Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Seadog36 on May 08, 2011, 03:35:31 PM
-
I don't know if this has been requested before~ They saw combat w the AVG, China and The Royal Australian AF. Would be a good early war addition. And twice as many of them were built than the P-47M.
(http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n83/Urbanflotsom1/Republic_P-43A-1_061019-F-1234P-035.jpg)
(http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n83/Urbanflotsom1/XRA-0008Am.jpg)
(http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n83/Urbanflotsom1/normal_p4319.jpg)
(http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n83/Urbanflotsom1/p-43.jpg)
Length: 28 ft 6 in (8.7 m)
Wingspan: 36 ft 1 in (11.0 m)
Height: 14 ft 1 in (4.3 m)
Wing area: 222.7 ft² (20.7 m²)
Empty weight: 5,982 lb (2,713 kg)
Loaded weight: 7,418 lb (3,365 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 8,460 lb (3,837 kg)
Powerplant: 1× Pratt & Whitney R-1830-49 14-cylinder air-cooled radial piston engine, 1,200 hp (895 kW)
Performance
Maximum speed: 356 mph (573 km/h)
Range: 650 mi (1,046 km)
Service ceiling: 35,990 ft (10,970 m)
Rate of climb: 2,500 ft/min (13 m/s)
Wing loading: 33 lb/ft² (163 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.16 hp/lb (0.27 kW/kg)
Armament
4 × 0.50 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns
-
Ki-43 would be vastly more relevant and useful rather than finding some reason to eek in an extremely rare aircraft. Ki-44 would also be more relevant.
Heck, G.55 and maybe ever Re2005 would be more relevant.
-
+1 somthing that could kill another plane unlike the ki43
-
Would rather See The P-48 Vanguard
Crew: 1
Length: 28 ft 4 in (8.64 m)
Wingspan: 36 ft 0 in (10.98 m)
Height: ()
Wing area: 197 ft² (18.3 m²)
Empty weight: 4,657 lb (2,117 kg)
Loaded weight: 6,029 lb (2,740 kg)
Max takeoff weight: lb (kg)
Powerplant: 1× Pratt & Whitney R-1830-S3C4-G radial engine, 1,200 hp (895 kW)
Maximum speed: 340 mph (544 km/h)
Range: 850 mi (1,360 km)
Service ceiling: 28,200 ft (8,958 m)
Rate of climb: 2,139 ft/min (10.4 m/s)
Wing loading: 31 lb/ft² (150 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.20 hp/lb (0.33 kW/kg)
4 × .30 in (7.62 mm) machine guns
2 × .50 in (12.7 mm) machine guns
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3136/2993119491_cd9d88d0cc.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3068/2993963622_8613dbb135.jpg)
-
Never heard about this aircraft. Looks like a baby-p47
-
+1 somthing that could kill another plane unlike the ki43
I've shot down aircraft with a D3A. Trust me, the Ki-43 is quite capable of shooting down any fighter. B-17s or Lancasters might be a bit rough.
Ki-44 would be more capable of shooting things down than this, let alone the G.55.
-
Never heard about this aircraft. Looks like a baby-p47
My thought's exactly. Actually was based off of the P-35, and the jug was based off the P-43. Always cool seeing airframes evolve
-
Never heard about this aircraft. Looks like a baby-p47
It was Republic's precursor to the P-47, turbocharged with an amazing ceiling and 4 .50's.
Ki-43 w 2x 7.7mm or one 7.7mm and 12.7mm no armor and no self sealing tanks~LOL 286kt max speed and 11k service ceiling. I suppose AHII could use a target drone. Same firepower as the D3A~ could just keep substituting that.
-
It was Republic's precursor to the P-47, turbocharged with an amazing ceiling and 4 .50's.
Ki-43 w 2x 7.7mm or one 7.7mm and 12.7mm no armor and no self sealing tanks~LOL 286kt max speed and 11k service ceiling. I suppose AHII could use a target drone. Same firepower as the D3A~ could just keep substituting that.
Ki-43-I is 70mph faster than the D3A1, fyi. You're "11k service ceiling" might be 11k meters.
Ki-43-II: two 12.7mm machine guns and about 330mph, self sealing tanks as well.
Oh, 5900 Ki-43s were built. How many P-43s were built?
-
Ki-43-I is 70mph faster than the D3A1, fyi. You're "11k service ceiling" might be 11k meters.
Ki-43-II: two 12.7mm machine guns and about 330mph, self sealing tanks as well.
Oh, 5900 Ki-43s were built. How many P-43s were built? more than the P47M
-
+1 to the Lancer. :aok
+1 to allowing HTC to decide it's priority for conclusion. :aok
+1 to those who always offer options to folks plane & vehicle wish requests. :rolleyes:
-
Olds442,
The P-47M required 0% additional artwork out of HTC. The P-43 would require 100% new artwork. The two are not remotely comparable and you are being disingenuous in suggest that they are.
-
Olds442,
The P-47M required 0% additional artwork out of HTC. The P-43 would require 100% new artwork. The two are not remotely comparable and you are being disingenuous in suggest that they are.
your telling me if its "hard" to be modeled it cant be added
-
I really think this one needs to be way down the list - there are a LOT of Axis and Russian rides that I would rather see first.
-
already have to much normal stuff. need more sea planes :O :O :O
-
+1 to those who always offer options to folks plane & vehicle wish requests. :rolleyes:
+1 for trolls
I simply said its of the same time "C.A.F." Faster and has better firepower
don't think 43 had 4 50`s as stated 2 tops
-
your telling me if its "hard" to be modeled it cant be added
I am saying that the P-47M took no new 3D artwork, being identical to one of the P-47Ds, to be added and thus was almost a free additional aircraft whereas the P-43 would be an entirely new piece of artwork and therefor much more laborious to add.
When I look at the very extensive list of US aircraft and the scant list of Russian and Japanese aircraft, "We need a rare US aircraft added!" is not what springs to mind. The Ki-43 may not excite you, but it was a major participant in WWII with 5900 produced. It was the mainstay fighter of the IJAAF until late 1944/early 1945 when the Ki-84 supplanted it.
-
When I look at the very extensive list of US aircraft and the scant list of Russian and Japanese aircraft, "We need a rare US aircraft added!" is not what springs to mind. The Ki-43 may not excite you, but it was a major participant in WWII with 5900 produced. It was the mainstay fighter of the IJAAF until late 1944/early 1945 when the Ki-84 supplanted it.
vultee would be a good add to fight the ki43 :neener:
-
Ki-43, He-111, Beau and the I.A.R. 81c.
-
As an aside, I can understand why people would advocate for some super or quasi-super plane like the P-63 over a scenario plane like the Ki-43, but I really don't understand why they would be so insistent on a hangar queen like the P-43 over a historically important hangar queen like the Ki-43.
Both the P-43 and Ki-43 would be hangar queens, of that there can be no doubt, but one was a major participant and the other was a minor participant and it should be damned obvious which should be added first.
-
vultee would be a good add to fight the ki43 :neener:
Twinboom, he is going to blow a gasket pushing his Ki agenda on a Lancer thread. It's as predictable as He 111, Beau and PBY requests on everyone else's legitimate or exploratory request. Ki only got 2x 12.7mm in late '44. 1/2 the firepower of a FM2 at it's most fearsome. No wonder our highest scoring aces were in the Pacific. And talk about laborious to add, so much 3D artwork, good thing HTC are professionals at that.
P-66 was an interesting one, cool lines. I do think P-43 would see a lot of action in EW, and Karnak I do agree with you, the Ki-43 was undoubtedly a very significant and pertinent.
+1 Troll baiting
-
Seadog,
Ki-43 got two 12.7mm guns in late 1941/early 1942. They aren't too horrible to use. I've shot down a Hurricane IIc and a C-47 on the same flight with just the same two 12.7mm guns on the Ki-84 after my 20mm guns ran dry. The Hurri IIc would have been a lot easier in the Ki-43-II as well as I wouldn't have had to BnZ the Hurri's E out, would have been able to just park on its tail and shoot it down.
Given your source's failure on the Ki-43, I wonder if TwinBoom's comment about the P-43 only having two .50s is true as well.
For the MA, I'd like to see the J2M or Ki-44-II.
-
OK, let's get serious here. There is a reason the P43 didn't get into combat with the USAAF. You guys claiming it's some sort of beast need to go re-read the history a bit.
Far too many other birds before the P43 would ever be needed in AH. You can make a far stronger case for the P36/Hawk 75. That one at least made it's presence felt in lots of places.
-
+1 somthing that could kill another plane unlike the ki43
The Ki-43 couldn't kill anything?
ack-ack
-
Seadog,
Ki-43 got two 12.7mm guns in late 1941/early 1942. They aren't too horrible to use. I've shot down a Hurricane IIc and a C-47 on the same flight with just the same two 12.7mm guns on the Ki-84 after my 20mm guns ran dry. The Hurri IIc would have been a lot easier in the Ki-43-II as well as I wouldn't have had to BnZ the Hurri's E out, would have been able to just park on its tail and shoot it down.
Given your source's failure on the Ki-43, I wonder if TwinBoom's comment about the P-43 only having two .50s is true as well.
For the MA, I'd like to see the J2M or Ki-44-II.
There are numerous sources of 4x .50 on the P-43 http://www.wwiivehicles.com/usa/aircraft/fighter/republic-p-43-lancer.asp
With their superior ceiling they often flew top cover for short winded P-40s and intercepted high altitude re-con aircraft
Here is another excellent reference with the combat history of the P-43 (and P-66) in the AVG and CAF http://www.warbirdforum.com/dunnp431.htm ~with yet another citation of 4x .50s
Enjoy
-
With only 272 built, per Wikipedia, I doubt that they "often" did anything.
Would it be nice to have it eventually? Sure, but I think, given we are picking between hangar queens here, that the Ki-43 offers more to the game. At least in the Ki-43 you know you are supreme in at least one category, it would out turn anything, save perhaps the D3A and B6N.
-
This is a wishlist, why bother arguing?
-
This is a wishlist, why bother arguing?
Because the wishlist is part of the BBS.
:)
-
-1 for both due to the fact neither are particularly special or great.
+1 for PBY-5A that would be special unique and could be used as medium bomber and torpedo bomber.
:noid :noid
-
This is a wishlist, why bother arguing?
We are a small portion of the player base who, thinking we have more influence than we do, like to tell HTC what we think the priorities should be. In my case, I think the P-43 shouldn't even be mentioned until a great number of other aircraft have been added. In some other cases, apparently, the players think our great dearth of American aircraft needs to be addressed before anything non-American is added.
-1 for both due to the fact neither are particularly special or great.
+1 for PBY-5A that would be special unique and could be used as medium bomber and torpedo bomber.
:noid :noid
If you were asking for a flying boat that would be useful in the MA I could understand your request, but the PBY-5 would bring no more than the Sunderland or Emily and be far, far less usable.
Ki-43, Pe-2, Beaufighter, Wellington and He111 were all produced in mass numbers and, the Ki-43 in particular and in my opinion, ought to have been added to AH long ago. Fighter vs Fighter performance being a far more significant aspect of AH than Bomber vs Bomber performance.
-
This is a wishlist, why bother arguing?
We are a small portion of the player base who, thinking we have more influence than we do, like to tell HTC what we think the priorities should be. In my case, I think the P-43 shouldn't even be mentioned until a great number of other aircraft have been added. In some other cases, apparently, the players think our great dearth of American aircraft needs to be addressed before anything non-American is added.
-1 for both due to the fact neither are particularly special or great.
+1 for PBY-5A that would be special unique and could be used as medium bomber and torpedo bomber.
:noid :noid
If you were asking for a flying boat that would be useful in the MA I could understand your request, but the PBY-5 would bring no more than the Sunderland or Emily and be far, far less usable.
Ki-43, Pe-2, Beaufighter, Wellington and He111 were all produced in mass numbers and, the Ki-43 in particular and in my opinion, ought to have been added to AH long ago. Fighter vs Fighter performance being a far more significant aspect of AH than Bomber vs Bomber performance.
-
I I'm not so sure Karnak. I think that as long as the PBY stays the only flying boat it would be used often. As much as I love the PBY I agree though that most people would rather the Sunderland or H8K. That still doesn't stop me from being completely devoted to the PBY and would only fly it in place of any bomber for any role. I am aware that it's not suited to all rolls but I would really only fly it compared to any other aircraft
-
Why would they use it? It is a very slow, free kill. Just being a flying boat, a gimmick, won't sustain use once it is realized how helpless it is and how useless it is compared to even a Ju88 or G4M1. There is no inherent reason to use a flying boat, particularly when you take such a hit on performance, armament and ordnance to do so.
-
i asked for this and others to added last year.....+1 and wtg Karnak...thanks for adding in to the wish the G-55 and re-2005 :banana:
-
Ki-43 would be vastly more relevant and useful rather than finding some reason to eek in an extremely rare aircraft. Ki-44 would also be more relevant.
Heck, G.55 and maybe ever Re2005 would be more relevant.
I didn't think we could accurately surmise the relevance of the G.55? But, the P-37 would be waaaaaaaay down my list of priorities. The only thing it would add would be for dedicated AVG/CBI special events.
-
it kinda looks like a fm2 but little bigger.
-
-1 for both due to the fact neither are particularly special or great.
+1 for PBY-5A that would be special unique and could be used as medium bomber and torpedo bomber.
:noid :noid
Don't bring that godawful thing into this thread...
-
The P-43 Lancer thread has been officially hijacked. Some people are too embarrassed to repost their tired retreaded PBY Ki-43 threads yet again. The TA-152 had 43 examples delivered and the P-47M 130 examples produced of which very few saw active duty yet they are active in the game. As a dedicated Republic fan, I still think it would make a great early war addition.
-
Seadog,
Do you not understand why those two were cheap variants to add? It is nothing like adding an entirely new airframe.
-
And do you understand why the P43 didn't get into combat with the USAAF? Keep in mind the P39 went, and the 39s were considered dogs. You mention the P47M. You have an entire fighter group in the big leagues in the ETO flying it. Still looking for that P43 that showed up in the PTO, MTO or ETO?
Interesting history, but pointless in terms of AH.
-
Seadog,
Do you not understand why those two were cheap variants to add? It is nothing like adding an entirely new airframe.
Considering only 42 TA-152s saw limited service, they did require major work, new wings/tail lengthened, engine model~ the point is, they were both very minor players that got slots. The P-43 fulfills the criteria of having seen combat just as well as either of them. Not to mention the ridiculous over-modeled Brewster of which there were only 300 built. These also required a completely new design and airframes~ Karnak, your argument does not hold water. If HTC feels like producing a new aircraft they do it~ regardless.
Guppy~ the P-43 was an intermediate design for the XP-47. the Lancer had advocates who preferred it to the P-40 because of it's speed and service ceiling, though there were many more and newer variants of P-40 already in production which were used instead. And hello, they did serve in the CBI w the CAF and the AVG, as well as in the PTO w the RAAF, I even provide sources. Furthermore, in regards to the P-47M, because of the numerous bugs in the M which kept them out of service, the 56th FG was never fully equipped w them until April 1945~ the War in Europe was over one month later in May, they hardly saw any meaningful combat flying Ms from the battered Luftwaffe, and yet they just another example of the silly uber everything figter that predominates LW. You are not looking very hard and you need to read up on your facts before you chime in.
-
Considering only 42 TA-152s saw limited service, they did require major work, new wings/tail lengthened, engine model~ the point is, they were both very minor players that got slots. The P-43 fulfills the criteria of having seen combat just as well as either of them. Not to mention the ridiculous over-modeled Brewster of which there were only 300 built. These also required a completely new design and airframes~ Karnak, your argument does not hold water. If HTC feels like producing a new aircraft they do it~ regardless.
Guppy~ the P-43 was an intermediate design for the XP-47. the Lancer had advocates who preferred it to the P-40 because of it's speed and service ceiling, though there were many more and newer variants of P-40 already in production which were used instead. And hello, they did serve in the CBI w the CAF and the AVG, as well as in the PTO w the RAAF, I even provide sources. Furthermore, in regards to the P-47M, because of the numerous bugs in the M which kept them out of service, the 56th FG was never fully equipped w them until April 1945~ the War in Europe was over one month later in May, they hardly saw any meaningful combat flying Ms from the battered Luftwaffe, and yet they just another example of the silly uber everything figter that predominates LW. You are not looking very hard and you need to read up on your facts before you chime in.
Trust me, a few floating around China is just that. A hand me down leftover, and very few. And as one who doesn't fly LW rides, I'm hardly against early-midwar stuff. I know what a Lancer is, and I know how they were used or not used as the case may be. As I said previously, you can make a much better case for the Hawk 75/P36 if you want to add an early war bird. That on makes much more sense considering the number of participants who used it, and the different places it saw combat with them.
-
seadog...i don't know what resources you have but, for digital content these 2 articles appear to coincide with others i've found and give a fairly good picture of it's use:
http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/p43.html (http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/p43.html)
http://www.warbirdforum.com/richdunn.htm (http://www.warbirdforum.com/richdunn.htm)
-
Ki-43 would be vastly more relevant and useful rather than finding some reason to eek in an extremely rare aircraft. Ki-44 would also be more relevant.
Heck, G.55 and maybe ever Re2005 would be more relevant.
Karnak, you been warned before about injecting your pet Ki-43 request into every other Wish, and hijacking the thread. You are now banned from replying to Wishes.
Vinkman
-
I don't know if this has been requested before~ They saw combat w the AVG, China and The Royal Australian AF. Would be a good early war addition. And twice as many of them were built than the P-47M.
(http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n83/Urbanflotsom1/Republic_P-43A-1_061019-F-1234P-035.jpg)
(http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n83/Urbanflotsom1/XRA-0008Am.jpg)
(http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n83/Urbanflotsom1/normal_p4319.jpg)
(http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n83/Urbanflotsom1/p-43.jpg)
Length: 28 ft 6 in (8.7 m)
Wingspan: 36 ft 1 in (11.0 m)
Height: 14 ft 1 in (4.3 m)
Wing area: 222.7 ft² (20.7 m²)
Empty weight: 5,982 lb (2,713 kg)
Loaded weight: 7,418 lb (3,365 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 8,460 lb (3,837 kg)
Powerplant: 1× Pratt & Whitney R-1830-49 14-cylinder air-cooled radial piston engine, 1,200 hp (895 kW)
Performance
Maximum speed: 356 mph (573 km/h)
Range: 650 mi (1,046 km)
Service ceiling: 35,990 ft (10,970 m)
Rate of climb: 2,500 ft/min (13 m/s)
Wing loading: 33 lb/ft² (163 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.16 hp/lb (0.27 kW/kg)
Armament
4 × 0.50 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns
I'm for any plane that offers a different flying experience than we have now. The stats look like Wildcat stats. Cockpit visibility, armorment, and performance look the same. What does this plane offer that is different from a playablility standpoint? BTW it's a eally ugly plane. ;)
Can't say I'm waiting for this one. + 0
:salute
-
The AVG did not use the P-43, the only time the Flying Tigers flew the Lancer was during ferry missions from the US to China. A number of P-43s were intended for the AVG to equip the 3rd AVG but that fell through. The P-43s intended for the 3rd AVG instead went to the Nationalist Chinese air force, in addition to the Lend-Lease Lancers the Chinese received.
The RAAF only received 8 P-43s that were converted to the photo recce role and by 1943, only 6 remained and were returned back to the USAAF.
Even with the primary user (China), the Lancer didn't play a significant role in the Chinese air war.
ack-ack
-
The AVG did not use the P-43, the only time the Flying Tigers flew the Lancer was during ferry missions from the US to China. A number of P-43s were intended for the AVG to equip the 3rd AVG but that fell through.
ack-ack
You are wrong Ack-Ack, P-43s are specifically cited in combat action with US pilots Lt. Phillip B. O'Connell, Lt. Phillip B. O'Connell, Major Frank Schiel and Capt. Jeffrey O. Wellborn of the AVG then later transitioning into the USAAF 23rd Figter Group 74th,75th and 76th Fighter Squadrons :
http://www.warbirdforum.com/dunnp434.htm
I was surprised you hadn't made some unfounded and inaccurate conjecture in this thread yet. Read the article first before you inject more historical inaccuracies.
Personally I think they are beautiful broad shouldered birds Vinkman~ probably a little less maneuverable than an f4f, 53mph faster, 300ft/min better climb rate, and higher service ceiling.
-
That's an interesting history read there Seadog, but as it relates to the validity/importance of the P-43, I think the following quote tells it all:
VII. ASSESSMENT
The P-43 did not play a major role in the air war in China. This was primarily due to the small numbers in which it was committed to combat. This study could not find an occasion when the C.A.F. employed more than twelve, nor the 14th Air Force more than four, P-43s on a single mission. A typical mission for the 14th Air Force involved only one or two P-43s. With the C.A.F., missions generally ranged from two to ten P-43s but the total number of missions flown was very small.
-
That's an interesting history read there Seadog, but as it relates to the validity/importance of the P-43, I think the following quote tells it all:
I agree Krusty, the Lancer was not a major player. My argument is that AHII is rife with many minor aircraft and variants that saw minimal combat: for example P47M (130),F4Uc(200),TA-152(42),SpitXVI(188)Brewster(300). In lew of that, I think it would make a good addition for EW and scenarios especially something that is not an over utilized uber ride.
Having said that I would rather see the P-47D 20-23 block represented, being the 2nd most produced variant of 13,000 after the D-30. Even the meek Ki-43 should make the grade based on it's prevalence and relevance ~ mercifully there is a dedicated thread for it now :D
-
You are wrong Ack-Ack, P-43s are specifically cited in combat action with US pilots Lt. Phillip B. O'Connell, Lt. Phillip B. O'Connell, Major Frank Schiel and Capt. Jeffrey O. Wellborn of the AVG then later transitioning into the USAAF 23rd Figter Group 74th,75th and 76th Fighter Squadrons :
http://www.warbirdforum.com/dunnp434.htm
Again, the American Volunteer Group did not fly the P-43 other than ferry missions. The action described in the site you linked, the squadron that the pilots belonged to was the 75th FS, part of the 23rd Fighter Group attached to the China Air Task Force, which later became the 14th AF. The CATF was not the AVG, though it did intergrate the AVG squadrons when the USAAF took charge with the creation of the CATF.
So in other words, this engagement took place after the AVG was disbanded and intergrated into the USAAF. In fact, I believe this engagement was the first kills for the 75th FS. If you also paid note to the article you linked to, it mentions the 23rd FG (of which the 75th FS was a part) had only 5 P-43s, with a promise of 5 more.
I was surprised you hadn't made some unfounded and inaccurate conjecture in this thread yet. Read the article first before you inject more historical inaccuracies.
The only one flirting with historical inaccuracies in this thread has been yourself.
ack-ack
-
Ack, You quote me with my own source~I never said they were synonymous, rather specifically that the 74th,75th and 76th were components of the AVG that later transitioned into the USAAF specifically the 23rd FG. My point being that US pilots in those FGs did use them with some success in combat. The author of the article also maintains, that the US could have benefited by utilizing additional P-43s with their superior performance to overcome the shortcomings of the P-40. The CAF regularly flew them in flights of 10 plus aircraft with P-66s and P-40s, which with the very low number employed in that arena was significant. I concur with the author in his positive below assessment.
"The data assembled in this study suggests the P-43 might have been highly successful if used more extensively. It demonstrated ability to effect interceptions when P-40s could not and to shoot down Japanese high altitude reconnaissance planes. It had good range capability and could fly both bomber escort and reconnaissance missions. Its high altitude performance made it a good complement to the P-40 on escort missions...A squadron of P-43s at Port Moresby in 1942 might have saved many American fighter pilots by giving top cover to the Allison powered fighters. There is also little doubt Chennault could have usefully employed more than the ten fighters he was granted."
-
I agree Krusty, the Lancer was not a major player. My argument is that AHII is rife with many minor aircraft and variants that saw minimal combat: for example P47M (130),F4Uc(200),TA-152(42),SpitXVI(188)Brewster(300). In lew of that, I think it would make a good addition for EW and scenarios especially something that is not an over utilized uber ride.
Having said that I would rather see the P-47D 20-23 block represented, being the 2nd most produced variant of 13,000 after the D-30. Even the meek Ki-43 should make the grade based on it's prevalence and relevance ~ mercifully there is a dedicated thread for it now :D
Where did you get your Spit XVI combat numbers from?
I understand you are set on the Lancer. Again if your argument is for an early war bird that fits for scenarios and is a US built bird, you are much better off with the P36/Hawk 75. At least that one was relevant.
Understand my all time favorite bird is the Spitfire XII. 100 built and it did see plenty of combat in 43-44. That being said, I've also always said it should be down the list as there is a good representation of Spits. The Lancer is nothing more then a novelty, and I like it's story, but for AH it's way way down the list behind far more historically relevant birds.
-
psst guppy should we tell him the XVI is a Mk IX spit?
-
I think the statement that tue P-43 shouldn't be added because it didn't play a crucial role doesn't fly. The Ta-152 was built in less numbers and less purpose.
BUT I will also agree that what's the point in it? How well did it turn? Could it have any real significance for a senerio considering we have no high alt recon craft used? What would it's niche be is what I'm wondering.
-
Personally I think they are beautiful broad shouldered birds Vinkman~ probably a little less maneuverable than an f4f, 53mph faster, 300ft/min better climb rate, and higher service ceiling.
Didn't mean to offend by calling you baby ugly. ;)
That is why they make Blue suits, AND Brown suits. :aok
-
I think the statement that tue P-43 shouldn't be added because it didn't play a crucial role doesn't fly. The Ta-152 was built in less numbers and less purpose.
BUT I will also agree that what's the point in it? How well did it turn? Could it have any real significance for a senerio considering we have no high alt recon craft used? What would it's niche be is what I'm wondering.
The 152 is a great hi alt interceptor with a heavy gun package. It' is very much needed especially now the B29 is added .
-
The TA-152 was also originally added to the game as a perk plane, it was only later that the perk tag was removed.
-
I think the statement that tue P-43 shouldn't be added because it didn't play a crucial role doesn't fly. The Ta-152 was built in less numbers and less purpose.
BUT I will also agree that what's the point in it? How well did it turn? Could it have any real significance for a senerio considering we have no high alt recon craft used? What would it's niche be is what I'm wondering.
sometimes you puzzle me demonfox...is turning ability that important? you would be surprised at which aircraft should not be used for turn n burn but in ah, it happens.
i'd like to see the p-43 included...with leaking fuel tanks and no pilot armor... :D hey, fresh off the factory floor that's how they were, no field mods allowed... :lol
of all the early war u.s. aircraft, the curtiss p-36 hawk has a much better case for inclusion just from the numbers that were exported for foreign service...not saying the p-43 wouldn't have a place but, when even the primary users of the aircraft relegated it to primarily non-combat duties...it may as well be a cac boomerang.
-
I'm sorry if I confuse you Gyrene. I'm considered by some of my friends to have um... Multiple personalities. I can see something and like it. I'll see it the next day and HATE it.
But about the the P-43 it seems like a land based faster F4F so I was just wondering if it could turn well.
But I still have a strong bias to the PBY-5A :aok
-
I'm sorry if I confuse you Gyrene. I'm considered by some of my friends to have um... Multiple personalities. I can see something and like it. I'll see it the next day and HATE it.
But about the the P-43 it seems like a land based faster F4F so I was just wondering if it could turn well.
But I still have a strong bias to the PBY-5A :aok
:rofl *pats demonfox on the head* it's ok...we all have our shortcomings.
-
Shortcomings? You mean my PBY don't you :old: :lol
-
psst guppy should we tell him the XVI is a Mk IX spit?
Just because AH has its FTH modeled 1000 ft. higher/lower than it should be, automatically makes it a Spit IX?
-
Just because AH has its FTH modeled 1000 ft. higher/lower than it should be, automatically makes it a Spit IX?
Lower than it should be for a Merlin 266, just right for a Merlin 66.
There are no other differences between the two aircraft, so why would it not be a Spitfire LF.Mk IXe?
In any case, many more Mk XVI's saw combat than the 188 he pulled out of his imagination.
-
Didn't mean to offend by calling you baby ugly. ;)
That is why they make Blue suits, AND Brown suits. :aok
I'm a sucker for Republic Razorbacks~ Wouldn't be the first time they were called ugly~ no worries :salute
-
you see I had a long , very polite discussion with Karnak about the spit LFIX e and the spit XVI and the differences between them (or lack of) . He helped to point out why there "seemed" to be discrepancies in a a book i was reading as regards weights and fuel load outs ect (mostly down to the heavier weight of ammo ) . The Mk IX high altitude we have in game is a 1942/43 spit IX , IF we were to use spit IX from 1944 onwards then it would have the same load out as the in game XVI with full span wings and same fuel arrangement. The ONLY difference was the merlin 266 in the XVI uses a different supercharger that is chain driven not driven by exhaust like the Rolls Royce merlin 66. Yet this makes no difference to the amount compression of the fuel mixture .
What we are missing is the cut down fuselage spit IX (XVI) with bubble canopy . which came both in full span and clipped wing.
-
Where did you get your Spit XVI combat numbers from? A bad source apparently, subsequent searches put figures around 1,000 produced. Can't even find it now~ :old:
Understand my all time favorite bird is the Spitfire XII. 100 built and it did see plenty of combat in 43-44. That being said, I've also always said it should be down the list as there is a good representation of Spits. The Lancer is nothing more then a novelty, and I like it's story, but for AH it's way way down the list behind far more historically relevant birds.
I would be extremely surprised if it got put in the game anytime soon Gup, if ever really at this rate~
i'd like to see the p-43 included...with leaking fuel tanks and no pilot armor... :D hey, fresh off the factory floor that's how they were, no field mods allowed... :lol
I don't think it could be any worse than my existing P-47 which generates pw and fuel leaks at an alarming rate in spite of the huge weight penalty from all that armor and self sealing tanks. The P-43 has a lot lighter wing loading 33lbs/foot v 58lbs/foot in the jug. F4F is 30lbs/sq ft so pretty close, should turn pretty well.