Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: surfinn on August 14, 2012, 12:10:50 PM

Title: more F4Fs
Post by: surfinn on August 14, 2012, 12:10:50 PM
Right now we have the F4F and the FM2.  One very early AC and one late war AC.  There were may differant F4Fs between those two and I'd like to at least see the Martlet mkV put into service if for no other reason than to flesh out the FSO with more time realistic ac for the battles we fight there.
Title: Re: more F4Fs
Post by: ImADot on August 14, 2012, 12:25:37 PM
I would rather see no new aircraft/variants added until all current models are upgraded to current design standards.
Title: Re: more F4Fs
Post by: surfinn on August 14, 2012, 12:29:24 PM
Whats wrong with current models and why not do both at same time.
Title: Re: more F4Fs
Post by: Tracerfi on August 14, 2012, 12:30:19 PM
Whats wrong with current models and why not do both at same time.
Ill like not know also why they are you good enough
Title: Re: more F4Fs
Post by: Karnak on August 14, 2012, 12:33:41 PM
Ill like not know also why they are you good enough
They are AH1 3D models and need to be updated.  The most common time that HTC adds new versions is when they are update the 3D models.  See the recent Ju87D-3 upgrade and addition of the Ju87G-2 for example.
Title: Re: more F4Fs
Post by: Tracerfi on August 14, 2012, 12:34:17 PM
They are AH1 3D models and need to be updated.  The most common time that HTC adds new versions is when they are update the 3D models.  See the recent Ju87D-3 upgrade and addition of the Ju87G-2 for example.
Ohh duh i forgot about that
Title: Re: more F4Fs
Post by: surfinn on August 14, 2012, 12:36:52 PM
K got it but but we can still have both I think. Unless the argument is against the ac itself. I fly FSO every chance i get and id love to see some midwar F4Fs we could fly in there and other scenarios.
Title: Re: more F4Fs
Post by: ImADot on August 14, 2012, 12:39:52 PM
why not do both at same time.

Splitting man-hours between updating old models and creating new planes makes each endeavour go slower. Concentrating efforts to get all old stuff updated to new standards would make everything in the game look more appealing, and would then allow maximum effort on bringing you new stuff to play with.
Title: Re: more F4Fs
Post by: surfinn on August 14, 2012, 12:46:34 PM
Imadot
  If I'm not mistaken though you are talking about the way the ac looks superficially in the game and I would argue that, that is not as important as filling the huge gap the f4fs represent right now.
Title: Re: more F4Fs
Post by: Noir on August 14, 2012, 01:03:44 PM
sorry but waffle doesn't master clone-no-jutsu yet.
Title: Re: more F4Fs
Post by: ImADot on August 14, 2012, 01:42:51 PM
Imadot
  If I'm not mistaken though you are talking about the way the ac looks superficially in the game and I would argue that, that is not as important as filling the huge gap the f4fs represent right now.

I would argue that at this point, looks and consistency in airframe modeling is more important. New guys find the game, try it out...like the new models and cool stuff, jump in some of the older planes and puke in their mouths a little. They might not quit over it, but I would say it leaves them wondering what else is wrong.

While I agree there are gaps in planesets, efforts should be concentrated on getting all objects we have now levelset so the new stuff can start coming faster as HTC can stop splitting time between updating old stuff and adding new stuff.
Title: Re: more F4Fs
Post by: Wildcat1 on August 14, 2012, 02:00:23 PM
I would like to see the F4F-3 added when they update the current models. better performer than the F4F-4. The Navy went with the -4 because it had folding wings and could carry drop tanks. the two extra outboard-mounted guns really hamper performance.
Title: Re: more F4Fs
Post by: surfinn on August 14, 2012, 02:25:07 PM
Have to disagree with you again Dot. I don't think the looks of your ac has much to do with the style of game play. I would also ask what do these two weekers have to compare it with?? What has better looking models and better flight characteristics than AH. Its certainly not Warbirds hell I left there to come to AH. AH is ten times better in all ways. Most of those try it out and leave due to the huge learning curve we have in this game and lets face the new gen wants instant gratification in all ways. They expect to be aces in a week because of the xbox mentality. Old graphics on ac have very little to do with this. A 57Chevy is still sexy even if its not in 3 d ;)
Title: Re: more F4Fs
Post by: ImADot on August 14, 2012, 03:24:33 PM
I guess I'm just tired of flying blocky-looking old models, and seeing "new" planes being added that are just variants of airframes already in the game. I guess I'd be Ok with having NEW planes to fill actual gaps rather than just another variant of an airframe already in the game.

<shrug> Meh </shrug>
Title: Re: more F4Fs
Post by: caldera on August 14, 2012, 03:26:46 PM
I would like to see the F4F-3 added when they update the current models.

+1  Only add new models when updating old ones, please.
Title: Re: more F4Fs
Post by: surfinn on August 14, 2012, 05:31:38 PM
The biggest variant is not in the airframe,it remained pretty consistant through the F4F series (martlet) its in the engine and gun packages.
Title: Re: more F4Fs
Post by: ImADot on August 14, 2012, 05:51:48 PM
So what you're saying is someone is more apt to not subscribe because there are only 2 F4F's or only 5 P47's and wouldn't care that half the planes are blocky-looking and obviously lacking compared to others?
Title: Re: more F4Fs
Post by: surfinn on August 14, 2012, 06:04:44 PM
I'm not into marketing dot
I'm saying you either like the game because of the community or you don't.
I'm saying I would like a certain type of ac to fill the gaps in the FSO and other scenarios and as you are a very diligent FSO player you should know what I'm talking about.
Hell as far as I'm concerned my request has nothing to do what so ever with marketing or bringing new players to the game, its a request from a existing customer (bird in the hand).
Title: Re: more F4Fs
Post by: HighTone on August 14, 2012, 07:51:20 PM
I would be up for more F4F's when HTC gets around to updating them. More for my A6M3 to shoot down during FSO.

But unless its uber and has a cannons it won't go over well on this board.


Thank god HTC runs the place  :rock
Title: Re: more F4Fs
Post by: Krusty on August 14, 2012, 07:56:05 PM
I think the main complaint for the early F4F-3 was that it didn't have the same folding wing mechanism, so it was lighter. It also didn't have the 6 gun option. Some folks want it for the super-early midway-type scenarios and whatnot to be able to compete with zekes a bit better.

On the other hand, I seem to recall almost all the -3s were phased out and replaced with 6 gun -4s rather early on, so it wouldn't fill very many planeset holes at all.
Title: Re: more F4Fs
Post by: surfinn on August 14, 2012, 08:23:56 PM
And again I'm not asking for a F4F-3 which was a even early model than what we have which was a out of date ac before the war even started. I'm asking for the range of F4Fs  between the early model no power nothing ac that we have now and the uber badass FM2.  There were several that would fill the gap, oh need I say it again, like the Martlet MKv. A Brit designation for the same ac

THe F4F saw more combat in the war in multiple theaters than its given credit for here. The Brits called it a Martlet and heck i actual got see the pile of boxite we got in payment for shipping all those "martlets" to them.   

Again don't care bout new players and what they think there is no competition
what i do care about is improving my game play and making my experience more interesting.
Title: Re: more F4Fs
Post by: Krusty on August 15, 2012, 01:34:43 AM
The problem with that, is that the F4F-4 was the most common by far. The next major variant after that was the FM-2. Martlet Mk.V was simply the brit name for the FM-1, which was an F4F-4 with rocket rails.

It really goes:

F4F-3
F4F-4
FM-2

There's no other in-betweens to model. The only new option to add would be that early one.
Title: Re: more F4Fs
Post by: Slade on August 15, 2012, 08:52:45 AM
Quote
the two extra outboard-mounted guns really hamper performance.

Really?  I did not know that.  Is that true in both the real life F4F and the one modeled in the game?

I know that is true with the 109 and gondies but figured just two more inline 50 cals could not be a dramatic an effect.  Maybe I was wrong.

EDIT: [Sidebar]
Which dives better:  F4F or FM2?  In tests and in game it seems the F4F dives and has more control in a dive than the FM2.  Especially with 25% or less fuel.  What are your findings?
Title: Re: more F4Fs
Post by: Krusty on August 15, 2012, 11:24:38 AM
Just about the same airframe, but with a much more powerful engine, I'd assume the horsepower makes the FM2 dive better.

The weight of the guns did reduce performance a bit, but I believe in past discussions the USN felt the added firepower made up for that difference. Also remember the wings had a wing fold mechanism that also added weight. So overall the 6-gun, folding wing, f4f-4 was a bit heavier than the 4-gun, non-folding, f4f-3.
Title: Re: more F4Fs
Post by: Volron on August 15, 2012, 12:58:07 PM
Didn't the -4 actually have decreased range over the -3?  I recall reading that pilots preferred the -3 because it was a little more nimble and better range. :headscratch:
Title: Re: more F4Fs
Post by: Krusty on August 15, 2012, 01:22:19 PM
Only in as much as the extra weight reduced range slightly. Same tankage, same engine.
Title: Re: more F4Fs
Post by: Chilli on August 15, 2012, 01:24:24 PM
I would be up for more F4F's when HTC gets around to updating them. More for my A6M3 to shoot down during FSO.

But unless its uber and has a cannons it won't go over well on this board.


Thank god HTC runs the place  :rock

Hightone holds the golden hammer on this one.  Having said that, it no way reflects any of the comments so far in this thread. 

The argument to HTC could go something like:  How do you perceive the progression of future new aircraft models should go?  Fills a historic void in planeset?  Responds to customer requests?  Adds a new aspect to Main Arena game play?  Or, Chinese Restaurant Menu = 1 from column A and one from column B or C, etc.? 

Back to the good discussion here.  I love the Wildcat.  Would adding rocket options, while making the appropriate weight, flight physics, and Skinner's discretion, be adequate to fill the OP's request?  Or, would this only be complete if it is given a full .plane# and text buffer attribute FM1- MkV?

Title: Re: more F4Fs
Post by: Krusty on August 15, 2012, 01:34:49 PM
It's not worth it. They [rocket rails] weren't used very often if I recall. He's asking for more variety like there was a plethora of different marks, but they were the same airframe. About the same difference as a P-47D-30 and a P-47D-40, or even less difference!
Title: Re: more F4Fs
Post by: Chilli on August 18, 2012, 05:00:17 AM
 :O and I thought all this time the P47D25 replaced the P47D30.   ;)  What a surprise when the skin I was experimenting with bare metal skin was on the D30 and then one day an update and  :headscratch: I had a bunch of printshop pro files sitting on my computer and James Earl Jones voice in my head, "..... now your failure is complete."  :cry
Title: Re: more F4Fs
Post by: Greebo on August 18, 2012, 05:41:16 AM
I'd think it likely the F4F-3 and F4F-4 could be rolled into one AH model as a hangar armament option. The extra weight of the folding wings could be factored into the weight of the two extra guns. That and the FM-2 would be all that was needed really. Most Martlets were close enough to those three USN Wildcat variants that a different skin would do the job.
Title: Re: more F4Fs
Post by: Wmaker on August 18, 2012, 06:06:21 AM
I'd think it likely the F4F-3 and F4F-4 could be rolled into one AH model as a hangar armament option. The extra weight of the folding wings could be factored into the weight of the two extra guns. That and the FM-2 would be all that was needed really. Most Martlets were close enough to those three USN Wildcat variants that a different skin would do the job.

I agree unless four gun -4 is mean't to act as an FM-1.

Like it is said, F4F-3 was built in considerable smaller numbers than F4F-4 and phased out quite quickly in favor of the -4. In here it would be on interesting variant since the difference in weight between the -3 and the -4 is big.
Title: Re: more F4Fs
Post by: Karnak on August 18, 2012, 08:35:56 AM
I agree unless four gun -4 is mean't to act as an FM-1.

Like it is said, F4F-3 was built in considerable smaller numbers than F4F-4 and phased out quite quickly in favor of the -4. In here it would be on interesting variant since the difference in weight between the -3 and the -4 is big.
The problem I have with the F4F-3 is that it would be used in settings to gain non-historical advantages against the Japanese with none of the negatives.  Frequently I would expect the A6M2 player to be facing a mix of F4F-3s and F4F-4s, probably having the rarer but more agile F4F-3 making the bulk of any Wildcat force.
Title: Re: more F4Fs
Post by: Chilli on August 18, 2012, 09:30:07 AM
The problem I have with the F4F-3 is that it would be used in settings to gain non-historical advantages against the Japanese with none of the negatives.  Frequently I would expect the A6M2 player to be facing a mix of F4F-3s and F4F-4s, probably having the rarer but more agile F4F-3 making the bulk of any Wildcat force.

Correct me if I am wrong, I am basing this from my understanding that I am gathering through this thread alone.  F4F-4 would have 6 guns and folding wings.  The Martlet would have 4 guns, rocket rails and non-folding wings.  If the rocket rail package was only available in the hangar (in game) when 4 gun option is selected, AND only then would the weight reduction in the model be given to correspond to the fixed wing, wouldn't this negate most of the non-historical performance gain?

I recently flew a squad mission with the rockets selected by accident and was left in the dust! 
:airplane:  //////////////////////////////////  :airplane: "wai' fo' mEEEeeee"
Title: Re: more F4Fs
Post by: Karnak on August 18, 2012, 09:35:04 AM
Correct me if I am wrong, I am basing this from my understanding that I gathering through this thread alone.  F4F-4 would have 6 guns and folding wings.  The Martlet would have 4 guns, rocket rails and non-folding wings.  If the rocket rail package was only available in the hangar (in game) when 4 gun option is selected, AND only then would the weight reduction in the model be given to correspond to the fixed wing, wouldn't this negate most of the non-historical performance gain?

I recently flew a squad mission with the rockets selected by accident and was left in the dust! 
:airplane:  //////////////////////////////////  :airplane: "wai' fo' mEEEeeee"
The F4F-3 doesn't have rocket rails and isn't a Martlet Mk V.  The Martlet Mk V is the FM-1 Wildcat, which is just an F4F-4 with rocket capability.

At least that is what is said in this thread.
Title: Re: more F4Fs
Post by: Wmaker on August 18, 2012, 09:55:02 AM
The problem I have with the F4F-3 is that it would be used in settings to gain non-historical advantages against the Japanese with none of the negatives.  

Sure, at least people would request it but it would be the CMs/AvA-staff job to make sure it wouldn't happen. I know there has been requests for F4F-3 so that a Wildcat would compete with the Zeke better and those asking have conviniently forgotten the facts that it was relatively rare and phased out quickly. I was talking about MA-use.
Title: Re: more F4Fs
Post by: Karnak on August 18, 2012, 10:00:57 AM
Sure, at least people would request it but it would be the CMs/AvA-staff job to make sure it wouldn't happen. I know there has been requests for F4F-3 so that a Wildcat would compete with the Zeke better and those asking have conviniently forgotten the facts that it was relatively rare and phased out quickly. I was talking about MA-use.
Based on the misuse of the B239 in Pacific and CBI settings I have zero faith that the CMs or AvA staff would do their jobs.
Title: Re: more F4Fs
Post by: surfinn on August 18, 2012, 10:06:22 AM
More info about F4Fs and Martlets

http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=89
Title: Re: more F4Fs
Post by: Tracerfi on August 18, 2012, 10:07:35 AM
Based on the misuse of the B239 in Pacific and CBI settings I have zero faith that the CMs or AvA staff would do their jobs.
the F2A Buffalo  did see some carrier service
Title: Re: more F4Fs
Post by: The Fugitive on August 18, 2012, 10:13:43 AM
the F2A Buffalo  did see some carrier service


open mouth, insert foot........ again  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: more F4Fs
Post by: Karnak on August 18, 2012, 10:19:40 AM
the F2A Buffalo  did see some carrier service
It did not.

The F2A-3, which is a far, far different beast than the B239, saw combat, its only combat in US hands, flying from the Midway islands.  The subbing of the B239 for the F2A-3 or B339E is inappropriate and yet is done consistently.
Title: Re: more F4Fs
Post by: Tracerfi on August 18, 2012, 10:24:02 AM
The Brewster F2A Buffalo was an American fighter aircraft which saw limited service early in World War II. It was one of the first U.S. World War II monoplanes with an arrestor hook and other modifications for aircraft carriers.
Top speed: 321 mph (517 km/h)
Length: 26' 4" (8.03 m)
First flight: December 2, 1937
Last flight: 1948
Introduced: April 1939
Manufacturer: Brewster Aeronautical Corporation

I found facts

Title: Re: more F4Fs
Post by: The Fugitive on August 18, 2012, 10:30:56 AM
We don't have a Buffalo F2A, which was a pig. We have the Brewster B239 which was a striped down and modified version that was a completely different plane and flew much better. It's like comparing an F4F-4 with an F4U-4.
Title: Re: more F4Fs
Post by: Chilli on August 18, 2012, 10:35:02 AM
The F4F-3 doesn't have rocket rails and isn't a Martlet Mk V.  The Martlet Mk V is the FM-1 Wildcat, which is just an F4F-4 with rocket capability.

At least that is what is said in this thread.


Thank you Karnak.  I stand corrected and now accordingly ask that if rocket rails were only available in the hangar for the F4F-4 if the 6 gun package was selected, wouldn't a weight adjustment for the lighter fixed wing provide the desired performance levels?
Title: Re: more F4Fs
Post by: Karnak on August 18, 2012, 10:37:05 AM
The Brewster F2A Buffalo was an American fighter aircraft which saw limited service early in World War II. It was one of the first U.S. World War II monoplanes with an arrestor hook and other modifications for aircraft carriers.
Top speed: 321 mph (517 km/h)
Length: 26' 4" (8.03 m)
First flight: December 2, 1937
Last flight: 1948
Introduced: April 1939
Manufacturer: Brewster Aeronautical Corporation

I found facts



Dig deeper.
Title: Re: more F4Fs
Post by: surfinn on August 18, 2012, 10:59:03 AM
Karnack the F4f-4 and FM1 were essentially the same with one big difference, the horse power. I think the F4F-3 fixed wing would be a great addition to the game.
The article I posted in post number 36 gives a lot of info about the wildcats.

I think its also note worthy that the F3F was the first US built ac to claim a air to air victory in WW 2, over Scapa Flow in 1940 as a Martlet MK 1. It shot a ju88 down.
Title: Re: more F4Fs
Post by: Karnak on August 18, 2012, 11:08:28 AM

Thank you Karnak.  I stand corrected and now accordingly ask that if rocket rails were only available in the hangar for the F4F-4 if the 6 gun package was selected, wouldn't a weight adjustment for the lighter fixed wing provide the desired performance levels?

Well, the goals of the posters here are different.  People asking for the F4F-3 want it as it would be a more competitive F4F and would do better against A6Ms.  I am disagreeing with that as I think it would be used inappropriately to mitigate the turning disadvantage of the F4F vs the A6M.
Title: Re: more F4Fs
Post by: Shifty on August 18, 2012, 11:27:07 AM
I found facts

Yes you did, you found...


The Brewster F2A Buffalo was an American fighter aircraft which saw limited service early in World War II. It was one of the first U.S. World War II monoplanes with an arrestor hook and other modifications for aircraft carriers.
Top speed: 321 mph (517 km/h)
Length: 26' 4" (8.03 m)
First flight: December 2, 1937
Last flight: 1948
Introduced: April 1939
Manufacturer: Brewster Aeronautical Corporation

You failed to find information to back this statement up though.

the F2A Buffalo  did see some carrier service

You seem to jump off in a lot of threads half cocked and under informed.
Title: Re: more F4Fs
Post by: Tracerfi on August 18, 2012, 11:33:51 AM
It was one of the first U.S. World War II monoplanes with an arrestor hook and other modifications for aircraft carriers.


there
Title: Re: more F4Fs
Post by: surfinn on August 18, 2012, 11:41:52 AM
Well, the goals of the posters here are different.  People asking for the F4F-3 want it as it would be a more competitive F4F and would do better against A6Ms.  I am disagreeing with that as I think it would be used inappropriately to mitigate the turning disadvantage of the F4F vs the A6M.

I want it for its use in just about all the scenarios we do here as well as fso. I don't see it being a big advantage over the zero any more than the FM2 is now. Like the F4F and FM2 if you don't keep your speed up against a zero your dead meat to any experienced zero pilot. I also don't see it being used in the MA that often either.
Id also like to see it here if for no other reason than it was the first US produced ac to claim a air to air victory in 1940 as a martlet MK 1
Title: Re: more F4Fs
Post by: Shifty on August 18, 2012, 11:43:45 AM
there

So when did the F2A operate from CVs in WWII again?
When the B-239 ever operate from US Carriers period?
Title: Re: more F4Fs
Post by: surfinn on August 18, 2012, 11:45:31 AM
Shifty if you will look at the article I posted in Post number 36 it has a lot of info on the F2a and its competitor the F4f-3
Title: Re: more F4Fs
Post by: Shifty on August 18, 2012, 11:49:58 AM
In 1940, deliveries began of 43 F2A-2 fighters, which had the 1200 horsepower Wright "Cyclone" engine in place of the F2A-1's 950 horsepower version, plus numerous other improvements. Eight F2A-1s were also rebuilt to F2A-2 standards. Initially serving with VF-3 and USS Lexington's VF-2, this model was a fast, nimble and well-armed fighting plane, though plagued (as were subsequent F2As) with an overly-delicate retractable landing gear and a maintenance-hungry powerplant.

The Navy ordered a final 108 Brewster fighters in January 1941. These F2A-3s featured a longer fuselage, increased fuel and ammunition capacity, additional armor and considerably greater weight. Range was better, but speed, maneuverability, climb rate and service ceiling were substantially degraded. By the beginning of the Pacific War, the F2A, by then also known by the popular name "Buffalo", was passing out of carrier squadron service in favor of the F4F-3. The "Buffalos" were transferred to the Marines, who assigned them to units defending Pacific island bases.

The Brewster fighter's only U.S. combat use, on 4 June 1942 during the Battle of Midway, dramatically showed the inferiority of the F2A-3 when confronted by the Japanese Navy's "Zero" carrier fighters and well-trained aviators. In a brief battle against greatly superior numbers, Midway Island's Marine Fighting Squadron 221 (VMF-221) lost thirteen of twenty F2A-3s. Soon after, the "Buffalo" was removed from combat units and assigned to advanced training duty. In that role, it helped new U.S. fighter pilots enhance their skills before they joined operational squadrons. The aging F2A-2s and F2A-3s remained in the training mission into 1943, and a few were still in service in 1944-45.
Title: Re: more F4Fs
Post by: Karnak on August 18, 2012, 12:29:10 PM
I want it for its use in just about all the scenarios we do here as well as fso. I don't see it being a big advantage over the zero any more than the FM2 is now. Like the F4F and FM2 if you don't keep your speed up against a zero your dead meat to any experienced zero pilot. I also don't see it being used in the MA that often either.
Id also like to see it here if for no other reason than it was the first US produced ac to claim a air to air victory in 1940 as a martlet MK 1
You're focusing on one versus one too much.  Sure, one on one the A6M2 demolishes any F4F, but in practice the F4F is so tough that the A6M2 has a very hard time dispatching it before another F4F saddles up on it and flames it.  The F4F-3, about which you say "I want it for its use in just about all the scenarios we do here as well as fso.", would narrow the performance difference between the F4F and A6M reducing the time it takes the F4F to saddle up on the A6M on your buddy.
Title: Re: more F4Fs
Post by: surfinn on August 18, 2012, 12:43:35 PM
Well I've noticed how bad the f4fs in the wrong hands get pounded by zeros and KIs in the FSO anyway. I'm sure you wouldn't mind the challenge of having a lighter weight lighter armoured version of the f4f-4. Note the F4f-3 doses not have self sealing gas tanks and has lighter armour. I might also point out how the article mentioned this ac and it variants as being used in every major ambhibious assalt in the Euro theater. So I'm not thinking in terms of its use as solely in the pacific theater.

Oh to krusty I stand corrected sir I based original post on a article about all the variants of the martlet and jumped to a conclusion, I shouldn't have. I stand corrected.