Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Karnak on September 24, 2011, 04:46:50 PM
-
One thing I see that many people here seem to want out of a new fighter is for it to be competitive in the LWA. There are, in my opinion, very few fighters left to be added that meet that criteria. In that vein, I created this list of fighters that are not in the game that might be competitve or semi-competitive. I hope this list makes it clear why so few competitive fighters get added now.
Competitive new airframe fighters:
G.55 Low production Italian fighter that received praise for its handling.
He162A A rapidly designed jet fighter that was too hard to fly for the untested pilots assigned to but reputed to be very maneuverable in veteran hands. This would be perked.
Yak-3 The supreme dogfighter of the Eastern Front.
Semi-competitive new airframe fighters:
J2M3 or J2M5 A short ranged, well armed and rapid climbing interceptor. American pilots praised its handling in post war test flights. Had fowler flaps with a trigger on the stick for combat use.
Ki-44-II A short ranges, moderately armed and rapid climbing interceptor. One version armed with 40mm recoilless cannon.
Me410A A multi-role heavy fighter with many armament options.
P-61B The first purpose built nightfighter. Very agile for its size and armed with four 20mm M2 cannon and four .50 Brownings. Relatively slow speed being its weakness.
Competitive new airframe fighters that debatably meet what are understood to be the inclusion requirements:
Meteor Mk III The only Allied jet to see service it was armed with four Hispano Mk II cannons. More maneuverable, faster climbing and longer ranged than the Me262, but also much slower at only 490mph.
P-63A A late war Bell fighter that may have seen some combat in Soviet hands against the Japanese.
Re.2005 A very low production Italian fighter with good performance. Less than a full squadron built.
Competitive new airframe fighters that do not meet what are understood to be the inclusion requirements:
A7M2 The successor to the Zero, changing customer demands and an earthquake delayed its arrival. No combat, only seven production aircraft were built. It is highly unlikely adequate flight data exists for this fighter to be modeled.
Do335 Dornier's innovative entry into the two engined fighter. Very fast and well armed. This would be a perk plane.
F7F This was a twin engined fighter for the US Navy well armed with four 20mm cannon and four .50 machine guns. It was in squadron use and embarked for Japan when the war ended. This would be a perk plane.
F8F The Bearcat was a high performance US Navy fighter armed with four Browning .50 machine guns. It was in squadron use and embarked for Japan when the war ended. This would be a perk plane.
YP-80 The closest an American jet got to service was the Shooting Star prototype. Four were sent to Europe for service pilots to give feedback on, but none were used in combat. This would be a perk plane.
-
Variants of existing fighters that would be competitive:
Bf109G-10 An attempt to consolidate Bf109G versions this fighter has performance below that of the K-4 and entered service after the K-4.
Bf109G-14/AS This version had a high blown engine and much improved handling at altitude.
Ki-84-Ib This version of the Ki-84 has four 20mm Ho-5 cannons and possibly a slightly uprated engine. It might be a low end perk plane.
Spitfire Mk XII The first Griffon powered Spitfire, low blown Griffon IIB rated at 1,730hp, clipped wings.
Variants of existing fighters that would be semi-competitve:
Bf109G-6/AS This version had a high blown engine and much improved handling at altitude.
F6F-3 Earlier version of the Hellcat with slightly worse performance
Fw190A-9 An improved BMW engined Fw190.
Ju88G-7 Late fighter version of the Ju88, fast with good firepower.
Ki-61-II A slightly uprated Ki-61.
Ki-100 A slightly uprated Ki-61 with a radial engine.
Mosquito Mk 30 Final fighter version of WWII, high blown engines, more cannon ammo, no machine guns and no bomb bay.
N1K1-J Older version of the N1K2-J with mid-wings, less ammo and a different tail.
Seafire Mk III The main prodution model of Seafire with 1,220 built, powered by a Merlin 55 or low blown Merlin 55M. First coplete carrier adapation of the Spitfire.
P-47D-22 A version with improved performance and ordnance over the P-47D-11. (I am mystified why this keeps getting requested)
Competive variants of existing fighters that debatably meet what are understood to be the inclusion requirements:
Spitfire F.21 The final Spitfire of WWII and the only WWII Spitfire to get the redesigned wings, was powered by the 2,035hp Griffon 61. Saw only limited combat, sinking a German minisub. This fighter would be perked.
Yak-9UT Yak-9 powered by the same VK-107 engine in the Yak-9U but armed with with two 20mm B-20 cannon in the cowl and a 23mm NS-23 in the nose. This may be a perk fighter.
Competitve variants of existing fighters that do not meet what are understood to be the inclusion requirements:
Fw190D-11 Armed with two 20mm and two 30mm cannons in the wings and powered by an uprated engine this fighter might be perked.
P-51H A lightend, cleaned up Mustang. Very fast, but missed seeing combat though it was in service with fighter squadrons before the war ended. This would be a perk plane.
Seafire Mk XV The first Griffon powered Seafire, low blown Griffon VI rated for 1,820hp at 2,000ft, it had poor deck handling.
-
-1000 to anything with "spit" or "fire" in its name.
Everything else gets a +1.
-
-1000 to anything with "spit" or "fire" in its name.
Everything else gets a +1.
Your vapid comments don't help.
-
Interesting compilation there, thanks Karnak.
-
mmmmm
Ki84-Ib, now that would be a plane I would spend my pile of perkies on.
-
Interesting
Where would you put the Mig-3?
-
-1000 to anything with "spit" or "fire" in its name.
So what made you come to that decision? :headscratch:
-
Where would you put the Mig-3?
I would put the MiG-3 as not remotely competitive in the LWA.
So what made you come to that decision? :headscratch:
EDIT: Ok, that was overly harsh. He doesn't try to limit his bias, rather he wallows in it.
-
So what made you come to that decision? :headscratch:
Besides my burning hatred for them, We have enough models of them in game right now, Including one perked spit. What need would we have to add MORE?
-
I would put the MiG-3 as not remotely competitive in the LWA.
Right, I did not realize you posted only the super-late war fighter. However I do think that the Mig-3 will be able to hold it's own with our current late war airplane set.
-
Besides my burning hatred for them, We have enough models of them in game right now, Including one perked spit. What need would we have to add MORE?
Well your not screaming that we don't need any 109s or P-47s....
-
Well your not screaming that we don't need any 109s or P-47s....
P47s and 109s arent as big of a nuisence as the spits. but i dont like the idea of them ether if you want the truth
-
Right, I did not realize you posted only the super-late war fighter. However I do think that the Mig-3 will be able to hold it's own with our current late war airplane set.
How? It is a poor handling, slow, massively undergunned fighter in comparison to the common LWA fighters. It was not successful in WWII in 1941, what would change if it were put into the LWA 1945 free for all? The C.202 out guns it.
-
All these might not fit the late war ,but can do very good in scenarios, also a challenge with high eny for some rides.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Correctly weight FW-190A8 / and with GM-1 option. REAL STURMBOCK version.
Fw190a9
P47C
Ju52
Ki43 II
A36
He111
Do17
Pe-2
Bf109g6 30mm and AS model.
Bf109g10
Bf410
Yak3
Gladiator
Wellington
Beaufighter
Fiat G55
Ki44
J2m2/3
Ju87G antitank
Helldiver SB2C-3
GV's
---------
Stug3
Jgpz 38 Hetzer
M24
M26
88mm flak on carriage , double duty AAA / PAK
IS2
T34/76
KV1
Introduction of mobile artillery
---------------------------------
Priest
vespe/ hummel
Japanese carriers for scenarios
-
save,
Could you please delete that list? I am trying to keep this limited to the fighters that are competitive in the LWA in a normal player's hands. This is not a "wishlist" thread. I am trying to get people to realize how few new LWA competitive fighters are still left, basically three uncontroversial ones. Your list is rife with early war, bombers and tanks that have no bearing.
-
+10 just for the fact we would get more seaplanes
-
Your vapid comments don't help.
You have to remember that tyrannus is on a quest to have the Spitfires removed from the DA.
ack-ack
-
You have to remember that tyrannus is on a quest to have the Spitfires removed from the DA.
ack-ack
I did not know that. Considering that they are some of the more enjoyable dueling aircraft, particularly if you dump the 20mm ammo first, that is pretty absurd.
-
How? It is a poor handling, slow, massively undergunned fighter in comparison to the common LWA fighters. It was not successful in WWII in 1941, what would change if it were put into the LWA 1945 free for all? The C.202 out guns it.
How do you know that it's poor handling? I was not able to find any information on it's handling characteristics.
I would not call it slow because it's top speed is almost 400mph, it's performance also does not deteriorate with altitude as much as most other Russian fighters. I think the reason why it was unsuccessful was because Russia was loosing in the beginning of the war in general (not just the air war), also Germany had better pilots and more planes (this one I'm not sure about). Even though the guns are not the most powerful I still don't think that it will be a problem, look at Yak-9U for example.
-
MiG-3 had a 12.7mm and two 7.92mm guns. The Yak-9U has more firepower left after it runs out of 20mm ammo.
As to handling, one of the MiG-3's problems was that the engine was not really suited to fighters. It was too large and too heavy which is why it's nose is so long and why it was not noted for good handling.
The MiG-3's only virtue, really, is that it was fast at altitude. I have seen the MiG-3 used as a counter point to the "If it looks right it will fly right" quip.
-
(http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/6/7/4/0574476.jpg) Perdy! :banana:
-
MiG-3 had a 12.7mm and two 7.92mm guns. The Yak-9U has more firepower left after it runs out of 20mm ammo.
As to handling, one of the MiG-3's problems was that the engine was not really suited to fighters. It was too large and too heavy which is why it's nose is so long and why it was not noted for good handling.
The MiG-3's only virtue, really, is that it was fast at altitude. I have seen the MiG-3 used as a counter point to the "If it looks right it will fly right" quip.
For some reason I thought it had a 20mm & 2 12.7mm, good to know.
-
(http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/6/7/4/0574476.jpg) Perdy! :banana:
Only one saw an actual flight in a warzone, with no kills or ground attack done. :(
-
Only one saw an actual flight in a warzone, with no kills or ground attack done. :(
Hence it's location in my list. That said, Pyro did say HTC never really says "never" other than about the nuke.
Still, even if it does someday get added I'd hope for the stuff that actually fought to be added first.
-
MiG-3 had a 12.7mm and two 7.92mm guns. The Yak-9U has more firepower left after it runs out of 20mm ammo.
As to handling, one of the MiG-3's problems was that the engine was not really suited to fighters. It was too large and too heavy which is why it's nose is so long and why it was not noted for good handling.
The MiG-3's only virtue, really, is that it was fast at altitude. I have seen the MiG-3 used as a counter point to the "If it looks right it will fly right" quip.
Firepower of MiG-3 could be increased by 2 x 12,7 mm in the wing gondolas or 6 x RS-82mm rockets.
The handling of MiG-3 was quickly improved by implementing automatic slats.
As for the heavy engine in the nose - it gave MiG-3 the unique ability to gain speed in dive much faster than 109 could. After that MiG-3 could make a huge vertical zoom climb and 109 could not follow. Alexandre Pokryshkin used this ability of MiG-3 twice in his first dogfight with 109s. Though the fight stared in disadvantage position (lower alt, outnumbered) he managed both times gain alt advantage and attacked them from above, and yes, he was flying with additional 2x 12,7 mm guns and it really helped him to shot down 109 in this first fight.
-
For some reason I thought it had a 20mm & 2 12.7mm, good to know.
Later ver. of MiG-3 was armed with 2x20mm but production of MiG-3 was stopped soon and only a 52 were built with this armament.
-
Later ver. of MiG-3 was armed with 2x20mm but production of MiG-3 was stopped soon and only a 52 were built with this armament.
Yes, that is why I dismiss that version.
-
karnak brah, where the hell are the GV's in that list? we need more GV's and BOMBERS before we even think about adding more fighters. currently only 40 or so bombers+gv's combined, over 70 or so fighters.
more bombers and gv's first.
-
karnak brah, where the hell are the GV's in that list? we need more GV's and BOMBERS before we even think about adding more fighters. currently only 40 or so bombers+gv's combined, over 70 or so fighters.
more bombers and gv's first.
As stated previously, this is not a wish list. This is a "show the "why didn't HTC add a competitive fighter for the LWA???!?!??? WHHAAAAAAA!!!!" guys why they didn't add such a thing" thread. If it were a Wishlist thread I'd have posted it in the Wishlist forum and it would have a very, very different set of aircraft on it.
I strongly disagree with you about fighters though. This is, primarily, a fighter game and we haven't had a completely new fighter added since the I-16 and Brewster were added years ago. Since then we have had the M4A3(75), M4A3(76), Panther V G, Tiger II, Mosquito Mk XVI, G4M1 and B-29A added. It is time for a fighter, it doesn't have to be off of my list here and in fact the vast majority of these would not be good choices, but we are due for a fighter.
-
-1000 to anything with "spit" or "fire" in its name.
Everything else gets a +1.
Well considering you don't want it, then then more Spits must be a good idea. Considering he was putting out a list of potentially competitive birds, who asked you?
Can you add anything constructive in terms of other competitive planes? We've seen lately that you can quote Wiki. Anything original to add?
-
Nice guppy :)
Anything akak says about tywaaanis :) is correct
-
That Mossy Mk30 sounds intriguing.
More cannon and no mg's you say?
Color me impressed.
-
152-c two were built. It would be a good addition to your list.
-
Overall, I like the list. :aok Means more toys for me to die in. :D
-
As stated previously, this is not a wish list. This is a "show the "why didn't HTC add a competitive fighter for the LWA???!?!??? WHHAAAAAAA!!!!" guys why they didn't add such a thing" thread. If it were a Wishlist thread I'd have posted it in the Wishlist forum and it would have a very, very different set of aircraft on it.
I strongly disagree with you about fighters though. This is, primarily, a fighter game and we haven't had a completely new fighter added since the I-16 and Brewster were added years ago. Since then we have had the M4A3(75), M4A3(76), Panther V G, Tiger II, Mosquito Mk XVI, G4M1 and B-29A added. It is time for a fighter, it doesn't have to be off of my list here and in fact the vast majority of these would not be good choices, but we are due for a fighter.
A6M3 was added, the P40-E is being added and what about the guys who only play for gving and bombing? dont you want them to have some other competitive gv's/bombers? if we keep on using this Tiger2 vs Tiger2 thing because its basically the only thing that can match itself head on then its gonna get boring. fast.
-
A6M3 was added, the P40-E is being added and what about the guys who only play for gving and bombing? dont you want them to have some other competitive gv's/bombers? if we keep on using this Tiger2 vs Tiger2 thing because its basically the only thing that can match itself head on then its gonna get boring. fast.
Since then we have had the M4A3(75), M4A3(76), Panther V G, Tiger II, Mosquito Mk XVI, G4M1 and B-29A added. It is time for a fighter, it doesn't have to be off of my list here and in fact the vast majority of these would not be good choices, but we are due for a fighter.
Wait what? It IS time for a fighter, the P-40F we'll be getting is a nice addition of course, but I'm more interested in a whole *new* fighter. Either that, or rework the existing fighters. Mc 202/205, Ki-61, Yak-9U/T, and the F4Fs/FM2s.
-
well thought out and presented list :aok
I'd really like to see the Seafire MkIII added as its an obvious hole in the British fighter planeset.
I wonder how competitive the Whirlwind would be in LW? not that fast but should be pretty maneuverable, 240 20mm rounds isnt alot of firing time, but centre mounted you'd only need a quick burst ... :headscratch:
-
well thought out and presented list :aok
I'd really like to see the Seafire MkIII added as its an obvious hole in the British fighter planeset.
I wonder how competitive the Whirlwind would be in LW? not that fast but should be pretty maneuverable, 240 20mm rounds isnt alot of firing time, but centre mounted you'd only need a quick burst ... :headscratch:
the hurri2c has only 196 20mm rounds for its guns, and thats plenty for killing at least 4 or so fighters.
-
A6M3 was added, the P40-E is being added and what about the guys who only play for gving and bombing? dont you want them to have some other competitive gv's/bombers? if we keep on using this Tiger2 vs Tiger2 thing because its basically the only thing that can match itself head on then its gonna get boring. fast.
Wait what? It IS time for a fighter, the P-40F we'll be getting is a nice addition of course, but I'm more interested in a whole *new* fighter. Either that, or rework the existing fighters. Mc 202/205, Ki-61, Yak-9U/T, and the F4Fs/FM2s.
Both of which are variants of existing aircraft and do not offer anything new to learn to use. All of the units I mentioned were new units. I did not mention the redone GVs for a reason.
I would bet that 95+% of players would not be able to tell they were flying a P-40E or P-40F by anything other than graphics.
When I say it is time for a new fighter, I mean a fully new one. Something like a Ki-43, Beaufighter, Me410, Yak-3 or G.55.
-
I wonder how competitive the Whirlwind would be in LW? not that fast but should be pretty maneuverable, 240 20mm rounds isnt alot of firing time, but centre mounted you'd only need a quick burst ... :headscratch:
I think you've jumped the gun on Karnak's clever inevitable implication that once all of the late war uber aircraft have been added then finally some of the 'less competitive' and therefore more interesting / rewarding aircraft such as the Westland Whirlwind, amongst others, might be requested / added.
Unfortunately RT I have calculated with careful scientific method that at the current rate of fighter aircraft introduction to Aces High the Westland Whirlwind will be added in 229 years, 7 months and 16 days from now right after the Bristol Beaufighter. :cry I'm trying to eat well and exercise so I can live long enough to fly it before I pop owf :old:
Fans of the Whirlwind can find considerable pictures and resources in the most recent wishlist thread here:-
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,313538.0.html
-
Tanks suck once again more planes! :D
-
Tanks suck once again more planes! :D
*gasp* sir, you must now give me your TS card. :D
tanks are funner than those "planes" you fly. can you drive a plane off of a steep mountainside and sustain no damage? me thinks not! :lol
but i guess that i'd rather see more bombers than tanks. tanks outnumber bombers right now.
-1000 to anything with "spit" or "fire" in its name.
Everything else gets a +1.
so you would have -1'd the firefly?
well...thats kinda stupid. seeing it was the only thing to match a tiger...
-
(http://www.allstarsclan.net/forums/style_emoticons/default/offtopic.gif)
-
well...thats kinda stupid. seeing it was the only thing to match a tiger...
:confused:
-
postcountpostcountpostcount
i was talking at the time when all there was, was a panzer, m3, m8 and a tiger. the firefly wasnt here from the start i believe.
-
i was talking at the time when all there was, was a panzer, m3, m8 and a tiger. the firefly wasnt here from the start i believe.
First vehicles in the game were, in the same patch, the Panzer IV H, M3, M16 and, I think, the Ostwind. Also added during AH1 were the M8, LVTs and Tiger I. The first tank of AH2 was the T-34/76 and then the Sherman VC Firefly.
-
First vehicles in the game were, in the same patch, the Panzer IV H, M3, M16 and, I think, the Ostwind. Also added during AH1 were the M8, LVTs and Tiger I. The first tank of AH2 was the T-34/76 and then the Sherman VC Firefly.
thats funny...i thought the T34/85 came after the T34/76.
maybe its me not thinking straight due to the chineese food.
-
i was talking at the time when all there was, was a panzer, m3, m8 and a tiger. the firefly wasnt here from the start i believe.
it wasent "post count" it was me wondering why youd post such a stupid statement.
-
thats funny...i thought the T34/85 came after the T34/76.
maybe its me not thinking straight due to the chineese food.
You are correct, the T-34/85 came after the T-34/76. Nothing in my post contradicts that though. Three units were added in AH v2.00, the B-24J, the Ki-84-Ia and the T-34/76. T-34/85 came much later.
-
it wasent "post count" it was me wondering why youd post such a stupid statement.
really? just a smiley. yes thats postcounting. hmm, you said you'd -1 anything with the words "spit" or "fire" in it.
:rolleyes:
-1000 to anything with "spit" or "fire" in its name.
-
really? just a smiley. yes thats postcounting. hmm, you said you'd -1 anything with the words "spit" or "fire" in it.
:rolleyes:
Yes i did, but thats not the words i quoted you on that the " :confused:" wasa targeted at.
well...thats kinda stupid. seeing it was the only thing to match a tiger...
This is. Where you say the firefly was the only thing we have to match the tiger.
So :rolleyes: back at ya. And before you say "i ment before-.." you might want to state that in your original post.
-
So :rolleyes: back at ya. And before you say "i ment before-.." you might want to state that in your original post.
your obviously ego boosting alot tonight. making your "friend" quota?
you cant find anything better to do other than raise your postcount? if you just put a smiley up, you look like a fool whos postcounting because you dont even bother to say why you put it up with a real reason.
back then the firefly was able to match the tiger, and still can. it can even beat the tiger2 given an opportunity of hitting the sides/rear. maybe even the sides of the turret.
-
Any chance you two can not ruin a perfectly reasonable thread by trying to get the last word with each other on something off topic anyway?
-
Any chance you two can not ruin a perfectly reasonable thread by trying to get the last word with each other on something off topic anyway?
you know he cant resist starting these up. almost every time he sees something he doesnt agree with it ends up like this.
-
you know he cant resist starting these up. almost every time he sees something he doesnt agree with it ends up like this.
I merely highlighted the part of your sentance that confused me. i didnt understand why you'd say such a dumb statement. which is why i posted the "say wut?" smiley.
but call it what you want. Someone disagrees with you, and you ether call them a troll, or say their raising their "post count".
Never ignored someone before, but i think you'll be the first on the list. Bye skorp, keep thinking your right, for your the only one who does. :)
:bolt:
-
I merely highlighted the part of your sentance that confused me. i didnt understand why you'd say such a dumb statement. which is why i posted the "say wut?" smiley.
but call it what you want. Someone disagrees with you, and you ether call them a troll, or say their raising their "post count".
Never ignored someone before, but i think you'll be the first on the list. Bye skorp, keep thinking your right, for your the only one who does. :)
:bolt:
heres my proof for ya guppy.
he always finds a reason to say im wrong. he obviously didnt pay "anntenchian" in spelling class...
-
J2M3 or J2M5 A short ranged, well armed and rapid climbing interceptor. American pilots praised its handling in post war test flights. Had fowler flaps with a trigger on the stick for combat use.
Ki-44-II A short ranges, moderately armed and rapid climbing interceptor. One version armed with 40mm recoilless cannon.
+1 :aok
-
Any chance you two can not ruin a perfectly reasonable thread by trying to get the last word with each other on something off topic anyway?
not much chance of that I'm afraid. I'm getting really bored of these two derailing every thread with (http://www.camaroz28.com/forums/images/smilies/slapfight.gif)
-
:lol
-
not much chance of that I'm afraid. I'm getting really bored of these two derailing every thread with (http://www.camaroz28.com/forums/images/smilies/slapfight.gif)
Nice one Holmes :rofl
I see the 2 numbnuts in nearly every thread.
-
make it a post it! :aok
-
Any chance you two can not ruin a perfectly reasonable thread by trying to get the last word with each other on something off topic anyway?
The funny thing is Guppy there both uping their postcount by posting stupid things. Skorpion your arguments are funny since you call him out on postcounts every post as you post back to up yours :D
-
The funny thing is Guppy there both uping their postcount by posting stupid things. Skorpion your arguments are funny since you call him out on postcounts every post as you post back to up yours :D
he is postcounting most of the time. a single smiley doesnt say much.
at least i have an argument in my replies. :rolleyes:
-
:)
-
:)
:)
-
:)
:D
-
:D
:noid
-
Tyrannis vs. Skorpion
discuss :D
-
Tyrannis vs. Skorpion
discuss :D
Fubar
-
Who cares about post count, and why the heck do you two want to ruin the thread? Can't you insult each other via PM?
-
Tyrannis vs. Skorpion
discuss :D
Signal to noise ratio zero <and dropping fast>
-
mmmmm
Ki84-Ib, now that would be a plane I would spend my pile of perkies on.
:huh :huh :huh
-
Ki-84-Ib This version of the Ki-84 has four 20mm Ho-5 cannons and possibly a slightly uprated engine. It might be a low end perk plane.
Tiny bit lighter than our current Ki-84 too, and yes a small increase of power. The only changes needed to introduce this variant are a tiny modification to the external 3d model (cowling gun port holes different size & shape), those two small revisions to the flight model and the later instrument panel including different breaches to the cowl guns.
-
How well do you think the A-26 would fare as a fighter in the LWMA? If not well, how well could it intercept bomber formations? Does it have a place in this thread?
-
How well do you think the A-26 would fare as a fighter in the LWMA? If not well, how well could it intercept bomber formations? Does it have a place in this thread?
It would do badly in both roles. It is, compared to most fighters, very slow. Its wing loading is very high and it had very poor performance at altitude. If it caught bombers under it at a reasonably low altitude it would do well against them, but using it as a fighter is going to be skill intensive. The people asking for it because they are imagining it as a fighter are going to be fairly disappointed.
That said, it probably wouldn't do that much worse than the Me410.
-
Riddle me this Batman, why do people us attack bombes as fighters. I see A20s all the time in furballs doing things it would never do in RL now someone wanting to use the A26 that way makes no sense to me.
-
Riddle me this Batman, why do people us attack bombes as fighters.
fighter hangars got porked, only thing left to do is grab the most agile bomber available for base defense.
-
Riddle me this Batman, why do people us attack bombes as fighters. I see A20s all the time in furballs doing things it would never do in RL now someone wanting to use the A26 that way makes no sense to me.
Well they took the IL2s out of the BHs due to its Death Star like performance against fighters :huh Maybe we should put it back in the BHs only with about 100 perks when not loaded with ords. :rofl
-
Well they took the IL2s out of the BHs due to its Death Star like performance against fighters :huh Maybe we should put it back in the BHs only with about 100 perks when not loaded with ords. :rofl
it was not a bomber. it was a ground attack/close air support aircraft therefore being classified as a bomber in ah was wrong.
-
it was not a bomber. it was a ground attack/close air support aircraft therefore being classified as a bomber in ah was wrong.
It was also not a fighter.
The FHs being down have nothing to do with it either. Some people just want to use them as fighters.
-
It was also not a fighter.
so you think it should be treated as a bomber?
-
For 15 bucks
HTC gives us over 100 planes/tanks/boats to do as we please with them in the MA. There are no set "rules" for these tools of war as far as what we can use them for.
so instead of crying about people who dogfight in a bomber,maybe you should cry to HTC for a arena that follows the strict guidlines of aircraft usage during WW2
-
For 15 bucks
HTC gives us over 100 planes/tanks/boats to do as we please with them in the MA. There are no set "rules" for these tools of war as far as what we can use them for.
so instead of crying about people who dogfight in a bomber,maybe you should cry to HTC for a arena that follows the strict guidlines of aircraft usage during WW2
AvA/special events :neener:
but i have to agree with this, your 15 bucks, your way of playing. someone cries that you HO, well thats there problem. they cant control you. :rolleyes:
-
so you think it should be treated as a bomber?
I didn't say that, however the people advocating for it definitely intending on treating it as a fighter. I'll even grant than an unladen A-26 might be a passable fighter, despite its several shortcomings.
However, based on its historical role and given that AH has two choices for it, the BH is the more appropriate hangar for it to spawn out of.
-
It was also not a fighter.
The FHs being down have nothing to do with it either. Some people just want to use them as fighters.
That's because attack aircraft are lumped in with fighters for scoring purposes. The IL2 was a tank buster and ground support aircraft. Thinking in modern terms, would you consider the A-10 Warthog a bomber?
ack-ack
-
+1 to the 109 G6AS in particular, many a midwar FSO or scenario being stuck in a normal G6 trying to fight 30k+ american fighters and bombers, not easy or very productive in most cases.
I love when people complaign about dogfighting A20's :lol
:salute
BigRat
-
+1 to the 109 G6AS in particular, many a midwar FSO or scenario being stuck in a normal G6 trying to fight 30k+ american fighters and bombers, not easy or very productive in most cases.
I love when people complaign about dogfighting A20's :lol
:salute
BigRat
+1 I have asked for it many times before only to be told that "I want some 109 monster to pwn everyone with, so no"
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,299107.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,299107.0.html)
-
You have to admit, when you're in a b25c with all those 50's and some dork tried to Ho you, it's pretty cool watching them explode. :neener:
-
That's because attack aircraft are lumped in with fighters for scoring purposes. The IL2 was a tank buster and ground support aircraft. Thinking in modern terms, would you consider the A-10 Warthog a bomber?
ack-ack
No, but modern aircraft do tend to be more multi-role. How many air-to-air kills does the A-10 have? How many did the A-20 have with its fixed guns? How about the A-26?
Now, I have no problem with the idea of the A-20G being moved to the FHs and the A-26 being introduced from the FHs. I can see the argument both ways.
-
Simple solution.
Make the A20s (or any bomber that can take off empty) HAVE to take ordnance. Like a B24/B17/Lancaster. This means they won't be able to take off if ordnance is porked.
Now I don't know if it was historical or not for these planes to take off without bombs, if it IS historical that these took off with bombs 99% of the time, then I say add it. If it's not, then disregard the above suggestion.
-
I really want the Ki-84-Ib (Ki-84-I-Otsu) in the LWA.
20mm*4 loadout will be nice against huge buff missions. :)
-
One problem to your simple solution. No one says you have to CARRY the ord with you once you takeoff.
-
I think the Sea-Hurricane might be a good add to Aces High. I'm not sure on it's statistics though, I believe it had 4 20mm cannons like the Hurricane 2C (Correct me if I'm wrong). What do you all think about it being added?
Ace
-
One problem to your simple solution. No one says you have to CARRY the ord with you once you takeoff.
Try taking off in a B17/B24 when ords are down yet the BH is still up. You can't.
What I'm suggesting is that the same be done for A20s and the like. Now I'm not sure if it's historical or not to do this because A20s mightve taken off empty in RL regularly.
-
Thanks guys your insite was pretty much what i was thinking. I dont care what people fly or how they fly, I dont mind being ho'ed vulched or ramed and would up a washing machine with wings into a furball if I was haveing fun. My main ride is an F6F so I do kinda ride a washing machine with wings. And I have never been able to get through the flock of fightes yelling mine mine mine to ever get a shot at A20 lol.
-
Out of this list, I think the Yak-3 and J2M would be excellent competitive additions. I'd like to see something new as well, and not have it be the variant of something we already have with ZOMG 4x20mm.
Wiley.
-
Flame suit on
I dont want to see the ki84 with 4 cannons. Why?
It already has enough firepower to kill in one snapshot, theres no need for another "ho-bird".
+1 for the updated Jak series, C2xx series (hopefully with the g55), j2ms, ki-44 tho
G-6/AS with the tater would be very nice for the scenarios even tho in the MA it would be useless.
-
We just want something and don't really car too much what as long as it's fun to fly, right? :salute