Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: atom360 on May 29, 2011, 11:21:21 AM
-
the Boulton Paul Defiant is a good light-bomber here is some good info about this british fighter
Crew: 2: pilot, gunner
Length: 35 ft 4 in (10.77 m)
Wingspan: 39 ft 4 in (11.99 m)
Height: 11 ft 4 in (3.46 m)
Wing area: 250 ft² (23.2 m²)
Empty weight: 6,078 lb (2,763 kg)
Loaded weight: 8,318 lb (3,781 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 8,600 lb (3,909 kg)
Powerplant: 1× Rolls-Royce Merlin III liquid-cooled V12 engine, 1,030 hp[7] (768 kW)
-
the Boulton Paul Defiant is a good light-bomber here is some good info about this british fighter
Crew: 2: pilot, gunner
Length: 35 ft 4 in (10.77 m)
Wingspan: 39 ft 4 in (11.99 m)
Height: 11 ft 4 in (3.46 m)
Wing area: 250 ft² (23.2 m²)
Empty weight: 6,078 lb (2,763 kg)
Loaded weight: 8,318 lb (3,781 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 8,600 lb (3,909 kg)
Powerplant: 1× Rolls-Royce Merlin III liquid-cooled V12 engine, 1,030 hp[7] (768 kW)
your late http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?PHPSESSID=05d5b7509ea351d8b681387c92c09953&topic=313571.0
-
how can i post pics?
-
look for one image over google, then when you are in the link of the image (not the link of the website) copy the adress and then when on here write img] [/img] (with a "[" before and the adress in between those words)
-
the Boulton Paul Defiant is a good light-bomber
you sure about that? :headscratch:
-
You know I also found the Defiant somewhat intruiging, and occurred to me, how would one handle a fight with one of these? I mean with most of our dogfights degrading to turnfights on the deck, it'd be interesting....
Maybe head on would be the only way to handle them....the same way I handle bombers.
230G
-
+1 for that... long over due for a plane with onl defenssive armement :D
-
Maybe head on would be the only way to handle them....the same way I handle bombers.
It is a "turret fighter" without any forward firing guns.
the Boulton Paul Defiant is a good light-bomber here is some good info about this british fighter
The Defiant wasn't equipped with bombs.
It would be an interesting addition
+1
-
-1
It would be a useless waste of development resources. It would be more of a hangar queen than anything already in the game.
-
Please research a bit more. I'd suggest learning a bit about 264 Squadron RAF and the guys who were forced to take that death trap into combat and how fast some really brave men were wiped out.
The search button here would be a good thing too as folks keep throwing this one out there.
-
It is a "turret fighter" without any forward firing guns.
I think you missed my point. The fact that it is a turret fighter whose guns were designed to fire aft, without any forward firign guns would mean it would have to be engaged from the front.
230G/35W
-
why do you psychos want a defiant? they were killed so bad they were withdrawn from service, not even my crazy self would flyem....
Please find a worthwhile a/c to post in here, and please and do your research before posting....
-
They served in the Battle of Britain. They were often a night-fighter. And was later used as a target tug.
-
You know I also found the Defiant somewhat intruiging, and occurred to me, how would one handle a fight with one of these? I mean with most of our dogfights degrading to turnfights on the deck, it'd be interesting....
Maybe head on would be the only way to handle them....the same way I handle bombers.
230G
One of the RAF squadrons that enjoyed a small measure of success in the Defiant used a downward Luftberry as their primary means of defense against fighters.
ack-ack
-
why do you psychos want a defiant? they were killed so bad they were withdrawn from service, not even my crazy self would flyem....
For the same reason other psychos wanted the Buffalo, which likewise was withdrawn from U.S. service. Not everyone wants to only fly P-51D's, La-7's and Spit XVI's.
230G
-
For the same reason other psychos wanted the Buffalo, which likewise was withdrawn from U.S. service. Not everyone wants to only fly P-51D's, La-7's and Spit XVI's.
230G
The Buffalo at least had some success during the course of the war. The Defiant got slaughtered.
-
There actually is a very, very simple solution to addition of planes that some deem "unworthy" of the game: If you don't like 'em, don't fly 'em.
230G
-
No harm asking for anything. After all it is a wish list. If the powers to be @ HTC included it or not only time will tell.
-
Fly a B5N.
wrongway
-
Fly a B5N.
wrongway
But it's turret might not be capable to maneuver as the Defiant would.
-
But it's turret might not be capable to maneuver as the Defiant would.
the result would ve the same, a fireball :)
-
Please research a bit more. I'd suggest learning a bit about 264 Squadron RAF and the guys who were forced to take that death trap into combat and how fast some really brave men were wiped out.
The search button here would be a good thing too as folks keep throwing this one out there.
very true but that was reality and this is a game,so you have no interest in seeing what you or anyone else in game could or couldnt do with this plane......ah well :headscratch:
-
There actually is a very, very simple solution to addition of planes that some deem "unworthy" of the game: If you don't like 'em, don't fly 'em.
230G
That is not a solution. If HTC adds the Defiant, they didn't add something else, something that may have been historically significant and/or useful in the MAs.
-
That is not a solution.
Actually, it's the perfect solution for all the whiners.
If HTC adds the Defiant, they didn't add something else, something that may have been historically significant and/or useful in the MAs.
Since there are finite number of WW2 aircraft, I'm sure HC will get around to your wishes for additional AC eventually. Meanwhile, what's the point of criticizing everyone elses wishes?
230G
-
+1 even though the germans considered it cannon fodder it would be very interesting
-
very true but that was reality and this is a game,so you have no interest in seeing what you or anyone else in game could or couldnt do with this plane......ah well :headscratch:
I don't recall ever saying that. I do believe the list of viable candidates for inclusion, that would be valuable for both Scenario/FSO/Snapshot use and MA use, would not include the Defiant. The list of birds that would come before I'd ever wish for the Defiant is a long one as well.
What's discouraging is to see the same birds come up over and over again, because it appears the OP found it on Wiki or on the web somewhere, and they think they've found something new and different that would work, when in reality they've done no actual digging into the history of the plane.
-
Since there are finite number of WW2 aircraft, I'm sure HC will get around to your wishes for additional AC eventually. Meanwhile, what's the point of criticizing everyone elses wishes?
230G
If it is a bad idea, and this one is a very bad idea, and you post it on a public forum, people, some of who are very knowledgeable about the subject, will respond to it.
This is a bad idea. I am not as knowledgeable about this stuff as Guppy is, but I am pretty familiar with it and this is a bad idea across the board. It has not a single redeeming aspect to it. It wastes developer time. It fills no gaps for scenarios. It would be useless in the MAs. It was not historically significant. It would almost never be used to a degree than makes the B5N2 seem downright common.
It is a bad idea.
Sometimes you just have to man up and accept that you didn't have all the information and accept that other people are actually correct.
-
If it is a bad idea, and this one is a very bad idea, and you post it on a public forum, people, some of who are very knowledgeable about the subject, will respond to it.
This is a bad idea. I am not as knowledgeable about this stuff as Guppy is, but I am pretty familiar with it and this is a bad idea across the board. It has not a single redeeming aspect to it. It wastes developer time. It fills no gaps for scenarios. It would be useless in the MAs. It was not historically significant. It would almost never be used to a degree than makes the B5N2 seem downright common.
It is a bad idea.
Sometimes you just have to man up and accept that you didn't have all the information and accept that other people are actually correct.
The fact that it is a bad idea is highly relative and in this case based on opinion. As far as information, I gathered all my information LONG before the advent of this game as I've always held a fascination for WW2 aircraft. I'm not arguing that the plane is worth a crap at air-to-air combat, but I think it would be an interesting addition. If it's a waste of the designers efforts, surely that's a decision that can be left up to the designers. I'm certain they can make that decision without your input.
This is a game and many of the planes here aren't here due to historical significance. For example, the P-47M had an almost non-existant impact on the air war over Europe due to its engine problems, the fact that it was introduced so late in the war and the fact that this particular model only accounted for 15 air-to-air kills. Add to that the fact that only 130 were built, and one could wonder why it is modeled in this game. Likewise the TA-152...less than 50 units actually delivered.
If you want to base the decision for a new plane on its merits, then the P-39 probably shouldn't be here either...nor should the I-16, or the Buffalo.
Again, disagree if you want, but your continued rants show a lack of self esteem and open-mindedness. Chill. Relax.
230G
-
It is a bad idea based on facts, not opinions.
My input to the developers is just as meaningful as yours.
The Defiant is not comparable at all to the other aircraft you listed. The P-47M was a "free" aircraft in that it uses P-47D-25 artwork, the Ta-152 uses significant parts of the Fw190D-9 artwork.
The I-16 and P-39 were both very significant aircraft historically. I have no idea how you can claim my standards say they shouldn't be here. The B239 was very significant to Finland and as we have a large number of Finns who have contributed a lot to the game, I think it makes sense to have it.
The Defiant fails to meet any of those criteria. The Brits, whom we have a goodly number of, are not begging for it either.
-
If you want to base the decision for a new plane on its merits, then the P-39 probably shouldn't be here either...nor should the I-16, or the Buffalo.
Umm, I lobbied long and hard for the I-16. It was THE most produced aircraft of the pre-war and WWII era and it can hold it's own in the arenas. Can you say the same about the Defiant?
-
Add the Defiant to the List of Aircraft that would be a complete waste of time to spend development time and resources modeling.
-1.
-
I do hope that eventually planes like the Defiant are eventually added. Not for general MA usage, it would just be a hanger queen, of that there is no doubt but it does have a place in scenarios.
ack-ack
-
I do hope that eventually planes like the Defiant are eventually added. Not for general MA usage, it would just be a hanger queen, of that there is no doubt but it does have a place in scenarios.
ack-ack
It was in fact a night fighter during the Battle of Britain. Or as someone phrased it in an earlier thread a "night hunter."
-
It was in fact a night fighter during the Battle of Britain. Or as someone phrased it in an earlier thread a "night hunter."
Not much of a night fighter either. Not much night in AH.
And how are you going to fly it and gun the turret at the same time? A mandatory 2 player plane? Why you'd want a fighter with no forward guns is beyond me. It clearly didn't work.
-
All you have to do is rip the gear off in the Ju87, there ya go! :)