Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Perrine on October 11, 2010, 04:22:30 PM
-
With existing planes we have I doubt adding these planes won't take that much effort :aok
Luftwaffe
bf109e7 (post variant battle of britain bf109e that saw action in opening months of Barbarossa and North Africa)
bf109f2 (a bf109f4 with faster-firing 15mm MG-151. Was this variant WEP-less btw?)
bf109g6as (later varient 109g6 with slightly higher altitude performance, 30mm MK-108 nose tatter option added)
bf109g10
fw190a3 (early war fw190a)
fw190a6 (mid-late war fw190a)
fw190a9 (late war fw190a with 2000hp engine)
Red Army
i16 type 18
la5F
p39N (soviet ace Pokryshkin's favorite and saw most important actions in 1943)
US Navy
f6f3 (WEP-less, mid war variant of late war F6F-5)
US Army
p38h (fills gap between p38g and p38j
p47d-5 (pure mid war razorback p47)
p-51a (allison-engined mustang)
RAF
spitfire 2 (a great matchup against bf109f2)
spitfire lf5 (a spit 5 with chopped wingtips, higher engine power suited only for low altitude)
spitfire 12 (would be nice as a perk plane in mid war arena, basically a spit with clipped wing and detuned griffon engine from spit14)
Fleet Air Arm
seafire lf3 (basically a navalized spitfore lf5)
-
Good list. But, I'm thinking the differences between many of the aircraft you listed and what models AH already has is quite minimal. I will vote for the 30mm in the 190G-6 though. :aok
What about Japanese aircraft like Ki-45 "nick" (very similar to the Bf110C-4) or the early war Oscar? Perhaps the French D520? The Soviet Pa-2 is right along side the German He111 for "gaps" that needed to be filled. :)
-
I'm always for more variants (As long as the Stirling and the He-111 get added). Although I'm pretty sure the 109g-10 was in the game (and then taken out, correct if wrong) especially like the 109 variants, me being a 109 dweeb
-
Vary good reasurch you did. Why not, they just add the P-47M on with little changes to make it.
-
Isn't 109G-10 = 109K-4?
The rest is a pretty good list.
-
I want to make some corrections
Cross out the bf-109g6/AS
Instead of bf-109g6/AS I think we should get a bf-109g5/AS for easy differentiation.
Think of bf-109g-5/AS as a bf-109g6, they looked the same but the bf-109g-5 had pressurised cockpit and extra power at high altitude (hence the AS designation)
-
forget a country or two? :D
A6M3!!! :furious
M-18 :noid
Australia's Boomerang
BEAUFIGHTER....
B29 :noid
No B29 for you!!!
-
Pe-2 nuff said AGAIN. But that is a good list. :aok
-
forget a country or two? :D
A6M3!!! :furious
The zero served in the pacific.....so did the B29.
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
-
p38h (fills gap between p38g and p38j
Long over due, that gap is very large in the P38 variants.
+1
-
forget a country or two? :D
A6M3!!! :furious
M-18 :noid
Australia's Boomerang
BEAUFIGHTER....
B29 :noid
No B29 for you!!!
some of those (with exception to A6M) are brand new models. They require more effort.
But
If HTC does get around remodelling A6M, bf110, hurricane, p40, Macci and Yakovlev fighters to AH2 standards pls request additional variants :pray
A6M3 model 32
* basically a clipped winged A6M2, slightly boosted engine, and 80 more rounds of Type 99 Mk1 cannons
(http://www.wartoyz.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/wt72013-01-a6m3-zero-450.jpg)
bf110f
Hurricane mk2b
* basically a mkiic but this one is armed with 12 peashooters :devil
(http://www.airwargame.com/upload/image/render/Hurricane-Mk.IIb_01.jpg)
Hurricane mk4
* This one's basically a fighter-bomber, it carries Typhoon's rockets
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/00/Hawker_Hurricane_Mark_IV.jpg)
Macci c.200
(http://hsfeatures.com/features04/images/C200icr_2.jpg)
Yak-1
(http://www.picture-this-art.co.uk/images/yak_1b.jpg)
Yak-7
(http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/fww2/yak7a/yak7a-c2.jpg)
Yak-9D
(http://www.aviapress.com/engl/est/est72213_1.jpg)
Yak-3
(http://www.gaetanmarie.com/images/yak3/yak3-001.jpg)
An interesting Yak fighter family
(http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/2456/ysmalljy6.jpg)
-
A6M3 model 32
* basically a clipped winged A6M2, slightly boosted engine, and 80 more rounds of Type 99 Mk1 cannons
Probably the worst Zero of the lot. The only real increased benefits of the Model 32 was the increased roll rate, slightly higher dive speed and the extra 100 rounds for each of the 20mm cannons. The negatives were decreased maneuverability and range (due to decreased lift and smaller fuel tank) which stood out during the Solomons Campaign in 1942 and wasn't considered all that success that it only saw short operational service with only 340 or so produced.
ack-ack
-
ADD THEM ALL +1 I know it will take time to this also!
-
Well, I think the D-23 is the model they should add, as the 22/23 series was the second most prolific model after the 25/30 series. That doesn't help us out in the MW arena though. Honestly, the P-47's first combat in ETO was spring of '43 (C models) and fall '43 in PTO. It was pretty much a late arrival into the war really. The last of the major U.S. fighters in fact. So, the D-11 would really be the only model that would fit the MW arena criteria.
On the other hand, the F6F-5 is in the MW arena, and it shouldn't be. The F6F-3 would be the proper Hellcat for the MW arena. I'm not sure how that got added, so perhaps there's a chance a late-war razorback could be included.
F6F-5 is too early for MW and it is un-perked and a prevalent aircraft, just as the FW 190a5 is a stretch for EW. Give us a later variant razorback P-47 to fill the gaps. Should be fairly easy! plus one on any new aircraft for that matter :aok
-
Would like to see the Ki-43, Ki-44, J2M3 and the G4M first myself. The Ki-45 would be nice as the Japanese could use a twin engine attack plane. The Japanese and Russians are lacking the most in the game, compaired to the real world. To be honest I'd just rather see the Japanese aircraft added first. :aok
The Russians could use a bomber though, and the Yak-3 would be fun.
-
Probably the worst Zero of the lot. The only real increased benefits of the Model 32 was the increased roll rate, slightly higher dive speed and the extra 100 rounds for each of the 20mm cannons. The negatives were decreased maneuverability and range (due to decreased lift and smaller fuel tank) which stood out during the Solomons Campaign in 1942 and wasn't considered all that success that it only saw short operational service with only 340 or so produced.
ack-ack
The A6M3 Model 22 would be a better performer. The question is would she be different enough from the Model 52? One way or another, I think the A6M3 would be a good addition to bridge the two variants we have, however the value of the Model 32 is she'll give greater variety, even if her performance suffers.
-
The A6M3 Model 22 would be a better performer. The question is would she be different enough from the Model 52? One way or another, I think the A6M3 would be a good addition to bridge the two variants we have, however the value of the Model 32 is she'll give greater variety, even if her performance suffers.
I say let's get both A6M3s. To differentiate HTC just needs to add the label 'model' after A6M# series, for example:
A6M2 Model 21
A6M3 Model 22
A6M3 Model 32
A6M5 Model 52
-
109G5as is the same as 109G6as pretty much, if I recall correctly, when it came to 109G's odd numbers = pressurised cabins for high altitude bomber interception with very few other differences.
-
The A6M3 was intended to have better performance... It didn't. It was within 10mph of its predecessor at peak, but because of the new engine had a big dip (like the A6M5 but slower). The engine mount required removal of one aux fuel tank, reducing weight, but the clipped wings reduced climb, so the net gain was zero. The pilots disliked it because it had shorter range and less manuverability (their bread and butter) so the wingtips were added back, and another fuel tank shoe-horned in there.....
Again, net gain almost zero.
The only reason for the A6M3 would be the 10mph gain and the extra ammo in the wings (100rpg instead of 60). Pretty sad reason to include an entire other model, but we've gone on less.
P.S. Do some researching before you request these things... If you had done any checking at all you'd see that we HAVE the I-16 Type 18 (it's one of our weapons loadouts), that the 190A6 is identical to the 190A5, but that our in-game 190A-5 is severely slower than the real deal so it wouldn't matter anyways. You would have realized that the P-39N was basically identical to the P-39Q only it had .30 cal wing guns like the P-39D (which doesn't matter because soviet aces like Pokryshkin removed the wing guns regardless of the letter on the plane).
You would have found that the F6F-3 late models in the production run already had the engine with WEP, that was maintained on the F6F-5, but a streamlined cowling gave it 4mph more speed. You would have found that most folks want the F6F-3 because it would be LIGHTER than the F6F-5 and turn even better.
Or how about you would have learned that there was no real difference between the H and the J -- it was mostly a cosmetic where it had engines that looked "G" and performance that looked "J." It fills no gap.
The P-47D-5, you might have learned, was so short-legged it could barely get to the European continent and back. That said, all the early P-47D models were retrofitted in the field with kits to give them the latest improvements, until there was really no distinction between a D-5 and a D-11, for example.
Seriously, you might do some more research (no, real actual reading) and then at least see what's been wished for a million times already.
It may be harsh, but I felt it needed to be said.
-
i want the a6m3s just for the historical setups. nothing more really. everyone knows that if M-18s flew, then id stay in this game forever... :noid
-
Don't mind Krusty, he gets stuck in a private version of "factual versus useful", sometimes the big picture gets lost in the muck. It's a game, not a simulator (as I've been repeatedly told) so regardless of whether or not one of the resident aviation experts finds an aircraft useful for the arcade arenas, doesn't mean it wouldn't at least add to the list of cartoons that could be used to enhance the fun factor on the special events. If AH were more of a simulator, the specs Krusty state would a lot more useful.
(at least there wasn't another Spitwad on the list)
-
(at least there wasn't another Spitwad on the list)
There were spits on the original post :devil
RAF
spitfire 2 (a great matchup against bf109f2)
spitfire lf5 (a spit 5 with chopped wingtips, higher engine power suited only for low altitude)
spitfire 12 (would be nice as a perk plane in mid war arena, basically a spit with clipped wing and detuned griffon engine from spit14)
Fleet Air Arm
seafire lf3 (basically a navalized spitfore lf5)
(http://ww2total.com/WW2/Weapons/War-Planes/Fighter-Planes/British/Spitfire/images-Mk-V/Spitfire-V-03-px800.jpg)
(http://mission4today.com/uploads/downloads/images/2009/06/47_spitfire_mkxii_flgoff_jean_maridor_91sqn_1943.jpg)
(http://gallery.kitmaker.net/data/24037/00483.jpg)
-
There were spits on the original post :devil
(http://ww2total.com/WW2/Weapons/War-Planes/Fighter-Planes/British/Spitfire/images-Mk-V/Spitfire-V-03-px800.jpg)
(http://mission4today.com/uploads/downloads/images/2009/06/47_spitfire_mkxii_flgoff_jean_maridor_91sqn_1943.jpg)
(http://gallery.kitmaker.net/data/24037/00483.jpg)
LMAO, damn I missed them...I quit reading after seeing the "useful aircraft". :neener:
-
The A6M3 was intended to have better performance... It didn't. It was within 10mph of its predecessor at peak, but because of the new engine had a big dip (like the A6M5 but slower). The engine mount required removal of one aux fuel tank, reducing weight, but the clipped wings reduced climb, so the net gain was zero. The pilots disliked it because it had shorter range and less manuverability (their bread and butter) so the wingtips were added back, and another fuel tank shoe-horned in there.....
Again, net gain almost zero.
The only reason for the A6M3 would be the 10mph gain and the extra ammo in the wings (100rpg instead of 60). Pretty sad reason to include an entire other model, but we've gone on less.
P.S. Do some researching before you request these things... If you had done any checking at all you'd see that we HAVE the I-16 Type 18 (it's one of our weapons loadouts), that the 190A6 is identical to the 190A5, but that our in-game 190A-5 is severely slower than the real deal so it wouldn't matter anyways. You would have realized that the P-39N was basically identical to the P-39Q only it had .30 cal wing guns like the P-39D (which doesn't matter because soviet aces like Pokryshkin removed the wing guns regardless of the letter on the plane).
You would have found that the F6F-3 late models in the production run already had the engine with WEP, that was maintained on the F6F-5, but a streamlined cowling gave it 4mph more speed. You would have found that most folks want the F6F-3 because it would be LIGHTER than the F6F-5 and turn even better.
Or how about you would have learned that there was no real difference between the H and the J -- it was mostly a cosmetic where it had engines that looked "G" and performance that looked "J." It fills no gap.
The P-47D-5, you might have learned, was so short-legged it could barely get to the European continent and back. That said, all the early P-47D models were retrofitted in the field with kits to give them the latest improvements, until there was really no distinction between a D-5 and a D-11, for example.
Seriously, you might do some more research (no, real actual reading) and then at least see what's been wished for a million times already.
It may be harsh, but I felt it needed to be said.
You make my point~ the D-15 was the first significant "factory improvement" with under wing hard points, more power and efficient propeller, hence the request for a later model razorback. Range is really inconsequential in this game for the majority of engagements. The F6F-3 did not carry HVAR rockets and first saw action in January 43. The same time early C and D 47's debuted, and even without the single drop tank, they had a 150nm greater radius than the spitfire.
(http://[URL=http://img204.imageshack.us/i/range)
As you yourself admitted the FW190A-5 is clearly not an early war bird/perked or not. I've got over 15 often read and re-read books just on the thunderbolt and I have a pretty good grasp on the operational development. This game has some obvious inconsistancies in the aircraft found in the different arenas, which is really kind of irrelevant considering in the main arena's outside AvA, FSOs and Historical special events, the random mix of allied and axis aircraft and vehicles negates most of the realism in the game
-
No we need more Mossies and Spits and Ponies and Jugs before we get ANY more axis or Russian planes. ;)
-
Regardless, :salute I like Krusty and his contributions~ make some more razorback skins and ram them through, and lets get a D-22/23 one of the most numerous 47 models, and don't forget to fly in the Black Thursday SEA.
-
but that our in-game 190A-5 is severely slower than the real deal so it wouldn't matter anyways.
Real fw190a5 mirrors that of fw190a8 in speed and climb.
It would be a rude awakening to fw190a5 flyers (aces high version) here when suddenly you can't do sustained veritical zoom climb.
Soviet fighter pilots say the fw190s they encountered only shoot 'n scoot like n00bs in aces high and didn't respect it as much as the 109.
EDIT: I can't find "start und notleistung" (WEP) climb rate on real, german fw190a5 data
Does that mean WEP can only be applied on horizontal flight to achieve max speed?
You would have found that most folks want the F6F-3 because it would be LIGHTER than the F6F-5 and turn even better.
Would love to have f6f3 as pure carrier fighter while f6f5 could be relegated as a fighter bomber
there was no real difference between the H and the J -- it was mostly a cosmetic where it had engines that looked "G" and performance that looked "J." It fills no gap.
My guess is that p38h mirrors performance of p38j below 12,000 feet but not above that. Correct me here if i'm wrong
-
P.S. Do some researching before you request these things... If you had done any checking at all you'd see that we HAVE the I-16 Type 18 (it's one of our weapons loadouts),
Once again, priceless.
No, AH does NOT have a Type 18. Our I-16 clearly has M-63 power plant while the Type 18 was powered with a M-62. The Types AH I-16 represents through different load outs are 24, 28, 29.
Krusty, I suggest you either take on a helluva lot more humble attitude and start doing some reading...or stay quiet.
Source: Yefim Gordon's and Keith Dexter's book on I-16 for example.
-
Real fw190a5 mirrors that of fw190a8 in speed and climb.
It would be a rude awakening to fw190a5 flyers (aces high version) here when suddenly you can't do sustained veritical zoom climb.
Soviet fighter pilots say the fw190s they encountered only shoot 'n scoot like n00bs in aces high and didn't respect it as much as the 109.
EDIT: I can't find "start und notleistung" (WEP) climb rate on real, german fw190a5 data
Does that mean WEP can only be applied on horizontal flight to achieve max speed?
Would love to have f6f3 as pure carrier fighter while f6f5 could be relegated as a fighter bomber
My guess is that p38h mirrors performance of p38j below 12,000 feet but not above that. Correct me here if i'm wrong
the A model 190s are overweight compared to charts of plane weights. i forget by how much. and the A8 is heavier than the A5. real 190A5s were actually better than they are in the game
-
Or how about you would have learned that there was no real difference between the H and the J -- it was mostly a cosmetic where it had engines that looked "G" and performance that looked "J." It fills no gap.
It fills in a nice gap, it's the bridge between the old P-38s and the newer P-38s (J and L). It also had 200+ more horsepower, WEP and faster than the G. Also, the H would be an important addition for PTO scenarios and FSOs as it was the G and the H that broke the back of the IJAAF and the IJNAF in New Guinea and Solomons area.
ack-ack
-
No, AH does NOT have a Type 18. Our I-16 clearly has M-63 power plant while the Type 18 was powered with a M-62. The Types AH I-16 represents through different load outs are 24, 28, 29.
The only difference between the 18 and the 28 was the engine. The later M-62 engines put in the I-16 were only a small step behind the M-63s in regards to horsepower (less than 100 hp difference, if I recall), otherwise, every feature you find on the 28 was introduced on the 18: tail wheel instead of skid, possible drop tanks, rocket racks, etc.
Aside from a few mph difference we have it in all but name. Our I-16 is a hybrid anyways, with prototypical speed charts (production models being slower by nature), so it's not even a true Type 28. It is pretty damn close to the 18 regardless.
I'm not ignorant of the I-16. While I don't know the history as well as some others, I do appreciate its early record and my personal preference is to call it Rata or Mosca, despite these not being as common as the Ishak and other names from WW2. I have an interest in the plane and have read a few things on it.
If you REALLY want an earlier model I-16 it would have to be the Type 5 or Type 10. Despite being totally obsolete by the German invasion, they were the most produced marks and made up a large portion of the VVS in 1939.
So I'll thank you to keep the insults to a minimum.
-
You would have found that the F6F-3 late models in the production run already had the engine with WEP, that was maintained on the F6F-5, but a streamlined cowling gave it 4mph more speed. You would have found that most folks want the F6F-3 because it would be LIGHTER than the F6F-5 and turn even better.
I only want the F6F-3 with the hope that the side windows will allow me to see the crowd of red planes on my six.
Rear view on the F6F-5 has a blind spot you can hide a B-24 in.
-
I agree, closing windows is kindof a 'gap filler' :D
It would be cool to be able to open the window in the cockpit of many rides, like the 109s, (except the g14/k4, which have a different hood).
-
lol 109's open sideways, I think it would be pretty hard to close while in flight, that is if the wind didn't rip it off, as for the galland hood, did it open to the side like the rest of the 109's or was it a slider?
-
I was talking about the mini slide window on the left side.
(http://www.saunalahti.fi/cabpilot/ME109G6B.JPG)
-
ah rgr, what would it do though?
-
allow me to stick my head out the window enabling my scarf the trail behind... :airplane: :airplane: :airplane: :airplane: :airplane:
beyond that.... hmmmm not quite sure... :headscratch:
-
So I'll thank you to keep the insults to a minimum.
You specifically stated how AH already has the Type 18. No point in trying to dance your way out of it.
It is very simple. As long as you keep "correcting" people with false information and telling them how they should do their research while you yourself are wrong in the matter in the first place, you can expect some abraisive corrections. No need to make me the bad guy as long as you keep up with this annoying habit of yours. Read about the subject before you post.
-
You specifically stated how AH already has the Type 18. No point in trying to dance your way out of it.
It is very simple. As long as you keep "correcting" people with false information and telling them how they should do their research while you yourself are wrong in the matter in the first place, you can expect some abraisive corrections. No need to make me the bad guy as long as you keep up with this annoying habit of yours. Read about the subject before you post.
we talking the type 18 ammo load out? because the in game I-16 has types 22 24 and 25. :headscratch:
-
Sorry if I was wrong about the info on I-16. I don't have stacks of rare books like you bookworms do.
-
real 190A5s were actually better than they are in the game
I must say the real A5 is just like this game's A8.
A5 Speed
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a5-level.jpg)
A8 speed in game
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/newscores/genchart.php?p1=9&p2=-1&pw=1>ype=0)
A5 climb
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a5-climb.jpg)
A8 climb in game
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/newscores/genchart.php?p1=9&p2=-1&pw=2>ype=2)
-
You specifically stated how AH already has the Type 18. No point in trying to dance your way out of it.
Don't be an arse.
We have an 18, the same way we have a P-51C. The same way we have a 190A-4. The same way we have a 109E-3.
We already HAVE it, hence why id he'd done any research he'd know there were little to no differences.
-
I must say the real A5 is just like this game's A8.
A5 Speed
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a5-level.jpg)
A8 speed in game
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/newscores/genchart.php?p1=9&p2=-1&pw=1>ype=0)
A5 climb
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a5-climb.jpg)
A8 climb in game
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/newscores/genchart.php?p1=9&p2=-1&pw=2>ype=2)
just a little off with that one... :headscratch: A5 and A8 climb rate and turn rates in the game are far off. and what you just showed me just showed that you are off in your assumption. look at say, the 16k mark in climb rate of the 190A5 chart and the 190A8 in game chart... now compare the chart you show to the 190A5 chart from in the game. In fact, my assumption was off also. the 190A5 in the game climbs at 3k Ft per min compared to your chart's 2400 ft per min at 16k. even at 16k in the 190A8 is at a faster climb rate than your chart. i have also heard that the 190A8 is overweight in the game and that it runs irl like an A5.
-
Don't be an arse.
We have an 18, the same way we have a P-51C. The same way we have a 190A-4. The same way we have a 109E-3.
We already HAVE it, hence why id he'd done any research he'd know there were little to no differences.
It truly isn't me who's being one.
As I said, no point in trying to tapdance your way out. Maybe you should have said that you think that the variant he proposed was too similar to the ones we have instead of saying it is the same? But we both know that you had your numbers mixed up and being the Krusty you are you simply can't admit being wrong. Having a different engine alone is enough for it to be a separate variant. If the game needs it or not is another matter. But don't go telling others they need to do their reserach when you don't seem to know the subject matter any better.
-
My guess is that p38h mirrors performance of p38j below 12,000 feet but not above that. Correct me here if i'm wrong
You're wrong.
ack-ack
-
i thought the spit MK I and II were the same except for a de havland constant speed propeller fitted to the MK II , and being built in castle bromitch not portsmouth .
-
forget a country or two? :D
A6M3!!! :furious
M-18 :noid
Australia's Boomerang
BEAUFIGHTER....
B29 :noid
No B29 for you!!!
+1 for aLL THAT
-
I have been trying hard not to do this for days, but its the weekend
(http://www.drdudd.co.uk/homelife/gap-filler.GIF)