Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: 1Nicolas on April 17, 2011, 01:43:44 PM

Title: Short Sunderland!
Post by: 1Nicolas on April 17, 2011, 01:43:44 PM: Can you please add the Short Sunderland :pray
It is faster than the catalina and has 8 303 mg's.
It's top speed is 213 mph!!
It should take off from ports!
And it can carry almost 5000lbs of bombs!

Please :pray :pray :pray :pray :pray :pray
Title: Re: Short Sunderland!
Post by: skorpion on April 17, 2011, 02:01:28 PM: Quote from: 1Nicolas on April 17, 2011, 01:43:44 PM
Can you please add the Short Sunderland :pray
It is faster than the catalina and has 8 303 mg's.
It's top speed is 213 mph!!
It should take off from ports!
And it can carry almost 5000lbs of bombs!

Please :pray :pray :pray :pray :pray :pray
id rather have the PBY-5. but i can do with the sunderland.

+1
Title: Re: Short Sunderland!
Post by: Skyguns MKII on April 17, 2011, 04:04:05 PM: Aces high NEEDS a flying boat about now. +1
Title: Re: Short Sunderland!
Post by: Ping on April 17, 2011, 04:22:29 PM: +1 and it would give the Beaufighter something to hunt down :)
Title: Re: Short Sunderland!
Post by: M0nkey_Man on April 17, 2011, 04:24:09 PM: woop tee do. .303s. Gimmie the Black Cat with .50s
Title: Re: Short Sunderland!
Post by: MachFly on April 17, 2011, 04:26:32 PM: I thought it was mainly a sub hunter?
Title: Re: Short Sunderland!
Post by: Karnak on April 17, 2011, 04:40:04 PM: How about an H8K2 'Emily' which did 290mph, carried more than 6,000lbs and had five 20mm cannons?
Title: Re: Short Sunderland!
Post by: curry1 on April 17, 2011, 04:54:59 PM: Quote from: Karnak on April 17, 2011, 04:40:04 PM
How about an H8K2 'Emily' which did 290mph, carried more than 6,000lbs and had five 20mm cannons?

Wow hold up there. Are you telling me there is an axis aircraft that is better than an allied aircraft. Get out.
Title: Re: Short Sunderland!
Post by: Pigslilspaz on April 17, 2011, 04:56:19 PM: How about a better Aircraft by the Short company?

(Short Stirling :noid)
Title: Re: Short Sunderland!
Post by: Karnak on April 17, 2011, 06:15:48 PM: Quote from: Pigslilspaz on April 17, 2011, 04:56:19 PM
How about a better Aircraft by the Short company?

(Short Stirling :noid)
The Sunderland was better than the Sterling. The Sterling was so bad it had to be withdrawn from combat operations and turned into a glider tug.
Title: Re: Short Sunderland!
Post by: Pigslilspaz on April 18, 2011, 01:14:32 AM: Early in the war, it was a heavy bomber, and later it turned into a plane to push drunks out of. Also had a 18,000 lb load.
Title: Re: Short Sunderland!
Post by: Tyrannis on April 18, 2011, 01:48:06 AM: Quote from: Pigslilspaz on April 17, 2011, 04:56:19 PM
How about a better Aircraft by the Short company?

(Short Stirling :noid)
if there was ever a plane with a disleading name, its gotta be the SHORT sterling.... :huh
Title: Re: Short Sunderland!
Post by: B3YT on April 18, 2011, 06:38:41 AM: as i have pointed out in another thread The MK IV and V Sunderland s had 2 .50 in the nose , 4 .50 in the tail . Fixed twin 50cal in nose and twin 20mm in dorsal turret and .50 in side access doors . plus the 10,000kg (Approx) of ords . ok it was slow but what endurance and not a bad defensive load out in the later versions.
Title: Re: Short Sunderland!
Post by: Karnak on April 18, 2011, 01:54:50 PM: Quote from: B3YT on April 18, 2011, 06:38:41 AM
as i have pointed out in another thread The MK IV and V Sunderland s had 2 .50 in the nose , 4 .50 in the tail . Fixed twin 50cal in nose and twin 20mm in dorsal turret and .50 in side access doors . plus the 10,000kg (Approx) of ords . ok it was slow but what endurance and not a bad defensive load out in the later versions.
Later versions had good firepower, but its endurance isn't really special considering the competition. Not sure about time, but the H8K had 50% greater range with a 24 hour endurance.
Title: Re: Short Sunderland!
Post by: B3YT on April 19, 2011, 10:34:55 AM: oops should be 1000kg of ords :bolt: