Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: shdo on August 28, 2011, 04:12:19 PM
-
c47s are tough birds. they should not fall apart when a .30 cal just flies in there "generial direction".
flame as you will but they should take more damage before they fall apart. i can see troops/supps being destroyed in them but they are made of the same material as the bombers and fighters.
shdo
-
However, they are a civilian design and perhaps not as robust against battle damage.
Remember, the A6M2 and G4M1 are made of the same stuff as a P-47 and B-17. (Actually, the alloy the Japanese used was stronger for its weight, but corroded).
-
What makes you think they easily fall apart with 30cals?
-
Hurricane with 8x30cal. or 12x30cal?
-
Hurricane with 8x30cal. or 12x30cal?
They have 8
-
+1. I concur. :aok
-
However, they are a civilian design and perhaps not as robust against battle damage.
Remember, the A6M2 and G4M1 are made of the same stuff as a P-47 and B-17. (Actually, the alloy the Japanese used was stronger for its weight, but corroded).
were not talking about fuel tanks burning.
i've never seen a goon last long enough for it's fuel to burn. most planes are hollow. those with lots of internals actually can be more susceptible to a golden bb than those that don't. true it does not have tons of redundant systems but if you were too look inside it's would be very similar to many bombers in the fuselage.
shdo
-
were not talking about fuel tanks burning.
Neither was I. The early Japanese planes, particularly the Ki-43 and G4M1, were lightly built which made them more susceptible to damage inflicted structural failures.
It is entirely possible for an aircraft to be built out of the same stuff, yet be markedly weaker structurally.
-
were not talking about fuel tanks burning.
i've never seen a goon last long enough for it's fuel to burn. most planes are hollow. those with lots of internals actually can be more susceptible to a golden bb than those that don't. true it does not have tons of redundant systems but if you were too look inside it's would be very similar to many bombers in the fuselage.
shdo
Well duh goons are mostly hollow. Its a transport plane meant to carry troops and supplys. That means hollow space :rolleyes:.
And I've had a good dogfight with HighTone in his Ki-84 with my C-47. It took him several minutes to bring me down, and that was mostly because of lost control surfaces. I took multiple 12.7mm hits and even some 20mm hits. The goon is a sturdy aircraft for its size, and given the crap people have the plane do, I'm supprised it holds up as well as it does.
-
C47 was designed for the civilian market. It was never intended to get shot at, let alone actually get shot. I think what your looking for is a CB-40, a hollowed out B-17 carrying 63-65 troops a piece, (;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;7888e) YAY FOR NEW KITTEN!!!!!!!!!!!!, as well as a duel 50. cal on the nose and tale.
but honestly the chances of these getting into the game are beyond "slim to none" i honestly don't know if they ever flew in combat and the sheer volume of troops would just be insane
so seeing as how we will never get anything like this, it would probably be best you keep the C-47 out of the furballs :salute
-
The C47 was not built the same as the DC3. The floor was built stronger to support cargo and wing spars were beefed up.
-
the C47A in aces high doesn't get the special treatment bombers get, AKA nearly invincible. Is a Ju88 for example that much more resistant in real life? :bolt:
-
I haven't read any war stories or tales of C-47s ever being very robust. They were reliable. They hauled cargo.
They were lost in the thousands, if I recall. That might indicate they were highly susceptible to enemy fire.
They also didn't perform acrobatics like ours do in-game. They flew level, took off, and landed. That's it. In here the standard tactic is to turn so tightly you'd pin people to the deck with G forces. It's not very realistic.
It's probably overmodeled. Have you considered that? Maybe it should go down even faster...
-
hmm...make the goon tougher so you can deliver the troops and not die...pssh no. -1.
goons could be downed by a M1 Garand if you aim right.
-
the C47A in aces high doesn't get the special treatment bombers get, AKA nearly invincible. Is a Ju88 for example that much more resistant in real life? :bolt:
Nope, you're thinking of the He-111. Ju-88 was pretty sturdy.
-
hmm...make the goon tougher so you can deliver the troops and not die...pssh no. -1.
goons could be downed by a M1 Garand if you aim right.
every plane can be downed by an M1 Garand if you aim right.
-
I'm sure Shdo is going to post data that backs up his claim for his wish.
ack-ack
-
I read somewheres their was actually a Typhoon model that had 12 .303cal Mg's in the wings, any truth to this?
-
I read somewheres their was actually a Typhoon model that had 12 .303cal Mg's in the wings, any truth to this?
Not really, no. Typhoon Mk Ia would have had twelve .303s if the 20mm cannons had not worked out, but as they did, the Typhoon Mk Ia was never built.
-
I read somewheres their was actually a Typhoon model that had 12 .303cal Mg's in the wings, any truth to this?
only on paper did it have the 12 .303's
-
I'm sure Shdo is going to post data that backs up his claim for his wish.
ack-ack
I would point you to this one article. http://www.historynet.com/aviation-history-interview-with-world-war-ii-c-47-pilot-russell-chandler.htm (http://www.historynet.com/aviation-history-interview-with-world-war-ii-c-47-pilot-russell-chandler.htm) with the following quote.
AH: What did you think of the C-47?
Chandler: I found the C-47 a very sturdy and reliable aircraft. I am sure hundreds are still flying somewhere in the world today. They would absorb a tremendous amount of flak, and I have seen some still flying with half their rudders blown off. They certainly fulfilled the mission they were designed for.
here is another nice link http://www.dc3history.org/collisionsbombscrashes.html (http://www.dc3history.org/collisionsbombscrashes.html)
-
you realize b-17 pilots said the same things...yet the 8th af suffered nearly 50% losses during daylight bombing runs with aircraft that were built for combat.
in ah, downing a c-47 is only slightly easier than downing a lanc or b-17 without guns, not as easy as you're trying to make it out to be...it's just slow and easy to pour ammunition into.
-
Interior:
(yes, I know it has had some mods but the construction is all but the same)
(http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff107/tymekeepyr/Massey%20Aerodrome/100_0875.jpg)
(http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff107/tymekeepyr/Massey%20Aerodrome/100_1253.jpg)
(http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff107/tymekeepyr/Massey%20Aerodrome/100_1252.jpg)
(http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff107/tymekeepyr/Massey%20Aerodrome/100_1279.jpg)
(http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff107/tymekeepyr/Massey%20Aerodrome/100_1278.jpg)
-
you realize b-17 pilots said the same things...yet the 8th af suffered nearly 50% losses during daylight bombing runs with aircraft that were built for combat.
in ah, downing a c-47 is only slightly easier than downing a lanc or b-17 without guns, not as easy as you're trying to make it out to be...it's just slow and easy to pour ammunition into.
Agreed