Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: MajIssue on December 21, 2007, 10:21:29 AM

Title: NOT another B-29 thread
Post by: MajIssue on December 21, 2007, 10:21:29 AM
Now that I got your attention...

What sould be the LOWEST proirity on the wish list? My vote goes to the Brewster Buffalo, One of the least advanced aircraft to see action in WW2. It did nothing well... low, slow, unmanuverable, and poorly armed.
A close second would be  the Blenheim, underpowered, undergunned and obsolete at the outbreak of hostilities
Title: NOT another B-29 thread
Post by: leitwolf on December 21, 2007, 11:00:32 AM
You should get out of here while you can.. before the finnish cavalry arrives. :D
Title: NOT another B-29 thread
Post by: DarkglamJG52 on December 21, 2007, 11:13:09 AM
More early war planes what I want to see:

I-15
I-16 (Fun for furballs and against Seafires and Zeros).
Dornier Do 17Z
Farman F.222
Dewoitine D.520
Morane-Saulnier M.S.406
Title: NOT another B-29 thread
Post by: Panzzer on December 21, 2007, 12:07:47 PM
What, did someone mention the Brewster? It should definitely be the HIGHEST priority on the wishlist. Time for the Brewster! (http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52235) :D
Title: NOT another B-29 thread
Post by: MajIssue on December 21, 2007, 02:35:16 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Panzzer
What, did someone mention the Brewster? It should definitely be the HIGHEST priority on the wishlist. Time for the Brewster! (http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52235) :D


I was kinda looking for you Buffalo fans... What is the facination all about? I have never understood why anyone would want to fight in one... It was a design conceived when monoplanes were a novelty... To me it looks like a '20s biplane that sombody cut the top wing off of.

Please enlighten me so I can quit Pi**ing you Brewster Buffalo guys off!
Title: NOT another B-29 thread
Post by: Furball on December 21, 2007, 04:11:39 PM
Bolton Paul Defiant.
Title: NOT another B-29 thread
Post by: Panzzer on December 21, 2007, 04:13:42 PM
To quote Camo..

A few good reasons:

1) The Finns achieved a kill/loss ratio of 32:1 in the Brewsters during over three years of fighting (June 25th 1941 - September 4th 1944) against the numerically superior Soviet Air Force. The Brewster earned the nickname "Pearl of the Sky" by its pilots.

2) The Brewster won the contract competition for the first monoplane fighter of the US Navy in 1938, against the F4F Wildcat.

3) It will have extensive use in AH scenarios.

4) It looks like a bumble bee with the yellow east front stripes.

And here's a link to Brewster air-to-air victory credits (http://www.warbirdforum.com/scores.htm) to Finnish Brewster pilots.
Title: NOT another B-29 thread
Post by: AirFlyer on December 22, 2007, 01:01:55 AM
Cannon fodder for my Zero as far as I'm concerned. The Zero is considered a bad plane by most and it can do everything the Brewster can but better. But I will vote yes for it just because it would play a large role in the early war scenario's.

Edit: Perhaps the Finnish model and an American model would work best, that way we could have the "Pearl" and a CV capable one for early Pacific Scenarios.
Title: NOT another B-29 thread
Post by: Furball on December 22, 2007, 04:51:09 AM
The Buffalo would be pretty worthless for scenarios with the exception of the Fin-Rus campaign and maybe midway.

The one good reason for adding it, would be to get the Finnish Hoarde out of their cherrypicking altmonkey 109's and into their little 'bumble bee'.

Now that is a good a reason as any :D ;)
Title: Re: NOT another B-29 thread
Post by: Helm on December 22, 2007, 09:25:40 AM
Quote
Originally posted by MajIssue
Now that I got your attention...

What sould be the LOWEST proirity on the wish list? My vote goes to the Brewster Buffalo, One of the least advanced aircraft to see action in WW2. It did nothing well... low, slow, unmanuverable, and poorly armed.
A close second would be  the Blenheim, underpowered, undergunned and obsolete at the outbreak of hostilities



You win!! ...You win!! ...thats the most clueless post I have ever seen!!


 God forbid we should get planes that actually fought the War!! ....like the Buffalo?

 ... we all know that all that matters is Post 1943 planes? ...maybe that's you oppion but it sure aint mine!!  

You Sir!!.... are an Idiot!!

These planes we need


MIG-3
Lagg-3
Brewster Buffalo
Ki-43 oscar
Ki-44 Tojo
KI-27 nate
I-16

To show you how dumb you are ...the runways in the game are NOT long enuff to get a B29 in the air ....geez

 ....call Amazon.com ...and purchase a "clue"
Title: NOT another B-29 thread
Post by: Karnak on December 22, 2007, 11:17:06 AM
Helm,

You left out:

B6N2 "Jill"
Beaufighter Mk X
D4Y2 "Judy"
G4M2 "Betty"
He111H-16
Ju188A-2
Pe-2
Wellington B.Mk III
Yak-1
Yak-7
Title: NOT another B-29 thread
Post by: Wingnutt on December 22, 2007, 11:42:19 AM
MIG-3

MIG -3 UBS as a perk plane.
Title: NOT another B-29 thread
Post by: angelsandair on December 22, 2007, 04:03:44 PM
PUT UP THE P-36!!! MAYBE A LITTLE BETTER THEN THE BRUSTER BUT STILL WORSE THAN THE P-40, PUT ER UP!!! and i like the idea with the mig 3 and the b6n and of course the he-111 :D
Title: NOT another B-29 thread
Post by: Viking on December 22, 2007, 04:13:53 PM
Quote
Originally posted by AirFlyer
Cannon fodder for my Zero as far as I'm concerned. The Zero is considered a bad plane by most and it can do everything the Brewster can but better. But I will vote yes for it just because it would play a large role in the early war scenario's.

Edit: Perhaps the Finnish model and an American model would work best, that way we could have the "Pearl" and a CV capable one for early Pacific Scenarios.


The US Brewster and the Finnish Brewster were quite different in configuration. The Finnish one, having no armour added, was much lighter and more agile.
Title: NOT another B-29 thread
Post by: AirFlyer on December 22, 2007, 04:20:42 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Viking
The US Brewster and the Finnish Brewster were quite different in configuration. The Finnish one, having no armour added, was much lighter and more agile.


Really? Could be a fun plane to engage after all then, nothing like a good knife fight.
Title: NOT another B-29 thread
Post by: Viking on December 22, 2007, 04:41:30 PM
More on the Finnish experience with the Brewster 239:

http://www.warbirdforum.com/faf.htm
Title: NOT another B-29 thread
Post by: Helm on December 23, 2007, 09:22:21 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Karnak
Helm,

You left out:

B6N2 "Jill"
Beaufighter Mk X
D4Y2 "Judy"
G4M2 "Betty"
He111H-16
Ju188A-2
Pe-2
Wellington B.Mk III
Yak-1
Yak-7



amen!! ....pe-2 would be awesome....how about a SB2? and a S.M.79 ?

lets flesh out the early plane set!!....enuff with the 1944 1945 planes!!
Title: NOT another B-29 thread
Post by: Karnak on December 23, 2007, 01:56:28 PM
Yes, SB2 and S.M.79-II would be good additions too.
Title: NOT another B-29 thread
Post by: VansCrew1 on December 23, 2007, 02:18:18 PM
Need more AXIS bombers and another british bomber.We have enough american bombers.
Title: NOT another B-29 thread
Post by: Karnak on December 23, 2007, 04:36:48 PM
B6N2 "Jill"
D4Y2 "Judy"
G4M2 "Betty"
He111H-16
Ju188A-2
S.M.79-II

Are all Axis bombers.

Wellington B.Mk III is an early war British bomber that wouldn't be useless (as the Blenheim or Battle would be).

SB2 and Pe-2 are both Russian bombers.
Title: NOT another B-29 thread
Post by: Masherbrum on December 23, 2007, 07:26:08 PM
I.A.R. 81c
Title: NOT another B-29 thread
Post by: angelsandair on January 03, 2008, 06:49:37 PM
P-36!!!!!!!!!!! alot earlier than the p40 and obselete when the war started i think but still, it looks cool, it reminds me of a p47d-11 and a p40 put together