Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Steve on April 17, 2009, 02:58:12 PM

Title: Why not Bettys?
Post by: Steve on April 17, 2009, 02:58:12 PM

They would play a role in a lot of FSO and other scenarios.

Title: Re: Why not Betty's?
Post by: avionix on April 17, 2009, 03:02:43 PM

The question is, would Betty fly one?

Title: Re: Why not Betty's?
Post by: xbrit on April 17, 2009, 03:02:53 PM

Why not Bettys what ?? and shouldn't you ask her first ???

Title: Re: Why not Betty's?
Post by: ElGuapo1 on April 17, 2009, 03:07:39 PM

 :O       <<<begins charging video camera batteries



Oh and BTW....IN!.... :D

Title: Re: Why not Betty's?
Post by: dunnrite on April 17, 2009, 03:10:43 PM

Wrong place, but I agree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_G4M (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_G4M)

Title: Re: Why not Bettys?
Post by: Karnak on April 17, 2009, 03:20:47 PM

G4M2 'Betty' is on the short list of most needed aircraft for scenarios.

Title: Re: Why not Bettys?
Post by: crazyivan on April 17, 2009, 04:05:25 PM

 give the old warhawk something to shoot at. :aok

Title: Re: Why not Bettys?
Post by: Nemisis on April 17, 2009, 05:00:00 PM

The betty's were about 50 mph faster than the Ki67 but were completly un-armored. They were even more flamable than the current B24. Several hits from a 20mm would down them like a P47 would down a non manuvering Zero :O.

Title: Re: Why not Bettys?
Post by: B4Buster on April 17, 2009, 05:12:13 PM

totally agree, just the wrong forum Steve lol

Title: Re: Why not Bettys?
Post by: Karnak on April 17, 2009, 05:14:51 PM

They were most certainly not 50mph faster than the Ki-67, more in the range of 50mph slower.


Mitsubishi told the IJN that they needed a four engined bomber to make it effective while meeting the range requirements, but the IJN insisted that it be twin engined, so Mitsubishi had to sacrifice any consideration of protection.

Title: Re: Why not Bettys?
Post by: Brooke on April 17, 2009, 05:41:27 PM

I bet we'll get a Betty one of these days.

Japanese aircraft were fragile by US aircraft standards, but they generally had phenominal range for their day, which was a great thing to have for the PTO.

Title: Re: Why not Bettys?
Post by: texastc316 on April 18, 2009, 09:23:50 PM

Quote from: Nemisis on April 17, 2009, 05:00:00 PM

The betty's were completly un-armored. They were even more flamable than the current B24. Several hits from a 20mm would down them like a P47 would down a non manuvering Zero :O.

exactly why Id like to see them. plus they would be used in nearly every PTO scenario or FSO

Title: Re: Why not Bettys?
Post by: trax1 on April 18, 2009, 10:28:43 PM

I'd like to see the He-111 first.

Title: Re: Why not Bettys?
Post by: Motherland on April 19, 2009, 12:14:50 AM

G4M, Pe2, He111, Ju52, SM.81, Wellington :aok

Title: Re: Why not Bettys?
Post by: Larry on April 19, 2009, 12:34:46 AM

B29, B32, B47, B52! :noid

Title: Re: Why not Bettys?
Post by: texastc316 on April 19, 2009, 02:29:23 AM

Quote from: Larry on April 19, 2009, 12:34:46 AM

B29, B32, B47, B52! :noid

poor kittens

Title: Re: Why not Bettys?
Post by: Captain Virgil Hilts on April 19, 2009, 09:28:40 AM

Hmm. Why did all the Bettys die?  :devil



Not too many will know what that is all about.




But yes, the Betty is a plane we need, badly. In fact, I'd come back and fly to flame a few Bettys.