Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Butcher on May 11, 2011, 09:56:40 AM
-
Putting together a list of 1944 Aircraft I'd like to see possibly added to the game based on being a "late war" model aircraft, my reasons is mainly I don't want to add a 1939 hanger queen, but rather polish off any 1944/1945 aircraft we could have in the game and would be used based on the Late War arena being populated more then early wars. Here's my wishlist - I won't post technical data since everyone of these aircraft have 2 dozen forums based on them already.
Single engine fighters
Reggiane Re.2000 Sagittaro (Archer)
Yakovlev Yak-3
Fiat G.55 Centauro (Centaur)
Fairey Firefly - carrier capable
Dive Bombers/Torpedo planes
Aichi B7A "Grace" - carrier capable
Curtiss SB2C Helldiver - carrier capable
Medium/Heavy Bombers
B-26 Invader
Twin Engine Fighter Bombers
Kawasaki Ki-45 KAIc Toryu (Nick)
F-61 Black Widow
Messerschmitt Me 410 Hornisse ("Hornet")
Edited:
Here's a wildcard that should be thrown into a mix, although a 1941 aircraft its an attack plane that could get good use
Petlyakov Pe-2
-
Almost none of those are 1944 aircraft. And some are post-war (here's a tip: They didn't change from P-61 to F-61 until AFTER the war was over)
-
B-26 Invader
I believe the wishlist committee would say 'WISH GRANTED!'
-
Almost none of those are 1944 aircraft. And some are post-war (here's a tip: They didn't change from P-61 to F-61 until AFTER the war was over)
Besides B-26, which did not see 1 day service in 1944?
-
The A26 Invader, made by Douglass, not Martin, didn't become the B26 until the late 40's.
-
The A26 Invader, made by Douglass, not Martin, didn't become the B26 until the late 40's.
I was thinking of the A-26B-15-DL Invader
-
I wasn't going to do this.. but oh what the hell...
Single engine fighters
Reggiane Re.2000 Sagittaro (Archer)
Not a fighter. Attack plane used for bombing.
Yakovlev Yak-3
Might be nice, but basically a p-51 that turns like a spit.
Fiat G.55 Centauro (Centaur)
1943 plane. Semi-limited use but would be nice. Been asked for.
Fairey Firefly - carrier capable
So? Carrier capable means squat. Limited service. Often used for recon? ASW? Not useful for AH
Dive Bombers/Torpedo planes
Aichi B7A "Grace" - carrier capable
Too late to see service. Some used as kamikaze. War was close to over by this time.
Curtiss SB2C Helldiver - carrier capable
Lauded as one of the worst planes in US Naval history
Medium/Heavy Bombers
B-26 Invader
You mean A-26. It wasn't renamed B-26 until Vietnam. Would be a perk plane.
Twin Engine Fighter Bombers
Kawasaki Ki-45 KAIc Toryu (Nick)
Obsolete by 1942. P-40s wiped it from the skies. Bf110C does a good job standing in for it.
F-61 Black Widow
The F-61 is a post war designation. The P-61 that saw service in WW2 was slow and saw almost no action.
Messerschmitt Me 410 Hornisse ("Hornet")
1943 plane, would be interesting (also some other threads about this already going)
There... I had to do it.
[EDIT: Whoops folks all replied while I was typing]
-
So none of those planes flew in 1944 in a theater of operation, gotcha.
-
To call a plane "a 1944 plane" means it was built and produced as a new plane in 1944, meaning that was the year it was introduced, and implying that it has late-war performance as befitting a 1944 airframe.
While some of those planes did fly in 1944, if you have a 1943 plane "still flying" in 1944 that doesn't make it a 1944 plane.
That's my main point.
-
1944 or not, I do think many of these birds would be great additions!!!
:rock
-
Hehe +1 for P-61
And what's wrong with early war planes?!?! My PBY is early war :cry
-
Hehe +1 for P-61
And what's wrong with early war planes?!?! My PBY is early war :cry
I would love to see a Pby in the future, Same with P-61, my only main concern is being of interest - A Mid/Late war model aircraft has a better chance of being used rather then early war, reason behind this is the numbers that populate the arenas.
However It doesn't really matter what year the aircraft was made, I still see P-40s flying around the MA which begs to question why don't we have the P-40N?
-
However It doesn't really matter what year the aircraft was made, I still see P-40s flying around the MA which begs to question why don't we have the P-40N?
This actually begs the question why NOT more early-war aircraft? There are plenty of people that fly FSO, Scenarios and AvA (and those who just prefer flying in other arenas) that would benefit from a more diverse planeset of non-Latewar hotrods. There are even those who like the challenge of flying the non-LW hotrods in the Late War arenas.
-
B7A fired its guns in anger, and around 50 produced. Allies sunk both carriers that were big enough to operate it from though, so it flew mostly land-based sorties.
Type 99/2 cannons in the wings like zeke, 350+ top speed, 800kg ord or torp., almost 2000ft/min. climbrate.
-
Krusty,
Only the post war Yak-3 with a VK-107 engine was like you describe. The wartime Yak-3 with a VK-105 engine was not nearly as good. Be similar to a slightly slower, but more agile Yak-9U. Yak-9U has the VK-107 engine, but is heavier.
The Firefly saw more service than you are granting it, as did the B7A, though the B7A did not operate from CVs as they had none left. Production on the B7A is generally listed as a little over 100 and there are photos of them armed for non-kamikaze operations.
-
Yak3: My mistake. Thanks
Firefly: I couldn't remember any specific combat this thing ever had. I had to search, and not much came up. Apparently it's claim to fame was post-war ASW. Not much talk about anything it did in WW2. I could be wrong but at cursory glance that's what it looks like.
B7A Grace: I'm pretty sure about this one. They saw little action. The were only ordered into production in 1944, and only 80 or so were built before (so the story goes) an earthquake hit and took out the production lines. They were not resumed. They were also limited to land based runways as the only CVs capable of allowing the long take-off runs required were at the bottom of the ocean. A torpedo bomber isn't of much use when it's land-based. From these fields they saw little service in the war.
The stats on it are impressive, there is no doubt. Its impact on the war was almost nonexistent, though. Fills no planeset gaps, solves no problems. It's one of those frivolous uber-plane-wishes. While it has the criteria required for inclusion into AH it doesn't "fit" IMO.
-
Curtiss SB2C Helldiver - carrier capable
Lauded as one of the worst planes in US Naval history
Only the earlier versions, the SB2C-3 and -4 models rectified the problems with the earlier versions but the later Helldiver versions couldn't shake the reputation garnered by the older versions.
ack-ack
-
Curtis Wright has a long history of crappy first run models, it's a company thing I think. :uhoh
Only the earlier versions, the SB2C-3 and -4 models rectified the problems with the earlier versions but the later Helldiver versions couldn't shake the reputation garnered by the older versions.
ack-ack
-
Only the earlier versions, the SB2C-3 and -4 models rectified the problems with the earlier versions but the later Helldiver versions couldn't shake the reputation garnered by the older versions.
ack-ack
Perhaps. To that I would counter the plane at its worst only saw combat as early as Nov 1943. At this time it was really atrocious. Those updated versions came much later.
To clip from wiki (it's summed up so well)
"The litany of faults that the Helldiver bore included the fact that it was underpowered, had a shorter range than the SBD, was equipped with an unreliable electrical system and was often poorly manufactured. The Curtis-Electric propeller and the complex hydraulic system had frequent maintenance problems.[16] One of the faults remaining with the aircraft all of its operational life would be poor longitudinal stability from a fuselage that was too short, to fit aircraft carrier elevators.[7] The Helldiver's aileron response was also poor and handling suffered greatly under 90 knots airspeed, since the speed of approach to land on a carrier was supposed to be 85 knots this proved problematic.[7] The 800 changes demanded by the Navy, and to make the aircraft able to take on a combat role resulted in a 42% weight increase explaining much of the problem."
Note: the 800 refers to changes the Navy required of the unsatisfactory prototype before placing an order for production.
Even though later models of the SB2C (the -3 and -4) improved the power situation, still... look at the timeline?
The TBF Avenger was already doing the exact same job for almost a year and a half before the SB2C saw action. The Brits promptly turned it down after testing it, citing its appalling handling. The Aussies tried it then dumped it back on us. The Army didn't even want it. They dropped them on the Marines as a trainer.
Sometimes I think the only reason the USN put up with the SB2C was because they paid for it in the first place, and then doggedly (stubbornly) wanted to get their money's worth, regardless of results :D
Even the updated SB2Cs IMO are like the P-40Q... Too little, too late, already being done and done better by designs that are already in service.
The only reason folks want it in game, IMO, is so they can HO with 2x 20mm :devil
Otherwise, similar speed, similar range, similar payload to a TBF, but with worse handling, less defensive guns, no rockets.
-
Re-2000 or MÁVAG Héja (falcon), an 1940-'41 bird, as fast as the brewster, but had pretty bad stability problems (heck, the governors son, István Horthy died in one in '42 due to a crash during takeoff).
Still, would be fun and a +1
an re 2000
(http://i1134.photobucket.com/albums/m601/Debrody/493px-Reggiane_Re_2000_svg.png)
and the hungarian license copy, the Héja
(http://i1134.photobucket.com/albums/m601/Debrody/532PX-1.png)
here is a photo
(http://i1134.photobucket.com/albums/m601/Debrody/fot017.jpg)
-
Oh, also as a follow up to the B7A Grace, I just now recall a point I made long ago. There were only 2 Kokutai that had this plane, and they were stationed with other bombers at Yokosuka, on the Japanese homeland.
So short range bomber attack craft, at the end of the war, stationed on the homeland... There would not have been much action that wasn't kamikaze oriented, most likely. They wouldn't have had the range to do much else from Japan.
-
+1 great post, the sagittario/archer is the RE-2005 no the re2000. wonderful plane,lets start with that one
-
Oh, also as a follow up to the B7A Grace, I just now recall a point I made long ago. There were only 2 Kokutai that had this plane, and they were stationed with other bombers at Yokosuka, on the Japanese homeland.
So short range bomber attack craft, at the end of the war, stationed on the homeland... There would not have been much action that wasn't kamikaze oriented, most likely. They wouldn't have had the range to do much else from Japan.
Would you rather have the B7a grace or something like the Boulton Paul Defiant? Why not the Paul Defiant, it flew in world war 2 during the Battle of Britain. Oh yeah, no forward firing guns and a rear turret with 4x303's that are useless. Perhaps down the road when we run out of mid war aircraft to add in the game, we can go back to pre/early war, but for example the B7a Grace did serve during world war 2 same for the SB2C Helldiver. We did just follow up an FSO over Japan and both aircraft's would of been used, I can see the B7a getting a ton more flights over the TBM/Dauntless based on the 350mph and twin 20mm guns.
For Practical matters, it wouldn't be high on the list to add to Aces High, I would put both at the bottom of the list due to the demand for other aircraft, never the less its still an operational aircraft same for the P61 Black Widow. Sure it was mainly a night fighter or light bomber however you want to put it.
My Vote goes to either Italian Aircraft the Reggiane Re.2005 and Fiat G.55, to fill the need for a Italian/Hungarian Aircraft, or possibly the IAR 80 for Romanian Aircraft. However with the vast amount of "Axis aircraft" available, I don't see the IAR 80 a high choice compared to Yak-3.
True only a few dozen were built, however we do have the Ta-152 which I know has to of seen less combat then B7a or Re.2005.
More I think about it I'd say its a tough choice to choose, Re.2005, Fiat G.55, P-61 and Yak-3 make my list to add to the game.
-
Funniest plane of the war IMHO.... The Germans mistook it for a Hurricane many times and because of that the Defiant was able to have early success. After they figured out what it was it was head ons all day long, or the good ole FromUnda attack. :O
Would you rather have the B7a grace or something like the Boulton Paul Defiant? Why not the Paul Defiant, it flew in world war 2 during the Battle of Britain. Oh yeah, no forward firing guns and a rear turret with 4x303's that are useless. Perhaps down the road when we run out of mid war aircraft to add in the game, we can go back to pre/early war, but for example the B7a Grace did serve during world war 2 same for the SB2C Helldiver. We did just follow up an FSO over Japan and both aircraft's would of been used, I can see the B7a getting a ton more flights over the TBM/Dauntless based on the 350mph and twin 20mm guns.
For Practical matters, it wouldn't be high on the list to add to Aces High, I would put both at the bottom of the list due to the demand for other aircraft, never the less its still an operational aircraft same for the P61 Black Widow. Sure it was mainly a night fighter or light bomber however you want to put it.
My Vote goes to either Italian Aircraft the Reggiane Re.2005 and Fiat G.55, to fill the need for a Italian/Hungarian Aircraft, or possibly the IAR 80 for Romanian Aircraft. However with the vast amount of "Axis aircraft" available, I don't see the IAR 80 a high choice compared to Yak-3.
True only a few dozen were built, however we do have the Ta-152 which I know has to of seen less combat then B7a or Re.2005.
More I think about it I'd say its a tough choice to choose, Re.2005, Fiat G.55, P-61 and Yak-3 make my list to add to the game.