Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: SmokinLoon on October 18, 2012, 02:31:40 PM
-
the He 111.
You saw it here first. :aok
-
And I hope your prediction is incorrect :pray
-
he-111 was a revamped airliner, had limited range, poor defensive weapons, and small bomb load, lets hope they keep it out
-
he-111 was a revamped airliner, had limited range, poor defensive weapons, and small bomb load, lets hope they keep it out
But then again...don't all airplanes have limited range?
-
he-111 was a revamped airliner
Not really.
The first concepts were for a fast passenger plane, but it was designed to be a bomber from the start, the first prototype being one.
Examples for a passenger plane coverted to bomber would be the Ju-52 or the FW 200
-
But then again...don't all airplanes have limited range?
Beaufighter range would be longer. I vote Beaufighter :)
-
BoB scenarios need the He-111 badly. It'd be a welcome addition.
-
Not really.
The first concepts were for a fast passenger plane, but it was designed to be a bomber from the start, the first prototype being one.
Examples for a passenger plane coverted to bomber would be the Ju-52 or the FW 200
The only reason they were labeled passenger planes was because of the stigma of letting Germans build bombers. They were designed to be bombers that could be disguised as civilian planes to calm the outside world's reaction. I think the Ju-52 was the same.
I do hope we get 2 new variants (at least) of a plane we already have: The Ju-88!
I hope they remodel the Ju88 and give us:
1) the current Ju88A-4, which really is more of a 1941 design
2) the Ju88A-1, with less horsepower, less wing area, less defensive guns, which was a BOB participant
3) the Ju188, which started replacing Ju88s in 1943 as one of the main bombers of the LW, but shares similar shape.
Much as I'd love Beaufighters, Heinkels, Kis, and all sorts, I think this Ju88 expansion would fill a bunch of areas we need fleshed out, as well as update an old 1st-gen 3D model.
P.S. Even though He111 would be great for BOB, Ju-88A-1 would lessen that need slightly. It is a better fit for BOB than what we have.
-
My guess is we will see a foreign bird, not US. Likely something Russian or maybe that French D.520. I suppose another Japanese fighter would make sense.
Boo
-
Another German plane?
-
He111 would be an excellent addition.
-
I predict the next plane will be... new planes into the WW1 arena to bring people there.
LawnDart
-
I'd like to see the He-111 added and the Hurricane 3D model redone...then do a BoB scenario!
-
Beaufighter range would be longer. I vote Beaufighter :)
I think you missed the joke.
-
I predict the next plane will be... new planes into the WW1 arena to bring people there.
LawnDart
Nope
Would be a huge waste of time considering RoF already does it better with no subscription
-
Hurri and 110 redone, Tu-2 added :aok
-
I do hope the hurri and 110 are redone soon. Hurr retains E too well. Both seem to roll too well, and I think the 110 is too manueverable in one axis. Can't recall which. pitch, perhaps? Bringing them up to modern specs means also revisiting their questionable flight models which have been pointed out as wrong for many years. That would truly change the dynamics of the BOB scenario, for sure!
P.S. Both have several versions that could be added during update, as well!
-
:huh :huh :huh TA-183 ! :banana: :banana: :banana: Look it up! :neener: :neener: :neener: :neener: :neener: :neener:
-
You are all wrong! It will be the Soul Plane! :aok
(http://blogs.centrictv.com/shows/oncentric/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/soulplane.jpg)
-
Hopefully it's the Ki-43.
ack-ack
-
he-111 was a revamped airliner, had limited range, poor defensive weapons, and small bomb load, lets hope they keep it out
Oh, how you are misinformed. Please read up on what it had for capabilities. :D
For starters, it could carry up to 4400 lbs (2000kg) of ordnance in a typical loading. In later variants it mounted bomb racks on the exterior for a loading of up to 7900 lbs (3600kg). Those two loadings match the B26 and B24 in terms of ordnance carried. Not bad it all. It is also in the same category in terms of speed as most other medium and heavy bombers. Climb rate is not all that far out of line either. Oh, and it did have a 20mm defensive gun mounted in a ventral position in later variants. In terms of range it had more than the B26, so why is that a problem??? No, I dont think it is too far out of line with the other typical bomber in AH.
It would fill a HUGE gap in the plane set, and European scenarios will be far more "whole".
-
No, I dont think it is too far out of line with the other typical bomber in AH.
It's quite far out of the line compared to the most commonly used bombers in AH.
It would fill a HUGE gap in the plane set, and European scenarios will be far more "whole".
It would 'fill' the smallest existing gap in the AH bomber plane set. A russian bomber would fill a huge gap. Or a capable mid/late war german bomber.
-
The only reason they were labeled passenger planes was because of the stigma of letting Germans build bombers. They were designed to be bombers that could be disguised as civilian planes to calm the outside world's reaction. I think the Ju-52 was the same.
I do hope we get 2 new variants (at least) of a plane we already have: The Ju-88!
I hope they remodel the Ju88 and give us:
1) the current Ju88A-4, which really is more of a 1941 design
2) the Ju88A-1, with less horsepower, less wing area, less defensive guns, which was a BOB participant
3) the Ju188, which started replacing Ju88s in 1943 as one of the main bombers of the LW, but shares similar shape.
Much as I'd love Beaufighters, Heinkels, Kis, and all sorts, I think this Ju88 expansion would fill a bunch of areas we need fleshed out, as well as update an old 1st-gen 3D model.
P.S. Even though He111 would be great for BOB, Ju-88A-1 would lessen that need slightly. It is a better fit for BOB than what we have.
Agreed on all points. <S>
-
more late war monsters are in need, i say next edition will be A-26 :bolt:
-
I actually think varients of existing AC should start to be explored for addition. Top of my head - B25, B17, P51, F6F, 190, Ju88, Yak, Mossie, Lanc... there are really too many to list, but many if not a few I think would be very good.
-
If the Yak-3 makes it in (which is my prediction of the next plane being added), I will do exactly this: Amputate my arms so I have nothing but a head and torso, grow thick, brown-spotted skin, call myself a potato and then roll off happily into the sunset being a happy potato whom has gotten a Yak-3.
-
I do hope the hurri and 110 are redone soon. Hurr retains E too well. Both seem to roll too well, and I think the 110 is too manueverable in one axis. Can't recall which. pitch, perhaps? Bringing them up to modern specs means also revisiting their questionable flight models which have been pointed out as wrong for many years. That would truly change the dynamics of the BOB scenario, for sure!
P.S. Both have several versions that could be added during update, as well!
I have always felt that the 110s flight model was a bit off (especially the c4b). I am not basing this off facts of any kind, though.
-
You are all wrong! It will be the Soul Plane! :aok
(http://blogs.centrictv.com/shows/oncentric/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/soulplane.jpg)
:pray
-
I actually think varients of existing AC should start to be explored for addition. Top of my head - B25, B17, P51, F6F, 190, Ju88, Yak, Mossie, Lanc... there are really too many to list, but many if not a few I think would be very good.
While I agree in principle, I don't think we need any other variant of the lancaster or really even the B-17. Effectively speaking the main difference between F and G on the B-17 were weapons loadouts. At least with some variants there is a performance difference that isn't as easily substituted. B-17F would be a nice luxury but very low on the priority list.
-
I want them ALL! :D :devil
-
There are very few monsters left to add while many of you appear to be bored with the existing toys already. All of you are within reason locked into your skill levels with the existing monsters. The Meteor and A26 would introduce a slight new monster dynamic in the speed and fire power relms they would slot into. The A26 would be abused and become the base takers easy mode perked ride dejour. The Meteor would be one more jet powered greif machine with a big target on it's pilot's perk bank. The usual group of 262 suspects would add it to their greifer forays.
No matter what HTC updates or adds to the arena, all of you enjoy those first few uses of it for the novelty before your short attention spans kick into BORING Mode and your tollerance for your arse being kicked or the effort to kill anything is reached. Most of the aircraft that remain to be added which can be considered reasonably viable for this game will not make anyone an overnight uber stick. The weaknesses will be rapidly discovered and exploited. And a small following will become loyal while the rest of you saddel up in your late war monsters to take advantage of their charity to your greed.
-
If the Yak-3 makes it in (which is my prediction of the next plane being added), I will do exactly this: Amputate my arms so I have nothing but a head and torso, grow thick, brown-spotted skin, call myself a potato and then roll off happily into the sunset being a happy potato whom has gotten a Yak-3.
You will have legs too. Also, should this come to pass, methinks you will not be so happy a potato without the arms to manage the hands which will be required to operate the joystick. ANY joystick. Not a real well thought out plan, you gonna be bummin' this plane comes out next.
Bob
-
:frown: I WANTZ THE C.200 Saetta
-
You will have legs too. Also, should this come to pass, methinks you will not be so happy a potato without the arms to manage the hands which will be required to operate the joystick. ANY joystick. Not a real well thought out plan, you gonna be bummin' this plane comes out next.
Bob
Sorry, in my excitement I had forgotten to amputate my legs. When I come across a few band-saws i'll go up and cut 'em off.
-
It's quite far out of the line compared to the most commonly used bombers in AH.
You're tying to argue that it wont be used in the MA because it lags behind far enough in performance that it will be a hanger queen more so than the other medium bombers it is going to compete with? Vs B26? B25? G4M? Boston? Light weight Ju88's (w/o 50kg bombs), Ki67's, etc? The He111 will have its own niche, just like everything else.
I feel not having the He 111 in the bomber set is like leaving the Ford Mustang or Chevy Corvette out of a show about classic American sports cars.
The Tu-2 and Wellington would be good to add as well, but the He 111 will be first. :aok
-
I have to many things to list....
I would love to have C.202/C.205 upgraded, drop tanks added, maybe a G.55 in addition..
Yak-3 added if not LaGG-3
Ju-88 upgrade would be a plus!
Ki-43 series would be nice..
I haven't seen a fighter/bomber combo added in Aces high that I can remember off hand, would give plenty of toys to play with =)
-
You're tying to argue that it wont be used in the MA because it lags behind far enough in performance that it will be a hanger queen more so than the other medium bombers it is going to compete with? Vs B26? B25? G4M? Boston? Light weight Ju88's (w/o 50kg bombs), Ki67's, etc? The He111 will have its own niche, just like everything else.
Niche is the correct word, he low performance means it won't be getting great usage in the place where more than 90% of the activity takes place. We already have one German early war bomber. There is a big gap between the Ju-88 and the Arado 234, the He 11 won't fill that. Not to speak of other, even bigger gaps in other nation's plane sets.
-
You're tying to argue that it wont be used in the MA because it lags behind far enough in performance that it will be a hanger queen
Lusche didn't mention the MA
But MA usage is a good point - I would much prefer for planes to be added that will actually get significant amounts of use by players
-
I'd say the HE-111 or the Beaufighter
Purely because they are consistently the most wished for, the most iconic and indeed the sexiest.
The AH2 community has been crying out for the HE-111 for years, I want them to release an EW and MW HE-111, the one with torpedos, extra horsepower, and 20mms. And the Classic BoB model.
I would fly HE-111's in Preference to JU-88's any day.
-
did anyone do a comparison of the Beaufighter and Me410? hate to see another drag get added :(
-
Usage suggests a redone Lancaster would be a good bet.
-
By looking at the new trains & trucks, and HT's recent comments on further work on the strat system, the next update could possibly be one without a new plane/GV... :old:
-
(http://www.cbrnp.com/profiles/quarter2/westland_whirlwinds/whirlwind-6.jpg)
(http://1000aircraftphotos.com/APS/2115L.jpg)
(http://www.pewteraircraft.com/RAF/WHIRLWIND/WHIRLWIND-bw.jpg)
[/thread]
-
(http://www.cbrnp.com/profiles/quarter2/westland_whirlwinds/whirlwind-6.jpg)
(http://1000aircraftphotos.com/APS/2115L.jpg)
(http://www.pewteraircraft.com/RAF/WHIRLWIND/WHIRLWIND-bw.jpg)
[/thread]
NO. NO. NO. ALL OF MY NO.
Instead, how about this sexy beast?
(http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i336/igotafro/YAK3.jpg)
Why? Because its just better. That's why.
-
(http://www.cbrnp.com/profiles/quarter2/westland_whirlwinds/whirlwind-6.jpg)
(http://1000aircraftphotos.com/APS/2115L.jpg)
(http://www.pewteraircraft.com/RAF/WHIRLWIND/WHIRLWIND-bw.jpg)
[/thread]
My word NrShida has made a mess :old:
-
[/thread]
:rock :aok
Although I can't quite reach Bustr's level of bitter cynicism, I do slightly agree that with hardly any late war BnZ monsters left to include, anything lesser is going to be gobbled up by the Dicta Boelcke masses, but maybe that's the point, those die hard fans of specific and arguably less competitive aircraft are needed, otherwise you'd only end up fighting five or six aircraft in the MA (for example).
That's the reason I support the Westland Whirlwind, it's (relatively) slow, climbs poorly, and has a small clip, but I think I could have a lot of fun with a tiny twin engine fighter with that huge Fowler and that gun package, for at least several minutes before 8000 50 cals show up from several directions simultaneously. :eek:
Plus we made the best Wishlist thread in the history of Wishlist threads:-
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,313538.0.html
:banana:
-
My guess is we will see a foreign bird, not US. Likely something Russian or maybe that French D.520. I suppose another Japanese fighter would make sense.
Boo
I have been absent for more than a year due to work, lots of bad luck, and other personal issues...but I hope to return soon and I agree with you. I think the Russian Plane set needs a Bomber such as the PE-2 or TU-2 and I would not mind seeing the D.520...although I still vote for the Beaufighter to be added to the Plane set. I took out a book from the Library and while I cannot find it right this second, there is an AMAZING picture of a flight of Beaufighters just beating the living hell out of a German Convoy in the English Channel.
-
My guess is we will see a foreign bird, not US. Likely something Russian or maybe that French D.520. I suppose another Japanese fighter would make sense.
Boo
I have been absent for more than a year due to work, lots of bad luck, and other personal issues...but I hope to return soon and I agree with you. I think the Russian Plane set needs a Bomber such as the PE-2 or TU-2 and I would not mind seeing the D.520...although I still vote for the Beaufighter to be added to the Plane set. I took out a book from the Library and while I cannot find it right this second, there is an AMAZING picture of a flight of Beaufighters just beating the living hell out of a German Convoy in the English Channel.
-
Did you have a cold shower Shida :old:
-
Did you have a cold shower Shida :old:
Had too, coooor, look at the nacelles on that one :D
-
Whatever was on the last official poll by HTC will be the next we see in game, Yak 3, Beaufighter were two of them?
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AN1-5BP0xSU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AN1-5BP0xSU)
Yeah Baby!
-
Yak3 would be excellent a people plane :old:
-
pffft, it's only got one engine :rofl
-
It just dawned on me, of all the planes, the one that needs-a-fix is the Ar234. I'll put $5 on consistency. :devil
-
You are all wrong! It will be the Soul Plane! :aok
(http://blogs.centrictv.com/shows/oncentric/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/soulplane.jpg)
Never saw combat in squadron strength .
-
While I really want to see the He-111, I think the "next plane" will be a remodel of the Lancaster and/or the B-26. :) If the He-111 is added though, for one tour (full tour; not the rest of when ever it's introduced), the ONLY thing I will fly will be it. :D Though that might not mean a lot since I don't get to fly as often as I wish. :(
-
I think it's high time we had a new fighter :old:
-
I think it's high time we had a new fighter :old:
or a 4 20mm variant of the KI84 :joystick:
-
Next plane will be the B25J. It's the most needed aircraft and would also fill the biggest gap.
That gap being the left and right stabilizers with 2 50 Cals.
-
I think it's high time we had a new fighter :old:
We had one in the last update! :old:
-
did anyone do a comparison of the Beaufighter and Me410? hate to see another drag get added :(
If you don't like the Beaufighter, don't fly it. That way it will effect your game exactly like it does now, not at all.
-
Yak-3 and Beaufighter. Poor Hajo and Guppy have been waiting for the Beau for 10+ years :cry
-
We had one in the last update! :old:
Should we really consider something a fighter when it is slower and less maneuverable than some contemporary multi-engined bombers?
-
The 410 handles like an overloaded Banglasdeshi ferry.
One of these would be nice:
Boomerang
G.55
Yak 3
IAR 81C
Upgrading the old models would be nice too.
-
The 410 handles like an overloaded Banglasdeshi ferry.
One of these would be nice:
Boomerang
G.55
Yak 3
IAR 81C
Upgrading the old models would be nice too.
You accidentally left off the Ki-43-II, Ki-44-II and J2M3/J2M5.
-
The 410 handles like an overloaded Banglasdeshi ferry....
:rofl
-
You accidentally left off the Ki-43-II, Ki-44-II and J2M3/J2M5.
Was only stating my preference. The Boomerang would only have a small cult following, but I would fly it. The other three planes would get some decent use.
Still not sold on the Ki-43. It would turn like a frisbee, but the weak firepower and lack of speed give it less of a chance than an A6M2 or C.202. The other Japaneesy planes would get used.
-
Should we really consider something a fighter when it is slower and less maneuverable than some contemporary multi-engined bombers?
Guess the P-40C ain't a fighter as well then :P
Nobody said "good fighter" or "supreme air superiority fighter". Just because some people are disappointed, it doesn't make it a bomber, and last time i checked it was still put under 'fighter' in the hangar ;)
-
Not that I disagree with you as my post was in jest, but which contemporary multi-engined bomber out performs the P-40C?
-
B-38 :noid
-
B-38 :noid
I don't think the B-38 is contemporary. The earliest B-38 we have is the B-38G from 1943. P-40C is really a 1940 or 1941 version.
-
By the way, I took a look at the archives. The additions in the past 2 years:
4 fighters
4 bombers/attackers
4 vehicles
Time for a new ship I'd say... ;)
-
I don't think the B-38 is contemporary. The earliest B-38 we have is the B-38G from 1943. P-40C is really a 1940 or 1941 version.
In AH it's contemporary, both fly in EW arena :noid
-
In AH it's contemporary, both fly in EW arena :noid
Ah. I was thinking the Boston Mk III might out perform the P-40C.
-
Ah. I was thinking the Boston Mk III might out perform the P-40C.
/serious mode ON
In some aspects it does. The Boston is faster up to about 13K and can even outclimb the 40C at up to about 5K
-
Guess the P-40C ain't a fighter as well then :P
I said new fighter, not a variant :old:
-
I said new fighter, not a variant :old:
You are quoting out of context. The 40C isn't the new fighter we got last update. The 410 is, and it ain't a variant :)
-
The 410 is
:rofl :rofl Good one! And they say you Germans have no sense of humour :rofl :rofl :salute
-
:rofl :rofl Good one! And they say you Germans have no sense of humour :rofl :rofl :salute
That saying is right! :old:
-
New P-40 variants and remodel, New P-47 variants, New A6M variant and remodel...
My point is if the P-47s we have don't interest me very much, I'm hardly going to be drawn to fly a new variant a lot. Apart from the Brewster and that hideous Russian convertible, when did we last receive a new fighter airframe? :old:
-
Me410
:p
-
Apart from the Brewster and that hideous Russian convertible, when did we last receive a new fighter airframe? :old:
AH is getting like real life... I'm being increasingly ignored :cry
-
Cobblers!
The Germans even removed it from service because its k/d ratio was so poor :old:
Not ignoring you Lusche, old bean, just the meaning of fighter to me is something that can actually put up a fight :salute
-
Not ignoring you Lusche, old bean, just the meaning of fighter to me is something that can actually put up a fight :salute
That's more the definition of a "good fighter". Following your argumentation, we could again drop a few single engine fighters in AH from the "fighter" list...
The 410 can put up a fight in AH. It's just somewhat difficult. But it was being designed and used to combat enemy planes, and it is being used that way in AH. Chris3 has 469 kills to 280 deaths in it. Even I have 101 kills in it, and against enemy fighters I still have a 3-1 k/d
Addendum:
This is an excerpt from last tours fighter kill list. Second row is number of air to air kills, third row is air to ground. As you can see, the 410 did see quite a good portion of fighter usage...
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/exc_zps0a4d8f65.jpg)
-
or a 4 20mm variant of the KI84 :joystick:
I really don't want you to have that :D
-
Guess the P-40C ain't a fighter as well then :P
Nobody said "good fighter" or "supreme air superiority fighter". Just because some people are disappointed, it doesn't make it a bomber, and last time i checked it was still put under 'fighter' in the hangar ;)
I've been having quite a bit of fun in the P-40C this tour. It isnt nearly half as bad as I think the reputation that it has been given.
-
It isnt nearly half as bad as I think the reputation that it has been given.
Just as the Me 410 :)
-
That's more the definition of a "good fighter". Following your argumentation, we could again drop a few single engine fighters in AH from the "fighter" list...
Not really, more a definition of an aircraft which falls below the classification of a fighter I should say. Didn't the Germans drop the 'heavy fighter' concept as a consequence of the 410? Even some of AH's die hard Luft fans seem disillusioned with it now that it is here.
Sorry Lusche but I don't place much value on a score table to be a informative measure of how much of a 'fighter' an aircraft is.
P.S. A vertical list of figures is a column, rows are horizontal :salute
-
Not really, more a definition of an aircraft which falls below the classification of a fighter I should say. Didn't the Germans drop the 'heavy fighter' concept as a consequence of the 410? Even some of AH's die hard Luft fans seem disillusioned with it now that it is here.
You are still trying to define a "good fighter". The fact that the 410 was phased out due to heavy losses doen't change the fact it was designed and USED as a fighter. When the Gladiator or Defiant was removed from the front lines, did that mean they weren't fighters?
-
Sorry Lusche, I just don't see the 410 as a fighter any way you want to present it. I think the whole design was a little confused and far too compromised from the get go.
I'd much rather have seen the Gladiator or the Defiant, the Ki-100, the Westland Whirlwind (my personal fav), the D.520 or even something like the Fairy Firefly included. I'm not sure any of those could be classed as good fighters or in the case of the Firefly even as a fighter, but I'm sure I'd have more fun in those doing ACM than in a big heavy old bus with lots of armament options.
-
:bhead
-
I think we simply have incompatible philosophies which make discussion difficult. :salute
-
Woot He 111!
Event junky approves :aok
-
I really don't want you to have that :D
you are a meanie :cry
-
the He 111.
You saw it here first. :aok
i'd like to see some older japanese stuff. maybe one of the 41-42 era ki's.......
-
Fiat G.55!!
-
We NEED the 111,and we have needed it for a long time.
-
Regardless of any view as to the performance of the HE-111 it still belongs in the game. I was always amazed it was not the very first German bomber to be put in AH many years ago and is the equivalent of having no Spitfires. The very sight of the HE-111 says The Luftwaffe and WWII.
-
That saying is right! :old:
Your German? My word! :old:
-
AH is getting like real life... I'm being increasingly ignored :cry
I always listen to you Lusche :)
-
The next plane added will be a submarine . ( and some artillary )
-
Regardless of any view as to the performance of the HE-111 it still belongs in the game. I was always amazed it was not the very first German bomber to be put in AH many years ago and is the equivalent of having no Spitfires. The very sight of the HE-111 says The Luftwaffe and WWII.
The Ju88 was the more significant bomber for the Luftwaffe for most of the war and it makes sense that the Ju88 was the first German bomber added. Not having the He111 is more like not having the Wellington.
-
I'd really like to see updates to the some of the Ancient Ones. The B-26, for example. Or update the Ki.61 and its a relatively a small step to add the Ki.100, since they share the same fuselage and cockpit, only differing by grafting a radial engine onto the frame in place of the inline mill. And probably the C.202 and C.205 are so similar much of the effort could be shared between the two...
-
I'd really like to see updates to the some of the Ancient Ones. The B-26, for example. Or update the Ki.61 and its a relatively a small step to add the Ki.100, since they share the same fuselage and cockpit, only differing by grafting a radial engine onto the frame in place of the inline mill. And probably the C.202 and C.205 are so similar much of the effort could be shared between the two...
The B-26 and C.20X have the oldest 3D models left in AH, both being from AH v1.00. The Lancaster Mk III and Ju88A-4 are both from v1.04 and the Lancaster is the most used AH1 model left in the game.
As to the Ki-61 and Ki-100, they are more different than that. The Ki-100 was built out of Ki-61-II fuselages, not Ki-61-I fuselages, thus having a cut down rear fuselage for better visibility.
-
Incorrect. The Ki-100 was built off Ki-61 fuselages. During the production they cut down the back of the fuselage. It didn't start that way. Not many of those were done.
Plus, it's a 1942 design with a 1941 engine if I recall, and the only reason folks want it is because of an absolutely fabricated history and mythos that internet lies and bad historians have propogated. It would be less effective than our current Ki-61. If we got new variants of our Ki-61, including the earlier lighter versions, it (the Ki-100) would be worse in all aspects.
-
Incorrect. The Ki-100 was built off Ki-61 fuselages. During the production they cut down the back of the fuselage. It didn't start that way. Not many of those were done.
Plus, it's a 1942 design with a 1941 engine if I recall, and the only reason folks want it is because of an absolutely fabricated history and mythos that internet lies and bad historians have propogated. It would be less effective than our current Ki-61. If we got new variants of our Ki-61, including the earlier lighter versions, it (the Ki-100) would be worse in all aspects.
I'd forgotten about the cut-down rear fuselage (thanks Karnak), but that would be the one I'd prefer for the improved rear visibility. I agree the performance would not be on par with late-war designs (despite the hype) but I expect it could probably out climb the Ki.61 since its lighter and has a few hundred more horsepower. (Sorry I can't fact check that asumption apart from wiki atm). I also hope for flexible armament arrangements on the Ki.61 -- the ability to choose either wing or nose-mounted 20mm, or 4x12.7mm machine guns.
It's just such an attractive way to give the JAAF another fighter at a bargain cost, in terms of HTC's workload.
-
The most fun about anything new or art refurbished in this game is the first week where everyone trys it out. That first week with the Storch was a gass. Some of the lesser performance highly requested rides would make memorable first week adventures. I bet the Oscar will replace the Brewster as the "Most Irritating Ride in Aces High".
And the arena will be wall to wall Yak3 for the first week becasue of all the hype about it being a love child gone twisted between the spit16 and an La7. The fun will be most players will have a longer learning curve than expected, challenged by the gunnery model, then entertain the real predators stalling it into the buses low and slow thinking it's spit16 mother's side of the family will translate directly into bush trimming. The forum discussions may be choice and memorable.
I hope everyone gets what they want. The fun is watching the HTC christmass morning show with the new toys and everyones antics during that short but glowing love affair with anything new in the game. It's a week of almost everyone remembering why they like to play Aces High.
I wish HTC would post up a few previews of coming attractions. Thats as good in here as watching a bunch of guys in a sports bar seeing a Fredericks of Hollywood commercial. Those commercials sell at least one round of beer on their own. W@U@T
-
Ki 44!
-
I vote any plane that helps the best part of AH..............
scenarios, FSO's and other events.
The day Hitec picks planes because of the MA, that will be the day AH dies.
-
Mavis!
-
nah bring in thje mustang wwsith 4x20mm
we usedto have for i thinkgropu8nd atack
-
(http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/3563/whirlwind36.jpg)
[/thread]
-
I vote any plane that helps the best part of AH..............
scenarios, FSO's and other events.
The day Hitec picks planes because of the MA, that will be the day AH dies.
Another vote for the HE 111
-
I've been having quite a bit of fun in the P-40C this tour. It isnt nearly half as bad as I think the reputation that it has been given.
That can be said of most aircraft. The thing is though it has a much smaller bag of tricks to use then most other aircraft especially once out of the EW arena. Snap shots are hard because of the lack of "insta-damage" (no cannon or massed .50 cal fire). It isn't going to keep up with anything in the vertical, all a Spitfire or 109 has to do is start spiraling upwards. It doesn't really have the gun package to hammer ground targets, thankfully the C version can carry a 500 lb bomb. It can roll well *enough*, dive well *enough*, and does have a good turn radius albeit being rather slow in that tight turn. Anything the P40C can out turn can probably keep up with it in a larger diameter turn but still move fast enough to not fall behind.
I like the P40C, there is something certainly fulfilling to land a few legit kills in it.
-
I'd love to see the He-111 and I'd like to see the mirrors attached to the Hurris and Spits as well :aok
-
wish HTC would post up a few previews of coming attractions.
:pray
-
Incorrect. The Ki-100 was built off Ki-61 fuselages. During the production they cut down the back of the fuselage. It didn't start that way. Not many of those were done.
Karnak is correct. Ki-100s were built from Ki-61-II fuselages. The small number of complete Ki-61-IIs built featured both type of fuselages, the cut down ones and the high back ones being the vast majority. Ki-100 line featured both types aswell.
-------------
I hope the next totally new plane will be Ki-43.
-
Didn't realize the Oscar shot down more allied A/C than any other Japanese aircraft.
"in spite of its drawbacks, the Ki-43 shot down more Allied aircraft than any other Japanese fighter and almost all the JAAF'S aces achieved most of their kills in it." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakajima_Ki-43 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakajima_Ki-43)
Vote Oscar! :aok
Edit: I see that statement isn't cited, so maybe it's a lie. :uhoh
-
Just for my own personal interests, I'd love to see the G.55, the G3M Nell, and the Bf109E-7.
Outside of that, most useful for AH would be an He111 (also can sub for other nations' early bombers), Ki-21 Sally, Ki43 (say what you will, it was the primary IJA fighter for years of the war and we are missing ANY equivelant substitute), and yes we could always use soviet planes like the Pe-2 or Italian planes like the SM79 or C200, but generally speaking early war bombers with minimal defenses and slow speeds are vital to every FSO or scenario we could run. The way bombers run at top speed in this game makes them very hard to catch with early era fighters, which wasn't the case historically. To this end we need a much much more fleshed out early war bomber set across all nations.
BOB is rather a joke with our Ju88A4s. Hurricanes can't catch them unless all conditions are perfect. Making a few degree variation in course means you cannot catch them. This wasn't the case in the BOB. Prolonged attacks with multiple passes were the norm. That is why the He111 is needed. The BOB is one of the most beloved scenarios in the game. It is a universal attraction that can't be run very often because we just don't have the planeset for it.
Anything in the Pacific absolutely needs the Ki-43. It was so nimble if it ever latched onto you, you were in trouble. This is tempered by a lower top speed and a smaller gun loadout. This was the primary plane fighting any allied forces for years in the PTO. The A6M2 zero was relatively scarce outside of carrier battles. It was the Ki-43 fighting everything and might I add holding its own.
Ki-21 Sally is just an early war bomber to help flesh out the early war bomber planeset. You could substitute the Bristol Blenheim, or the SM79 or a number of early war bombers with comparable light bombloads. These could be used as substitutes for each other in a number of setups. The Ki-21 allows us to run a number of early PTO setups (along with the Ki-43) but could also substitute for a He111 in the battle of britain, or an IL-4 on the soviet front, or a number of bombers on any front you can imagine.
Those are the 3 most needed and the reasons why. Or count it the 2 most needed and the other category.
-
For special events (generally picking a country's highest-production aircraft not already in the game), I think that the best planes to add would be as follows.
He 111 (Important for Battle of Britain)
Yak-1 or LaGG-3 (For Eastern Front mid-war, where there is otherwise large gap for Soviets)
D4Y (Most-produced Japanese dive bomber, taking over for early-war D3A)
B6N (Most-produced Japanese torpedo bomber, taking over for the early-war B5N)
Pe-2 (Most-produced Soviet attack plane other than Il-2, for Eastern Front)
Ki-43 (Major Japanese fighter)
TBD (Important for Battle of Coral Sea)
Beaufighter (Multi-role, would add a lot of flavor to events)
-
I say we need more Spitfires. :aok
-
(generally picking a country's highest-production aircraft not already in the game)
B6N (Most-produced Japanese torpedo bomber, taking over for the early-war B5N)
Most produced isn't always the best route. Many times planes are made in large numbers but still have very small impact on the war.
One example is the P-40N. The most produced P-40 variant, but of the 5000 or so built, most were state-side trainers for the US. They served in foreign nations more than they did in the US forces! RNZAF, RAAF, some USAAF, but the vast majority were trainers in the U.S.A. edit: Silly me, how could I neglect to mention VVS exports? /edit
Another example is your B6N. While it was intended to replace the B5N it never really did. It had a small initial debut with about 100 planes right about the time US forces were massing in Bougainville area. They were readily wiped out in the small numbers they were available, and removed from frontline duty. The IJN carriers were sunk and the remainder were all based in Japan with no operational use and little combat records to review. Of the 1200 built, only about 150 or so saw real combat.
So in summary, production numbers don't tell the whole story.
-
For special events (generally picking a country's highest-production aircraft not already in the game), I think that the best planes to add would be as follows.
He 111 (Important for Battle of Britain)
Pe-2 (Most-produced Soviet attack plane other than Il-2, for Eastern Front)
Ki-43 (Major Japanese fighter)
Beaufighter (Multi-role, would add a lot of flavor to events)
I wont argue against the Pe-2, I think the numbers in which it was produced speaks volume as to how important it was to the Soviets. Though, I think the Tu-2 would a better fit to add in for both MA's and scenarios. The Pe-2 has a few stand ins that work well enough (A20/110C-4?).
One thing though, I am having a hard time finding information about the level bombing capabilities of the Pe-2. Did it have a bomb sight or was it all low level shallow dive bombing? Once source said it had the capability but the sight was so poor that the Soviets ended up using it as a shallow dive bomber instead of a level bomber. I can't find any other bit of information on the matter. Anyone?
-
I think like you say, it could but precision wasn't a factor. They dove to hit targets more accurately. For AH purposes I'd imagine it would be a dive bomber, with no level bombsight. Like D3A Val or Me410 or P47.
-
Krusty,
I'd like to see more support for your continuing "The Japanese had no idea what to do with aircraft after they left the factory doors after 1941." claims that you provide. Your say so doesn't constitute evidence. They managed to get at least some of the B7A2 'Grace' into combat despite only building 114 of them.
The B6N was certainly not massively successful for numerous reasons, but your claim that only 150 out of 1200 were used does not mesh with what I have read.
-
I say we need more Spitfires. :aok
At least three more and while we are at it lets add some hog's and 109's. :joystick:
-
I'd like to see more support for your continuing "The Japanese had no idea what to do with aircraft after they left the factory doors after 1941."
Don't put words in my mouth. You're better than that. You know as well as I do that simply producing a plane doesn't mean diddley squat for how it's actually used. There were twice as many 262s MADE than ever saw distribution to units, or even action AFTER distribution to units. There were some 70+ Ta152s built and ready to go, but all of 12 are cited as making it to a unit before the war was over.
Bougainville. B6N's main debut. It was a disaster. After that it had little participation in the war. Of the planes deployed at Bougainville, only about 150 or so were in service. Of those most were shot down en masse. After that? It doesn't matter what they did with them, it matters what they didn't do with them. They got shuffled around, redeployed, trained with. They weren't a primary combat plane.
Why did they build so many P-40Ns? Surely based on production alone they were the most common plane in WW2, right? Based on your slanted logic the lack of P-40N use in WW2 denotes the US didn't know what to do with their planes. False logic. False assumptions. Biased wordplay to throw words out of my mouth that never were there. I don't have to explain to you what they were doing with them. The combat records are available. Or lack thereof.
-
I wont argue against the Pe-2, I think the numbers in which it was produced speaks volume as to how important it was to the Soviets. Though, I think the Tu-2 would a better fit to add in for both MA's and scenarios. The Pe-2 has a few stand ins that work well enough (A20/110C-4?).
One thing though, I am having a hard time finding information about the level bombing capabilities of the Pe-2. Did it have a bomb sight or was it all low level shallow dive bombing? Once source said it had the capability but the sight was so poor that the Soviets ended up using it as a shallow dive bomber instead of a level bomber. I can't find any other bit of information on the matter. Anyone?
Early Pe-2's had level day and night sights for bomb aimer navigators as well as dive bomb sights for the pilot. It was essentially a multi purpose dive bomber (think of a light weight Ju 88). Weirdly some of the bombs were stored in the engine nacelles.
Latterly bombs were stored externally and the dive brakes dispensed with. Which reveals the challenge for HTC. The Pe-2 went thru many variants though out its GPW career.......which one to choose? or two? or three? or four?
-
Don't put words in my mouth. You're better than that. You know as well as I do that simply producing a plane doesn't mean diddley squat for how it's actually used. There were twice as many 262s MADE than ever saw distribution to units, or even action AFTER distribution to units. There were some 70+ Ta152s built and ready to go, but all of 12 are cited as making it to a unit before the war was over.
Bougainville. B6N's main debut. It was a disaster. After that it had little participation in the war. Of the planes deployed at Bougainville, only about 150 or so were in service. Of those most were shot down en masse. After that? It doesn't matter what they did with them, it matters what they didn't do with them. They got shuffled around, redeployed, trained with. They weren't a primary combat plane.
Why did they build so many P-40Ns? Surely based on production alone they were the most common plane in WW2, right? Based on your slanted logic the lack of P-40N use in WW2 denotes the US didn't know what to do with their planes. False logic. False assumptions. Biased wordplay to throw words out of my mouth that never were there. I don't have to explain to you what they were doing with them. The combat records are available. Or lack thereof.
Oddly, I don't make that claim. I look at the data, not "It was Japanese and not a 1930s design, therefor only a small fraction of those made saw combat." that is your default position for anything Japanese. Some things that is true, some it is not. The Japanese situation is made worse by their destruction of their own records to keep them out of our hands.
-
9-pages of speculation, but not one logical bribe conjured up yet for HiTech (or Pyro, or Superfly, or Cactus)?... interesting.
-
Albacore!
-
9-pages of speculation, but not one logical bribe conjured up yet for HiTech (or Pyro, or Superfly, or Cactus)?... interesting.
Oh yes, good point.
A bottle of 17 year old Ardberg for an Albacore!
-
The A6M2 zero was relatively scarce outside of carrier battles.
No it wasn't. The A6M2 operated from land bases just as much as from carriers, there were entire fighter groups and squadrons of A6M2s and A6M5s that never saw the deck of a carrier and only operated from land bases. There were at least 19 IJN land based groups equipped with the A6M2.
ack-ack
-
No it wasn't. The A6M2 operated from land bases just as much as from carriers, there were entire fighter groups and squadrons of A6M2s and A6M5s that never saw the deck of a carrier and only operated from land bases. There were at least 19 IJN land based groups equipped with the A6M2.
ack-ack
In the context of early war planesets, the A6M2 was in a minority as compared to the likes of the Ki-43, and other planes. The Flying Tigers, for example, as well as most Western movies, called everything they shot at a zero, or a zeke, when in fact they just about never ran into them. That was my point. There were far more planes in use than "just" the A6M2 which we have.
-
that is your default position for anything Japanese.
This is a bald-faced LIE that a select few (that I can count on 3 fingers) continually make about me, and it is absolutely false. It is intentionally false, and intentionally perpetuated simply to insult me and dismiss anything I say. It's worse than a straw man argument. It's the sign you HAVE NO argument, when you have to lie to distract from that fact.
-
In the context of early war planesets, the A6M2 was in a minority as compared to the likes of the Ki-43, and other planes. The Flying Tigers, for example, as well as most Western movies, called everything they shot at a zero, or a zeke, when in fact they just about never ran into them. That was my point. There were far more planes in use than "just" the A6M2 which we have.
But it wasn't "in the minority" compared to the likes of other planes like the Ki-43. Allied fighters were just as likely to run into a Zeke as they were an Oscar flying in the SWPA.
The Flying Tigers is actually not a good example to support your claim as they fought in areas where the IJN was not active, primarily in the interior of mainland China, away from the coastal areas. If the AVG was more active in the coastal areas, they would have most likely run into some of the A6M2 land based squadrons in Formosa or any of the coastal bases up and down the Chinese coast.
ack-ack
-
I can't help but smile when I consider that 25000 of Krusty's 25235 posts are him being wrong about something
-
Nate! It's Krusty's fault. I have flight of ideas now.
-
In the context of early war planesets, the A6M2 was in a minority as compared to the likes of the Ki-43, and other planes.
A6m2 served far more a minor part in early World War 2, more like an equal player. Prime example is the Tainan Air Group who flew out of Formosa to escort betties to Clark AF and Manila. Why did the Squad spawn so many aces? They could fly into combat where the Ki-27's couldn't make the trip.
There were 3 squadrons of A6m2s that flew out of Takao in support of the philippine invasion, Only 1 Ki-43 and Ki-27 squadron were stationed in Formosa.
As for Singapore, Kompong trach has 2 squadrons of Ki-43s and 1 squadron of Ki-27s.
Soc Trang had One squadron of A6m2s, as well as a detachment of A5m4 claude's that were not upgraded to A6m2s yet.. These were the Zeros used to escort (if necessary) the Betties and Nells out of Saigon to attack the British Fleet at Singapore.
Two full squadron of Ki-27's were stationed at Singora that flew Cap over the japanese landing force.
How could you possibly say the A6m2 played a minor part in the opening battles of ww2 when they served more then 50% of the capacity? Far as I see the opening battles, only the Ki-27 and A6m2 played a roll, Ki-27 on other hand were slowly being phased out but not entirely at the opening few months of WW2.
It was the Japanese navy's decision to use these a6m2 squadrons to gain experience in the opening months while carriers were being built, so they can later be transferred to ships with experience, however as the Tainan Air Group shows - no carrier was available and the Japanese needed combat pilots at Lae/Rubaul.
Ki-27s were pretty much stuck at Singora due to lack of range, they could keep CAP over some of Malaya like George Town and Medan for extreme distances, they were not useable for the Philippines invasion, so they were put at malaya.
If were going to say one of the planes is a minority, it would be the Ki-43 which served in a VERY limited capacity in the opening shots of WW2 in compared to the Ki-27 and A6m2.
Now don't get me wrong, those Ki-27s were being replaced at record pace by Ki-43s, however they still served in a very limited capacity due to numbers.
-
But it wasn't "in the minority" compared to the likes of other planes like the Ki-43. Allied fighters were just as likely to run into a Zeke as they were an Oscar flying in the SWPA.
I don't agree there. In fact I say the exact opposite. The very first A6M2 Model 11 Zeros were rushed to China because that was where the combat was taking place.
The Model 21 A6M2 only began production in November 1940. In a span of about 1 year Mitsubishi made 740 of them and Nakajima about 800 [wiki numbers]. Most of those would be in use on the carriers. The army did have a good number, yes, but maybe not as much as you think. Before this date the Model 11 only deployed 30 to the 12th Kokutai in China and 9 to the 14th Kokutai in southwest China. In all of China you'd find 39 give or take. They were marvelous compared to the fixed landing gear types currently in use, and these 39 or so planes racked up hundreds of kills (as they could fly faster than the I-16 type 5s and I-153's they were up against, something earlier marks could not boast). By fall of 1941 there were 213 zeros in use by land based squadrons [numbers from squadron signal]. I'm not sure what the breakup was, but I must assume some of them were trainers (same as with the navy, they had to train).
By the end of 1942, and definitely into 1943, Model 21s were quite common. Just look at any photo around Rabaul and you'll see them lining runways. Before that? Not as common as other land based planes. Of the 750-or-so Ki-43-I's made, all were used over land. The Ki-43-II even more so. Overall just short of 6000 Ki-43s were built and they served from 1941 to late 1944. I don't mean to compare to the total Zero production, one of the most-produced planes in all of WW2 no doubt. I mean to impress that all of them were land-based. That's just one type, as well! Before it came Ki-27 Nates and A5M Claudes and similar types. After it came Ki-84 and N1K2s and so forth. Alongside it came N1K-Js, Ki-61s, J2M Raidens, and myriad twin engine types. None of those are A6M variants.
So I will defend myself by saying this: I'm not denigrating the numbers of A6Ms, I'm advocating the numbers of many many many other types all combined simply outnumbering land-based A6Ms by a landslide.
-
:headscratch:
-
He111 would be nice to have in the game.
However, the planes I would love to see are:
The fighter variants of the Ju88.
Ki-43, 44 and 46.
-
This is a bald-faced LIE that a select few (that I can count on 3 fingers) continually make about me, and it is absolutely false. It is intentionally false, and intentionally perpetuated simply to insult me and dismiss anything I say. It's worse than a straw man argument. It's the sign you HAVE NO argument, when you have to lie to distract from that fact.
I've tried to explain this to you in a friendly way once already.
When it comes to Japanese aircraft for some reason you seem to let your own ideas run amok in the face of data, you just seem to filter out what you don't agree with. This isn't rigourous and academic method, that's why we've clashed many times already.
Even in this thread you're making incorrect statements again about the Ki-100 / 61 even though we've been through it all about 18 months ago. New material emerged from three separate sources about the weights and models, about the Ki-61 we currently have, the airframe differences and the development and attributes of the Ki-100. But here again I read you posting the same opinion you had before that thread. So what, you didn't agree with it and just dismissed the work of others. Why?
By contrast your work on German aircraft seems fairly rigourous and diligent, I was impressed by your recent Me410 cockpit post for example.
Such a dichotomous pattern of behaviour leads people to conclude you are biased about Japanese aircraft. It's an obvious conclusion, can't you see that?
I say again, if multiple people come to the same conclusion independently then the common element is YOU. Continuing to be defensive while not considering your role in the dynamic will ensure this will continue to happen. There's nothing personal in this Krusty, this simply pertains to your 'work' on these forums.
-
:rofl
-
This isn't helping me get an Emily into the game. Focus!
-
9-pages of speculation, but not one logical bribe conjured up yet for HiTech (or Pyro, or Superfly, or Cactus)?... interesting.
When truth is spoken there is no reason for them to speak up. :aok
He111, here is comes. ;)
-
I can't help but smile when I consider that 25000 of Krusty's 25235 posts are him being wrong about something
:rofl
(http://www.skepticalraptor.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Strawman-light.jpg)
In general, a fallacy is an error of reasoning, used, often intentionally, to win an argument. You’ll find that the pseudoscience pushing crowd love logical fallacies because, frankly, they are so easy to use. And they work so well, because it shifts the argument from evidence and facts to rhetoric and disinformation. Because the science denialist crowd, which include (but not limited to) creationists, homeopaths, anti-vaccinationists, global warming deniers, alternative medicine pushers, and sasquatch fans, have no evidence supporting their positions, they have tended to use logical fallacies to argue against the skeptical side.
The Strawman Fallacy is admittedly a favorite, because it takes such creativity to invent it, and the fallacious arguer will use it until their last breath. Basically, a strawman fallacy is an attempt by an arguer to invent a position for the other side, then dismiss the other side because of the invented position. For example, the anti-vaccination crowd will say “you don’t care about our autistic children,” then in the next breath, state that because we don’t care about their autistic children, vaccines are bad. It’s called a strawman because you look at that argument (we don’t care about autistic children) rather than the evidence that vaccines do not cause autism. It’s frustrating beyond belief.
:cheers:
-
In the academic environment trying to employ these kind of logical fallacies draws a sarcastically dismissive look for about 1/3rd of a second before they adjust how much attention they pay to you in the future and look away.
On the Aces High forum it's a normal day at the office, with a few notable exceptions which keep me here. Does get rather tiring sometimes however.
-
Need a hug Shida?
-
He don' need no steekin' hug, man! He needs a Ki 44!
-
The day Hitec picks planes because of the MA, that will be the day AH dies.
If HTC really cared about early war planes they could put the similar planes into the vote. For early war bomber it could be:
He-111
Pe-2
Wellington
SM.79
Do-17
G3M
...
In this case whichever plane wins it is a good addition for scenarios.
The similar poll could be created for heavy bomber poll:
Stirling
Halifax
Pe-8
He-177
H8K
....
Or for an early war fighter:
Ki-43
LaGG-3
Beaufighter
D.520
MiG-3
I-153
C.200
...
Nevertheless HTS keeps putting the early war planes mixed with later war monsters and people who have voted many times for Ki-43 or He-111 get nothing again and again ...
-
Need a hug Shida?
I think I need my lumps felt Mr. D, for participating in the Aces High soap opera of dysfunction which this forum often is. :lol
-
:lol
The only person willing you rub your lumps around here is zack... or maybe RedBull, he'll rub anything if you promise him 3 wishes :old:
-
Lots of discussion going on in this thread as to the legitimacy of X aircraft, etc, but no one wants to take my bet and offer up their own bit of inside information as to which aircraft is next???
-
Lots of discussion going on in this thread as to the legitimacy of X aircraft, etc, but no one wants to take my bet and offer up their own bit of inside information as to which aircraft is next???
No inside information here, I'd just love to see a preview from HTC!
-
I'll predict that the Ki-61 will be remodelled soon and when it does, it'll split into several versions and at least one Ki-100.
-
I'll predict that the Ki-61 will be remodelled soon and when it does, it'll split into several versions and at least one Ki-100.
:pray
-
I'll predict that the Ki-61 will be remodelled soon and when it does, it'll split into several versions and at least one Ki-100.
I'm fine with this, but if it happens before we can FINALY do a proper BoB i will so . :bhead
-
Mr. Hitech Sir,
Before some long standing rivalries make sissies out of the Hatfields and McCoys. And some caps busta new homes in some well polished double wide pontific posteriors.
Would it be possible to see a small preview of coming attractions??
I fear someones gonna put an eye out in the back seat before we get to the show.
-
I'll predict that the Ki-61 will be remodelled soon and when it does, it'll split into several versions and at least one Ki-100.
New Ki variants would be awesome, the ki61 is probably one of the most underestimated fighters in the game... it's nice to watch spitifres panic when they realize what the ki can do. I'm personally hoping someday we will have the P61 though.
-
Mr. Hitech Sir,
Before some long standing rivalries make sissies out of the Hatfields and McCoys. And some caps busta new homes in some well polished double wide pontific posteriors.
Would it be possible to see a small preview of coming attractions??
I fear someones gonna put an eye out in the back seat before we get to the show.
To be honest I'm not sure if i want a preview,so far ,updated jeep,updated goon,and a b 29 that's all but useless in the game.
(edit) I do like the new clouds btw. :D
-
tu-2, yak-3 plus re-models, he111, beaufighter and meteor that should do for starters. :D
plus more mossies and uber Spitfires. :bolt:
-
Clearly, we need this in the game next:
(http://thiswouldbemoreawesomewithlasers.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/yamato.jpg)
-
+1
-
Nrshida playing the strawman accusation? He's the one that attributes lies to me. He was one of the three I could count that did so. He intentionally slandered me (more than once) with that pre-specified lie because he didn't like how a discussion was going. So yes, he's quite correct. He can only spread false statements so much before people turn away from him. That's why I don't participate in threads with him much anymore.
-
As to the Ki-61 and Ki-100, they are more different than that. The Ki-100 was built out of Ki-61-II fuselages, not Ki-61-I fuselages, thus having a cut down rear fuselage for better visibility.
As mentioned just a small correction.
As mentioned there were both high backs and low backs among both fighters. The initial series of Ki-100-Ia used the high back Ki-61-II fuselages left engineless due to the engine plant being bombed down. After those, two smaller series (12 and 106) of Ki-100-Ibs were built which had low back fuselages. One example of the Ki-100-Ib is left in Britain.
(http://www.grumlinas.lt/lektuvai/Kawasaki_Ki-100_versijos.jpg)
*Ki-100-II was a turbo-equipped variant. Only three prototypes were built.
-
And an addition, the 'low back' design and production jigs were used for the small number of Ki-100 I-Otsu. Nothing was 'cut down' you can't cut down a fuselage without totally stripping it down and rebuilding it with new parts. 'Cut down' is just an expression which some clowns think (not you Karnak :salute) was a modification technique :rofl
-
Incorrect. The Ki-100 was built off Ki-61 fuselages. During the production they cut down the back of the fuselage. It didn't start that way. Not many of those were done.
Plus, it's a 1942 design with a 1941 engine if I recall, and the only reason folks want it is because of an absolutely fabricated history and mythos that internet lies and bad historians have propogated. It would be less effective than our current Ki-61. If we got new variants of our Ki-61, including the earlier lighter versions, it (the Ki-100) would be worse in all aspects.
It certainly wouldn't be worse in all aspects. The weights between Ki-100 and Ki-61-Tei found in AH are roughly equal but Ki-100's powerplant produces approx. 320hp more. Ki-100 also has twice the cannon ammo of the Ki-61-Tei.
There are many many sources stating the above.
So, Ki-100 would climb/accelerate better than Ki-61-Tei in AH and carry more ammo. How is that "worse in all aspects"?? So how is spreading a myth that it would be worse than the Ki-61 in AH any better compared to spreading the older myth that it was the best fighter that the Japan had? I find this rather ironic. :)
Personally, considering that Ki-61's speed isn't its best asset in the LWMA to begin with, I'd easily choose better E-recovery and more ammo over a difference in top speed.
-
Nrshida playing the strawman accusation? He's the one that attributes lies to me. He was one of the three I could count that did so. He intentionally slandered me (more than once) with that pre-specified lie because he didn't like how a discussion was going. So yes, he's quite correct. He can only spread false statements so much before people turn away from him. That's why I don't participate in threads with him much anymore.
Point 1: I haven't 'spread' anything about you, people came to the same conclusion independently that you are biased towards Japanese aircraft. Anybody can observe the pattern, present in your continued posts. No one knows your motivation, not even you I suspect.
Point 2 Your accusation that I have been spreading lies about you is unfounded, incorrect, slanderous, and in fact a personal attack (see Point 3). I defy you to substantiate your claim or retract it and apologise.
Point 3 This is nothing personal whatsoever from my side, this is 'professional', about your appalling historical methodology and lack of objectivity in this area. The only personal part is it boils my piss to see 60 Watters using an internet forum as a platform of academic equivalence. It is not.
Point 4 Your methods are unsound, you have no objectivity and no concept of rigourous academic method and no experience of peer review, you cannot take any criticism of your work without getting offended and making unfounded accusations of personal attack, whilst making passive-aggressive personal attacks of your own. The typical forum-gaming techniques of a crackpot.
Point 5 Your comprehension is woefully inadequate, what you extract from historical data seldom matches groups of other people's conclusions. This has been demonstrated several times. You still cannot see this deficiency yourself.
Point 6 You are incapable of listening to others and accepting what they say with humility or any public acceptance. This stands equally for historical material as well as friendly advice.
Point 7 Most normal people welcome discussion on these subjects, discussion is part of the academic method, discussion is how we discover the truth or in this area a reasonable approximation of that. It doesn't matter, actually, if you make mistakes or erroneous comments, the system is fault tolerant and you must learn to separate yourself from the material to go further. But that part only works if you concede to those more knowledgeable than you, like Wmaker here for instance, or concede your mistakes, instead of loading your whole ego and self-worth behind it.
The fact is Krusty, discussion is impossible with you because of the points listed above. You perpetually state the way it is and then then refuse to listen to others and acknowledge when you are wrong but skulk away only to show up months later asserting the same old claptrap. As a historian you are unreliable and perpetuate more hyperbole than contribute anything useful.
-
One example of the Ki-100-Ib is left in Britain.
I've touched that aircraft! It literally buzzes with historical presence.
What is seldom mentioned about the Ki-100 is how small it is, it is no bigger than the Bf109 which stands nearby. And the fitment of the radial engine is a very neat piece of work.
I know Wmaker has seen them, but for those that haven't, pictures here:-
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,296722.0.html
-
I've touched that aircraft! It literally buzzes with historical presence.
I sure wish I would have. It's right up there with the Seiran, the last remaining Ki-61-II, Ki-84 and the Macchi Schneider Cup racers at Vigna Di Valle...and the BW-372 of course but I've already seen that. ;)
It is the most rare ones that seem fascinate me the most.
-
I've touched that aircraft! It literally buzzes with historical presence.
What is seldom mentioned about the Ki-100 is how small it is, it is no bigger than the Bf109 which stands nearby. And the fitment of the radial engine is a very neat piece of work.
I know Wmaker has seen them, but for those that haven't, pictures here:-
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,296722.0.html
I have not seen these photos, Thanks for posting them.
-
It certainly wouldn't be worse in all aspects. The weights between Ki-100 and Ki-61-Tei found in AH are roughly equal but Ki-100's powerplant produces approx. 320hp more. Ki-100 also has twice the cannon ammo of the Ki-61-Tei.
There are many many sources stating the above.
So, Ki-100 would climb/accelerate better than Ki-61-Tei in AH and carry more ammo. How is that "worse in all aspects"?? So how is spreading a myth that it would be worse than the Ki-61 in AH any better compared to spreading the older myth that it was the best fighter that the Japan had? I find this rather ironic. :)
Personally, considering that Ki-61's speed isn't its best asset in the LWMA to begin with, I'd easily choose better E-recovery and more ammo over a difference in top speed.
Any speculation on whether the Ki.100's engine would have WEP?
-
Any speculation on whether the Ki.100's engine would have WEP?
It largely depends on terminology Japanese used about the highest power setting. In the western literature the 1500hp setting is referred as take-off setting. In the end it really depends on HTC how they interpret the data, weather they leave the 1500hp to run indefinately or if the put it under time limit
Here's some data (Ha-112-II is the radial in the Ki-100):
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/Ki-61_4.jpg)
-
Oscar and 111.
-
Any speculation on whether the Ki.100's engine would have WEP?
I would guess 5 minutes.
-
Oscar and 111.
Maybe we need three votes?
FIGHTER
BOMBER
Aces High 1.0 Update
But honestly, if HTC wanted to soley focus on updating all existing out of date aircraft and vehicles, I'd be ok with that too...only if they did it a lot quicker than they're doing it right now.... :D
-
We need a spy in texas, to stroll in to HTC's office, get him talking about his fav whiskey brand, present him a bottle and try to extract information on the next patch....
We all want New Fighters, New Bombers... HTC will troll us and give us a Ju-52 :)
-
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/Ki-100stats.jpg)
-
Maybe we need three votes?
FIGHTER
BOMBER
Aces High 1.0 Update
But honestly, if HTC wanted to soley focus on updating all existing out of date aircraft and vehicles, I'd be ok with that too...only if they did it a lot quicker than they're doing it right now.... :D
I like this idea. Seriously. As of now though, no need to vote on a bomber. ;)
-
New Planes of New Country's! :old: :old:
Dewoitine D.520 and the CAC Boomerang
adds to the base 100 million possibilities :aok
-
This pic from Spatula's stats program may be a clue that the Ki-61 will be getting updated soon:
(http://i343.photobucket.com/albums/o460/caldera_08/ki61.jpg)
The info is taken from the AH stats page. The image shows the combined stats of all the tours that I have seen action involving the Ki-61. Tour 151 was the first time that the 61 was listed as "Ki-61-I-Tei".
-
Also a good candidate(s) on the list of current varients to expand imho:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/USS_Bogue_ACV-9.jpg)
(http://www.lonesentry.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/ww2-us-navy-carriers-destroyers.jpg)
(http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/images/dasher.jpg)
(http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/images/shinano.gif)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/Japanese_aircraft_carrier_Akagi_01.jpg/800px-Japanese_aircraft_carrier_Akagi_01.jpg)
-
This pic from Spatula's stats program may be a clue that the Ki-61 will be getting updated soon:
(http://i343.photobucket.com/albums/o460/caldera_08/ki61.jpg)
The info is taken from the AH stats page. The image shows the combined stats of all the tours that I have seen action involving the Ki-61. Tour 151 was the first time that the 61 was listed as "Ki-61-I-Tei".
See, new version(s) of 61 and a 100 while they are at it. Several new variants, a remodelled old AH aircraft and something new at the same time. :banana:
-
WE all know its the PBY, Towed normandy Gliders, or large LSD's landing craft that would hold 6 tanks. 999000
-
P80 and Meteor ....in a big lead up to the Mig15 and F86 :O
-
P80 and Meteor ....in a big lead up to the Mig15 and F86 :O
oh I wish lol
-
Would be cool to see the CV version of the Brewster too, that would be an easy add.
-
Would be cool to see the CV version of the Brewster too, that would be an easy add.
I too would *really* like to see an EW version of the Brewster Buffalo. This hot rod version we have now in AH is no where near an accurate representation of what the USN, RAAF, Dutch, or RAF/FAA had in the PTO in the early stages of the war. It may be accurate to the version the Finns had, but certainly not anywhere else.
Seriously though, I wonder how long it would take HTC to swap out airframe weight(s), engine HP, gun options, etc, etc. It isn't like going from the 109E-4 to the 109K-4. No disrespect intended, just curious.
-
I too would *really* like to see an EW version of the Brewster Buffalo. This hot rod version we have now in AH is no where near an accurate representation of what the USN, RAAF, Dutch, or RAF/FAA had in the PTO in the early stages of the war.
B239/F2A-1 is basically the earliest Brewster there was. There's absolutely nothing mid/late war about it. Finns had already scored ~80 kills before attack on Pearl Harbor. I've already told you this once. Also it's not "hod rodded" in anyway unless you count the removal of the arrestor hook/other naval gear and the 60hp more power than in the F2A-1 "hod rodding".
-
Would also be nice if they separated the F4F-3/4 in to separate airframes instead of having that hybrid THING we use now. :)
I am curious if they did the same thing with the I-16... :headscratch: Was it the same exact setup in the I-16 between each of those gun packages? Or was there a variation in the frame (IE: Engine, range, armor, etc.)?
-
Would also be nice if they separated the F4F-3/4 in to separate airframes instead of having that hybrid THING we use now. :)
It's not really a F4F-3/4 hybrid but a F4F-4/FM-1 hybrid, if you want to think it that way.
I am curious if they did the same thing with the I-16... :headscratch: Was it the same exact setup in the I-16 between each of those gun packages? Or was there a variation in the frame (IE: Engine, range, armor, etc.)?
I-16 is a "Type 24/28/29 hybrid". They all had the same M-63 engine so it does make sense in that way.
-
B239/F2A-1 is basically the earliest Brewster there was. There's absolutely nothing mid/late war about it. Finns had already scored ~80 kills before attack on Pearl Harbor. I've already told you this once. Also it's not "hod rodded" in anyway unless you count the removal of the arrestor hook/other naval gear and the 60hp more power than in the F2A-1 "hod rodding".
I wonder why the Navy dumped the Buffalo and went with the F4F? In AH, which is the superior plane?
-
It's not really a F4F-3/4 hybrid but a F4F-4/FM-1 hybrid, if you want to think it that way.
My point is, there is a bit of a difference between the two to warrant them being separated I think. :)
I-16 is a "Type 24/28/29 hybrid". They all had the same M-63 engine so it does make sense in that way.
That was something I wasn't actually sure of, which is why I was asking. :) Since you clarified that for me, then I agree that having it the way it is now, is valid. :aok
-
I wonder why the Navy dumped the Buffalo and went with the F4F? In AH, which is the superior plane?
Because it was obsolete by 1940 and the airframe had reached its limits which made the installation of things like a more powerful engine impossible. In AH, the Model B-239 is far more maneuverable than the Wildcat but Wildcat has a better speed and climb rate which it can use to get above the Brewster.
ack-ack
-
I wonder why the Navy dumped the Buffalo and went with the F4F? In AH, which is the superior plane?
The one with naval gear?
What people don't seem to get is that the B-239 the Finns got is a lot lighter than the F2A-3s the USN and US Marines had. Essentially think of it this way, the earliest F2A was better than the earliest F4F, but the F4F had a lot more development potential and so the F4F-4 was better than the F2A-3.
In a pure, one on one, duel an F2A-1 would probably best an F4F-4 most of the time, but in a war situation with squadron on squadron the superior firepower and survivability of the F4F-4s would probably best the F2A-1s most of the time.
-
I wonder why the Navy dumped the Buffalo and went with the F4F? In AH, which is the superior plane?
Mainly because Brewster were not a very good company to deal with, their factory was very chaotic and not able to produce enough planes. To make matters worse Brewster reps sold planes to just about every foreign power they could which annoyed the Navy brass no end.
The early Wildcat was considered an inferior plane to the early Buffalo, but then the Navy started specifying more armour etc, which meant more weight. This meant adding powerful engines, which were in turn heavier. Grumman were able to update their design to cope with this better than Brewster. The Buffalo suffered from landing gear failures as its weight increased where the Wildcat didn't. The final nail in its coffin was that the Buffalo's fuel tanks were integral to the wing structure, rather like the Betty bomber's. This made it much harder to add self sealing fuel tanks than to the Wildcat.
The early lightweight Brewster we have is a more maneuverable plane than the heavier F4F-4 which has more guns, armour and the weight of a folding wing mechanism to lug around. The earlier F4F-3 would do better, as it was a lighter with the same power.
-
Also the Grumman company had a very strong relationship with the Navy that lasted for decades before and after the Buffalo.
-
I wonder why the Navy dumped the Buffalo and went with the F4F? In AH, which is the superior plane?
If you dig a bit deeper and read the actual history, you'll find your answer.
A plane that does well in a virtual LWMA may not be the best combat aircraft in a real war.
-
Mainly because Brewster were not a very good company to deal with, their factory was very chaotic and not able to produce enough planes. To make matters worse Brewster reps sold planes to just about every foreign power they could which annoyed the Navy brass no end.
The early Wildcat was considered an inferior plane to the early Buffalo, but then the Navy started specifying more armour etc, which meant more weight. This meant adding powerful engines, which were in turn heavier. Grumman were able to update their design to cope with this better than Brewster. The Buffalo suffered from landing gear failures as its weight increased where the Wildcat didn't. The final nail in its coffin was that the Buffalo's fuel tanks were integral to the wing structure, rather like the Betty bomber's. This made it much harder to add self sealing fuel tanks than to the Wildcat.
The early lightweight Brewster we have is a more maneuverable plane than the heavier F4F-4 which has more guns, armour and the weight of a folding wing mechanism to lug around. The earlier F4F-3 would do better, as it was a lighter with the same power.
Exactly.
I'm sorry drunken a** didn't see your reply before I replied.
Not only Greebo does the best skins in AH, he also knows the history. Of course, many times, they go hand in hand. :)
Most dumb a**es here just repeat the matra if "Brewster was that, why this did not happen."
Dumb a**es, world full of them.
-
Q. Did the B-239 have self-sealing fuel tanks?
-
Q. Did the B-239 have self-sealing fuel tanks?
Nope. The fuel tanks were integral part of the wing spar and thus couldn't really be sealed. That was one of the reasons why the F4F got prefrerred over the Brewster by the Navy in the end actually. It's funny that the "If Brewster was this...." -crowd don't know this most elemental fact for example.
It is easier to whine than do research.
-
Nope. The fuel tanks were integral part of the wing spar and thus couldn't really be sealed. That was one of the reasons why the F4F got prefrerred over the Brewster by the Navy in the end actually. It's funny that the "If Brewster was this...." -crowd don't know this most elemental fact for example.
It is easier to whine than do research.
It doesn't seem to flame up like an A6M or G4M in AH though, so I suspect Oboe's question is oriented towards finding out why that is the case.
-
It doesn't seem to flame up like an A6M or G4M in AH though, so I suspect Oboe's question is oriented towards finding out why that is the case.
This, it seems far more rugged then it should be especially if it has no self sealing fuel tanks. I don't recall one in Aces High I have ever set on fire.
-
(http://static.desktopnexus.com/thumbnails/1054376-bigthumbnail.jpg)
-
(http://static.desktopnexus.com/thumbnails/1054376-bigthumbnail.jpg)
You know if I had to vote, D.520 already would get it :)
-
It doesn't seem to flame up like an A6M or G4M in AH though, so I suspect Oboe's question is oriented towards finding out why that is the case.
I couldn't have guessed that.
Data, test and all that...
-
This, it seems far more rugged then it should be especially if it has no self sealing fuel tanks. I don't recall one in Aces High I have ever set on fire.
I'm sure the test data you supply shortly will remedy this and HTC can adjust the damage model.
-
Most dumb a**es here just repeat the matra if "Brewster was that, why this did not happen."
Dumb a**es, world full of them.
Nope. The fuel tanks were integral part of the wing spar and thus couldn't really be sealed.
It is easier to whine than do research.
This, it seems far more rugged then it should be especially if it has no self sealing fuel tanks. I don't recall one in Aces High I have ever set on fire.
Ditto. Wmaker will no doubt call you a dumba** whiner.
I'm sure the test data you supply shortly will remedy this and HTC can adjust the damage model.
In not so many words but yes, there it is. Knew the wait wouldn't be long. No one dare cast blasphemous dispersions upon the sacred B-239!
The lack of self sealing fuel tanks is no reason for them to catch fire. ;)
-
109E upgrade would make my year(s);
109E3/B
109E4/B
109E7/B
109E7/Z
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8329/8084278542_8f8b0524e5_z.jpg)
-
Ditto. Wmaker will no doubt call you a dumba** whiner.
In not so many words but yes, there it is. Knew the wait wouldn't be long. No one dare cast blasphemous dispersions upon the sacred B-239!
The lack of self sealing fuel tanks is no reason for them to catch fire. ;)
Not really, I am unbiased with the B-239. Frankly I dont see this plane as uber as everyone wants to make it to be, I had a few sorties against it in the Rangoon campaign and made short work of them with a6m2s.
However the reason I wonder about the fuel tanks, I don't ever recall one burning.
As bad as I chewed it up in the Rangoon/Finland campaign, i say its simply outclassed until you are dumb enough to turn against it. Give it some alt and it will be a problem, however most simply don't realize to either run away or take it vertical.
-
Meteor. It is quite obvious.
-C+
-
I didn't mean that oboe whined at all. He asked a good question.
-
Where are the fuel tanks, inner wings? Is there a fuselage tank too? Somebody could easily make a test off-line.
-
Where are the fuel tanks, inner wings? Is there a fuselage tank too? Somebody could easily make a test off-line.
There's a collector tank in the fuse but the actual fuel tanks are integrated into the wings spars. The wing spars themselves are torsion box like structure with individual longerons running inside. No tests will really reveal anything definitive anyway. There are many occasions when holes were shot into the wing tanks and they didn't ignite. I really don't know why that is, not a faintest clue. OTOH in the films about the Pacific war Zeros seem to light up from just couple of .50 rounds. Maybe it is the difference in ammo between the .50 and the ammo used by the Soviets.
-
Butcher,
as i can see, the Brewster is the most maneuverable aircraft in game. Not by the raw turn rate, the zekes are a bit better in that, but by the turn radius, flap effectiveness, low speed roll rate, very low speed handling. In a rolling scissors situation, i would rather be in a brew than in an a6m2. Plus the brewster can dive too, even tho its slower than the most EW fighters, at medium altitudes.
So if you had success in zeek against them, that was rather the pilot, the squad, or the situation, not really the plane itself.
-
Butcher,
as i can see, the Brewster is the most maneuverable aircraft in game. Not by the raw turn rate, the zekes are a bit better in that, but by the turn radius, flap effectiveness, low speed roll rate, very low speed handling. In a rolling scissors situation, i would rather be in a brew than in an a6m2. Plus the brewster can dive too, even tho its slower than the most EW fighters, at medium altitudes.
So if you had success in zeek against them, that was rather the pilot, the squad, or the situation, not really the plane itself.
It was entirely the Pilot,
Butcher
14:57:55 Departed from Field #11 in a A6M2
15:46:25 Shot down a Brewster B-239 flown by Bravo51.
15:54:10 Shot down a P-40B flown by front.
15:58:17 Shot down a Hurricane Mk I flown by Sharky.
16:20:46 Arrived Safely at Field #11
16:20:52 Departed from Field #11 in a A6M2
17:29:47 Shot down a Brewster B-239 flown by BearKats.
17:30:08 Shot down a Brewster B-239 flown by Vasco.
17:32:39 Helps Buzzard shoot down c4159.
17:32:54 Was shot down by .
I ended up flying with the wrong group, who had no coordination or experience, I should of survived just fine except the whole puffy ack got me in the end, that and lack of wingman the entire time. I flew with what I knew, Zeros outclimb and out turn, I maintained my alt and had little trouble with the top speed of the Zero, only trouble I had was a P-40 with I remember took most my Ammo up.
Most pilots just flat turn and dive to deck when in trouble, not everyone knows the inner and outs of aircrafts which puts some to an advantage just based on experience.
-
There's a collector tank in the fuse but the actual fuel tanks are integrated into the wings spars. The wing spars themselves are torsion box like structure with individual longerons running inside. No tests will really reveal anything definitive anyway. There are many occasions when holes were shot into the wing tanks and they didn't ignite. I really don't know why that is, not a faintest clue. OTOH in the films about the Pacific war Zeros seem to light up from just couple of .50 rounds. Maybe it is the difference in ammo between the .50 and the ammo used by the Soviets.
Couldn't find any useful cutaways on t'internet. Might be a reason though, in the structure you are describing.
-
Correct me if im wrong, but is it not the fumes that start the fire. i.e the bullet sparks the fumes, which lead to the fire, if this is so, could it be that the brewster has a better fuel vent system?
-
Some rounds are incendiaries and are actually burning as they travel through the structure. I'm really interested in Wmaker's comment about the wing spars with individual longerons. Might form tiny compartments which might flash out without igniting neighbours, but without a picture that's just wild conjecture.
-
Correct me if im wrong, but is it not the fumes that start the fire. i.e the bullet sparks the fumes, which lead to the fire, if this is so, could it be that the brewster has a better fuel vent system?
You're kidding me right?
You think that HTC actually models fuel vent systems?
Occam's Razor says that they screwed the Zippo qualities of the Brew.
:salute
-
You're kidding me right?
You think that HTC actually models fuel vent systems?
Occam's Razor says that they screwed the Zippo qualities of the Brew.
:salute
I was actually refering to real life, ;0 I have read about a lot of problems with the Brew and its genre, but nothing about them burning easliy
-
A non-cloth aileron Spit I would be fun.
-
You're kidding me right?
You think that HTC actually models fuel vent systems?
Occam's Razor says that they screwed the Zippo qualities of the Brew.
:salute
That is what I am wondering about, and why I originally asked the question. Granted, its all in-game personal observation, but I have seen the P-47N catch fire many times (also a wet wing design) but I can't recall ever seeing a Brewster burning. Of course I'm sure I have many more 47N kills than kills of the Brewster - I find the Brewster a very tough fight against the planes I usually fly. I won't draw any conclusions from my experience alone, but if everyone has noticed the same thing, it may indicate a problem somewhere.
I do love having the little Sky Pearl in the game. It's my understanding that Dayton Brown incorporated some advanced features for the day into the Brewster's design, and the biggest problems were lack of efficient maufacturing production space and incompetent business management of the company, along with a design that reached its upgrade limits early. I read somewhere the Brewster produced more aces-per-airframe than the P-51 Mustang.
-
That is what I am wondering about, and why I originally asked the question. Granted, its all in-game personal observation, but I have seen the P-47N catch fire many times (also a wet wing design) but I can't recall ever seeing a Brewster burning. Of course I'm sure I have many more 47N kills than kills of the Brewster - I find the Brewster a very tough fight against the planes I usually fly. I won't draw any conclusions from my experience alone, but if everyone has noticed the same thing, it may indicate a problem somewhere.
Well, the Brewster that I've been flying has been caught on fire several times. Too many times to remember individual cases. I've had both wing tanks caught on fire but usually the fire originates from the fuselage. The funny thing is that the worlds sole remaining Brewster the BW-372 was set on fire due to the hits on the fuselage which punctured the collector tank. There's no wall between the tank and the engine so the hot cylinders ignited the fuel.
On the other hand, many times I've shot both wing tanks from A6Ms leaking but no fire broke out. And most on this thread seems to think it goes up right away. *shrugh* And I don't really have any problem with that either.
One thing I've noticed which seems to apply to all planes is that when you hit a tank which is already leaking it ignites basically every time.
All I've seen is really just global stuff which applies to every plane. But that is just me telling my observations.
As a general comment,
If someone thinks something is wrong, then do a test if you think you can find something conclusive. I personally doubt it very much and thus don't see the run one myself. Quite frankly everyone who has even given a slightest hint that something maybe wrong should have ran a test first before even mentioning anything. And that applies to all planes and a possible issues with them.
-
Wmaker,
I agree with you that personal observations are of limited value. And I note that you have witnessed what I have not - the Brewster being set on fire. I think you have much more game time than I do flying that fighter, so I also accord your observations relatively more weight than mine.
Incredible about BW-372 being set on fire - and if so, it is lucky to still remain intact today, is it not? The pilot was able to land with a fire on board? Or some how extinguish the fire? Its sounds like a harrowing story for any flyer. But interesting that AH's DM seemed to represent the collector tank fire in your observations.
Curious, what would be the best way to test a hypothesis regarding fuel fires in the B-239, P-47N, A6M2, etc? If offline drones are used, do they have the same damage behavior as in game planes? I'm not sure if HTC tweaked the DM of offline drones for the purposes of practice. I'm not sure I know enough to design a valid test that could give consistently reproducible results.
-
Incredible about BW-372 being set on fire - and if so, it is lucky to still remain intact today, is it not? The pilot was able to land with a fire on board? Or some how extinguish the fire? Its sounds like a harrowing story for any flyer.
Mr. Pekuri managed to ditch the fighter into North Karelian lake behind the lines and managed to just barely dive under film of burning gasoline on the lakes surface. After he got to shore he momentary 'passed out' from exhaustion. He had too much speed as he came in but with the plane on fire he didn't really have a choice but to fly the plane into the lake and that is the reason why the plane initially flipped over before stopping. So yes, it is very lucky that the plane was in so good condition when it was found. Mr.Pekuri, while of course showing an excellent piece of flying, was very very lucky to survive.
Ironically, one could say that had the plane survived the war it wouldn't be around today but would have been scrapped one way or another shortly after the war.
The burn marks on the surface of the yellow cowling are quite evident in this picture by Vladimir Prytkov. Mr.Prytkov with his crew lifted the plane from the lake.
(http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/artikkelit/bw372-esitelma/bw372_3.jpg)
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/artikkelit/bw372-esitelma/ (http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/artikkelit/bw372-esitelma/)
But interesting that AH's DM seemed to represent the collector tank fire in your observations.
Well, I just thought of it as ironic curiosity that the plane seems to ignite mostly from the fuselage. Personally I don't think the points of ignition or their frequency is modeled in anyway per plane basis but are more generic in nature.
Curious, what would be the best way to test a hypothesis regarding fuel fires in the B-239, P-47N, A6M2, etc? If offline drones are used, do they have the same damage behavior as in game planes? I'm not sure if HTC tweaked the DM of offline drones for the purposes of practice. I'm not sure I know enough to design a valid test that could give consistently reproducible results.
I would just start by getting a friend to DA and use a single GV mounted .50 and see what happens, have observations and go on in devising a controlled test from there on. I haven't really done any damage model testing so gaining more experience would be the first thing I'd do.
-
Mainly because Brewster were not a very good company to deal with, their factory was very chaotic and not able to produce enough planes. To make matters worse Brewster reps sold planes to just about every foreign power they could which annoyed the Navy brass no end.
The early Wildcat was considered an inferior plane to the early Buffalo, but then the Navy started specifying more armour etc, which meant more weight. This meant adding powerful engines, which were in turn heavier. Grumman were able to update their design to cope with this better than Brewster. The Buffalo suffered from landing gear failures as its weight increased where the Wildcat didn't. The final nail in its coffin was that the Buffalo's fuel tanks were integral to the wing structure, rather like the Betty bomber's. This made it much harder to add self sealing fuel tanks than to the Wildcat.
The early lightweight Brewster we have is a more maneuverable plane than the heavier F4F-4 which has more guns, armour and the weight of a folding wing mechanism to lug around. The earlier F4F-3 would do better, as it was a lighter with the same power.
Now that it's middle of the week instead the end of one I'll add a couple things...
As Greebo explained Brewster Corp. wasn't exactly a well managed company. Brewster Corp's separate selling organization called Miranda Brothers was a source of problems. They had been found guilty of illegal arms trade in the spring of '40 although that particular incident wasn't connected to Brewster Corp. As Greebo largely said, this selling organization made the Co. of the Brewster Corp. sign deals which they didn't have the production capacity for. As the orders and the company grew fast they took on labor force which was bit on the shady side and due to this even sabotages occurred. In one of these incidents F2A-2's arrestor hooks had been deliberately weakened. I'm sure you can imagine that something like that didn't exactly add Brewster's points in the eyes of the Navy.
All the above happened largely after the Brewster which AH was delivered to Finland.
Then there were the technical problems which made F4F better suited Naval fighter:
- Brewster's landing gear didn't withstand carrier use well. They tended to collapse quite easily and the fact that the take-off weight kept creeping up with the later variants didn't exactly help either. This wasn't a simiilar problem when operating from land bases. There were couple gear collapses in Finnish use but not many.
- The wing was a single piece unit with a single continuous spar. When damaged it was very hard and slow to repair and it really could not have been made foldable without more or less complete redesign.
- Those self sealing tanks which already have been mentioned.
- F4F was more rugged airframe and based on my experience that is the case in AH. Again, only my subjective view regarding the matter. If someone doubts it, you can test it.
- Twin wasp generally was more favored as the fighter engine over the Cyclone in the US military circles.
So next time some of you wonders why a certain plane was replaced by another one in certain country's certain military service branch, try to bare in mind that in real war and life there are few more factors involved than which can turn inside which in an 2012 air combat simulator's main arena.
-
:furious I have banned myself from having an opinion as punishment for voting for the ME-410..."I'm not worthy!" :bhead :noid
-
:furious I have banned myself from having an opinion as punishment for voting for the ME-410..."I'm not worthy!" :bhead :noid
:aok
We all make mistakes,fly special events your decision making will more more clear without MA clogging your brain.
-
Here is one of the handful of remaining single-engine fighter aircraft that would not be a hangar queen a week after its introduction to the MA I think.
(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd148/tjlaven/J2M-Raiden.jpg)
Would look pretty good in the AH sky. It would likely reduce the number of N1Ks you see about, but you wouldn't be any safer. Climb rate is very good at about 3800 fpm. Carries the same armament as the George, 4 wing-mounted Type 99 20mm cannon and its 10mph faster at around 380 mph. It has never done well in community voting though. Was designed by the same guy who designed the A6M.
-
Didn't a number have 2 cannons and 2 MGs? Might distinquish it a bit more from the N1K2 we have?
But, yes! That would be a good addition to the game.
-
Didn't a number have 2 cannons and 2 MGs? Might distinquish it a bit more from the N1K2 we have?
But, yes! That would be a good addition to the game.
The J2M2 Model 11 had that gun package.
ack-ack
-
Here is one of the handful of remaining single-engine fighter aircraft that would not be a hangar queen a week after its introduction to the MA I think.
(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd148/tjlaven/J2M-Raiden.jpg)
Would look pretty good in the AH sky. It would likely reduce the number of N1Ks you see about, but you wouldn't be any safer. Climb rate is very good at about 3800 fpm. Carries the same armament as the George, 4 wing-mounted Type 99 20mm cannon and its 10mph faster at around 380 mph. It has never done well in community voting though. Was designed by the same guy who designed the A6M.
Raiden would be a lot of fun!
It could reduce the numbers of the N1K2 but not because of performance. Two of the J2M3's four cannons are same rather weak Type 99 Model 1 cannons which can be found from the A6M2 for example. The other two are the same as N1K2's Model 2 cannons but as N1K2 has four of them. As mentioned J2M2 had two Model 2 cannons and two rifle calibre mgs. Also the 380mph figure is for the J2M5 with 3-speed supercharger (only 43 J2M5s were built), J2M2 speed was very close to the N1K2 at 370mph. I'd certainly enjoy Raiden a great deal, much better looking airplane than the N1K2.
EDIT/Mixed up the production numbers./EDIT
-
Here is one of the handful of remaining single-engine fighter aircraft that would not be a hangar queen a week after its introduction to the MA I think.
(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd148/tjlaven/J2M-Raiden.jpg)
Would look pretty good in the AH sky. It would likely reduce the number of N1Ks you see about, but you wouldn't be any safer. Climb rate is very good at about 3800 fpm. Carries the same armament as the George, 4 wing-mounted Type 99 20mm cannon and its 10mph faster at around 380 mph. It has never done well in community voting though. Was designed by the same guy who designed the A6M.
I like it..right after we get the HE 111.
-
How about a Zwilling and and Me 321?