's uber either. Also jester, your choices of the whilrwind and barracuda is just bizarre- they add nothing to the RAF. The RAF's biggest gap is the Spitfire LF IX (or something similar).
Nothing Offensive about it - it's just we already have several versions of the Spit already. IMO we need other platforms first. Personally, I hope you get it - I would like to see them ALL. I would like to see the next model SEAFIRE after the one we have as well some time in the future.
As for the Whirlwind, yes it is rare at just 112 made but would probabily be more useful than the ME-163 Komet we have. Agree? Beaufighter might have been a better choice on my part.
As for the Barracuda - well it's just almost impossible to hang a 1,000 lb. bomb or torpedo below a Spitfire and get it off the carrier deck - Even if it does have clipped wings. :D
-
The recent 4-week long Rangoon scenario pointed out what we really NEED in the plane set:
We NEEDED a Betty bomber for the Japanese side. This is one that has been long overdue in the Pacific scenarios. Using the JU-88 just doesn't cut it. It was faster than the Betty, etc.
Of course the P-39, Brewster Buffalo, and other early war birds would be NICE to have, but they are not needs at this time.