Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: juzz on June 23, 2000, 11:42:00 AM
-
(http://www.nzfpm.co.nz/images/large/phil005.jpg)
Polikarpov I-16.
Seriously, I guess it will be the La-7.
I do think the I-16 would be a good little dogfighter though - able to outmanoeuvre the A6M5b at least.
Plus it's soooo cute! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
[This message has been edited by juzz (edited 06-23-2000).]
-
Yak 9 variants, -D, -UT, etc.
-
Hope it's the La-7. The Yak-9U is an excellent fighter, but I'm a Lavochkin Man.
-
La-7
-
Pe-2
-
IL-2 (Not a fighter)
------------------
Mino
The Wrecking Crew
"I kinda like it.. and the hell with the cat"
Hangtime
-
Yup definitely the La7
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
"Real Men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires"
-
Hmmm La-7 IL-2 Yak-whatever....How about Su-37 or Su30MK? Heh eheh heh kill you all with my R-77(I got 10 of those). Then just nuke friking HQ and I'm the winner!!! Yehhh BABY.
I Think I'm in the wrong message board...
-
The Polikarpov I-16 would be kinda interesting it would be outclassed by just about every other fighter in the planeset but from what I've read the plane could whip through a loop or a turn so fast it was startling not to mention the plane was notoriously unstable to the point of being dangerous. Not that I actually think the
I-16 could contribute to the MA, I think it could be fun just to try and fly the thing without plowing into the ground. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
(http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~kalger/sig.gif)
"Smoke me a kipper boys, I'll be back for breakfast"
[This message has been edited by Soulyss (edited 07-08-2000).]
-
Soulyss, I think the I-16's instability was more in the manner of the way a Fw 190 is unstable, which is exactly what makes the 190 such a formidible fighter. In capable hands, an I-16 could be a very elusive opponent, and should you be sucked into a turnfight, a very dangerous opponent.
-
Er, my information says that the I-16 was unstable in the way that the Beegee racer was unstable. Wich is to say that it gaives no stall warning and flicks over REAL fast like.
Sisu
-Karnak
-
I think that AH needs the La-7 , Yak-3 or other Yak-9 the T(37mm) or K(45mm) model, Tu-2 or Pe-2, Il-2 and Il-4 or Pe-8
:-)
Ruslan Sgursky "Cossack"
-
Ya might be surprised by that little perty plane (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Polikarnov I-16 (Tip 24)
* 1 1100hp Shveston M-63 9-cilinder single-row radial engine
* weight: empty 3285 lbs, max take off 4619 lbs
* Max speed: 304 mph
* Climbrate: 5 min to 16405 feet (= 3280 feet a min)
* Service Ceiling: 29530 feet (hey it's Russian (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif))
* range: 435 miles
Armament: 2x 7.62 mm MG's + 2x 20 mm Cannons
I think this little fatty would surprise the hell out alot of people (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)... it's not fast, but decently armed, good climbrate, wicked turnrate, good acceleration (looking at thrust/weight). Considering production started in 1933 this must have been a pretty evil advercary.
I for one would love to fly this beauty (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) If I may paint it blue and redo the star white (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Bee
[This message has been edited by JENG (edited 07-13-2000).]
[This message has been edited by JENG (edited 07-13-2000).]
-
Bring on the La-7, then the Fw190D-9, then the Tempest, then the F6F-5, then the Ki84, then a 1943-44 Spit MkIX, then a G.56 (DB603 engined G.55 "Centauro") (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
We already have a 1943-44 Spitfire Mk IX. What it needs is the E wing, rockets and torpedo droptank removed, and the 30&90gal slipper tanks added, so it actually is a 1942 Mk IX.
Then add a Mk XVI with teardrop canopy, E wing, rockets, rear fuselage fuel tanks and torpedo droptank.
Or a Mk VIII, which had extra fuel tanks in the wings instead of fuselage. It was mostly used in the Middle and Far East, as well as in the Pacific.
-
We have a 1942 Spit IX with the wrong armament options. Instead of 2 20mm and 2 .5 it should have the option of 4 20mm. It doesn't have any of the refinements that were added to 1944 Spit IXs like rear fuselage fuel tank, +25lb boost etc. It also has the worst climb rate of any of the Spit IX variants.
The Spit VIII was also used in Italy, and several hundred were used in NW Europe from Jan 44. Of course they were re engined with a Griffon and called Spit XIV (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Nash,
4 20mm cannons were rare on SpitfireIX. Both early and late models. 2 20mm and 2 50s was the most common loadout for the plane.
mx22
-
It was rare, but the plane was designed with it as an option.
The 109F and G were designed for 1 cannon and 2 mgs. When they had to intercept heavy bombers they were modified by hanging guns under the wing. If the RAF had had to intercept heavy bombers, as they do in AH, then more Spits would have been fitted with that 4 20mm option.
I would gladly put up with the extra 40kg weight penalty to have a virtual doubling of the armament.
[This message has been edited by Nashwan (edited 07-14-2000).]
-
As it stands now, I don't want to see 4x20mm on Spitfire. Not because it will unbalance arena (which I doubt), but simply because it was such a rare thing. The least we have of those uncommon loadouts on planes, the least chance we see people asking for adding some unusual/testing weapons. We have enough of wars with which plane to model, let's not start another one.
In addition, that loadout won't add anything significant to RAF arsenal, SpitIX is outdated in MA, and there is no reason to beef it up just to make it "more competative".
mx22
-
No 4x20mm on a Spitfire unless its a Mk VC, 21 or 22.
And now, where's that La-7 with three B-20?
[This message has been edited by juzz (edited 07-14-2000).]