Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: 1K3 on May 13, 2005, 05:40:20 PM
-
lol do we really need xtra varaints? most of the late war USAAF ETO planesets are filled with no gaps.
----------------------------
i think all 109s should be remodeled next after the P-47/P-51 (i also think they should add 109G-14 and F6F-3 to our variant list)
-
Pyro didn't say it's a P-47 and P-51 variant.
It could be anything. A gap-filler such as the Bf109G-14... a LF Spitfire... A6M-3...
Or maybe(highly likely IMO) a P-47C, since if the ToD will be based on the USAAF, even the P-47D-11 we have would be too 'late' a fighter. Since the Fw190's have been redone and its standards have been, perhaps it could be the Ta152H this time.. or maybe even a Fw190A-3, for the very early 190s of the English Channel?
-
I thought Pyro implied it would be new variants of the '51 and '47, but I may have misinterpreted his meaning.
My guess the P-51B would get a Malcolm hood, and the P-51A or A-36 would be modelled. For the P-47, maybe we'd see a P-47M or N?
-
The M or N would be pointltess for ToD.
Something like an early D or maybe a C so that it could have its historic and expanded roll in ToD.
But if they are looking at bringing variants for ToD then they missed an opportubnity to add an A-3 or A-4 and an A-6 when they re-worked the 190s.
A P-51C with a malcom hood wouldn't necessarily mean a new variant per se. Just adapt the B.
Maybe a P-36 or a P-51A both would have rolls in ToD..
A G14 or G-14/AS would be great but I wouldn't count on that (at least for some time).
-
I just assume when Pyro says they are working on redoing the P51 and P47 right now, and then says this in the same paragraph
Because of the amount of help that they are providing us, we’re going to try to take some of that time savings and spin off some new variants.
that it means he is talking about the same planes, not additional ones. Of course, we all know what assuming does, but that was the message I got.
-
Originally posted by 1K3
lol do we really need xtra varaints? most of the late war USAAF ETO planesets are filled with no gaps.
----------------------------
i think all 109s should be remodeled next after the P-47/P-51 (i also think they should add 109G-14 and F6F-3 to our variant list)
Don't see any reason to exclude them, other than it will make
the luftwobbles cry:lol
-
where does it say ANYWHERE on this site theres going to be new P47/51 variants?:confused:
-
where does it say ANYWHERE on this site theres going to be new P47/51 variants?
Pyro's latest news.
Because of the amount of help that they are providing us, we’re going to try to take some of that time savings and spin off some new variants.
Sorry Star, I don't get any of what you're getting. All Pyro mentions is he'll 'spin off some new variants.'
What new variant of the P-47 or P-51 would ever be fit for HTC's high priority ToD - which they mentioned that it will start out with the 8th AF vs the LW over ETO?
Like I mentioned and Wotan agreed, only a P-47C or a very early D would ever be really needed. I dunno how I coulda forgotten about the Fw190A-6, but this plane also has a very good chance to be introduced. It was a major variant, essentially very simular to the Fw190A-5, but wields 4x MG151/20s instead of 2x MG-FF + 2x MG151/20s.
All they would need is use the same model, add some increased weight for the 2x MG151/20, and then label it "A-6".
-
We still miss the P51 with the 4 hispanos, early P51s, another D variant....
-
P-51H!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
For TOD if they made new variants of all planes they have up to AH2 standards, I would think they would need an early B24, P47C and more 190's
-
Pyro was clearly talking about the planes *being worked on right now*. The way the community skinners are helping with all the work skinning means that HTC staff can add new variants on the planes being put out while the skinners are finishing skinning it (it's like having 4 free extra employees, you can do more).
He was talking about P51s/47s if they implement new variants this time. If he was talking about "in general we're going to do this" then it means whichever planes are currently being upgraded. Hypothetically they redo 109s next, then it might be a 109E-1 (which I'd love to see!!) or a G14, etc etc.
-
So now you guys not only whine about plane's that aren't being done, you also whine about some extra ones that are being thrown in ?. It's a funny world....
-
He is probably just talking about new p-51 & p-47 SKIN variants.
-
One P-51 variant Pyro may be referring to would be a Malcolm-canopied P-51b. This has been discussed a number of times in the past.
-
What is the Malcom canopy?
-
I really could care less if they add more ponys or jugs, I rarely fly either one as it is. I just said that from the way his post was written, it left me with the impression that "variants" meant variants of the planes they are currently remodelling, which is the pony and jug.
I dunno how I coulda forgotten about the Fw190A-6, but this plane also has a very good chance to be introduced. It was a major variant, essentially very simular to the Fw190A-5, but wields 4x MG151/20s instead of 2x MG-FF + 2x MG151/20s.
All they would need is use the same model, add some increased weight for the 2x MG151/20, and then label it "A-6".
We already have it. The A5 has that option already in the loadout selection. So they dont have to add a thing for the A6 to be included. What we really need (if we need more FWs) is an A3 and perhaps a D13 (although not for ToD). More bomb choices for the F8 would be nice too.
But back to the subject, I suppose Pyro's wording can be taken many ways, depending on what it is you want it to mean. So we'll just have to wait and see.
-
Originally posted by cav58d
What is the Malcom canopy?
Malcom hood was produced in Britain. It gave much better visibilty to the P51B. First used on RAF Mustang IIIs, it also showed up on P47s as well
A profile I did a while back of "The Deacon's " P51B with a Malcom hood, May 1944
Dan/CorkyJr
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/810_1112066377_thedeacon.jpg)
-
Originally posted by TDeacon
One P-51 variant Pyro may be referring to would be a Malcolm-canopied P-51b. This has been discussed a number of times in the past.
A Macolm hood on a Pony B would be boss. Even if it only has 4 guns, I would certainly fly it a bit. The B is a fighter pilots dream, almost as good as a Yak, but of course, unlike the Yak, it has an almost adequate guns package.
-
We already have it. The A5 has that option already in the loadout selection.
Check the labels again. If we already had it, don't you think I would have been aware of it during all these years flying AH?
hat we really need (if we need more FWs) is an A3 and perhaps a D13 (although not for ToD). More bomb choices for the F8 would be nice too.
An A-3 would be great. A glimpse of the early 190s.... (except this one would be totally outclassed, considering our SpitV runs at 16+ boost).
D-13 would be a sweet ride, but it's definately a perk material, and I don't think enough production numbers to justify modelling it to the game.
More bomb options for the F8 would be really cool.
So we'll just have to wait and see.
Totally agree.
-
Personally I do hope they introduce a Malcom Hood P51C.
Yeah I do know the B&C are the same, thats why it would work so well with the Malcom on the C.
Tex
-
Originally posted by TexMurphy
Personally I do hope they introduce a Malcom Hood P51C.
Yeah I do know the B&C are the same, thats why it would work so well with the Malcom on the C.
Tex
Well in AH they would be the same. In real life they were alittle diffrent.
-
We already have it. The A5 has that option already in the loadout selection.
Nonsense. the A-5 carries 2 x MG151/2cm inboard and the option of 2 x MGFF/M outboard.
MGFF/M and MG151/2cm are not the same and their lethality is quite different especially in AH.
Their different ballistic characteristics and the fact that the MGFF on the A-5 can only carry 60 rpg (60 rnd drums; they could carry 90 rnd drums as well. These fit into the same space as the 60 rnd drums) makes them just about useless. In fact from previous tests you are better off just taking 2 X MG151/2cm and leaving the MGFF/M off (weight / performance loss verses added lethality).
The A-6 loadout would be
2x MG 17 - cowling - 900rpg
2x MG 151/20 - outer wing - 140rpg
2x MG 151/20 - wing root - 250rpg
the A-5 is
2x MG 17 - cowling - 900rpg
2x MGFF/M - outer wing - 60rpg (which as I said are quite useless)
2x MG 151/20 - wing root - 250rpg
If you don't see any difference in the lethality of the 2 then you are blind especially if one of the ToD theaters is 1943 ETO where by the Würgers will be facing Ami heavy bombers.
Don't make things up to help your point. Take time to understand what it is the other guy is saying.
An earlier FW is needed as well (preferably as A-3 but an A-4 would due).
ToD damn sure doesn't need a D-13...
-
FYI:
The A-5 was had one of the samller production runs of the pre-'43 190s...
190 Production figures as posted by 'ArtieBob' on Butch's AAW2 forum:
Total Fw 190 production (This data is from FW factory production book and C-Amt Monatsmeldung so should be pretty solid. )
To 30.11.43
A-1 (102)
A-2/3 (952)
A-4 (905)
A-5 (675)
A-6 (783)
A-7 (27)
B-1 (5)
F-1 (18)
F-2 (270)
F-3 (366)
G-1 (50)
G-2 (625)
G-3 (329) Total 5107
December-missing A-6 (SWAG approx. 200)
72 A-7
5 F-3
58 G-3 Total 5442
January-117 A-6
199 A-7
1 F-3
66 G-3 Total 5825
February-45 A-6
137 A-7
55 F-3
53 G-3 Total 6115
March- 17 A-6
182 A-7
83 A-8
5 F-3
98 F-8
44 G-3 Total 6544
April-1 A-6
8 A-7
347 A-8
2-A-9
265 F-8
83 G-8/R 5 Total 7250
May-492 A-8
15 A-9
177 F-8 Total 7934
June-430 A-8
103 A-8/R2
21 A-9
390 F-8 Total 8878
July –502 A-8
180 A-8/R2
70 A-9
515 F-8 Total 10145
August- 648 A-8
202 A-8/R2
30 A-9
511 F-8 (1391) Total 11536
September-465 A-8
159 A-8/R2
14 A-8/R11
122 A-9
55 A-9/R11
40 D-9
536 F-8 Total 12927
October-293 A-8
123 A-8/R2
79 A-8/R11
14 A-9
80 A-9 R11
89 D-9
412 F-8 Total 14017
November-482 A-8
88 A-8/R2
33 A-8/R11
99 A-9
58 A-9/R11
237 D-9
294 F-8 (1291) Total 15308
December-missing 6 (SWAG approx. 1250) Total 16558
January-328 A-8
51 A-8/R2
73 A-9
73 A-9/R11
228 D-9
76 D-9/ R11
220 F-8
147 F-9 (1196) Total 17754
February to Capitulation-missing (SWAG approx. 1550)
Total approx. 19300
Here's a link to an image how his data looks in excel (posted by Zamex on that same forum):
190 production (http://www.scitech.sk/~zamex/Fw190production.gif)
-
Originally posted by Wotan
Nonsense. the A-5 carries 2 x MG151/2cm inboard and the option of 2 x MGFF/M outboard.
MGFF/M and MG151/2cm are not the same and their lethality is quite different especially in AH.
The A-6 loadout would be
2x MG 17 - cowling - 900rpg
2x MG 151/20 - outer wing - 140rpg
2x MG 151/20 - wing root - 250rpg
the A-5 is
2x MG 17 - cowling - 900rpg
2x MGFF/M - outer wing - 60rpg (which as I said are quite useless)
2x MG 151/20 - wing root - 250rpg
If you don't see any difference in the lethality of the 2 then you are blind especially if one of the ToD theaters is 1943 ETO where by the Würgers will be facing Ami heavy bombers.
Don't make things up to help your point. Take time to understand what it is the other guy is saying.
An earlier FW is needed as well (preferably as A-3 but an A-4 would due).
ToD damn sure doesn't need a D-13...
Well. I'll give that one a WTF? Show me one post where I have ever shown you or your posts the slightest disrespect Wotan, that was just plain uncalled for. I dont make things up to support my views. I was wrong. OOPS guess what, that happens sometimes. I guess its impossible to believe in the AH "hangar" you could see one gun loadout with 2x20mm 2x20mm 2x7.9mm and another with 2x20mm 2x7.9mm and not think the 20mm were the same, huh? No, I didnt see that one set were MG-FF and the other set were MG-151/20. I have no idea what the ballistics of either gun are, and never claimed to. I did understand what the other guy was saying, I just assumed from my erroneous information that he had it wrong. Now I know otherwise. Oh, and if YOU would take the time to read and understand what I was posting, YOU would see that after the D13 was a (not for ToD) qualifier. I know we dont need a plane like that for ToD, I'd just like to see it in Aces High.
In the future, if you see that I or anyone else has their facts wrong in a post, instead of assuming the person is just stupid, why dont you try assuming he is just wrong instead and try to educate him? While I did learn something from your post, it wasnt helped by your attitude.
-
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
Well. I'll give that one a WTF? Show me one post where I have ever shown you or your posts the slightest disrespect Wotan, that was just plain uncalled for. I dont make things up to support my views. I was wrong. OOPS guess what, that happens sometimes. I guess its impossible to believe in the AH "hangar" you could see one gun loadout with 2x20mm 2x20mm 2x7.9mm and another with 2x20mm 2x7.9mm and not think the 20mm were the same, huh? No, I didnt see that one set were MG-FF and the other set were MG-151/20. I have no idea what the ballistics of either gun are, and never claimed to. I did understand what the other guy was saying, I just assumed from my erroneous information that he had it wrong. Now I know otherwise. Oh, and if YOU would take the time to read and understand what I was posting, YOU would see that after the D13 was a (not for ToD) qualifier. I know we dont need a plane like that for ToD, I'd just like to see it in Aces High.
In the future, if you see that I or anyone else has their facts wrong in a post, instead of assuming the person is just stupid, why dont you try assuming he is just wrong instead and try to educate him? While I did learn something from your post, it wasnt helped by your attitude.
well said. :)
-
While I did learn something from your post, it wasn't helped by your attitude.
My 'attitude' is consistent in all my posts.
Show me one post where I have ever shown you or your posts the slightest disrespect Wotan, that was just plain uncalled for.
I don't see any 'disrespect' in my post, at least no more then usual. The 'tone' of my posts are pretty consistent regardless of who I am replying to.
I don't make things up to support my views. I was wrong.
You didn't?
We already have it. The A5 has that option already in the load out selection. So they don't have to add a thing for the A-6 to be included.
Clearly that is wrong and it came from 'some where'.
My reply is 'nonsense'. Is that word disrespectful? Inaccurate?
I have no idea what the ballistics of either gun are, and never claimed to. I did understand what the other guy was saying, I just assumed from my erroneous information that he had it wrong.
Your information was not 'erroneous' your 'assumption' was.
Here's what it says on the AH web page:
190A-5 ...
Armament:
2x20 mm MG-FF 60 rpg
2x20 mm MG 151/20 250 rpg
The information is correct, your assumption that they are the same is not. Another word for assumption could be 'made-up' couldn't it?
I wrote:
Don't make things up to help your point. Take time to understand what it is the other guy is saying.
What the other guy said was:
I dunno how I coulda forgotten about the Fw190A-6, but this plane also has a very good chance to be introduced. It was a major variant, essentially very simular to the Fw190A-5, but wields 4x MG151/20s instead of 2x MG-FF + 2x MG151/20s.
So you didn't understand what he was saying. He is clearly referring to lethality and gun load out. In fact he correctly states the 2 aren't the same.
Oh, and if YOU would take the time to read and understand what I was posting, YOU would see that after the D13 was a (not for ToD) qualifier. I know we dont need a plane like that for ToD, I'd just like to see it in Aces High.
I didn't say you did. What I wrote was to contrast need verses want.
AH needs an A-6 for ToD.
AH doesn't need a D-13 for ToD or for the main for that matter. it would be perked and no better then the Ta-152.
The context of my replies in these 'new plane' threads is to try to keep a focus on ToD. Kweassa's suggestion has to do with ToD as well. The main will never get any better then it is now. No 'gimmick' or 'wonderwaffe' plane will make the main better. However, there are many lesser planes that could certainly help ToD be better.
In the future, if you see that I or anyone else has their facts wrong in a post, instead of assuming the person is just stupid, why dont you try assuming he is just wrong instead and try to educate him?
I didn't make any such assumption. I simple countered your assumption with facts. I am not an 'educator' (but struggled to be one with this reply :p).
Don't take it so personal, I know I didn't...
-
I think the Mustang IA would be an excellent addition to the planeset, whether it be for the MA or for TOD. An Allison engined P-51 with 4 Hispanos... enough firepower to make an impact, but underpowered enough that it would not be an uber plane unless flown by an expert, IMO. Pretty decent speed on the deck, but nothing like an LA-7 or 109-G10.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
My 'attitude' is consistent in all my posts.
Quite possible. I've never had it aimed at me before, so perhaps it just seemed like there was a difference. I'll keep that in mind in the future when I get the urge to defend your posts to others.
(From me) We already have it. The A5 has that option already in the load out selection. So they don't have to add a thing for the A-6 to be included.
(From You)
Clearly that is wrong and it came from 'some where'.
It did come from somewhere, directly from the loadout screen in the hangar in Aces High. I saw two different loadouts for the guns package, one with 2x20mm MG-FF and 2x20mm MG-151/20 and the other with just the 2x20mm MG-151/20. I didnt read past the "2x20mm" part on any of them to note there was a difference.
Your information was not 'erroneous' your 'assumption' was.
That was my assumption yes. I "assumed" alot in my post, and I was wrong. And I got called on it.
Here's what it says on the AH web page:
190A-5 ...
Armament:
2x20 mm MG-FF 60 rpg
2x20 mm MG 151/20 250 rpg
The information is correct, your assumption that they are the same is not.
Again, I didnt get my information from the website, although it is identical to what is listed in the hangar for the loadouts. Rather than assuming they were the same, I just didnt read far enough. Not quite the same, but I assumed enough in my post to take my lumps for it. But since you seem to like splitting hairs, I thought I'd mention it. Let it speak to my degree of wrongness, one way or the other.
Another word for assumption could be 'made-up' couldn't it?
That would be a stretch. "Made-up" would usually imply that I fabricated information with no basis and presented it as real. "Assumption" would imply I read or saw information and misinterpreted it, and then presented that incorrect information as my belief. Misinterpretation and fabrication are not synonyms that I am aware of.
As for the rest, I understand your wish to keep the discussion aimed at planes useful to ToD. I should not have even mentioned the D13 in the same post, even with the qualifier. Irregardless, we are both venturing off topic for the thread, regardless of relevance to ToD, becuase the original thread title is P-47 and P-51 variants. I do appreciate your pointing out my error on the guns package though, and the information on the MG-FF. It will certainly affect the loadouts I choose when I fly the A-5 from now on.
-
You two monkeys are fighting about 109s and 190s in a P-51 and P-47 thread. Take it somewhere else.
As for the A36 I would love to see it added. Or even the Mustang IA. It would be a tank killer for sure.
-
Any new plane is freakin sweet. WTG HTC staff, not too often are developers so far ahead they add new features. Add whatever you want, I'll fly it. :aok
-
I, for one, hope that after the pony/jug the SPITS get remodeled? Why, dear god, why, you ask? Because with every update so far has come a little FM tweaking. And the damn SpitV needs to have its boost reduced, the weak SpitIX needs to have its increased, and the Spit14.. well that could stand to lose a little instability, but that's just opinion.
We have the uber later-era spitV "covering/posing" as a early/mid war ride. We have our late supposedly "better" spit9 being the worst of the lot with a weak engine and not representing the best spit9's out there. As such the spitV outflies the Spit9.
Take a spitv offline. Full gas. On the deck hit wep til you max out (303, 309mph, something like that). Turn eng off. See how long it takes to slow down. Do the same on Spit9. With the SAME airframe, the SpitV glides/retains E 3x as long, and I read a comment that the spit9 dived better than the spitV and zoomed better (minor changes, it could retain E better, etc). Yet our SpitV can hang on its nose like a helo, it can deploy flaps and keep nose up 45degrees or more (and keep it steady on a target, no less) down til 45mph, then in less than 1.5 seconds after dropping the nose it will be travelling at 180mph again. EVERY film in AH2 I have of spitVs hovering shows this. They retain guns lock til 45mph (+/- 5) then the instant they drop nose down/stall they're back to 185mph in under 2 seconds.
spitV needs reworking big time, which is why I say "Do them next!! PLEASE DEAR GOD! NEXT!"
Edit: screw the whiners :P there are plenty of dweeb rides out there. SpitV has been one too long. Make it realistic!
-
Where were the first P-51s used?
I'm only loosely informed on this, so I'm a bit curious.
IIRC the very first P-51B took flight in '42(thus, IL2/FB/AEP lists this as a '42 plane.. which is nonsense), but they were in USAAF service since December '43. So it's a bit hard pressed to claim that the P-51B is really a '43 plane, although technically it would be undeniable.
Then did the USAAF ever use P-51As? Or did they use the A-36? When did the RAF start using Mustang Is and it what numbers? How many P-51As were used by the USAAF prior to 1944?
Ppl are asking for more variants, which would always be a good thing, but I'm not sure if there's any more P-51s that would fill the needs of both the ToD and the MA. A Malcom Hood canopy P-51B would be cool.. but maybe it could be a hangar setup? Pay something like 2 perk point?
If the ToD starts out with the USAAF offensive of '43, What planes would they use? P-38G/H + P-47C is my guess. Maybe a teeney bit of P-51Bs and P-47D-5s in winter?
-
Just out of curiosity, Kweassa, why do you want to perk a P-51b canopy variant? As far as I am concerned, the difference is basically cosmetic. Anyone who knows how to use "move" commands has minimal problems with canopy framing, so that can't be it.
354th FG started using P-51bs in UK 12/43, according to my Osprey book.
-
Well, just for the variety I guess.
A P-51B without Malcom Hood is disadvantaged to the P-51B with Malcom Hood, so naturally, a pure razorback P-51B would go extinct. Maybe pay 1 or 2 perks to differentiate the Malcomed and non-Malcomed 51Bs?
Or, if the canopy is modelled in really good, which obviously would cause reduction in speed, thus a P-51B with Malcom Hood would maybe lose 3~5mph of its top speed..?? In this case no perks or anything would be required.
-
Non-Malcolm (note the "l") P-51bs might still be of interest, depending on which skins are modeled. Reason I want the Malcolm versions is that I hope someone will model the "Deacon" 51b from the Squadron series, and/or the F.O. "Kidd" Hofer 51b from the Osprey "Mustang Aces of the Eighth Air Force" book, illustration #2. Maybe you will skin these; always liked your skins... :-)
-
Originally posted by paulieb
I think the Mustang IA would be an excellent addition to the planeset, whether it be for the MA or for TOD. An Allison engined P-51 with 4 Hispanos... enough firepower to make an impact, but underpowered enough that it would not be an uber plane unless flown by an expert, IMO. Pretty decent speed on the deck, but nothing like an LA-7 or 109-G10.
It would get perked like a C Hog I imagine. Still, it would be a pretty interesting combination. I would certainly like to see it.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Well, just for the variety I guess.
A P-51B without Malcom Hood is disadvantaged to the P-51B with Malcom Hood, so naturally, a pure razorback P-51B would go extinct. Maybe pay 1 or 2 perks to differentiate the Malcomed and non-Malcomed 51Bs?
Or, if the canopy is modelled in really good, which obviously would cause reduction in speed, thus a P-51B with Malcom Hood would maybe lose 3~5mph of its top speed..?? In this case no perks or anything would be required.
Kewassa Buddy.
Except for your almost religious quest for a "Perk Mecca" you mostly have pretty good stuff to say :)
I don't think that people going to the Malcom Hooded Pony B because of the slightly better views is in itself justification for even considering a perk price.
But that is just my $.02
-
The A-36 didn't fly its first combat sorties until the attacks on Pantelleria in the Med on June, '43.
The first A-36A flew on Sept '42 but deliveries of the A-36A weren't completed until March '42.
The 27th and 86th Bombardment Groups (Dive) were equipped with the A-36A.
The 27th and the 86th arrived North Africa in April '43 They didn't see combat until the attacks on Pantelleria in June.
In late '41 the RAF ordered 150 Mustangs.
RAF designated them as Mustang IA's (4 x hispanos) but only received 93. The other 57 were kept by the USAAF and had 4 50s.
I think all the RAF IA's were assigned to recce groups.
The first Mustang (Mk1, no hispanos) aerial victory didn't occur until Aug '42 over or near Dieppe. IIRC it was a Recce group that claimed the kill.
The XP-51B didn't fly until Nov '42 and it wasn't until mid '43 that P-51Bs and Cs arrived in service.
So I would think that for ToD we would see something like:
P-36A - June '43 (Med / North Africa)
P-51 Mk1 - late '42
P-51 B / C - mid '43
There's no reason to perk a malcolm hooded P-51 that I see. However I can envision the perking of the D if they add more variants of P-51.
For the record I think the D-9 and G-10 (if we get a G-14 at some point) ought to be perked as well.
I had always thought that as the number of planes increased the perk plane list would expand to cover the late and / or rare aircraft.
-
Except for your almost religious quest for a "Perk Mecca" you mostly have pretty good stuff to say
Infidel !!
"There is no God but Perkah, and Kweassa is his prophet!"
:D
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Infidel !!
"There is no God but Perkah, and Kweassa is his prophet!"
:D
I nearly split a gut! :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Regarding the production numbers of the 190s, what's that bit about the B and G models? How were those compared to the As and F we have now?