Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Tango on January 07, 2012, 10:01:36 PM
-
What are the odds of getting this on the next list?
-
What are the odds of getting this on the next list?
Why don't we save some of the American stuff that hasn't been added so we can sprinkle it lightly amongst the massive quantity of non-American stuff that hasn't been added lest we face the situation of people whining that nothing American has been added in ages? Don't want the American stuff to be too front loaded now, do we?
(Translation: There isn't a whole lot of American stuff left to add and if it gets added too soon there will be a very long period where everything that gets added is Australian, British, Dutch, Finnish, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Polish, Romanian or Russian. I don't think that would go over very well.)
-
I would pay 30 bucks a month to have the a26 added to the game. people say it's wont be the same as in AW...blah, blah, blah. I dont care. it just brings back memories. none of the airplanes we fly here are the same as in aw. so I look forward to the a26 being added.
semp
-
+1
-
I'd pay $30 a month to get rid of the hordes :noid
-
I'd pay $30 a month to get rid of the hordes :noid
Good, then we can saddle up in a 88mm Flak and take care of those pesky enemy clouds...
Drooling for one of those CJ B17 missions to get some target practice! :devil
-
I would pay 30 bucks a month to have the a26 added to the game. people say it's wont be the same as in AW...blah, blah, blah. I dont care. it just brings back memories. none of the airplanes we fly here are the same as in aw. so I look forward to the a26 being added.
semp
Hell Yes to the A26, a bomber actually worth some perks..
Throw in a few other goodies,
Like separate invasion fleets,
Landing Craft Tank (LCT),
Player spawnable destroyers,
Real working Artillery
Engineer/Pioneer functions,
Oh yeah, Then I'd pay $30 month too..
-
A-26 will be perked, probably as the cheapest perk bomber, in order to prevent it from being over used. That said, it is going to have a very, very rough time of it in AH as a perk bomber. It will be slow, clumsy and easy to kill compared to many free fighters. Meeting a Spitfire Mk XVI, P-51D, La-7, Bf109K-4 or Ki-84 will basically be a death sentence for an unescorted A-26.
Despite being pretty much helpless against pretty much all late war fighters and many mid-war fighters and some early war fighters, it will need to be perked and that perk price will make people want its scalp even more. Unlike the three other perk bombers which are high, fast aircraft, the A-26 will be an attack aircraft and need to be down in the weeds where it loses the speed and altitude protections that are the primary defenses of perk bombers.
-
Only after the B-26 gets updated
:noid
-
yes, + 1 for this slow, unmanuverable, easy kill for fighters, attack aircraft :aok
-
yes, + 1 for this slow, unmanuverable, easy kill for fighters, attack aircraft :aok
LOL! :lol
-
What are the odds of getting this on the next list?
One the most under rated aircraft of WW2, Korean conflict and Vietnam wars!!!
-
One the most under rated aircraft of WW2, Korean conflict and Vietnam wars!!!
How is it underrated? I gets raved about everywhere I've seen.
-
the A-26 will be an attack aircraft and need to be down in the weeds where it loses the speed and altitude protections that are the primary defenses of perk bombers.
There was the glassnose aswell.
But yeh, US planeset is way too overrepresented compared to the other countries for it to be added anytime soon.
-
well the other country's planeset is underrepresented most likely because they suck so bad they will be hangar queens. I understand having some of those planes but if they only are used twice a year in scenarios then why add them?
semp
-
There was the glassnose aswell.
But yeh, US planeset is way too overrepresented compared to the other countries for it to be added anytime soon.
The A-26 didn't handle altitude very well. It was no B-29, Mosquito Mk XVI or Ar234.
well the other country's planeset is underrepresented most likely because they suck so bad they will be hangar queens. I understand having some of those planes but if they only are used twice a year in scenarios then why add them?
semp
There are many non-American aircraft that don't suck that could be added.
-
A sample of viable in the LWA non-American aircraft for those who hold that was the primary qualification to be added:
British
Fairey Firefly
Halifax
Meteor Mk III
German:
Do217
He162
He177A-5
Ju188A-1
Italian:
G.55
P.108
Re2005
Japanese:
B7A2 'Grace'
D4Y 'Judy'
H8K2 'Emily'
J2M3 'Jack'
J2M5 'Jack'
Ki-44 'Tojo'
Ki-100
Ki-102 'Randy'
P1Y1 'Frances'
Russian:
Il-10
Pe-2
Tu-2
Yak-3
-
A sample of viable in the LWA non-American aircraft for those who hold that was the primary qualification to be added:
British
Fairey Firefly
Halifax
Meteor Mk III
German:
Do217
He162
He177A-5
Ju188A-1
Italian:
G.55
P.108
Re2005
Japanese:
B7A2 'Grace'
D4Y 'Judy'
H8K2 'Emily'
J2M3 'Jack'
J2M5 'Jack'
Ki-44 'Tojo'
Ki-100
Ki-102 'Randy'
P1Y1 'Frances'
Russian:
Il-10
Pe-2
Tu-2
Yak-3
You need to give a valid reason why it shouldn't be added, it meets all requirements to be added to aces high, so your argument is invalid, simply vote "no" if you don't want it.
-
You need to give a valid reason why it shouldn't be added, it meets all requirements to be added to aces high, so your argument is invalid, simply vote "no" if you don't want it.
I do want it added. I was refuting guncrasher's claim that all non-American aircraft not added yet would suck.
-
I do want it added. I was refuting guncrasher's claim that all non-American aircraft not added yet would suck.
the Italian planes you listed are a prime example of planes that suck.
Semp
-
the Italian planes you listed are a prime example of planes that suck.
Semp
In what way do they "suck"?
Note that they are not the early war, 840hp fighters that did the bulk of the fighting for the Italians.
-
the Italian planes you listed are a prime example of planes that suck.
Semp
You are displaying an overwhelming amount of ignorance.
ack-ack
-
Left out the CR42..
Hell I'd like to try a CR32 vs an I15, or a kestrel engined 109..
But that's just me!
-
You are displaying an overwhelming amount of ignorance.
ack-ack
well akak since you are playing the bait and sink game as usual to prove your superior knowledge. but considering that all 3 airplanes had low production numbers, the fighters had few kills by ww2 standards and mostly against bombers. and the bomber, well it was slow and basically wasnt used as a bomber. and you want to add them ahead of the a26 that was produced in higher numbers, had more impact in ww2 than those 3 combined.
just based on low numbers all 3 planes shouldnt even be considered for inclusion ahead of many others who had better production and actually saw more combat like the a26. so taking that into account in my uneducated opinion all 3 airplanes sucked.
semp
-
well akak since you are playing the bait and sink game as usual to prove your superior knowledge. but considering that all 3 airplanes had low production numbers, the fighters had few kills by ww2 standards and mostly against bombers. and the bomber, well it was slow and basically wasnt used as a bomber. and you want to add them ahead of the a26 that was produced in higher numbers, had more impact in ww2 than those 3 combined.
just based on low numbers all 3 planes shouldnt even be considered for inclusion ahead of many others who had better production and actually saw more combat like the a26. so taking that into account in my uneducated opinion all 3 airplanes sucked.
semp
'Irrevelant' is the word you are looking for, not 'suck'
-
A sample of viable in the LWA non-American aircraft for those who hold that was the primary qualification to be added:
British
Fairey Firefly
Halifax
Meteor Mk III
German:
Do217
He162
He177A-5
Ju188A-1
Italian:
G.55
P.108
Re2005
Japanese:
B7A2 'Grace'
D4Y 'Judy'
H8K2 'Emily'
J2M3 'Jack'
J2M5 'Jack'
Ki-44 'Tojo'
Ki-100
Ki-102 'Randy'
P1Y1 'Frances'
Russian:
Il-10
Pe-2
Tu-2
Yak-3
This is a very good list of aircraft to can be, should be added LONG before the A26 should ever even be considered. :aok
Oh, and **smacks Karnack backside of the head** you forgot the Wellington and D520! for SHAME! I'll give you some slack because you said "LW", but still. ;)
-
This is a very good list of aircraft to can be, should be added LONG before the A26 should ever even be considered. :aok
Oh, and **smacks Karnack backside of the head** you forgot the Wellington and D520! for SHAME! I'll give you some slack because you said "LW", but still. ;)
That is not a list of aircraft I would create to show what I thought should be added. Many of those are pretty much irrelevant to the war, but they don't suck.
Some of them were relevant though, much more so than the A-26 which was itself pretty irrelevant.
-
My question is, what plane would get used the most.
I would love to see the CR-32, IMHO the nicest looking fighting biplane. It would be that LWMA rarity like the I-16. You see it now an then, but the overwhelming number of folks run to LW planes. For further inclusion into the game, I would look at style of airplanes most used in the MA. The if added the A26 would likely result in a drop in 110, Mosquito, A20, and B-25 sorties. Only, because it is a plane with similar capability. But, it would get used nonetheless. When Lusche throws up the stats, we will get a chance to see the juice/squeeze for the last few planes added. Maybe then, quantifying this argument.
Until then, Yes to the invader, the flight model is already out there. It is sexier looking than the Beaufighter ( :neener: lyric)
-
The A-26 will not get used that much when it is added because it will be perked. If not for that, it is pretty far up the list of aircraft that will get used a lot and have not yet been added.
Due to that, I think the G.55, Re2005, P.108, H8K2, J2M, Ki-44, Yak-3, Tu-2, Ju188, Do217, He177, Halifax and Fairey Firefly would certainly be used more often. The others I listed might or might not get used more often.
-
+1
-
The A-26 will not get used that much when it is added because it will be perked. If not for that, it is pretty far up the list of aircraft that will get used a lot and have not yet been added.
Due to that, I think the G.55, Re2005, P.108, H8K2, J2M, Ki-44, Yak-3, Tu-2, Ju188, Do217, He177, Halifax and Fairey Firefly would certainly be used more often. The others I listed might or might not get used more often.
To ease the brain of a headache: rarely the B29 gets used due to its perk value, same with the A-26 if added These choices above wouldn't be perked and flown more often.
-
the Italian planes you listed are a prime example of planes that suck.
Semp
Holy crap you're dumb. In trials against the some of the middle G model 109's, the 5-series fighters were favorably commented on. On paper, their preformance is quite good, arguably still competative (if not top of the class) for LW. Pilots always said they had exelent manuverability.
Infact, I don't recall reading about any complaints from the pilots.
And all three of them could be added. HTC has been quoted saying they have no hard set criteria for additions, they just want aircraft that have seen service. Even the Re.2005, with only 48 built, cannot be excluded on the basis of production numbers, since only 43-34 Ostwinds were built, and about 40 Ta-152's.
-
Holy crap you're dumb. In trials against the some of the middle G model 109's, the 5-series fighters were favorably commented on. On paper, their preformance is quite good, arguably still competative (if not top of the class) for LW. Pilots always said they had exelent manuverability.
Infact, I don't recall reading about any complaints from the pilots.
And all three of them could be added. HTC has been quoted saying they have no hard set criteria for additions, they just want aircraft that have seen service. Even the Re.2005, with only 48 built, cannot be excluded on the basis of production numbers, since only 43-34 Ostwinds were built, and about 40 Ta-152's.
you calling me dumb and yet you believe that the airplane was good because they said it "looked goon on paper" not due to combat action. did anybody ever build a plane that looked bad on paper? out of curiosity would you care to comment on g55 activities during the war? how many airplanes did it shoot down? where did it see combat? how long was it in service?
based on one of your sentences you only read wikipedia, didnt you. you sure you arent confusing the g55 airplane with the g55 car?
semp
-
you calling me dumb and yet you believe that the airplane was good because they said it "looked goon on paper" not due to combat action. did anybody ever build a plane that looked bad on paper? out of curiosity would you care to comment on g55 activities during the war? how many airplanes did it shoot down? where did it see combat? how long was it in service?
based on one of your sentences you only read wikipedia, didnt you. you sure you arent confusing the g55 airplane with the g55 car?
semp
The low production numbers and short service of the G.55 had nothing to do with the quality of the plane and everything to do with Italy surrendering in the middle of 1943.
ack-ack
-
This is a very good list of aircraft to can be, should be added LONG before the A26 should ever even be considered. :aok
Oh, and **smacks Karnack backside of the head** you forgot the Wellington and D520! for SHAME! I'll give you some slack because you said "LW", but still. ;)
+1 comment was spot on.
-
The low production numbers and short service of the G.55 had nothing to do with the quality of the plane and everything to do with Italy surrendering in the middle of 1943.
ack-ack
then how about all the other planes that had low production numbers and short service before japan and germany surrendered? you have been against some of them just based on that.
semp
-
+1
I like it.
-
you calling me dumb and yet you believe that the airplane was good because they said it "looked goon on paper" not due to combat action. did anybody ever build a plane that looked bad on paper? out of curiosity would you care to comment on g55 activities during the war? how many airplanes did it shoot down? where did it see combat? how long was it in service?
based on one of your sentences you only read wikipedia, didnt you. you sure you arent confusing the g55 airplane with the g55 car?
semp
G.55 was a vast improvement over the C.205, It did shoot down quite a few - confirmed victories - one of the first engagements were B24's escorted by P38s on March 29th in which 20 C205s tangled with P38s and left 6 G.55s (heavier firepower) shot down 2 of the B-24s and damaged 5, two others crashed on landing.
Order of Battle Jan-September 1944
Fiat G.55 Series I Flew with:
I Gruppo Caccia - All 3 Squadriglias flew G.55s
II Gruppo Caccia - 3 Squadriglias flew G.55s and Nucleo Comando which operated as a command flight (flew g55s as well)
Montefusco-Bonet flew G.55s as well as C.205s as above, however due to loss of personel and planes, it was absorbs into I Gruppo Caccia to replenish its G.55 inventory.
Far as its victories it shot down well over 100, (unconfirmed) It was in service late 1943 and formed the backbone into 1944, 109G's and 109K's slowly replaced the C.205s/G.55s/Re2005s after numbers declined. For example III Gruppo was transfered to germany for training on the 109k when the war ended, it used 21 BF109ks, 4 BF108s and a Ki35.
On the Allies side of Italy, nobody flew the G.55, since the factories were moved to the north for production on the 205s and G.55s, they mainly flew - C.202s, C.205s, P-39s, C.200s, CR.42s, Spitfire Vs.
As for numbers concerned - Its tough to say exactly how many G.55s were built, but it was well above 200, the exact number is going to be an issue finding, as most "post war" documents are tough to come by.
I have limited information on the G.55, but from what wikipedia says - I did some research and this is a true statement -
The Germans also brought with them several aircraft including a Fw 190 A-5 and a Bf 109 G-4 for direct comparison tests in simulated dogfights.
Oberst Petersen defined the G.55 "the best fighter in the Axis" and immediately telegraphed his impressions to Goering. After listening the recommendations of Petersen, Milch and Galland, a meeting held by Goering on 22 February 1943 voted to produce the G.55 in Germany.
What I concluded, is this statement is stretching the truth - in fact it was tested and found to out perform both the 190 and 109, in which Germany didn't want it to be known its "aircraft were second rate" - He did approach Galland about producing the G.55 in Germany, I have no idea if any were built in Germany, but what I do know is Germans took over the Factories in northern Italy that built it, so it could of been transferred and built,
from what I gather it was't which concludes the idea was probably shot down until to late.
My Sources:
All this comes from Regia Aeronauctica Pictorial history Vol. 1 and 2, by Christopher Shores
Regia Aeronautica - the italy airforce 23-45 by Chris Dunning
And the luftwaffe comments came from Courage Alone the Italian Airforce 40-43.
Anything else?
-
You are talking about Italian force that flew for Germany after Italy surrender. By 1944 Italy had declared war on Germany. The g55 would only be around 20 that Germany captured. I. Believe Germany was also interested in the g55 and build some. Still makes you wonder if the g55 was so good why did they replaced
Them with 109's.
Semp
-
You are talking about Italian force that flew for Germany after Italy surrender. By 1944 Italy had declared war on Germany. The g55 would only be around 20 that Germany captured. I. Believe Germany was also interested in the g55 and build some. Still makes you wonder if the g55 was so good why did they replaced
Them with 109's.
Semp
Quite a few reasons, first moving the factory from Northern Italy to Germany - secondly two of the main factories in north italy were routinely bombed in 1944, which halted production not once, but twice.
They replaced them with 109s simply because of shortage of air frames, once the factories had been bombed, where else are you going to produce them? you simply cannot send blueprints across town and "build a factory and crank out air frames over night.
You don't factor in the Logistics for Air frames, engines, transportation, fuel.
Edited: Not sure how many Germany Produced, I was looking strictly at the italian factories which produced over 200, which is far more then some of the...trickier planes we have like Ta-152, Re.2005 which I would honestly shy away and ignore - mainly those had less then 50 built, where G.55 had well over 200, which only 6 I can see were Prototypes, which rules out "not enough built".
-
There were 200 build but most didn't see combat. Most were built after Italy had declared war on Germany. The few that saw combat were with Germany. So not really an Italian flown airplane. Flown by pilots who's only other option was slave labor.
Semp
-
The A-26 will not get used that much when it is added because it will be perked. If not for that, it is pretty far up the list of aircraft that will get used a lot and have not yet been added.
What makes it perkable? It is slower than a mossie and carries a similar load to the A20. It is likely less agile than an A20, I won't know till I try one out. The last one I flew was back in AW.
-
Flown by pilots who's only other option was slave labor.
Semp
The Italian pilots that flew with the Aeronautica Nazionale Republicana were not forced to fly or they'd face the prospect of slave labor or worse. These were fascists that didn't want to surrender to the Allies and kept on fighting with the Germans until the end.
As for why the Germans didn't build the G.55, it took an estimaged 15,000 man hours to assemble a single G.55 while it only took an estimated 5,000 man hours to assemble a Bf 109. In addition to lack of resources, it's understandable why the Germans didn't pursue the G.55 further.
ack-ack
-
There were 200 build but most didn't see combat. Most were built after Italy had declared war on Germany. The few that saw combat were with Germany. So not really an Italian flown airplane. Flown by pilots who's only other option was slave labor.
Semp
I didn't think you'd try so hard to be a troll, but sorry none of your information is near correct.
-
The Italian pilots that flew with the Aeronautica Nazionale Republicana were not forced to fly or they'd face the prospect of slave labor or worse. These were fascists that didn't want to surrender to the Allies and kept on fighting with the Germans until the end.
As for why the Germans didn't build the G.55, it took an estimaged 15,000 man hours to assemble a single G.55 while it only took an estimated 5,000 man hours to assemble a Bf 109. In addition to lack of resources, it's understandable why the Germans didn't pursue the G.55 further.
ack-ack
I see Wikipedia's stocks are skyrocketing
-
What makes it perkable? It is slower than a mossie and carries a similar load to the A20. It is likely less agile than an A20, I won't know till I try one out. The last one I flew was back in AW.
The Mossie is a fighter, not an attack aircraft, and carries far less than the A-20 let alone the A-26. The A-26 is faster than the A-20 and carries half again, or more, than the A-20. Its comparative lack of agility is irrelevant as it is an attack aircraft, not a fighter. The reason it will be perked is that it would be too dominant in its role if it were free. It is likely to be the bottom end perk bomber with a cost of 5-10 or so perks.
-
The Mossie is a fighter, not an attack aircraft, and carries far less than the A-20 let alone the A-26. The A-26 is faster than the A-20 and carries half again, or more, than the A-20. Its comparative lack of agility is irrelevant as it is an attack aircraft, not a fighter. The reason it will be perked is that it would be too dominant in its role if it were free. It is likely to be the bottom end perk bomber with a cost of 5-10 or so perks.
*gasp* Did you just call the most versatile aircraft in WWII a lowly "fighter"??? Say it isnt so!!! :eek:
I'd beg to differ that the Mossi FB Mk IV was indeed more of an attack aircraft than any other role it could have and did perform. ;)
-
The Mossie is a fighter, not an attack aircraft, and carries far less than the A-20 let alone the A-26. The A-26 is faster than the A-20 and carries half again, or more, than the A-20. Its comparative lack of agility is irrelevant as it is an attack aircraft, not a fighter. The reason it will be perked is that it would be too dominant in its role if it were free. It is likely to be the bottom end perk bomber with a cost of 5-10 or so perks.
Well, on an A-26b (Early) it carried 6x 50s in the nose, A-26B carried 8x 50s in the nose.
Optional Gun packages are this:
2x .50 cals and a 75mm Cannon
4x .50 cals and a 37mm cannon
2x .50 cals and a 37mm cannon
75mm cannon and a 37mm cannon
2x 37mm cannons
The Gun pods under the wings now, carry 4x .50 cals under the wings, however late production A-26B's carried 3x .50cals per wing (removes the gunpods which degraded performance)
Top that with 6,000lbs of Ords and from 16x to 18 .50cal machine guns.
There are glass nose B-26s used for level bombing, you simply lose the nose mounted and gain the wing mounted machine guns for forward armament.
So in retrospect, it will easily be perked, most likely something between 20 and 50 perks.
From what I see, A-26s served in action during Battle of the Bulge, the Pacific and Italy.
Pacific service - it was in the philippines, pretty late action, overall I can say it served quite a few full squadrons in combat action.
-
None of the operational A-26 units ever used cannon mounted gun packages, all were .50 cal guns. Late model A-26s still used gun pods, especially when they were finally cleared to start up low level attack missions.
ack-ack
-
None of the operational A-26 units ever used cannon mounted gun packages, all were .50 cal guns. Late model A-26s still used gun pods, especially when they were finally cleared to start up low level attack missions.
ack-ack
I think it was because the earliest versions used the glass nose right? I figured the cannons were either prototype versions or added after war.
Sorry didn't get a chance to run down on the information, would of left the cannon versions out heh.
-
Did the A-26 serve in the Pacific? I understood that some were sent there for operational testing, but were rejected as unsuitable due to the poor cockpit view to the sides. The engine nacelles actually blocked the ability to look straight left and right, which wasn't acceptable for formation flying at the altitudes the A-20s were being used at.
*gasp* Did you just call the most versatile aircraft in WWII a lowly "fighter"??? Say it isnt so!!! :eek:
I'd beg to differ that the Mossi FB Mk IV was indeed more of an attack aircraft than any other role it could have and did perform. ;)
The FB.Mk VI is a fighter, though with strong attack aircraft traits.
-
Did the A-26 serve in the Pacific? I understood that some were sent there for operational testing, but were rejected as unsuitable due to the poor cockpit view to the sides. The engine nacelles actually blocked the ability to look straight left and right, which wasn't acceptable for formation flying at the altitudes the A-20s were being used at.
The FB.Mk VI is a fighter, though with strong attack aircraft traits.
They did have a pretty poor showing in the Pacific early on, but it re-equip the 3rd BG sometime in the Summer of 45 in the Philippines, they were later model A-26Bs fitted with 8 guns in the nose and 8x 50s in the wings, also you are correct - they received new Clamshell canopies for improved visability.
However - question remains how much combat action did it see, this particular group did not go into full combat action before the war ended.
The 319th BG, flew Marauders in the Italy campaign, switched to the same late A-26s and arrived on Okinawa in July/45 and flew combat missions off China and Japan - however the war was ended a few weeks later.
From what I am just skimming over, the A-26 served extremely limited or no capacity in the pacific before the war ended.
One of the biggest reasons for this, George Kennedy of the 5th Airforce, had no interest in exchanging any of his aircraft out with the A-26.
-
Oh yes, the A-26 certainly saw combat. No questions about it being a valid addition to AH. I just am not sure if it saw combat anywhere other than Europe.
-
The 319th completed 20 missions with A-26s. The 3rd definitely saw combat with there's too, though I don't know specific numbers.
-
They removed the cannon because it had a tendency to jam.
Semp
-
They removed the cannon because it had a tendency to jam.
Semp
None of the A-26s were produced with the cannon package, it was only on paper.
ack-ack
-
The prototype did have one, but didn't work out. That's how they started trying to figure out several combinations including 37mm. Before sticking to mgs, lots of them.
Semp
-
40-50 perks. Why bother adding anything non-revolutionary at that price. At 50 perks you equal the plane to the 163. Seems a bit high. I don't see a plane that is slower than a mosquito and carrying a similar armament to an a20 being perked.
And..... It is one sexy plane.
-
40-50 perks. Why bother adding anything non-revolutionary at that price. At 50 perks you equal the plane to the 163. Seems a bit high. I don't see a plane that is slower than a mosquito and carrying a similar armament to an a20 being perked.
And..... It is one sexy plane.
The A-26 can do the job of the B-26 and the A-20. It was intended to replace both planes in the medium bombing and low level attack roles.
ack-ack
-
40-50 perks. Why bother adding anything non-revolutionary at that price. At 50 perks you equal the plane to the 163. Seems a bit high. I don't see a plane that is slower than a mosquito and carrying a similar armament to an a20 being perked.
And..... It is one sexy plane.
It will need to be perked unless you want the arena to be swamped with them and to see A-20s disappear. I don't think it will be 50 perks, I think it will be 5 to 10 perks and be the lowest end perk bomber.
-
40-50 perks. Why bother adding anything non-revolutionary at that price. At 50 perks you equal the plane to the 163. Seems a bit high. I don't see a plane that is slower than a mosquito and carrying a similar armament to an a20 being perked.
And..... It is one sexy plane.
perks are all speculation. it's up to hitech to decide this. it could be zero perks or 1k dont matter, still it brings back some really good memories of aw. I would just up one to furball with, i got more than enough perks to fly it every day for a couple of months.
it's not the plane itself but the memories of it. none of the planes in ah fly like the ones in aw, everybody knows that, it dont matter. this plane saw lots of action and was an important part in the eto. should have been added years ago ahead of other planes that have been added but hardly used.
semp
-
perks are all speculation. it's up to hitech to decide this. it could be zero perks or 1k dont matter, still it brings back some really good memories of aw. I would just up one to furball with, i got more than enough perks to fly it every day for a couple of months.
it's not the plane itself but the memories of it. none of the planes in ah fly like the ones in aw, everybody knows that, it dont matter. this plane saw lots of action and was an important part in the eto. should have been added years ago ahead of other planes that have been added but hardly used.
semp
Perks are not much of a speculation. Years ago I was speaking with Pyro on the phone when the subject of perk bombers came up and he mentioned the A-26 as an example. Granted that was years ago and it could end up being free, but at the time Pyro saw it as a future perk bomber. This call was during the revamp of the Spitfire lineup when my curiosity about if the Mk VIII, which had not been shown in screenshots, would make it in got the better of me and I called HTC to try to find out. The conversation strayed off of Spitfires obviously.
-
perks are all speculation. it's up to hitech to decide this. it could be zero perks or 1k dont matter, still it brings back some really good memories of aw. I would just up one to furball with, i got more than enough perks to fly it every day for a couple of months.
it's not the plane itself but the memories of it. none of the planes in ah fly like the ones in aw, everybody knows that, it dont matter. this plane saw lots of action and was an important part in the eto. should have been added years ago ahead of other planes that have been added but hardly used.
semp
I believe the Lethality Assessment of the plane determines the perk value, It has the speed, firepower and bomb load that would require being perked.
Anyone can speculate, I would believe it falls between 10-40 perks area, thus is one reason I think perked ordnance would be a good idea, glass nose option the plane isn't much of a serious threat, still you can add the 4x 50 gun pods under the wing however you degrade performance enough its not a perkable aircraft.
However, add 8x 50s and 4x 50s on the wings, plus 6,000lbs of ords - then you have a perk ride.
-
Perks are not much of a speculation. Years ago I was speaking with Pyro on the phone when the subject of perk bombers came up and he mentioned the A-26 as an example. Granted that was years ago and it could end up being free, but at the time Pyro saw it as a future perk bomber. This call was during the revamp of the Spitfire lineup when my curiosity about if the Mk VIII, which had not been shown in screenshots, would make it in got the better of me and I called HTC to try to find out. The conversation strayed off of Spitfires obviously.
yeah but still to speculate as it being perked from 1 to 1000 is not really up to us. that was my point.
and butcher if you go based on lethality there's lots of other airplanes that are lethal and not perked. p47s 8 50 cal mgs and unlimited ammo. f4f 6 mgs awesome turner will kill almost anything 1v1, etc....
and if you mention well they're not as good as the tempest, may i remind you that most people that fly tempest only manage to kill themselves.
semp
-
There is no harm in speculating on appropriate perk costs. Given that the hard nosed A-26's role makes it inherently more vulnerable to fighters than the ways the Ar234, B-29 and Mosquito XVI get used I would expect the perk cost would have to be significantly lower than any of those. So my thought is that the perk cost will be one of the low, token costs intended to control usage more than it is intended to be seen as buying an exciting, powerful unit cost. Current units that have "low, control their usage" costs are the F4U-1C, M18, M4A3(76), Spitfire Mk XIV and T-34/85.
-
yeah but still to speculate as it being perked from 1 to 1000 is not really up to us. that was my point.
and butcher if you go based on lethality there's lots of other airplanes that are lethal and not perked. p47s 8 50 cal mgs and unlimited ammo. f4f 6 mgs awesome turner will kill almost anything 1v1, etc....
and if you mention well they're not as good as the tempest, may i remind you that most people that fly tempest only manage to kill themselves.
semp
You're kidding, right? :huh
You fly the uber 51D and want the P-47 perked? Why, because it can sometimes catch you running away or because you can't vulch it in a single pass?
And the F4F - yeah, OK. :rolleyes: You need to see your doctor ASAP.
-
You're kidding, right? :huh
You fly the uber 51D and want the P-47 perked? Why, because it can sometimes catch you running away or because you can't vulch it in a single pass?
And the F4F - yeah, OK. :rolleyes: You need to see your doctor ASAP.
lol if it was up to me i would still fly the spit8, it is the best plane ah has imho. i fly the ponyd because i got tired of ponies running away from me. so now I chased them down, ask people in my squad i select/pick/whatever anything that I will see as just run and pick faster than i can. i will go after the mossies, ponyd, etc more that i go after the goons. after all i hate the competition :). I also fly the p47's, not as much but the m is fricking fast as the ponyd with lots more ammo. now the p47m is a fricking ubber uber ride more than the ponyd. still learning it but it will replace the ponyd as my plane of choice. of course the spit8 will always be in my heart :banana:.
I dont want any plane i mentioned perked, but just saying there's lots of other planes that people dont think as ubber but they are fricking ubber more than some of the perked planes we currently have.
semp
-
You're kidding, right? :huh
You fly the uber 51D and want the P-47 perked? Why, because it can sometimes catch you running away or because you can't vulch it in a single pass?
And the F4F - yeah, OK. :rolleyes: You need to see your doctor ASAP.
We have someone comparing an F4F to a Tempest, good grief.
-
yeah but still to speculate as it being perked from 1 to 1000 is not really up to us. that was my point.
and butcher if you go based on lethality there's lots of other airplanes that are lethal and not perked. p47s 8 50 cal mgs and unlimited ammo. f4f 6 mgs awesome turner will kill almost anything 1v1, etc....
and if you mention well they're not as good as the tempest, may i remind you that most people that fly tempest only manage to kill themselves.
semp
Lets look at why the tempest is perked - Speed, Firepower, Turn radius, Climb Rate, acceleration.
P-47 being Lethal? Sure to an extent, The P-47M would be a good case to argue based on its stats, however its no where Lethal as a Typhoon or Tempest. In fact I would say its probably 30% less lethal then both.
It takes 3 or so 50 cal to equal the damage of one 20mm round, So thats 8 50s is 2.25 x 20mm guns, what about the other 2x 20mms?
Hell 8x 303s arn't even 1 20mm in terms of Lethality. Same for the F4F - although it can out turn quite a few planes, just because it does out turn every plane in the game, doesn't make it perkable.
Fact is unless you are higher then 4k above me, you can't catch a late war bird, and most Mid Wars, so that rules out the turn fight. If you do get caught by a bird that strictly does Vertical fighting, you cannot dive or runaway, Sure you could dive and give up whatever ALT you have stored, but the massive 320mph speed limit means you won't be outrunning most except for that pesky goon.
Same argument goes for the P51-D, rarely have I seen one that actually engaged in a dogfight, so I will say from my primary experience in the last 2 tours - It might run, however in a P-38J I won every vertical and turn fight, which leaves the P51-D only to have "speed", so it shouldn't be perked same with the Fw-190 since both only do one thing, now a tempest however - the damn thing better stay perked, run into a decent stick with a tempest and you realize quick there is very few mistakes it can make.
-
One note, "firepower" does not just refer to the guns. The bombload also has to be included and the A-26 does very well there. So does the P-47, but not nearly as well. Also, twin engined aircraft all handle their bombloads better than single engined aircraft.
-
One note, "firepower" does not just refer to the guns. The bombload also has to be included and the A-26 does very well there. So does the P-47, but not nearly as well. Also, twin engined aircraft all handle their bombloads better than single engined aircraft.
Yes sir, and also can sustain far more damage, in terms of durability, Lose one engine its no big deal.