Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: jolly22 on January 23, 2010, 08:46:01 AM
-
(http://www.hyperscale.com/features/2000/images/images_2/boomerangbg_2.jpg)
CA13 Boomerang:
Role: Fighter aircraft
Manufacturer: Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation
First flight: 29 May 1942
Introduced: 1943
Status: Retired
Primary user: Royal Australian Air Force
Produced: 1942–1945
Number built: 250
General characteristicsCrew: 1
Length: 25 ft 6 in (7.77 m)
Wingspan: 36 ft 0 in (10.97 m)
Height: 9 ft 7 in (2.92 m)
Wing area: 225 ft² (20.9 m²)
Empty weight: 5,373 lb (2,437 kg)
Loaded weight: 7,699 lb (3,492 kg)
Powerplant: 1× Pratt & Whitney R-1830 Twin Wasp radial engine, 1,200 hp (895 kW)
PerformanceMaximum speed: 305 mph (265 knots, 491 km/h) at 15,500 ft (4,730 m)
Range: 930 mi (810 nm, 1,500 km)
Service ceiling: 29,000 ft (8,800 m)
Rate of climb: 2,940 ft/min (14.9 m/s)
Wing loading: 34.2 lb/ft² (167.1 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.16 hp/lb (256 W/kg)
Armament
Guns:
2× 20 mm (0.787 in) Hispano or CAC cannons
4× 0.303 in (7.7 mm) Browning machine guns
Bombs: Could be fitted when the large drop tank was not carried
Only bad thing i could realy find on this plae is hat only about 250 were built.
This plane is an australian aircraft, which i dont think we have any of those.
This plane has very good guns and a great climb rate.
-
nice choice also would like to see the p-66 vultee
(http://www.warbirdforum.com/rafcolors.jpg)
and the p-36 hawk
(http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/URG/images/p36-6.jpg)
-
jolly hear is some reading
http://www.boomerang-flight.com/ (http://www.boomerang-flight.com/)
-
Great site here
http://www.aviastar.org/gallery/boomerang.html
(http://www.aviastar.org/gallery/boomerang/boomerang_16.jpg)
(http://cas.awm.gov.au/screen_img/NEA0413)
BF-S, A46-126, 'Sinbad II' of No. 5 Sqn.; note details of rear-view mirror, ring arid bead gunsight, and exhaust flame clamper.
-
some video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA7azWmFkGQ
-
nice website and video, but what about your opinions??
-
I want it, have posted that I want it previously, but I think this one will take time.
-
Nice little AC and a new Country to be represent on AH. Good Find.
-
It never did any air to air work but was used in ground attack here is some pics I took of one at Point Cook museum.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/100_9745.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/100_9743.jpg)
-
It never did any air to air work but was used in ground attack here is some pics I took of one at Point Cook museum.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/100_9745.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/100_9743.jpg)
That is the kinda cool thing about it /... close base support w/ smoke for gv.s.. plus I bet it can fight :)
"Flight tests proved that the aircraft had remarkable performances and, in particular, a rate of climb of 900m per minute was demonstrated. However, since the maximum speed of the aircraft was only slightly superior to that of the Buffalo, an aircraft which had not achieved much success against Japanese fighter aircraft in Malaya, there was naturally some hesitation on the part of the Government and comparative trials between the
first Boomerang, a Kittyhawk (Curtiss P-40E) and an Airacobra (Bell P-39D) were arranged by the Department of Air. Comparative performance figures and an excerpt of the trial report, published in "Australia in the War of 1939-1945, The Role of Science and Industry" edited by the Australian War Memorial are quoted: At 10,000 feet, the Boomerang is more manoeuvrable than the Kittyhawk and can turn inside it. The Kittyhawk's speed advantage is not sufficient for it to dictate the type of combat and, although it gains more in a dive, the Boomerang's greater manoeuvrability with pull out and superior climb finds it level with the Kittyhawk at the top of the ensuing zoom. The Kittyhawk's only manoeuvre is to dive through a great height and break off the combat; the speed advantage is not sufficient for it to fly away at the same height without becoming vulnerable once combat is joined with the Boomerang.
The Airacobra has a greater speed advantage over the Boomerang than has the Kittyhawk but is outmanoeuvred at the same height in concentric attack (turning circles). When first attempted the Airacobra was able to dictate terms of combat to the Boomerang by its superiority in dive and zoom which allowed it to gain the extra
height necessary to deliver an attack from above. Later this advantage was not so apparent and this was thought to be due to the pilot becoming more familiar with the Boomerang."
Planes it replaced Wirraway and Buffalo... planes that replaced it... P-40E and Spit V
I think it has a place and ... A new country as mentioned ...Cool plane +1
-
I would love to see the Boomerang in game! :aok
-
+1 for this Aussie :)
-
I want this plane.
It could outturn anything I reckon being so compact. :aok
-
this Aussie likes :aok
-
Are you guys serious? Jolly, put down your copy of "Almost Famous WWII Aircraft" and read something about the planes that actually fought in the war...
-
Are you guys serious? Jolly, put down your copy of "Almost Famous WWII Aircraft" and read something about the planes that actually fought in the war...
What!!!!!
this aircraft was loved by the Australian troops because it was constantly used in ground attack roles against the Japanese army trying to invade their country. It is a great aircraft amd would do very well in aces high. Perhaps we should get more aircraft from the only country in the world.
-
Are you guys serious? Jolly, put down your copy of "Almost Famous WWII Aircraft" and read something about the planes that actually fought in the war...
What kind of planes do you want?!?!? you part of the admin, Make a beaufighter then!!! It's called a wishlist!!!!!!! I like this plane for many reasons.Its an earlier war plane, that was very effective.
-
What!!!!!
...It is a great aircraft amd would do very well in aces high...
Was that intended? Because I know a few people who would find that statement to be quite contradictory. :P
-
+1 :aok
-
Are you guys serious? Jolly, put down your copy of "Almost Famous WWII Aircraft" and read something about the planes that actually fought in the war...
Whats your problem with it Stoney? That there are other planes more worthy of inclusion? Yep I'd agree with that, wholeheartedly,
but to dismiss it out of hand like that.....
It fought, it fought well, outclassed, but it fought through to the end of the war. It meets the HTC criteria.
-
Whats your problem with it Stoney? That there are other planes more worthy of inclusion? Yep I'd agree with that, wholeheartedly,
but to dismiss it out of hand like that.....
It fought, it fought well, outclassed, but it fought through to the end of the war. It meets the HTC criteria.
Sorry, that wasn't so much a dig at the aircraft, per se. First, Jolly keeps posting all of these wishlist posts for gadget planes and other WWII aerial and ground oddities, with cut and paste posts from Wiki or some other vanilla website. Second, there are those that come in behind him with such strong support for the aircraft, without thinking one bit about the trade off between the programming time required to create the aircraft versus the value it adds to the game. Its one thing to present an informed, reasoned request for an aircraft that's missing. Its something all together different to find a list of niche aircraft from the far corners of the war, and ask for their inclusion.
I suppose I'll just ignore these things going forward...
-
Are you guys serious? Jolly, put down your copy of "Almost Famous WWII Aircraft" and read something about the planes that actually fought in the war...
:rofl
Great line Stoney but you have to admit the boomerang could be put to good use in FSOs. :aok
-
I would love to have this little guy in the game for base defence ...as far as I know none of the other planes we have drop smoke, having 1 of these in conjunction with a another plane < How they were used very effectivly> Would be a hoot and with its armament could do all right protecting itself.... and killing light GV's.
"The sparkling low level performance of the Boomerang combined with a tough structure was ideal for this alternate role. 4 and 5 Squadrons operated the Boomerang in Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands. In the tactical role, as well as strafing (armament being four .303 machine guns and two 20mm cannon) the aircraft were also used for artillery spotting and close support, and 'FAC' type work marking targets. It is in this later role that the type became well known to some New Zealand pilots. The 'Smokey Joes' used four 9kg (20lb) smoke bombs carried under the centre section to mark targets for RNZAF Corsair fighter-bombers. The aircraft could also carry up to a 227kg (500lb) bomb on the centreline"
I would suggest another color from white for the smoke... maybe red?
It meets the criteria easy and ads 1 more country's plane. whats not to like?
Send in the "Smokey Joes" over: :salute
Rat tat tat
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3258/2921374132_94c029c1ae.jpg?v=0)
-
All 250 of them..... Constantly.
it was constantly used in ground attack roles against the Japanese army trying to invade their country.
-
All 250 of them..... Constantly.
Planes could do more than 1 sortie you know.......
-
Sorry, that wasn't so much a dig at the aircraft, per se. First, Jolly keeps posting all of these wishlist posts for gadget planes and other WWII aerial and ground oddities, with cut and paste posts from Wiki or some other vanilla website. Second, there are those that come in behind him with such strong support for the aircraft, without thinking one bit about the trade off between the programming time required to create the aircraft versus the value it adds to the game. Its one thing to present an informed, reasoned request for an aircraft that's missing. Its something all together different to find a list of niche aircraft from the far corners of the war, and ask for their inclusion.
I agree mate, totally.
-
All 250 of them..... Constantly.
All 55 of the TA152? constantly?
-
I still believe that the Boomerang would be a very smart aircraft to add, it would DEFINENTLY give the brewster a run for its money. (everyone is looking for a plane to kill a brew right) :lol
The Boom was flown by:
No. 4 Squadron 1943 – 1945---- sqaudron still in service today, began in 19117 flying the camel.
No. 5 Squadron 1943 – 1946
No. 83 Squadron 1943 – 1945
No. 84 Squadron 1943 – 1943
No. 85 Squadron 1943 – 1945
This plane was so good to the Aussies that it was put to use a short period after the war by the NO. 5 squadron.
This aircrafts main roll was home defence for the aussies. The Boom was put to use as an escort to shipping convoys because of the lack of fuel without DTs, BUT did frequently go on intercept missions against the imperial military with the DTs equipped. The boomerang provided excelent aerial protection for ground troops. Because the bomb option was available, the Boomerang did go on ground attack missions in New Guinea and the Pacific islands.
Thats my .02 on why it should be added.
-
it would DEFINENTLY give the brewster a run for its money. (everyone is looking for a plane to kill a brew right) :lol
Looking at the wingloading and top speed values, I somewhat doubt it.
-
Looking at the wingloading and top speed values, I somewhat doubt it.
So says the Brewstard fanboi. Anything said about the Brewster gets your hackles up. People whine about it and you say they have a biased opinion against the B-239. Yet you are so obviously pro-Brewster, how can your statements not be taken with a grain of salt? You're just afraid the Boomerang can hang with the Brew just long enough to pop a couple 20 mm shells in your little fidget. :neener:
+1 for the Boomerang.
-
So says the Brewstard fanboi. Anything said about the Brewster gets your hackles up. People whine about it and you say they have a biased opinion against the B-239. Yet you are so obviously pro-Brewster, how can your statements not be taken with a grain of salt? You're just afraid the Boomerang can hang with the Brew just long enough to pop a couple 20 mm shells in your little fidget. :neener:
+1 for the Boomerang.
Caldera, a dose of common sense for you wouldn't go a miss.
Just like I said, I base my opinion on facts like the wing loading and speed. While they alone don't tell the whole story, I'm still quite sure that Brewster would both catch (albeit very very very slowly) and outurn the Boomerang based on the literature/documents about these planes. Brewster's top speed at sea level is 280mph while Boomerang's top speed at sea level is 277mph. So the speeds are close but it shows that Boomerang cannot get away from the Brewster, especially considering that Brewster has better power to weight ratio which should enable it to climb at a faster rate and therefore accelerate faster. Brewster's wing uses a quite a high lift airfoil for its time. I haven't checked the airfoil of the Boomerang, but I'll take a lucky guess that it is one from the NACA series and starts with the digits 23XX(X). The difference in wingloading is quite clear at over ~30kg/sqm. There really isn't much that can overcome these facts. Therefore, Brewster has the smaller turn radius.
So looking at the facts, there really isn't much that the Boomerang can do against the Brewster in a close in low speed turning combat. And btw, I never said I was against its inclusion. I've always thought that it is a cute looking fighter and very interesting. I'd fly it for sure. However, I do think that there are far more important planes to add at this stage of the development of the planeset. And considering all of the above and the fact that I've flown this sim for ~10 years, the suggestion that I'd be "afraid" of a certain plane type is rather absurd. While there are better fighters and not so good fighters, it is the pilot that can make either of them very dangerous. That is not to say that certain fighter give you a lot more options than others. Regarding the Boomerang, it would compete in being the easiest fighter for the Brewster to shoot down with the I-16.
Regarding my objectivity, yes, I consider myself objective when it comes to talking about aircraft performance in general. There really ain't much point not to be if this is your lifetime hobby and you are actually interested in the truth. If you wouldn't be objective, you'd be essentially lying to yourself, and that doesn't make much sense now does it? Especially when looking at what is/was needed in the real war, most of the planeset is clearly superior to the Brewster performancewise. I have absolutely no problem admitting that. But let me post a link to a plane that would truly be a Brewster killer in Brewster's own performance envelope which I really would like to see in AH someday: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtiss-Wright_CW-21 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtiss-Wright_CW-21). It has no place in AH currently IMO, but hopefully someday. I'd love the challenge and I'd fly it too myself. The problem here is that you just didn't have the faintest clue about the relative performance of these planes.
Caldera, I suggest you at least try to think a bit before you submit your next post.
-
Looking at the wingloading and top speed values, I somewhat doubt it.
In all seriousness Wmaker, I ask you this: what if the Australian players have overwhelming data that supports Jolly22's supposition? Isn't that how we got the Brewster's data for it's ingame flight model? Overwhelming support data from the Fin's? Playing a bit of the devil's advocate here. Just curious as to your thoughts....
-
In all seriousness Wmaker, I ask you this: what if the Australian players have overwhelming data that supports Jolly22's supposition? Isn't that how we got the Brewster's data for it's ingame flight model? Overwhelming support data from the Fin's? Playing a bit of the devil's advocate here. Just curious as to your thoughts....
No offence Waystin but you aren't really making whole a lot of sense either.
- What "Jolly22's position"?
- I suggest that you wouldn't make too many assumptions about how the data for Brewster's flight model was obtained/what that data contained.
Read my post above. It is all about physics. A certain geometry moving through air with a certain amount of thrust at any given time. Boomerang can't bent the rules of physics anymore than Brewster or let's say a Mustang can.
Read more, assume less...in all seriousness.
-
No offence Waystin but you aren't really making whole a lot of sense either.
- What "Jolly22's position"? still believe that the Boomerang would be a very smart aircraft to add, it would DEFINENTLY give the brewster a run for its money. (everyone is looking for a plane to kill a brew right)
- I suggest that you wouldn't make too many assumptions about how the data for Brewster's flight model was obtained/what that data contained. I have understood all along that the Brewster's data came from the Finnish contingent of players in the game. If this is incorrect, please let me know. I want truth, not hearsay.Read my post above. It is all about physics. A certaint geometry moving through air with certain amount of thrust at any given time. Boomerang can't bent them anymore than Brewster or let's say a Mustang can. I undertand your physics reasoning and it is sound in the real world. In Aces High, it is the supporting data and information about an aircraft that decides it's flight model, not it's geometry.
Read more, assume less...in all seriousness. I read alot, but you need to be more open in your discussion and mindset. Not everyone that enters into a discussion involving the Brewster wants to see it nerfed or thinks it is overmodeled. Take me for instance, I am not and never will whine about the Brewster, but I do enjoy digging to the bottom of the matter and understanding what is up. So in seriousness, I have not seen a single shred of evidence yet that the Brewster is over-modeled in anyway. So my stance is leave it the hell alone folks. Now onto the Boomerang. Sometimes you have supporters, but you just are'nt seeing them.
-
Caldera, I suggest you at least try to think a bit before you submit your next post.
Got your hackles up again, huh? Prove to me that the average pilot in a Boomerang can't hang with a similar pilot in the Brewstard. Like you said, the pilot not the plane. As long as we're not talking about uber 10 year sim pilots, the Boomerang will shoot down Brewsters. Will it be as good? Maybe not but it will be competitive.
-
Apparently nobody reads this forum.... Or they just post blindly and move on to repeating the same fluff over and over.
From another recent thread:
So... You want a plane so inadequate they couldn't even get a single kill?
So inadequate that it was relegated to carrying 50lb smoke bombs to mark ground targets for OTHER (US-made) planes to bomb?
It's a glorrified infantry strafer.
Even the Aussie test pilot (and ace) said the name was a misnomer, because anybody going into combat with one would NOT be returning home.
From another recent thread:
Click me (http://books.google.com/books?id=5iQ00r2733YC&pg=PA182&lpg=PA182&dq=Clive+Caldwell+boomerang&source=bl&ots=97ImbpXqQA&sig=rpgH8l0fTVP6BmkZ9eMaGIPfdYE&hl=en&ei=C8QTTYKnJMOC8gac5qiTCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false)
2 of the 3 squadrons were homeland defense (no action), and one was tasked to one of the islands. They were able to drive off the Japanese craft, but due to their speed were never able to actually engage the enemy.
With nothing else they COULD do the majority of their war participation was strafing ground units to aid friendly army forces.
Hardly really worth it. I'm all for patriotism and the like, but as far as WW2 and this game goes, the Boomerang is a non-entity.
Between 1942 and 1945 only 240 or so were made. Most of these were probably trainers, because in 1943 the many US made models filled the role of "Fighter" for the Aussie Air Force.
-
Got your hackles up again, huh? Prove to me that the average pilot in a Boomerang can't hang with a similar pilot in the Brewstard. Like you said, the pilot not the plane. As long as we're not talking about uber 10 year sim pilots, the Boomerang will shoot down Brewsters. Will it be as good? Maybe not but it will be competitive.
Ok, you are way beyond reasoning with.
Hopefully we'll get the Boomerang some day along with the rest of the operational planes of WWII...
-
All 133 P47M's..... Constantly.
-
+1 To the Boomer
I think all you non-believers will be pleasantly surprised
-
See my post above.
The "data" comes from the aircraft's performance which in turn comes from its aerodynamical properties (geometry, thrust, stability and so on.)
I never assumed anything regarding your position on how Brewster is modelled. It doesn't matter. The specs of these planes are found from various sources and are there for everyone to find out. My reasoning regarding the relative performance of the Brewster and Boomerang is based on these facts. So I don't really see where you are getting at with this: "overwhelming data that supports Jolly22's supposition". What "overhwelming data" can there be? The speeds, weights, wing areas, power outputs are all published data. Once more, read my post above.
-
It seems that everyone hits hard with logic, but the punch wears off.
It didn't score an Air to Air kill. Some of the aircraft in AH2 now scored very little, and were dedicated fighters. This is a utility aircraft built for the Australian Army to fit a close support role, strafing troops, and giving them SOME cover from enemy air attack. We have a B5N, thats a bomber with no forward gun, but it did substantial damage with bombs and torpedos, it doesnt have an "Air to Air kill" but its there because it sank the Arizona on Dec 7th (Historically significant) the same applies with the D3A1. The boomerang can do everything, but not totally own at something. Its like a slower, tighter turning Spitfire. It served in squadron strength, had a substantial place in history as Australias only home built fighter but had a SIGNIFICANT ROLE in New Guinea. Combined with the Kiwi Fighter bombers it was the most dangerous close support plane around. The Japanese were faced with not one whistling death.. but two, as the Boomerang made a very high pitched whistle when flying fast and low.
I am biased obviously. But, WMaker here asked for the Brewster. put up the reasons for it including the fact that it was his nations fighter, and it arrived in the game and is loved by those who fly it and hated by those who fear it. Our player base is American and British primarily, and which two nations have the most aircraft?
-
It seems that everyone hits hard with logic, but the punch wears off.
It didn't score an Air to Air kill. Some of the aircraft in AH2 now scored very little, and were dedicated fighters. This is a utility aircraft built for the Australian Army to fit a close support role, strafing troops, and giving them SOME cover from enemy air attack. We have a B5N, thats a bomber with no forward gun, but it did substantial damage with bombs and torpedos, it doesnt have an "Air to Air kill" but its there because it sank the Arizona on Dec 7th (Historically significant) the same applies with the D3A1. The boomerang can do everything, but not totally own at something. Its like a slower, tighter turning Spitfire. It served in squadron strength, had a substantial place in history as Australias only home built fighter but had a SIGNIFICANT ROLE in New Guinea. Combined with the Kiwi Fighter bombers it was the most dangerous close support plane around. The Japanese were faced with not one whistling death.. but two, as the Boomerang made a very high pitched whistle when flying fast and low.
I am biased obviously. But, WMaker here asked for the Brewster. put up the reasons for it including the fact that it was his nations fighter, and it arrived in the game and is loved by those who fly it and hated by those who fear it. Our player base is American and British primarily, and which two nations have the most aircraft?
only thing i can see the boomerang becoming usefull at, is it HTC gave it smoke bombs. they could be used to mark enemy tank postions on the ground for friendly armor, used to help the gunners on cvs guess distance to target, or maybe if you want to drop enough you could make a smoke screen over your town to disrupt accurate high level bombing. only real thing i can see this aircraft being able to do.
-
The funny thing is, what is any aircraft in this game "useful" for. I mean, there are 3 types of fighting. E conservation, BnZ and TnB.
And all the fighters in this game fall into one of these three categories. So this argument is invalid. This aircraft has a fantastic PtW and CR. And can turn like a mofo. Just isnt that quick. Its a dedicated turnfighter and good close support aircraft.
That alone makes it qualified.
-
See my post above.
The "data" comes from the aircraft's performance which in turn comes from its aerodynamical properties (geometry, thrust, stability and so on.)
I never assumed anything regarding your position on how Brewster is modelled. It doesn't matter. The specs of these planes are found from various sources and are there for everyone to find out. My reasoning regarding the relative performance of the Brewster and Boomerang is based on these facts. So I don't really see where you are getting at with this: "overwhelming data that supports Jolly22's supposition". What "overhwelming data" can there be? The speeds, weights, wing areas, power outputs are all published data. Once more, read my post above.
Wmaker, might as well leave it be man. They want their Boomerang the same way you wanted your Brewster. Enough said, really.
Besides, it's a wishlist. Not much reason to argue why it shouldn't be in the game.
To freshen things up, why don't you tards argue about why a plane SHOULD be in the game, eh?
Nevermind.. I suppose that would never end well, considering the "loving" community here...
-
Apparently nobody reads this forum.... Or they just post blindly and move on to repeating the same fluff over and over.
From another recent thread:
Please keep in mind this thread was started January of 2010. I don't believe posters have managed to predict the future just yet.
-
OK so back to the Boomerang......... It CAN compete with the brew in the right hands.....
+12243513
-
Bump for the Aussie!
-
OK so back to the Boomerang......... It CAN compete with the brew in the right hands.....
It doesn't matter how many times you repeat this. Just like I said before, given equal pilots Boomerang will be in a world of trouble. You can't get around physics.
-
It doesn't matter how many times you repeat this. Just like I said before, given equal pilots Boomerang will be in a world of trouble. You can't get around physics.
Same for every plane?
-
He protests too much about a plane that supposedly will have no chance against the B-239. Even if it is overmatched, who cares? Going by that logic, all we need is the Spit XVI.
Bring on the Boomerang! :airplane:
-
Being aerial support for gv's is a great change of pace. With this planes smoke bombs that would make it more fun and interesting, as for the smoke screen town tactic, there isn't much that can signicantly reduce the accuracy of carpet bombing in a lanc or b-29. If this plane was added I could see it being used in the same role the aussies used it for, can someone please explain why that is such a bad thing? Also if people fly it in the role that it is good at then it would not be a hanger queen and be a useful addition to the planeset.
So in conculsion,
+1 for the boomerang
anti-troll disclaimer:
<please note there is no mention of dogfighting in this post, this is based off what I would use it for as I am very bad at flying planes with less then four engines>
<S>
Regards,
Hector
-
Are you guys serious? Jolly, put down your copy of "Almost Famous WWII Aircraft" and read something about the planes that actually fought in the war...
so i want the Me 323, and the short sunderland, and the He 177, and the Bolton-Paul Defiant, and the Glostor Meteor, and the Amiot 143, and the piper cub for recon, and the westland lysander. so what? im just stating that they could be cool to have in the game, as long as everything else was up to par.
-
just to add some persuasive pictures
Boomer prep'ing for take off
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5015/5510154699_b087d1f947.jpg)
Boomer with Mk.VIII Spitfire
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5096/5510929601_4910759534.jpg)
Boomerang with Spit8, pony and P40e
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5219/5499773245_dd366a4900.jpg)
My leg after Aust int airshow
(http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/197781_1459250701565_1842339921_870570_7290784_n.jpg)
-
I got knees like that from a one day international, they should be night games in Brisbane.
-
Ouch on the sunburn mate.. nice pics though
-
He protests too much about a plane that supposedly will have no chance against the B-239. Even if it is overmatched, who cares? Going by that logic, all we need is the Spit XVI.
I'm not protesting anything nor am I saying that Boomerang shouldn't be added eventually. All I'm doing is correcting factually incorrect assesments.