Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Gerd on December 07, 2000, 05:38:00 AM
-
Well, since we're talking wish list for new aircraft; I'd like to see the B24H/J liberator. And, if you'd like to put some nose art on those babies, how about the Zodiac nose art of the 486th BG(H) libbs:
http://www.486th.org/Photos/Aircraft/Zodiac1.htm (http://www.486th.org/Photos/Aircraft/Zodiac1.htm)
Merry Christmas!
-
ehhehehehehe...
-
Nahh....
If we're going to get something out of the B24 line, I think we need the Privateer !
Much cooler aircraft, and after all, we are getting the Navy soon. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
B-24D/J is the coolest ww2 bomber ever
no one has been able to even make a decent 3d model of it for an online game. (they always screw up the nose and cockpit, tail fuselage etc)
I'm sure if superfly or Natedog were given the plane to build they would be the first to get it right (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Well, there's a Privateer here in Texas that HTC could do some field study on (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
It's only about 50%-60% complete though (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
PRIVATEER!!!
A USAAF B-24 would be cool though. We have almost all the planes for an 8th AF vs. Jagdwaffe scenario... except the Liberator.
-
Privateer??? Fudge that. Go Martin MARS!!!
(http://www.pycckue.ee/~star/pictures/usa/martin_mars.jpg)
or!
(http://www.ixpres.com/ag1caf/usplanes/photos/JRM_Mars.jpg)
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-Westy
[This message has been edited by Westy (edited 12-07-2000).]
-
Originally posted by funked:
We have almost all the planes for an 8th AF vs. Jagdwaffe scenario... except the Liberator.
and the Me262, the Me410, the Fw190D9...
OK! OK!!!! just kidding!!! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Now seriously, B24 has a place in Aces High and it will be cool to have it here...
but its the most ugly bomber in history (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Yeah, despite how desperately people want to play a big CV scenario, or Eastern Front, by far we are the closest to having the planeset for a 1944 8th AF scenario..
Would be nice to have a mix of 24s and 17s instead of just the 17s.
I really hate big scenarios with rampant plane substitution..
And I'm sure that, as in WB, people would finally see how useful the P-47 is at 25,000 in large groups instead of singly at 5,000 ft in the main arena.
-
Another "I want this plane cuz I happen to like the shape/noseart or have just finished reading a book about it or..." post *yawn*
Lesse: hmmm... a B24 would bring a fresh and interesting what a B17 or a Lanc cannot currently do? And it will enhance current planeset with 2 heavy bombers in it out of 3 available altogether exactly how? /sarcasm mode off...
-
B-24 is the only other ww2 bomber capable of surviving in the MA.
its that simple.
it is the most important most numerous buff to see action in every ww2 theatre.
will it fly in the MA more than the ju88, tbf and lancaster and any other less capable bomber?
almost certainly.
why?
because it has the ability to fight its way to the target and then back out again.
the only other bomber capable of doing this is the b17.
we have already seen from the hog and N1k2 epidemic that most people will only fly the most capable airplanes available.
the b-24 is faster than the b17, carries more bombs and has camparable defensive armament. and to everyones relief it has a lower ceiling than the b17.
the only other aircraft comparable...
the b29 is already slated as a perk.
thats the way I see it.
-
Sorry Cit - I was reading your post and thinking about that Loose Rivet (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Survivable bombers? Hmmm... Tu-2 springs to mind instantly - very fast and very well armed for it's size (340mph (yes!), 31K ceiling, 1350 miles range, 2x20 + 3x50 cal with 4,400 (yes!)lbs bombload). In service from 1942...
Slightly smaller Pe-2 - again fast and used widely as a dive bomber (361mph, 2x50 cals + 3x30 cals, 2,200lbs bombload). In sevice from 1940... There was even a heavy fighter version - Pe-3.
I'm sure even ol' favourite - Mosquito - would see some action while adding variety to the plane set!!!.
-
B-24 is the only other ww2 bomber capable of surviving in the MA.
Ok, I'll bite.
Apart of the ones that Lynx has pointed...
Ju88S
Ju188
Mosquito bomber
Beaufighter
Only some examples of very fast, maneouverable bombers able to survive in the Main arena. The B24 will be another "gunship" bomber, as the B17 and B26 are now. Not to forget that the Ju88s and beaufighter could carry torpedoes.
I think that we need the other style of bomber, the Fast bomber, wich main defensive weapon was speed.
We lack,too, the Do217 ,one the most capable German medium bombers of the war. And the He177, a plane that was able to bomb England untouched because it could achieve 400mph in a slight dive,making it very difficult to intercept.
B24 is ANOTHER american plane.yet another, and of the same style of the B17, wich we already have.
I agree that it has its place in AH, but,imo, NOT before we have more planes we lack now (dive bombers, attack planes,fast bombers, etc).
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 12-08-2000).]
-
same style?
b-24D time to 20,000 feet: 22min fully loaded
B-17G time to 20,000 feet: 37min fully loaded
kinda like the p-38 is same style as p-47 right RAM?
by god they look the same for sure
weak minded luftwobble.
b24 is about as different from b17 as a 4 engined bomber can get. the similarity ends there.
Specification of Consolidated B-24D Liberator:
Four Pratt & Whitney R-1830-43 fourteen-cylinder turbosupercharged air-cooled radial engines, each rated at 1200 hp at 23,400 feet. Performance: Maximum speed 303 mph at 25,000 feet. Cruising speed 200 mph. Landing speed 95 mph. Service ceiling 32,00 feet. An altitude of 20,000 feet could be reached in 22 minutes. Range was 2300 miles with 5000 pounds of bombs. Range 1800 miles at maximum cruising power. Maximum range 3500 miles. Initial production blocks had a fuel capacity of 2364 US gallons, but later production blocks increased this to 3614 US gallons. Dimensions: Wingspan 110 feet 0 inches, length 66 feet 4 inches, height 17 feet 11 inches, wing area 1048 square feet. Weights: 32,605 pounds empty, 55,000 pounds gross, Maximum takeoff weight 64,000 pounds. Armament: Bomb bay could accommodate up to eight 1100-pound bombs. Underwing racks for two 4000-pound bombs were available, but were seldom used. Later models could carry eight 1600-pound bombs. Defensive armanent varied signficantly according to model, as described above.
B-24 is a high wing, twin tailed, box fuselaged, trycicle geared, sliding bomb doored twin bomb racked 4 engine bomber
Specification of B-17G:
Four Wright R-1820-97 Cyclone radials with general Electric B-22 turbosuperchargers, each rated at 1200 hp for takeoff and 1000 hp at 25,000 feet, with a war emergency power of 1380 hp at 26,700 feet. Performance: Maximum speed 263 mph at 25,000 feet, 300 mph at 30,000 feet (war emergency). Cruising speed 150 mph at 25,000 feet. Landing speed 90 mph Initial climb rate 900 feet per minute. An altitude of 20,000 feet could be attained in 37 minutes. Service ceiling 35,000 feet. Range 1850 miles with 4000 pounds of bombs at 25,000 feet with 2810 gallons of fuel. Dimensions: Wingspan 103 feet 9 3/8 inches, length 74 feet 9 inches, height 19 feet 1 inches, wing area 1420 square feet. Weights: 32,720 pounds empty, 55,000 pounds normal loaded, 72,000 pounds maximum. Fuel: Normal fuel load was 2520 US gallons, but extra fuel tanks could be installed which raised total fuel capacity to 3612 US gallons. Armament: Specified defensive armament was as follows: Thirteen 0.5-inch Browning machine guns in chin, nose, dorsal, center- fuselage, ventral, waist, and tail positions.
B-17 is a lowwing, conventional tailed, cylinderical fuselaged, conventional geared, folding bomb doored single bomb racked 4 engine bomber.
B-24 is the only other widely used ww2 heavy bomber capable of surviving in the MA besides the B-29.
lancaster is a free kill in MA. so is the ju88. fighters drool when they see these.
h8k emily? g4m betty? they would never get used in the MA. and in scenarios they would be moving targets just like the ju88 and soon to be released flying turkey tbf. ( i love the tbf but it will be easy meat in this arena)
only capable buffs in AH for MA play are the b26 and b17.
U.S. after all was the only allied country using heavy bombers for daylight raids deep in enemy territory. they got good at defensive armament because of this.
B-24D would be better for this type of arena though.it climbs better than b24J by a good margin since its 8000 lbs lighter.
[This message has been edited by Citabria (edited 12-08-2000).]
-
I have to agree with RAM.
The B-24 would fill the same role as the B-17, e.g. gunship bomber.
It wouldn't really change the balance much. It carries slightly more bombs, but is slightly less durable. In that aspect it is somewhere between the B-17 and Lancaster.
B-17: Tough and well defended with a low medium bombload.
B-24: Well defended with a medium bombload.
Lancaster: Tough and lightly defended with a heavy bombload.
B-29: Tough, fast and well defended with a very heavy bombload.
He177: Well defended with a medium bombload.
H8K2: Tough, well defended and slow with a light bombload.
I don't think that the B-24 should be a priority for HTC. I think that the B-17 and Lancaster compliment each other nicely, each offering trade offs. Until the planeset is fleshed out more we don't need anymore Allied heavy bombers.
Sisu
-Karnak
-
Citabria...
USAAF------->2 medium-late war bombers modelled
UK--------->1 Late war bomber modelled
Germany-------->1 early war bomber modelled
Italy, Japan, USSR, France-------->no bombers modelled.
----------------------
In 1.05 AH:
Number of fighter planes in Aces High: 22 (maybe 23 if Seafire makes it thru)
Number of Bomber planes in Aces High: 4
Number of ATTACK planes in Aces High: 0
Number of DIVE BOMBING planes in Aces High: 0
Number of TORPEDO PLANES in Aces High (counting Ju88 as one): 2
-----------------------------------
Number of 1944-45 planes in 1.05:
USAAF: 8 (6 fighters, 2 bombers-all american planeset is latewar)
Germany: 2 (2 fighters-G6 is a 1943 G6)
UK: 2 (1 fighter, 1 bomber)
USSR: 2 (2 fighters)
Japan: 1 (1 fighter)
Italy and France: 0 (well, there mas none in real life (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif))
--------------------------------
We will prolly get USN ships (the CV and PT indeed are american, DDs and CAs dont know, but we can guess it by the fact they are armed with 5' DP guns (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif).
Not german or Italian or british or Japanese. American.
--------------------------------
And you yet want another american heavy 1944 bomber, that will do exactly the same role of the B17?
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif)
Oh, BTW I said that B24 is not urgent in AH because B17 fits the same role right now. NOT THAT THE B17 AND B24 ARE IDENTICAL PLANES.
So, learn to read or stop using demagogy,please.
[edit] almost lost this:
they would never get used in the MA. and in scenarios they would be moving targets just like the ju88 and soon to be released flying turkey tbf.
Ju88 are used by LW in MAin Arena. I've seen Hazed doing awesome things with a Ju88. People just dont know to defend themselfs if they are not on a laser-fitted bomber, thats all.
Oh...and "turkey" TBM (not TBF) will be used in MAin arena, and Ju88 will be too if it receives torpedoes, and Betty would do it too prolly by Japanese squads...
you know why? because they carry torpedoes and can be used for anti-fleet missions. I think that your B24 doesn't, right?.[/edit]
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 12-08-2000).]
-
If the B-24's and Privateers hadn't played such vital anti-shipping roles I would be inclined to agree, but with the Navy coming out it fills an important niche.
- Jig
-
Yes, jigster, but it is YET another level bomber, YET another american plane and will be YET another laser gunship.
I dont say B24 hasnt a spot in AH. It indeed has it. But IMO there are way more urgent needs in our planeset right now.
(and BTW the B17 played too a quite significant maritime role in WWII, both in the pacific and in the Coastal Command in Britain)
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 12-08-2000).]
-
RAM said:
> Oh...and "turkey" TBM (not TBF) will be used in MAin arena, and Ju88 will be too if it
> receives torpedoes, and Betty would do it
too prolly by Japanese squads...
> you know why? because they carry torpedoes and can be used for anti-fleet missions.
> I think that your B24 doesn't, right?
The B-26 could, as could the P-38. Thats what I want for a torp bomber, a P-38 :-)
AND:
> I think that we need the other style of bomber, the Fast bomber, wich main defensive
> weapon was speed.
So you want the A-26? :-)
Bomb load........4,004 lbs in the bombay, +2,002 under the wings.
Speed............373mph@ 10,000ft
Range............1,400miles with 4,004 lb bomb load.
Guns ............Up to 20(!!!) .50 cal mgs.
Four in turrets, six fixed forward, and ten in add on pods under the wings.
Oops, that bird had guns, bombs, speed, and more than 2,000 produced, all in one package...
Hey, I got to fly in one, and loved it :-)
------------------
M.C.202
Dino in Reno
-
Originally posted by M.C.202:
The B-26 could, as could the P-38. Thats what I want for a torp bomber, a P-38 :-)
how many?...if they are less than a couple of hundreds, please add a choice to remove the cowl MGs from my 190 and you get your torpedoes.
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 12-08-2000).]
-
Number of 1944-45 planes in 1.05:
USAAF: 8 (6 fighters, 2 bombers-all american planeset is latewar)
Germany: 2 (2 fighters-G6 is a 1943 G6)
UK: 2 (1 fighter, 1 bomber)
What's the British 1944-45 fighter RAM?
-
Originally posted by Nashwan:
What's the British 1944-45 fighter RAM?
SpitfireIX Was the standard spitfire in 1944 wasnt it?.
I dont know enough about spits to know if the one in AH has 1944 performance, but for what I have read in the forums, it is a 1944 SpitIX.
I may be wrong, tho.
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 12-08-2000).]
-
The Spitfire MkXIV was the dominant fighter of the ?9th Tactical Airforce? from mid-1944 on.
It really depends on when in 1944 you're talking about, RAM.
The Spitfire MkIX is fundamentally a 1942 fighter.
Originally posted by RAM:
Germany: 2 (2 fighters-G6 is a 1943 G6)
By your standards for the Spitfire MkIX, the Bf109G-6 would be considered a 1944 fighter as well because it was to most common Bf109 used by the Luftwaffe in 1944.
You can't have it both ways, either the UK has 2 1944 aircraft and Germany has 3 or the UK has 1 and Germany has 2.
Sisu
-Karnak
EDIT: Sorry Gerd. Didn't intend to hijack your thread.
[This message has been edited by Karnak (edited 12-08-2000).]
-
Karnak, depends.
I dont know wich spitIX performance does the current AH's spit matches, if a 1942,1943 or 1944 Spitfire IX.
The G6 in AH is indeed a 1943 G6. I know it because the performance chart, and because I know some things about 109s. But my knowledge on the subvariants of the SpitIX is more than limited so I simply dont know wich one we have.
I recall having read in this forum, somewhere, that the current spitfire is a 1944 F.IX. I may be wrong, as I have said in my previous post.
About Spit XIVs, sorry but the IXs were way more numerous than the XIVs. So, the standard Spitfire of 1944 was the IX.
-
RAM,
Dominant does not mean "most common". It means that it was the front line fighter that was used in preference to the others that were available.
Yes, the MkIX was more common than the MkXIV, however the G-6 was likewise more common than the G-10 in 1944.
I don't know which model year we have for the Spitfire MkIX in AH. It does have the 1944 armament option of 2 20mm and 2 50 cals, but I recall it performance matches that of a 1942 Spitfire MkIX.
I always take the 2 20mm and 4 .303s option for the Spitfire MkIX.
Sisu
-Karnak
-
Wow...only one thing comes to mind after reading this thread. It seems to me that the anti-LW conspiracy has spread to more than just planes in some people's minds. (http://smilecwm.tripod.com/cwm2/puke.gif)
-
1944 RAF Bomber? Okay, the Lancaster III in Aces High has a 1944 rear turret (field modification on less than 190 a/c) but it's still a 1942 plane.
As for other buffs... well I don't mind what they bring. I'm no Soviet or Japanese buff expert but they really deserve a good heavy/light buff. I'd still like a B24 or B25 yes (RAF colours? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) ), and even a He111, Do217 and He177 or even a Condor.
As for RAF... well, I'll settle for a Beaufighter or Mosquito in the Torpedo role (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Regards
Nexx
-
Originally posted by Karnak:
RAM,
Dominant does not mean "most common". It means that it was the front line fighter that was used in preference to the others that were available.
Yes, the MkIX was more common than the MkXIV, however the G-6 was likewise more common than the G-10 in 1944.
I don't know which model year we have for the Spitfire MkIX in AH. It does have the 1944 armament option of 2 20mm and 2 50 cals, but I recall it performance matches that of a 1942 Spitfire MkIX.
I always take the 2 20mm and 4 .303s option for the Spitfire MkIX.
Sisu
-Karnak
Yep, I agree. No doubt some axis countries used the 109E or 109F in 1944/45 but it doesn't make it a 1944/1945 plane does it?
Nexx
-
Originally posted by sling322:
Wow...only one thing comes to mind after reading this thread. It seems to me that the anti-LW conspiracy has spread to more than just planes in some people's minds.
and what comes to mind to me is that you see phantoms everywhere. This was a quite civil thread until you had to play the clown.
Karnak, G6s in 1944 had quite different performance than the one we have here, believe me (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) anyway is a moot point, then the Fw190A8 cant be said to be a 1944 plane either.
all this talk is senseless, my point is that while Americans will have 8 late war planes in 1.05, the rest of nations have, at its best, 2. And that, IMO, sux bigtime. Its time to pay attention to the other nations.
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 12-08-2000).]
-
I detect 1.6 RAMs. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Go over the entrance into combat dates of those US planes again, and stop trying to make it seem like they all magically appeared in late '44 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
RAM,
I agree. I may be an American, but I got tired of the nationalistic BS that comes with a lot of this stuff. That's why I tend to fly non-American equipment.
When I first got interested in WWII it was the Pacific War that did it for me. I was really into Wildcats, Hellcats, Corsairs and P-38s and I read many books filled with the exploits of Americans in the Pacific War. However, I have an intrinsic sense of fairness an so I decided to find out what the war was like from the Japanese soldier's perspective. I could only find one book, Oba: The Last Samurai, auth. unknown, (I have since found Samurai! by the late Saburo Sakai) and as I reread much of what I had already taken in from the American perspective I became disgusted at how racist most of it was.
I found that it was very difficult to find good sources that portrayed the events accurately. It was nearly all buried in nationalistic crap. We HAD to shoot down 2 Zeros for every Wildcat we lost.
The accounts didn't add up.
So, I switched to the European Theatre in the hope that the Germans would be treated in a fairer manner because they were white.
I was, at once, both not disappointed and disappointed.
I was not disappointed because the Germans got a much fairer shake from the retellings. I was disappointed because the difference in how the Germans and Japanese were portrayed was so obvious.
I have focused on the European Theatre ever since, although I have been dabbling in Japanese equipment info lately.
I would like to see more non-US equipment in AH.
Sisu
-Karnak
[This message has been edited by Karnak (edited 12-08-2000).]
-
Originally posted by Jigster:
Go over the entrance into combat dates of those US planes again, and stop trying to make it seem like they all magically appeared in late '44 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
who talked about LATE 44?. me for sure ,not. I said LATEWAR (I.E. 1944-45)
Current planeset:
-----------------------------------
USA
P51D->medium-to-late 1944
P38L->late 1944
P47D25->medium-to-late 1944
P47D30->late 1944
F4U1-D->early-to-mid 1944
F4U1-C->1945
F6F-5->medium 1944
TBM-3->early-to-medium 1944
B17G-> early 1944
B26B->early 1944
ALL latewar stuff.
C47--------->dweeb ride (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-----------------------
Germany:
Me109F4--->early 1942
Me109G2--->late 1942-early 1943
Me109G6 (the one in AH)->medium 1943
Me109G10--->Late 1944
Fw190A5--->medium-1943
Fw190A8--->early-1944
Ju88A4--->1940 (the oldest plane in this planeset (!))
-------------------------
Britain (UK)
Spitfire V------>1941
Spitfire IX----->1942-44 (Still to be decided)
TyphoonIb------>1942-43 (the ironed-out tiffie, the first ones had BIG teething troubles. anyway and in the worse of the cases ,1941)
Lancaster III with 50 cals----->1944
---------------------------
Japan:
A6M5b--------->early 1944 (obsolete bigtime)
N1K2---------->mid-to-late 1944
---------------------------
Italy:
C202--------->1940-41 (dont know exactly)
C205--------->1943.
---------------------------
USSR:
La5FN-------->early 1944 (or late 1943? dont know exactly)
Yak9U-------->mid-to-late 1944
---------------------------
France:
none
----------------------------
You want more examination on the planeset or you had enough already?. It is more than clear that the planeset is ruled by a latewar set of US planes.
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 12-08-2000).]
-
Originally posted by RAM:
who talked about LATE 44?. me for sure ,not. I said LATEWAR (I.E. 1944-45)
Current planeset:
and what is your point? Big deal! heres how it works RAM... you double click on the AH icon on your desktop, enter the arena of your choice, go fly the virtual AC (after all you are paying for it), then the biggest thing-- Have fun! quit yeer whining.. expend your energy on more worthwhile things. You should really step back and listen to yourself.
(us Americans, we get together with HTC every Monday at 1500 hrs eastern to discuss our next manuever in thwarting the dreaded LW enthusiest) You see we dont have jobs or families.. We exist only to play AH and make you mad (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
(http://home.nc.rr.com/ammo/public.html/unw_sig.jpg)
-
Karnak,
Umm...err..well, do you have any objective evidence that the Wildcat didn't have a good kill ratio vs. the Zero?
Of course, AH doesn't have a Wildcat yet, but back a couple years ago when I still played Warbirds, in the "big" Pacific scenarios, the Wildcat used to crush the living snot out of the zeros..to a much greater degree than in the main arena.
1-2 zeros vs. 1-2 wildcats is fairly even....12 wildcats vs. 12 zeros usually ends up with the wildcats winning.
Of course, a big problem in the scenarios is you had an awful lot of people flying zeros that didn't fly them in main; while the Wildcat, I think, was far less of a difference.
Still, virtually everything I read from "our" side credits the Japanese with beginning the war with some of the best pilots in the world, and a credible aircraft. However, I've long suspected the Zero was actually a bit OVERRATED; whatever they accomplished early in the war was entirely from having the best trained pilots in the world; of course, when they died, they were replaced with some of the worst-trained pilots in the world.
And even early in the war once it wasn't Zeros vs. Brewsters and such the Wildcat still did well.
-
Well after the capture of Koga's (I believe that was his name? The poor fellow who died in the crash, and they took the Zero back to evaluate it) plane, they discovered the Zero had better range, higher rate of climb, higher roll and turn rate, equal speed for combat purposes, good dive acceleration, better gun package, vs the F4F.
Granted that alot of pilots had been gaining expierience in China years before they did indeed prolly have the best pilots in the war, but very little of the Zeke's abilities were overated.
But when your flying a zippo lighter luck has this way of running out (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Originally posted by -ammo-:
and what is your point?
My point is that AH is full of options for the american iron lover, but not so for the rest of the people who has to fly a limited planeset (I Include Germany in the pack, out of 6 fighters it has only 3 competitive rides in Main Arena).
Yet,there are people asking for YET more american latewar stuff, and they YET discuss and try to ignore the fact that they have the best planeset (by far) in the arena. And if people doesnt ignore it and dare to say it, we have again the "whiner" accusation.
typical. How typical.
I dont need your advice on taking fun-I'm having it and in loads last days. But when I see someone asking for YET more american latewar iron, then I DO answer.
And no, I dont believe you get together with HTC every Monday at 1500 hrs, I dont believe in an anti-LW conspiration. It is a PRO-american conspiration (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif).
AH?...instead of Aces High why not Americans High?...33% of the 1.05 planeset WILL BE AMERICAN.
10 out of 17 1944-1945 planes in 1.05 Aces High WILL BE AMERICAN. Thats 60% aprox.
So, I say that its time to step back from Americans High and turn this into a **REAL** Aces High instead of keeping the american plane injection on the game. I provide numbers and data that backs up my words.
And I am called whiner. Both things start to get old, IMO. (the continuous US plane injection ,and that if someone tries to swim against the current he is called whiner)
[edit]Jigster, the Zero showed it was more reliable than most american planes ,too. In the tests some planes had mechanical problems while the Zero ran smooth all the time[/edit]
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 12-09-2000).]
-
Originally posted by juzz:
ehhehehehehe...
OK, someone give me a big friggin' prize now! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
And on a seperate note...
Slightly smaller Pe-2 - again fast and used widely as a dive bomber (361mph, 2x50 cals + 3x30 cals, 2,200lbs bombload). In sevice from 1940... There was even a heavy fighter version - Pe-3.
The vast majority of production model(s) of the Pe-2 never reached 360mph. Most fell in the 305mph to 335mph range. The first prod. model with was actually the fastest! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Be nice to have a Pe-2 though, probably the most important VVS bomber along with the Il-2 for attack...
[This message has been edited by juzz (edited 12-09-2000).]
-
Ram, was thinkin about this, and just wondered if you've considered that if we get all the US planes modeled and out of the way (the easiest to find multiple/reliable data on) then HTC can focus on, what is generally more time consuming, working with non-US planes?
I know they are pretty much dominant as it is right now but generally you can crank out 2 or 3 US planes where you might get one non-US plane in the same time period.
Thats taking into consideration the great links HTC goes towards ensuring accuracy within the parameters of the sim. (in comparison to the other sims)
Of course thats just speculation on my part but it would seems to make sense, filling out the plane set with the easiest to get info. It just seems like it gets overlooked alot in all the favoritism crap.
Your thoughts?
-
RAM the Spit IX in AH is a standard 1942 version, but with the 1944 E armament option, and a boost gauge that reads 18lb instead of 15lb. The extra boost doesn't seem to make any difference however.
Quick chart comparing time to altitude of various Spit IXs
Alt...AH IX : 1942IX : HF IX : LF IX : 1944IX
4K.....1.07....1.10.......... ................0.50
6K. ...1.38...............1.24... ............1.15
10K....2.42...............2.2 5....2.15.....2.06
18K....4.58...............4.1 8................
20K....5.40....6.00.......... ...............4.30
30K....9.52...11.40.....8.05. ...8.40....8.17
The LF entered production in 1943 and was by far the most produced Spit IX.
The Spit IX and XVI remained in production untill the end of the war, but by 44 they were principaly ground attack aircraft. In the final year of the war the Spit XIV and Tempest were the RAF's primary fighters. Some Spit IXs and VIIIs were also modified for 150 octane fuel, to improve their performance. This shows that the RAF was not satisfied with the basic Spit IX by 44. The RAF was not still using basic 1942 Spit IXs in the dedicated front line fighter role in Europe by this time, so to call it a 44 plane is misleading.
-
Jigster, my point is not that we can get planes faster or slower. My point is that there was a claim on a B24 when we have another AMERICAN bomber that fullfits just the same role. And that it would be a redundant aircraft given that we need ASAP:
-Planes with different roles than fighters or level bombers
-Planes of different nationality.
-Late war planes from other nations.
About your claim about being easier to find data on US planes, sorry ,but no. THere are wide and abundant documents on LW , RAF, Japanese and USSR aircraft. And there are people in this boards that will happily give all the documentation they have to get those planes modelled.
So, no, I dont think that there is such a big 3/1 relation between US and non US planes. Maybe 3/2 yes, but not 3/1.
I think that, as most pleolpe like american planes, they are given what they want. It is a good way of action IMHO, from HTC, and I would have done the same if I was in their skin.
But, now that we are full of US latewar planes, its time to bring other nation's planes. And that is my point.
Nashwan, roger. Somehow I thought it was a 1944 spit, but I see it isnt. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 12-10-2000).]
-
Good point Ram. We need more non US planes... for me to kill!! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
And Torgo, some of us already know how useful the P-47 is at 25k feet in large wolfpacks. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
(http://www.jump.net/~cs3/sigs/uns_sig.jpg) (http://www.jump.net/~cs3)
-
sigh, nevermind. Useless attempt on my part.
-
Karnak: I feel your pain,it is very hard to find books on the Japanese perspective,and on Japanese equipment. I started my love of military history from the German perspective and then started spending more time delving into the pacific theater.I have several book now on the Japanese perspective and have even gone so far as to spend some time at the local )Oregon Military Museum pouring through old dusty inelegance reports and tech manuals to get info on Japanese weapons,and as soon as I get my scanner working u will some posts on that subject.
Look for a manual entitled TM 1985-5 volume 1 and 2.
As far as adding another US plane concerned well I think I covered that in my post "do we have enough US and German planes?"
To summerize I love this game but please god no more US stuff for a while!
Brady
(http://content.communities.msn.com/isapi/fetch.dll?action=MyPhotos_GetPubPhoto&photoId=nHwCwcGUIoGGjg01IsrIn*fQlXD7B7GXRLlthrCgT9R!!5yumeQn8lYe1i5colZ2l)
[This message has been edited by brady (edited 12-10-2000).]
-
If the IL-2 was wearing stars n bars...betcha a million dollars hard currency it would've made it's appearance by now...
but I guess 30,000+ aircraft don't count for much do they...
-tronski-
(http://www.egroups.com/files/Skyrats/486.gif)
[This message has been edited by -tronski- (edited 12-10-2000).]
-
Gentlemen, I am impressed to discover that I am amongst some true fighter aircraft afficianadoes.
We all have our favorite aircraft, and those tend to be the ones we are most exposed to. I must admit that until I joined this community I new little of the Italian aircraft, and had little appreciation for Japanese aircraft. Being American I've been fed a constant diet of Stars, bars and balkan crosses. Aircraft with roundels and other insignia tend to be given short shrift.
I agree that a more representative plane set be devised to be representative of the belligerents of WWII. The creation of the Naval version should help in this regard, by moving the Japanese and US Navy aircraft to the PTO. The voids in both arenas could then be filled by the lesser known aircraft of the appropriate theaters.
Just my opinion.