Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Fariz on September 12, 2007, 11:16:47 PM

Title: p39
Post by: Fariz on September 12, 2007, 11:16:47 PM
P-39 finally, pls. It was an ace ride for VVS. Of the main fighter aircrafts of the WW2 it is probably the last, which has not been modeled yet, not a single version. Please, close this gap.
Title: p39
Post by: Latrobe on September 13, 2007, 07:53:39 AM
I voted for it. :D
Title: p39
Post by: Nimrod45 on September 13, 2007, 08:00:35 AM
Me to, bring on the P-39.  It was there from the start to finish.
Title: p39
Post by: oboe on September 13, 2007, 09:09:13 AM
Yes, please.    D and Q, if possible...
Title: p39
Post by: Kweassa on September 13, 2007, 09:13:33 AM
I voted for it as well.

 If three models are allowed, I'd ask the D, N, Q.

 If only two, then the N and Q.
Title: p39
Post by: Bronk on September 13, 2007, 03:36:56 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Kweassa


 If three models are allowed, I'd ask the D, N, Q.

 If only two, then the N and Q.



Agreed.

Bronk
Title: p39
Post by: E25280 on September 13, 2007, 06:46:40 PM
Dare I say it??



Two weeks.[/size]
Title: p39
Post by: VansCrew1 on September 13, 2007, 07:42:34 PM
P39 yes.The B25 has only been out for a short while but not alot of people are flying it P39 would be better more fun.More of difficlut you can say.With only 30 37mm canon rounds and 4 .50cals it's great.The 50 cals alone can kill a fighter.People that like to hold their fire untill the right shot would love this fighter.Get up close and pop them w/ the canon or reach out and touch them 600 out.And with bombs It would be a good ground pounder.Myself and others would love to see the P39 in the game.Would be more fun then the B25 i think.
Title: p39
Post by: humble on September 14, 2007, 08:40:27 AM
You'd have to have the D since its the most needed scenario wise...the Q-25 would probably be the definative "late model". I know that there was one variant of the Q or N that had the 1400+ hp allision in it that did 398+
Title: p39
Post by: humble on September 14, 2007, 09:14:25 AM
The P-39 could be very interesting if we got some of the late models. Here is a quote from WW in an earlier thread on engines for the P-39. Most common websites show the same "stock" numbers for the P-39...however the M, N & Q all had variations with the Allison V1710-83 & V1710-85 engines...which were rated at 1420 hp and gave the P-39s so equipped better climb and speed numbers then the la-5....

I've copied WW's 411 as well as the russian website I found back then....

 Installed in the P-39M, P-39N and P-39Q, both the V1710-83 and V1710-85 were rated at 1,420 hp at 3,000 rpm @ 57" MAP.

It gets better... The V1710-63 installed in the P-39K and P-39L was rated at 1,590 hp at 3,000 rpm @ 61" MAP.

Now, the V1710-93 installed in the P-63A was rated at 1,820 hp at 3,000 rpm @ 75" MAP with water injection.

See Dean's, America's Hundred Thousand.

Oh, and some P-63s saw limited combat against the Luftwaffe as part of a combat evaluation. Later, some Soviet P-63s saw combat briefly against the Japanese in the last week of the war.

My regards,

Widewing


Russian P-39 (http://www.airpages.ru/cgi-bin/epg.pl?nav=us10&page=p39)
Title: p39
Post by: VansCrew1 on September 14, 2007, 06:32:34 PM
P39 would of been way better then the B25.
Title: p39
Post by: Spikes on September 14, 2007, 07:37:21 PM
Proud voter of the P39.
Title: p39
Post by: Redlegs on September 14, 2007, 08:31:49 PM
(http://air2ww.webd.pl/zsrr/scaleru/p39q.gif)

does that answer the question?
Title: p39
Post by: Easyscor on September 15, 2007, 01:48:07 AM
There's many planes I want but this is the most needed IMO.
Title: p39
Post by: trigger2 on September 15, 2007, 03:07:02 AM
you GOTTA love the p39Q, one of the best ones out there
i'm all for it :aok
Title: p39
Post by: BaDkaRmA158Th on September 15, 2007, 04:46:35 AM
Agreed.

This rig is a must.
yet another plane that can cover a wide range of country's.

Used by : France, Italy (CB), Portugal, Soviet Union, UK (RAF, briefly), US (AAF)


:aok
Title: p39
Post by: waystin2 on September 15, 2007, 09:08:54 AM
It's a cool looking bird.  I see that it has the ability to carry a 37mm in the nose.  What's the other armament involved?
Title: p39
Post by: VansCrew1 on September 15, 2007, 09:11:39 PM
Quote
Originally posted by waystin2
What's the other armament involved?


along with the 30 37mm rounds of the hub gun.The P 39 had 4 .50 cals.It depends on the version of the P39 but the 4 .50 cals alone for a few kills.
Title: p39
Post by: BaDkaRmA158Th on September 16, 2007, 12:16:35 AM
uhm..


x2 .50's
x4(or 2) .30's
x1 37mm

or x4 .50 (?)

and in limited use with the british they changed the cannon for a 20mm.
"main reason being the 37mm at that time only held 15 rounds vs. the later 30, the 20mm only held 60 rounds aswell."

I hear refrence to x4 .50's and i see that gun setup only in the p-63 King cobra.
Title: p39
Post by: VansCrew1 on September 16, 2007, 04:26:28 PM
i may hve been thinking of that.
Title: p39
Post by: Bosco123 on September 16, 2007, 04:54:30 PM
I love the P-39 but I have to go with the G-55 and everyone know that I will vote for that.
Title: p39
Post by: VansCrew1 on September 17, 2007, 05:30:59 PM
G55 sucks.I would rather see the yak3 then the G55
Title: p39
Post by: Ack-Ack on September 17, 2007, 06:29:35 PM
Quote
Originally posted by VansCrew1
G55 sucks.I would rather see the yak3 then the G55


Are you basing this on your overwhelming knowledge of World War II aircraft or just parroting what you've read on these boards?


ack-ack
Title: p39
Post by: Kweassa on September 18, 2007, 01:33:41 AM
(http://hsfeatures.com/features04/images/p39dm_1.JPG)

 The fact that Pokryshkin flew this beautiful "White 100", is enough to ask for a P-39N instead of any other variant.

 The most beloved P-39 variant, of the most successful P-39 pilot in WW2 history, who is also the one of the top-scoring pilots of the VVS, who also lists the top 10 scores achieved by the entire Allies, who flew and fought in the most important theater of conflict where the P-39 was used in large numbers..

 ..what better reason than this to promote the P-39N ?!

 Give us the D, N, Q!

 If only two, "hell no" to D and Q - give us N and Q !!
Title: p39
Post by: Fariz on September 18, 2007, 12:04:40 PM
N and Q, yes
Title: p39
Post by: BaDkaRmA158Th on September 18, 2007, 12:38:15 PM
N & Q, indeed.
Title: p39
Post by: BaldEagl on September 18, 2007, 01:45:38 PM
I voted P-39 too.  Bring it (then the A-26 Invader).
Title: p39
Post by: Bronk on September 18, 2007, 03:15:17 PM
Quote
Originally posted by BaldEagl
I voted P-39 too.  Bring it (then the A-26 Invader).

No on the vader, way more historically important AC to be added first.

Bronk
Title: p39
Post by: VansCrew1 on September 18, 2007, 05:28:58 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Bronk
No on the vader, way more historically important AC to be added first.

Bronk


WHY another bomber? every one wanted the B25 now look no one's in it.
Title: p39
Post by: Bronk on September 18, 2007, 06:31:22 PM
Quote
Originally posted by VansCrew1
WHY another bomber? every one wanted the B25 now look no one's in it.

BS I see the B-25 in use every time I log on. Usually popping gvs and town busting.

Bronk
Title: p39
Post by: Guppy35 on September 18, 2007, 06:40:33 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Bronk
BS I see the B-25 in use every time I log on. Usually popping gvs and town busting.

Bronk


Yep, saw a  bunch of em up last night.

All these guys pleading for the 39 will be right back in 51s and LA7s going light speed, when they realize it will not be an uber bird but take some learning and thinking to fly it and survive as down low is where it worked best.  Not a bird to pick with.

And yeah I'd like the 39 for its historical importance, just the same as I wanted the 25 for the same reason.
Title: p39
Post by: hubsonfire on September 19, 2007, 12:22:22 AM
Yep. Also, she's wicked pretty.
Title: p39
Post by: DaddyAck on September 19, 2007, 03:09:23 AM
I would like to see it added for its historical importance, and it was not a bad bird. It was just a low altitude slugger.
Title: p39
Post by: Kweassa on September 19, 2007, 05:20:03 AM
Quote
All these guys pleading for the 39 will be right back in 51s and LA7s going light speed, when they realize it will not be an uber bird but take some learning and thinking to fly it and survive as down low is where it worked best. Not a bird to pick with.


 ...and this, coming from a guy who flies P-38Gs in an arena full of Spit16s and Lgays...

 How insulting!

 ;)
Title: p39
Post by: Fariz on September 19, 2007, 01:21:45 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Guppy35
All these guys pleading for the 39 will be right back in 51s and LA7s going light speed, when they realize it will not be an uber bird but take some learning and thinking to fly it and survive as down low is where it worked best.  Not a bird to pick with.


"Picking with" is exactly what I am looking for. Thanks for reminding it.
Title: p39
Post by: Bosco123 on September 19, 2007, 05:49:18 PM
Quote
Originally posted by VansCrew1
G55 sucks.I would rather see the yak3 then the G55

The Yak's where the sukiest fighter in WW2 but HTC has made them a bit better in this game. the G-55 could (like I have always said:rolleyes:) just about out turn the spit sixteens and can out run the runstang.

G-55 is needed
Title: p39
Post by: Ack-Ack on September 19, 2007, 05:54:28 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Bosco123
The Yak's where the sukiest fighter in WW2 but HTC has made them a bit better in this game. the G-55 could (like I have always said:rolleyes:) just about out turn the spit sixteens and can out run the runstang.

G-55 is needed



Your ignorance of planes is just as bad as Vansqueaker's.

The Yak-3, while using the same engine as the Yak-9, was smaller and lighter and had a greater power to rate ratio than the Yak-9.  Besides being agile, it was also an easy to handle plane, probably could compare it to the Spitfire in its ease of handling.  It was superior to German aircraft below 16,500ft.  It's roll rate was just as good, if not better than the Fw 190 and had a better turn rate.  

The only negatives of the plane was the short range and the tendency of the plywood to tear during high-G maneuvering.


ack-ack
Title: p39
Post by: oboe on September 20, 2007, 09:39:17 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Guppy35
...And yeah I'd like the 39 for its historical importance, just the same as I wanted the 25 for the same reason.


I think the Headhunters start out flying the '39, before they transitioned to the Lightning.    

Good scenario plane for South Pac, N. Africa, and Eastern Front.   I think the visibility out of the cockpit was not so great though, so in the MA it would be a challenge to fly.
Title: p39
Post by: Bosco123 on September 20, 2007, 03:42:25 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Your ignorance of planes is just as bad as Vansqueaker's.

The Yak-3, while using the same engine as the Yak-9, was smaller and lighter and had a greater power to rate ratio than the Yak-9.  Besides being agile, it was also an easy to handle plane, probably could compare it to the Spitfire in its ease of handling.  It was superior to German aircraft below 16,500ft.  It's roll rate was just as good, if not better than the Fw 190 and had a better turn rate.  

The only negatives of the plane was the short range and the tendency of the plywood to tear during high-G maneuvering.


ack-ack

thinking of the, LA always confuse the Yak with the LA.