Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Pigslilspaz on February 05, 2011, 03:17:27 AM
-
Enough Said. :noid
-
:aok :aok :aok :aok :aok :aok :aok :aok :aok :aok :aok :aok :aok :aok :aok :aok :aok
-
Not enough said. Why the Stirling? What would it bring to the table? What were it's faults. There was a reason it was not preferred as a bomber and was used to pull gliders.
Do you know the answers to those questions? If you are going to make a sale, tell us why it would be worth the time and effort?
-
Why the Stirling? What would it bring to the table?
it should fly low and It is BIG! Easier to hit. :t
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/de/British_WW2_bombers_comparison.png/450px-British_WW2_bombers_comparison.png)
-
Big, packs alot of bombs, and looks awesome
-
Not enough said. Why the Stirling? What would it bring to the table? What were it's faults. There was a reason it was not preferred as a bomber and was used to pull gliders.
Do you know the answers to those questions? If you are going to make a sale, tell us why it would be worth the time and effort?
Look in my 5+ other threads for the Stirling, it's all there. Also, planes shouldn't have to need to bring something to the table to be implemented. Noone asks bar for info/importance when he mentions the "you know what" (not mentioning it's name because then he'll be in here in five minutes tops.
-
But it isn't here.............?
Look in my 5+ other threads for the Stirling, it's all there. Also, planes shouldn't have to need to bring something to the table to be implemented. Noone asks bar for info/importance when he mentions the "you know what" (not mentioning it's name because then he'll be in here in five minutes tops.
-
Well..... Technically speaking, BAR's wish is something we don't have, an Allied tank destroyer.
Now I am all for the not-so-Short Sterling, but when it comes to these people, no, no wait, savages on the BBS, we gotta make sure not to give them anything to slap ya back with. :cheers:
-
A Wellington Mk I or Mk III would be 1) more representative of RAF Bomber Command prior to the Lancaster/Halifax, 2) less work to add and 3) work in settings where we currently lack an RAF bomber.
I'd like the Wellington B.Mk III. Built using a tough, geodesic construction, defended by eight .303s, two in the nose turret, one in each beam and four in the tail turret. It carried 4,500lbs, so a useful war load in the Early War arena and settings. With a top speed of about 240mph it would also be interceptable by early war Luftwaffe fighters, something the Boston Mk III really isn't.
I advocate adding the Mk III instead of the Mk IC due to the quad .303 turret. I don't think a 240mph bomber with only two .303s in the tail would be viable, gameplaywise, even against Bf109Es, Bf109Fs and Bf110Cs.
Direct hit from flak:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/Vickers_Wellington_Mark_X%2C_HE239_%27NA-Y%27%2C_of_No._428_Squadron_RCAF_%28April_1943%29.png)
According to the note, this bomber was hit before it reached its target, despite the damage it completed its run and returned home to a safe landing. The tail gunner, obviously, didn't make it. After completing the bomb run they found they could not close the bomb bay doors due to a loss of hydraulic power.
-
Look in my 5+ other threads for the Stirling, it's all there. Also, planes shouldn't have to need to bring something to the table to be implemented. Noone asks bar for info/importance when he mentions the "you know what" (not mentioning it's name because then he'll be in here in five minutes tops.
So you are figuring if you say it enough times it will make a difference?
The Defiant "looks cool" to some folks too. Doesn't mean it was a mistake in combat. If you are going to push for another four engine RAF bomber, the Halifax is a far better choice. The radial engined Lancaster would be a better choice then the Stirling too.
-
hmm that big with less of a wing span then a lancaster, that seems like a climbing nightmare
-
Look into it farther young Mirage............... The span has far less to do with it than the ___________________.
hmm that big with less of a wing span then a lancaster, that seems like a climbing nightmare
And besides, she only gets to about 18,000 ft. Thick wings caused a super low service ceiling.
-
I will have to side with Karnak. HOWEVER, if the Stirling got added before the Wellington, I would NOT complain one bit. I'm all for the addition of more bombers. :aok NOW, if only we could get more strategic targets to hit with them.... :bolt:
-
PLUS a Trillion!!!
NOW, if only we could get more strategic targets to hit with them.... :bolt:
-
Look into it farther young Mirage............... The span has far less to do with it than the ___________________.
And besides, she only gets to about 18,000 ft. Thick wings caused a super low service ceiling.
I know I wasnt really thinking wehn I posted, area and loading has more to do with climb then span
-
Direct hit from flak:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/Vickers_Wellington_Mark_X%2C_HE239_%27NA-Y%27%2C_of_No._428_Squadron_RCAF_%28April_1943%29.png)
According to the note, this bomber was hit before it reached its target, despite the damage it completed its run and returned home to a safe landing. The tail gunner, obviously, didn't make it. After completing the bomb run they found they could not close the bomb bay doors due to a loss of hydraulic power.
Wow, :salute
-
disregard.
-
Noone asks bar for info/importance when he mentions the "you know what" (not mentioning it's name because then he'll be in here in five minutes tops.
Look how well that's working out for him.
wrongway
-
:aok
-
hmm that big with less of a wing span then a lancaster, that seems like a climbing nightmare
Not really. I mean the Short Stirling has a climb rate of 800 ft a min. The B24 which carried 6000lbs less in ord could do aroun 1000ft a min, and the B17 which carried about the same 6000lbs less in bomb load could only make about 900ft per minute. So in respects to bomb load and climb rate to the other bombers we have it is not that far off. It would just mean you have to plan your bomb run if you want to obtain a specific altitude. To me it would make a nice addition but it is not that vital yet in my opinion.
BigKev
-
Also, later in the war, it was used to drop British Para's. Could be used as a gooneybird in late war. (just would have to be disabled in early war and maybe midwar)
-
Big, packs alot of bombs, and looks awesome
you sure about that bomb statement? i read somewheres that its bombbay was so clustered with other things that it couldnt carry as much as the lancaster, even for its giant size.
-
you sure about that bomb statement? i read somewheres that its bombbay was so clustered with other things that it couldnt carry as much as the lancaster, even for its giant size.
I tried to research this but couldnt find anything. I did notice however that the bomber was limited to about 19k max with a full bomb load. Not that good if you wanted to avoid flak and fighters.
BigKev
-
It could carry 14,000lbs of bombs or 24 troops.
Flew 14,500 sorties, dropped over 27,000 tons of ordnance.
The Stirling proved an excellent design and pilots were delighted to discover they could outturn the Ju 88 and Me 110 nightfighters they faced, due to the thick wing.
http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafbramptonwytonhenlow/aboutus/shortstirling.cfm
Also, it was the first Heavy Bomber in the RAF.
-
you sure about that bomb statement? i read somewheres that its bombbay was so clustered with other things that it couldnt carry as much as the lancaster, even for its giant size.
It had a center divider in the bombbay. It carried as much ordnance as the Lancaster Mk. III, it just couldn't carry a single bomb larger than the 2000lb'er