Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Tank-Ace on July 14, 2011, 11:19:49 PM
-
1) IAR-80 A (6 7.62mm MG's), and B (4 7.62mm MG's and 2 12.7mm's)
2) IAR-80/81C: IAR-80C had 4 7.62mm MG's, and 2 Mg 151/22's. the IAR 81 was a "dive bomber", but it was just the IAR-80 with a bomb rack under neath :lol. So just give make the IAR-80C and give it a bomb-rack.
3) re-2005 Italian fighter, would be quite competitive in the MA.
4) Fiat G5.5
Getting late now, sorry but I'm faling asleep at the computer.I'll post the specs tommarow.
-
Yes, post some specs, for these night fighters, we need ever so badly!!!
-
Yes, post some specs, for these night fighters, we need ever so badly!!!
:huh :headscratch:
:aok to the IAR-80 one my fav looking planes.
-
The subtlety of my humor probably flew over your head as if it were a U2 and this were 1982. But I digress, you were lost in the part about that Romanian bird; one which I can find no reference to actually fighting, at night.
:huh :headscratch:
:aok to the IAR-80 one my fav looking planes.
Day, night aside.... The IAR-81/80 should be here in the game. It may have even shot a few Lightning down during Barbarossa.
-
Uh... You're the only one that mentioned day or night....
So... :headscratch: on you
-
Uh... You're the only one that mentioned day or night....
So... :headscratch: on you
this.
-
HOLY COW............... My mind is totally playing tricks on me. :uhoh
(http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Narconon/images/lsd2.gif)
-
well theres a perfectly good topic derailed :lol.
I'll have the specs as soon as I can find two sources that match up.
-
When in doubt wiki...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAR_80
I still want the Me-410 next I will save that for another thread. This is an interesting bird. Does it have long legs or squaty ones like the La series?
Boo
-
does what have long legs? the 410, or the IAR's?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reggiane_Re.2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reggiane_Re.2005)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_G.55 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_G.55)
Untill I DO find credible sources, heres the always questionable wikipedia.
-
+1 for the IAR-80
-
Always makes me think the F4U slept with some other plane, and made this.
-
LOL. So an F4U boinked a spitfire? Ok, I can see that.
And I was thinking about how to implement the IAR-80C and -81C. They were TECHINICLY two different planes, even if the only difference was a bomb trapeze mounted under the fuselage. So it seems we have 3 options:
1) give the IAR-80C a bomb rack and call it a fighter/attacker
2) Give the IAR-81C the option to remove the bomb rack and call it a bomber/attacker
3) model both planes and have an incredibly redundant ride, and have a fighter that can spawn out of the BH, since you can just leave the bomb in the hanger.
-
I made a topic awhile back in the spring asking for the Iar-80. wish search was working so i could post it. :(
-
does what have long legs? the 410, or the IAR's?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reggiane_Re.2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reggiane_Re.2005)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_G.55 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_G.55)
Untill I DO find credible sources, heres the always questionable wikipedia.
lol you discredit your own sources. perhaps next time you will come better prepared :D.
semp
-
Did I piss you off or something? It seems you've done nothing but Jager bashing when replying to me.
-
Did I piss you off or something? It seems you've done nothing but Jager bashing when replying to me.
I actually never look at the name of whoever is posting. I just thought it was funny that you list sources then discredit them. I see you are a new guys (posting that is), and sometimes you dont realize that a lot of the arguments you are bringing up, have been brought up many, many times before. which in itself is not a bad thing, but you have made some arguments that have been discredited or argued to death before and you still try to pass them as true/accurate.
nothing personal against you :salute.
semp
-
what arguments have been discredited exactly?
-
what arguments have been discredited exactly?
the ones you made here regarding zoom.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,316691.0.html
and your own posting here regarding discredit your own sources. it's been said time and time again, if you dont trust your sources, dont use them or post them.
and dont forget the posting about the binocular shape views in TC.
and the proxie kills on buffs augering
and the whole camper thread you posted.
like i said it's nothing personal :salute.
semp
-
I'm sorry, maybe I'm not understanding exactly what you mean, but I don't see how any of the aformentioned posts have been discredited. I was asking HTC why they decided not to go with binoculars, and then said I thought it would be cool to have, just a bit of eyecandy.
my comment abouty the inability of the average player to identify a GV without using the icons is based on an in game observation. may be wrong, I may not be getting a good sample of players, etc, but its what I've seen.
And Wiki is accurate for armament and it seems to be close, if not exact, for speed, based on what their engines were capable of.
-
does what have long legs? the 410, or the IAR's?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reggiane_Re.2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reggiane_Re.2005)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_G.55 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_G.55)
Untill I DO find credible sources, heres the always questionable wikipedia.
I'm sorry, maybe I'm not understanding exactly what you mean, but I don't see how any of the aformentioned posts have been discredited. I was asking HTC why they decided not to go with binoculars, and then said I thought it would be cool to have, just a bit of eyecandy.
my comment abouty the inability of the average player to identify a GV without using the icons is based on an in game observation. may be wrong, I may not be getting a good sample of players, etc, but its what I've seen.
And Wiki is accurate for armament and it seems to be close, if not exact, for speed, based on what their engines were capable of.
[/b]
semp
semp
-
so? thats not nessicarily all you need to look at to be a good source. From what I've heard, a lot of sections that touch on the planes manuverability are wrong.
If all you looked at were speed and armament, then why isn't the typhoon the uber-fighter you would expect?
-
so? thats not nessicarily all you need to look at to be a good source. From what I've heard, a lot of sections that touch on the planes manuverability are wrong.
If all you looked at were speed and armament, then why isn't the typhoon the uber-fighter you would expect?
I am not saying wikin is good or bad. what i am saying is that you posted a link to a reference then said it was no good. i hope you understand this point.
semp
-
I get your point, but the only reason I posted those was to let pple get a general idea of the plane (from its characteristics section, which seems to be within shouting distance of accurate).