Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: earl1937 on September 03, 2013, 01:52:25 PM
-
:airplane: As anyone can see, with over 400 responses to the original post, there is a great deal of intrest in having the P-63 in the Aces High stable. How about it Hi Tech, with some in the game already that is not being used much, maybe the 63 would be used a good deal more than what is here.
-
+1
:aok
-
HTC doesn't respond to such threads. There is a Beaufighter thread and a Whirlwind thread that are much longer and no comment, beyond the Beaufighter being on the last poll, on either has been made by HTC.
Even when a requested aircraft or tank is added nobody knows if the requesting of it had any influence on it being added or if HTC had added it completely independently of what people on the BB posted.
-
HTC doesn't respond to such threads. There is a Beaufighter thread and a Whirlwind thread that are much longer and no comment, beyond the Beaufighter being on the last poll, on either has been made by HTC.
Even when a requested aircraft or tank is added nobody knows if the requesting of it had any influence on it being added or if HTC had added it completely independently of what people on the BB posted.
:airplane: I understand Hi Tech's attitude about requests, but if you don't ask, you will never know, and I bet that I won't get a entry in my personell file for asking! :neener:
-
HTC doesn't respond to such threads. There is a Beaufighter thread and a Whirlwind thread that are much longer and no comment, beyond the Beaufighter being on the last poll, on either has been made by HTC.
Even when a requested aircraft or tank is added nobody knows if the requesting of it had any influence on it being added or if HTC had added it completely independently of what people on the BB posted.
Beaufighter made it to the poll, that is the response the community wnated. It didn't win. It will probably be on the next poll. All we are asking is to put the P-63 in the poll.
-
Beaufighter made it to the poll, that is the response the community wnated. It didn't win. It will probably be on the next poll. All we are asking is to put the P-63 in the poll.
If the P-63 is in the poll the only things that might contend with it are the A-26 and the M26. Unless you want a poll of those three it is pointless to even bother with a poll containing those units. These are things that ought to be added without a poll when HTC determines it is time. Polls ought to be used to for the community to pick something when the outcome is uncertain.
-
:airplane: As anyone can see, with over 400 responses to the original post, there is a great deal of intrest in having the P-63 in the Aces High stable. How about it Hi Tech, with some in the game already that is not being used much, maybe the 63 would be used a good deal more than what is here.
I don't see the overwhelming interest in having it immediately added to the a/c list that you do, Earl.
400 responses of various kinds (many of which are from the same members, many of which include the
opinion that it's nowhere near the time to model it, many of which have nothing to do with the P-63)
doesn't indicate 400 wants.
-
P-63 generated alot of buzz, which is interesting because other aircraft like the G.55 and Re.2005 I couldn't get more then 1 page of comments on it.
Mainly because the P-63 has some stellar stats, where the other aircraft I post don't have much.
-
I don't see the overwhelming interest in having it immediately added to the a/c list that you do, Earl.
400 responses of various kinds (many of which are from the same members, many of which include the
opinion that it's nowhere near the time to model it, many of which have nothing to do with the P-63)
doesn't indicate 400 wants.
:bhead Wasn't saying we have 400 responses in the positive for wanting the P-63, what I am saying is this: I might see 1 P-39 every 2 or 3 days, and sometimes a week goes by without seeing one, so why not discontinue the use of that aircraft and put something in its place that people will use?
-
so why not discontinue the use of that aircraft and put something in its place that people will use?
Why in the world you would remove a plane from AH?? Just becasue it's -in your eyes - not 'popular' enough :headscratch:
-
I don't see the overwhelming interest in having it immediately added to the a/c list that you do, Earl.
400 responses of various kinds (many of which are from the same members, many of which include the
opinion that it's nowhere near the time to model it, many of which have nothing to do with the P-63)
doesn't indicate 400 wants.
indeed. The OP is clearly skewing the facts here.
-
:bhead Wasn't saying we have 400 responses in the positive for wanting the P-63, what I am saying is this: I might see 1 P-39 every 2 or 3 days, and sometimes a week goes by without seeing one, so why not discontinue the use of that aircraft and put something in its place that people will use?
Yeah, I am sure that would make those pilots who do like it pretty happy campers and thereby supporters for your idea of what planes others should be flying. Why don't you make a list of every plane you are willing to do without for your list of planes you think will be enjoyed more by those who fly the game. You seem to have a much better idea of what I should fly than I do sir. :salute
:rolleyes:
-
so why not discontinue the use of that aircraft and put something in its place that people will use?
Because in Scenarios its a must have plane for just about every theater of operation during WW2, and because its also one really fun plane to fly:
Butcher
21:23:34 Departed from Field #3 in a P-39D
21:35:16 Shot down a A6M2 flown by Tarstar.
21:35:46 Shot down a A6M2 flown by soulplne.
21:35:47 Shot down a A6M2 flown by pembquit.
21:36:07 Shot down a A6M2 flown by N1Ace.
21:37:09 Helps rob53 shoot down EmanHill.
21:37:55 Shot down a A6M2 flown by wagger.
21:38:12 Shot down a A6M2 flown by lethrnek.
21:38:27 Helps Butters shoot down oMAVRIKo.
21:39:00 Shot down a A6M2 flown by SKfgALPO.
21:39:03 Helps Daddkev shoot down Humbik.
21:39:33 Helps rob53 shoot down Snowba11.
21:40:39 Destroyed a fuel bunker at base #05
21:44:20 Destroyed a soft gun battery at base #05
21:47:21 Arrived Safely at Field #9
-
If the P-63 is in the poll the only things that might contend with it are the A-26 and the M26. Unless you want a poll of those three it is pointless to even bother with a poll containing those units. These are things that ought to be added without a poll when HTC determines it is time. Polls ought to be used to for the community to pick something when the outcome is uncertain.
You forgot the meteor, that gets my vote
-
Frankly. No.
-1
I honestly hope it's never added. Of the 400 posts on it, they all come from the same 10 or so people. Just to piss them off I hope HTC never responds and never adds it.
-
:bhead Wasn't saying we have 400 responses in the positive for wanting the P-63, what I am saying is this: I might see 1 P-39 every 2 or 3 days, and sometimes a week goes by without seeing one, so why not discontinue the use of that aircraft and put something in its place that people will use?
I have yet to go a day without at least seeing one. Hell, I see more P-39s than I see Ta 152s, despite the 152 being a far, far, far superior aircraft.
-
I honestly hope it's never added. Of the 400 posts on it, they all come from the same 10 or so people. Just to piss them off I hope HTC never responds and never adds it.
Wow.
-
I have yet to go a day without at least seeing one. Hell, I see more P-39s than I see Ta 152s, despite the 152 being a far, far, far superior aircraft.
They are somewhat underestimated.
63 would take it to a new level
-
Frankly. No.
-1
I honestly hope it's never added. Of the 400 posts on it, they all come from the same 10 or so people. Just to piss them off I hope HTC never responds and never adds it.
:lol
@theCrab....I hope just because you wish this, HT makes it so. ;) Will it fly like I like to fly, No. Will lots of others have fun and fly it allot ... Yes! Will I fly it , ..Occasionally. @end
I was just reading the one of the BoB threads. Bruv saying the last BoB that they ran was in 2008? .....so the next one rolls along in 2017?
How much time would it take for the P-63, P-51 <MkI, Ia>, A36, A20G1, A26B/C or even ....shall I dare say it :noid... the D.520 and Boomer, to eclipse the usage/fun/interest combined of the 111 and the 7B?
Is the Beau-fighter going to get used? Yeah, some will fly it..... will it get used in scenarios yep ...a few. Will it eclipse any of the above in MA usage ...nope <accept the 111>!
Earl how bout we replace these 2? Pick 2 above that are in the in the game? I fly the 39D around you all the time .....cycle your icons once in a while. Many times it's my 39D taking the radar down for your incoming missions :aok
What planes could we enter into the game that the players would have more fun with, just skipping the scenario aspect altogether, but remaining with in the "shadow/pseudo" requirements of..... seen action, squad strength and no night fighters?
And while there at it put .....the fun back in the 109F-4 :pray
Please,
:salute
-
:lol
@theCrab....I hope just because you wish this, HT makes it so. ;) Will it fly like I like to fly, No. Will lots of others have fun and fly it allot ... Yes! Will I fly it , ..Occasionally. @end
I was just reading the one of the BoB threads. Bruv saying the last BoB that they ran was in 2008? .....so the next one rolls along in 2017?
How much time would it take for the P-63, P-51 <MkI, Ia>, A36, A20G1, A26B/C or even ....shall I dare say it :noid... the D.520 and Boomer, to eclipse the usage/fun/interest combined of the 111 and the 7B?
Is the Beau-fighter going to get used? Yeah, some will fly it..... will it get used in scenarios yep ...a few. Will it eclipse any of the above in MA usage ...nope <accept the 111>!
Earl how bout we replace these 2? Pick 2 above that are in the in the game? I fly the 39D around you all the time .....cycle your icons once in a while. Many times it's my 39D taking the radar down for your incoming missions :aok
What planes could we enter into the game that the players would have more fun with, just skipping the scenario aspect altogether, but remaining with in the "shadow/pseudo" requirements of..... seen action, squad strength and no night fighters?
And while there at it put .....the fun back in the 109F-4 :pray
Please,
:salute
:airplane: All I did was give Hi Tech an opportunity to respond so everyone could see where the He stands on adding the P-63! I did not advocate anything except to replace something that is not being used much, and give it a chance. I have no feelings one way or the other about who fly's what and when. I Think the intent of the post is pretty clear!
-
I did not advocate anything except to replace something that is not being used much, and give it a chance.
You still have not answered why you would like to see a plane removed? What's the reasoning behind taking something away?
-
I did not advocate anything except to replace something that is not being used much
There is nothing to be gained by removing/replacing an existing unit. It isn't taking a spot that could be used for something else. There are functionally unlimited spaces for units so we always want more added in addition to what we already have. Taking away the P-39 is a completely unnecessary step in adding the P-63. It would actually take HTC a little more work to replace the P-39D with the P-63 than it would to just add the P-63.
-
You still have not answered why you would like to see a plane removed? What's the reasoning behind taking something away?
:airplane: OK, see if u can follow this logic: "you have an aircraft which, for the most part, is a "hangar queen", then why not replace it with something that maybe would be used more". Surly you see the "logic" behind that statement! You really don't have to remove it from the game, but if it is not being used, looks to me like its just taking up computer memory, which could be used for something else.
-
:airplane: OK, see if u can follow this logic: "you have an aircraft which, for the most part, is a "hangar queen", then why not replace it with something that maybe would be used more". Surly you see the "logic" behind that statement!
But the. You take away a tool that has use in special events and that some folks fly.
That would be like saying "oh. Let's take everyone's black powder rifles and give them a modern one instead"
Id rather have the p39 than not have it.
-
:airplane: All I did was give Hi Tech an opportunity to respond
I did not advocate anything except to replace something that is not being used much,
You didn't ...GIVE... HT anything.
The P-39 see's plenty of action.... go to some other planes sandbox with that scat.
:airplane: OK, see if u can follow this logic: "you have an aircraft which, for the most part, is a "hangar queen", then why not replace it with something that maybe would be used more". Surly you see the "logic" behind that statement! You really don't have to remove it from the game, but if it is not being used, looks to me like its just taking up computer memory, which could be used for something else.
No we don't :lol
Oh Btw... isn't this writing smaller than in the game? How come you can read/see this but not the TEXT BUFFER!?
:cheers:
-
:airplane: OK, see if u can follow this logic: "you have an aircraft which, for the most part, is a "hangar queen", then why not replace it with something that maybe would be used more". Surly you see the "logic" behind that statement!
What you may perceive as a 'hangar queen' others see as a plane they want in the game, whether for MA or event purposes. Removing it doesn't serve the purpose you may think. Every plane (or vehicle, for that matter) that HTC has added is a result of both community interest and HTC's opinion of how much that plane affects play balance or is a potential asset for historical events. The hangar/arena has unlimited model potential. What HTC doesn't have is unlimited time and resources to model every single plane asked for in the wishlist (whether it gets a dozen +1s or not).
-
:airplane: OK, see if u can follow this logic: "you have an aircraft which, for the most part, is a "hangar queen", then why not replace it with something that maybe would be used more". Surly you see the "logic" behind that statement!
No, because nothing is gained by removing it. It isn't like a physical hangar where you only have so much space and eventually if you want a new airplane you need to get rid of one you already have. In the computer game you can just add more and more without worrying about space to fit it all in.
The choice is not "P-39D or P-63." It is "Add the P-63 or not?" The existence of the P-39D has no effect on the question at all.
Put it another way, given the choice would you pick "P-63 and P-39D" or "P-63 but no P-39D"? Even if you don't plan on using the P-39D it would be silly not to get both because two options are better than one.
-
The P39-D is an excellent plane when the 20mm gun package is used.
-
Q.
You still have not answered why you would like to see a plane removed? What's the reasoning behind taking something away?
A. Ima idiot
Thought so.
-
:airplane: All I did was give Hi Tech an opportunity to respond so everyone could see where the He stands on adding the P-63! I did not advocate anything except to replace something that is not being used much, and give it a chance. I have no feelings one way or the other about who fly's what and when. I Think the intent of the post is pretty clear!
I do not fly that aircraft and do not care whether anyone else likes it or not, lets get rid of it so we can have an airplane I might like better!
Your intent is pretty clear sir, pretty clear indeed. It is what I call selfishness.
-
Ease up on Earl. :)
-
Ease up on Earl. :)
Why? Will you ease up on anyone if you are asked to do so? :D
didn't think so...
-
Why? Will you ease up on anyone if you are asked to do so? :D
didn't think so...
Well, so much for waiting for an answer. I've been known to. :)
-
Q.
A.
Thought so.
Spoken like a true Mass-hole.
-
Spoken like a true Mass-hole.
Doesn't mean hes wrong.
-
Doesn't mean hes wrong.
What it means is he presumes he's right. No question. A judgement on my character.
Had the question been a legitimate one he would have received an answer other than
the one he supplied for me.
-
That was a knee jerk comment defending earl from being called an idiot by devil. Earl posts great stuff and is not an idiot.
-
That was a knee jerk comment defending earl from being called an idiot by devil. Earl posts great stuff and is not an idiot.
So you agree on his idea to remove the P-39 just because he doesn't fly it and thinks it sucks?
-
Ok guys you are making such a fuss about that maybe HTC is not adding it because he finds these threads amusing. :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
How about lets not argue about it. If you want go gather the Data. :old:
There is a saying, "God helps those who help them selves."
If you would have all the statics, blueprints, skins you would like to see, and performance data.
Post it or email it to HtC. We are not a bunch of Lard prettythanges we can help HTC. :x Start a Thread to compile data. Also give the place you found it so it can be verified.
If we do that HTC can add with doing minimal research. Or he can decide not to. I also believe that everyone will fill more rewarded than whining about it.
YOU can Say I HELP get the plane here.
Also I believe that HTC will not deny us it if we get the data for him unless it is a unreasonable plane or would unbalance the system.
Just my thinking
-
So you agree on his idea to remove the P-39 just because he doesn't fly it and thinks it sucks?
Having a bad idea and being an idiot are two different things. Don't be an idiot. :D
-
So you agree on his idea to remove the P-39 just because he doesn't fly it and thinks it sucks?
Nope, never said that. its not cool to call earl or anyone else trying to contribute an idiot, that's all...especially if their contributing in a positive way.
I swear, some of the guys in here just live to Cleveland steam every post.
-
I swear, some of the guys in here just live to Cleveland steam every post.
I've never seen the term but I think I get the gist.
Whoa ... looked it up. Erm. Whoa.
-
So you agree on his idea to remove the P-39 just because he doesn't fly it and thinks it sucks?
Since you asked, I agree with half his statement (i.e. it sucks).
ack-ack
-
That was a knee jerk comment defending earl from being called an idiot by devil. Earl posts great stuff and is not an idiot.
This I certainly agree with,most of you guys are 1/2 or even less than 1/4 Earl's age,he has real life experiences that most here could only dream to have and just because he makes a statement that many don't agree with you jump all over the guy.
Personally I wouldn't want to see any plane removed,they all have a purpose,but how about we just cut earl so slack? Oh that just might be asking too much from some of you!
:salute
-
This I certainly agree with,most of you guys are 1/2 or even less than 1/4 Earl's age,he has real life experiences that most here could only dream to have and just because he makes a statement that many don't agree with you jump all over the guy.
Personally I wouldn't want to see any plane removed,they all have a purpose,but how about we just cut earl so slack? Oh that just might be asking too much from some of you!
:salute
:airplane: Thanks for the comment, but these guys don't bother me, if I can get them researching and educating themselves, I have met my objective with my posts! :salute
-
I do not think I was attacking Earl. I like that he is here and appropriate his posting. I was trying to explain why removing the P-39 didn't make any sense, nothing more.
-
That was a knee jerk comment defending earl from being called an idiot by devil. Earl posts great stuff and is not an idiot.
In general Earl provides good stuff, but his distortion of the facts while pandering to HTC for the P-63, suggestion to remove the P-39, and defense of his suggestion is what I find idiotic.
Yes my post was harsh, and I probably shouldn't have posted it, but I stand by my opinion in this case. If you or anyone else finds that duly idiotic, so be it.
Spoken like a true Mass-hole.
:devil
-
I do not think I was attacking Earl. I like that he is here and appropriate his posting. I was trying to explain why removing the P-39 didn't make any sense, nothing more.
Karnak,
I wasn't directing my post at you or anyone else who merely tried to point out that removing an airplane from the game wasn't a good idea,infact I agree with you!
My post was directed at those who choose to use personal attacks and those who agree with this type of thing. Earl,I wasn't trying to defend you either,I just think a little respect can go a long way. That's just how I am.
:salute
-
There are no hangar queens in Aces High.
Every plane has a rabid fan who will quit if his mount is removed.
-
There are no hangar queens in Aces High.
Every plane has a rabid fan who will quit if his mount is removed.
Agreed.
- oldman
-
:airplane: Thanks for the comment, but these guys don't bother me, if I can get them researching and educating themselves, I have met my objective with my posts! :salute
I'm sorry, your objective was to make people look up information and educate themselves by posting that you wish HTC drops a plane you do not care about for one you do?
Sorry Morf, I call BS. I have nothing against him personally, but his being so selfish in this "wish" and then using fallacious logic and this ^ sanctimonious BS to validate it needs to be addressed, regardless of any other redeeming personal qualities. Alright Morf, said my piece, I am out. :salute
-
There are no hangar queens in Aces High.
Every plane has a rabid fan who will quit if his mount is removed.
Hangar Queen doesn't mean never. It means Almost never. No one is ever going to remove a plane, so no one is ever going to quit under that scenario.
:salute
-
So you agree on his idea to remove the P-39 just because he doesn't fly it and thinks it sucks?
:airplane: Where do you guys get the idea that I think the current P-39 "sucks"? I never said anything to imply that, all I did was ask Hi-Tech a question. As for my feelings about the P-39, I really don't have any, because I fly it very rarely, but based on the specs between it and the P-63, I think the P-63 would be used more often than the P-39. As I have pointed out before, I don't really care who fly's what or when. I am a bomber pilot because of eyesight and experience and will always be in this game. I fly bombers 95% of the time, so really, If you want to fly a "Spad", a "fork-tailed" devil, or a "gull-winged" whisper of death, go to it.
-
:airplane: Where do you guys get the idea that I think the current P-39 "sucks"? I never said anything to imply that, all I did was ask Hi-Tech a question. As for my feelings about the P-39, I really don't have any, because I fly it very rarely, but based on the specs between it and the P-63, I think the P-63 would be used more often than the P-39. As I have pointed out before, I don't really care who fly's what or when. I am a bomber pilot because of eyesight and experience and will always be in this game. I fly bombers 95% of the time, so really, If you want to fly a "Spad", a "fork-tailed" devil, or a "gull-winged" whisper of death, go to it.
Sorry about that comment I usually tend to remain neutral in threads but I was a little pissy due to this cold I have and took it out on you. The P-39 deserves to be in the game as much as the next aircraft, whether we get the P-63 or not doesn't matter because even if they add the I-153 or Gloster Gladiator both planes have a deserved spot in Aces high, no matter how old or slow the plane is, if it served in WW2 it deserves to be in Aces High.
I am a fan of the P-39 in a sense it was an early war bird that was placed in a very difficult situation and was outclassed on every front it faced. However even I have my limits when it comes to flying higher ENY aircraft - the P-39 is just one I stay away from.
-
Earl, the P-63 wouldn't see much usage, since it would be perked. Picture an F4U-4 on a 'roid rage that swaps out a pair of .50's for a 37mm hub cannon, and you have the P-63.
What you're advocating is a perked late-war fighter with slightly better performance than the F4U-4, that shot down 3 planes at most, and shot up trucks for the rest of its career.
-
Earl, the P-63 wouldn't see much usage, since it would be perked. Picture an F4U-4 on a 'roid rage that swaps out a pair of .50's for a 37mm hub cannon, and you have the P-63.
What you're advocating is a perked late-war fighter with slightly better performance than the F4U-4, that shot down 3 planes at most, and shot up trucks for the rest of its career.
We are advocating the later war upgrade of the P-39 that served for 18 months of the war in numbers greater than 2,500 planes. And we are proposing it because it has a different combination of attributes than any other late war fighter. So it's an excellent new plane to try to Master in LWMA.
Where 98% of us spend 98% of our time. :salute
-
As I said, late-war perk fighter, better than the F4U-4. 3 planes and a lot of trucks. Package it up any way you like, but snake oil is still snake oil.
And I think the thing you're missing here is PERK fighter. Perk plane usage almost certainly accounts for less than 10% of total activity in the game. Drop that 98% back down to a 9.8%, and it would be more accurate.
If added, the P-63 WILL be perked, no ifs, ands, or buts. It will also have the misfortune of having an annoying gun package for most of the players in the game. It will also be vulnerable to planes like the K4, La-7, 190D9, etc, making it even less attractive, since most players would be simply writing a check for 25 perks on take-off.
This caters specifically to the P-39 crowd, and nothing more. It doesn't add anything but a 37mm cannon to an F4U-4, and everyone will fight it as such. Actual flight characteristics will certainly be nothing new; fast, climbs good, pretty maneuverable. Attributes shared by the F4U-4, La-7, and the K4 to a lesser degree. There no way to reasonably justify its addition in the near future over so many others that has so much greater impact, and simply did so much more.
-
As I said, late-war perk fighter, better than the F4U-4. 3 planes and a lot of trucks. Package it up any way you like, but snake oil is still snake oil.
And I think the thing you're missing here is PERK fighter.
And? I fly the 262 and crash them as I please, I should be allowed a P-63 since it was in the war.
-
And? I fly the 262 and crash them as I please, I should be allowed a P-63 since it was in the war.
It's not the only plane left to model. And you should be allowed them all. ;)
-
Nobody's saying it should never be added. We're saying it should be added much later.
And? I fly the 262 and crash them as I please, I should be allowed a P-63 since it was in the war.
You completely miss the point. Hes saying we should add it for the MA because most people fly in the MA. But he just ignores the fact that it will be actually used very little.
-
The P-39 deserves to be in the game as much as the next aircraft, whether we get the P-63 or not doesn't matter because even if they add the I-153 or Gloster Gladiator both planes have a deserved spot in Aces high, no matter how old or slow the plane is, if it served in WW2 it deserves to be in Aces High.
Well said Butcher :salute
-
But he just ignores the fact that it will be actually used very little.
If this plane is as good as they say, I am certain you are wrong about this. It may be perked, but it will not be outrageous if at all.
I am guessing here, but it appears the 63 has the same HORRID cockpit visibility as the 39. That is enough of a disadvantage to counter half of its superior qualities. It will be mince meat for any comparable fighter that can catch one in a co-E fight.
I doubt there will be any perks at all.
-
If this plane is as good as they say, I am certain you are wrong about this. It may be perked, but it will not be outrageous if at all.
I am guessing here, but it appears the 63 has the same HORRID cockpit visibility as the 39. That is enough of a disadvantage to counter half of its superior qualities. It will be mince meat for any comparable fighter that can catch one in a co-E fight.
I doubt there will be any perks at all.
It will get used, tank just assumes it won't. Problem with the aircraft lineup we have that are perked, not many interest me - I'm not a corsair fan, and 262s are expensive. If the Yak-3 had a pair of 20mm with 200 rpg I'd be flying that perk baby every sortie.
My point is we have a very limited perk selection, it would be nice to expand it a little.
-
If we can have an unmitigated disaster like the Brewster Buffalo in AH, then please put the KingCobra in this game!
Just my 8 cents. ( up from two cents for to cover the costs of Obamacare.) :bhead
-
If we can have an unmitigated disaster like the Brewster Buffalo in AH, then please put the KingCobra in this game!
Just my 8 cents. ( up from two cents for to cover the costs of Obamacare.) :bhead
You seriously need to do some actual reading. On multiple subjects. Offering opinions on things you, self evidently, know nothing about only provides illumination about your shortcomings, not your target's shortcomings.
-
You seriously need to do some actual reading. On multiple subjects. Offering opinions on things you, self evidently, know nothing about only provides illumination about your shortcomings, not your target's shortcomings.
Krusty, really, who made you judge of everyone's posts? Was that a help to the thread? :salute
-
If we can have an unmitigated disaster like the Brewster Buffalo in AH
You should really read up on the B-239 and it's operational history before making statements ;)
-
You should really read up on the B-239 and it's operational history before making statements ;)
Why? Isnt it easier to just go by what you're told? I wish HTC would add the brew,a B-239 with about another 1000 lbs just so players can compare apples to oranges!
:salute
-
Why? Isnt it easier to just go by what you're told? I wish HTC would add the brew,a B-239 with about another 1000 lbs just so players can compare apples to oranges!
:salute
So what you are trying to say that most people dont' understand - the Brewster Buffalo being 1,000lbs heavier would fly like a pig and get schooled by just about everything in game where the B-239 actually was a decent aircraft losing the weight?
Now I understand! WOW that was easy to figure out! The B-239 is lighter which makes it a better aircraft unlike its pig for a cousin! Oh boy if I could figure that out I wonder who else could, maybe the whining over the B-239 wonder plane will end now because even I figured it out! (Seriously just how many don't understand why and will continue to argue till no end).
-
Krusty, really, who made you judge of everyone's posts? Was that a help to the thread? :salute
Krusty? :headscratch:
-
. . . I am guessing here, but it appears the 63 has the same HORRID cockpit visibility as the 39. That is enough of a disadvantage to counter half of its superior qualities. It will be mince meat for any comparable fighter that can catch one in a co-E fight. . . .
The secret to the " . . . HORRID cockpit visibility . . ." of the P39 is to keep the red guys in front at all times. :)
The canon is really more of a problem than the thick cockpit braces. Lots of power in the canon but if you are not a dead shot, then you are dead if the other plane doesn't bleed off E quick enough to give you a second shot. The add power of the 63 would help in closure time allowing you get in closer, quicker for a higher percentage shot.
I am interested in the 63 from the standpoint does it live up to the lore real or not. I wonder if it does? Were there dirty politics involved by North American to interfere with an earlier development of the King Cobra? Maybe Bell had lead feet? Maybe the designers could never see the forest for the trees with the less than stellar canon-MG package. As I noted before a friend who flew the 39 in the war had an ashamed tone in his voice when he spoke of having to fly the P39. This stigma may have had deep roots in the pentagon as well.
-
Krusty, really, who made you judge of everyone's posts? Was that a help to the thread? :salute
My apologies to Krusty. I meant Karnak.
Nice catch Arlo. :salute
-
My apologies to Krusty. I meant Karnak.
Nice catch Arlo. :salute
:salute :cheers:
(http://www.checksix-forums.com/gallerie/albums/userpics/48067/SM_79_Sparviero_10.jpg)
-
As I noted before a friend who flew the 39 in the war had an ashamed tone in his voice when he spoke of having to fly the P39. This stigma may have had deep roots in the pentagon as well.
There was a player in Air Warrior, a WW2 vet that went by the handle of Earl1 (his P-47, "Viking" is skinned in this game), flew the P-39, P-38G and P-47 in the MTO. When he was asked which plane he enjoyed flying the most, he replied that it was the P-39, which he flew during convoy escort duties. He did mention that in inexperienced hands, it was a difficult plane to fly but if you knew the ins and outs of the plane, it was a joy.
ack-ack
-
Krusty, really, who made you judge of everyone's posts? Was that a help to the thread? :salute
It was an honest mistake Vink, the resemblance is uncanny. They could be twins.
-
It was an honest mistake Vink, the resemblance is uncanny. They could be twins.
Sorry, no. I am not nearly as negative or caustic as Krusty. But when somebody posts discredited roadkill yet again, and chooses to toss bumper sticker level political crap on top of it I don't see the need to be polite as they set the tone.
Honestly I shouldn't have even responded. I suspect most people who post such things as the Brewster is over modeled or the Spitfire Mk XVI only saw 39 hours of combat or other such things just post and run, making any correction to their ill informed post moot as they'll never see it.
-
There was a player in Air Warrior, a WW2 vet that went by the handle of Earl1 (his P-47, "Viking" is skinned in this game), flew the P-39, P-38G and P-47 in the MTO. When he was asked which plane he enjoyed flying the most, he replied that it was the P-39, which he flew during convoy escort duties. He did mention that in inexperienced hands, it was a difficult plane to fly but if you knew the ins and outs of the plane, it was a joy.
ack-ack
The P-39 was absolutely terrible. There is no pluses when trying to describe the P-39. The russians might have some aces who used it, but given how many pilots were expended over it, its best use was against unescorted betty bombers and nothing more.
There are very few aircraft I believe should never of exited or been developed, the P-39 is just one of those. How many books were written by fighter pilots praising the P-39? I don't have any.
-
. . .I suspect most people who post such things as the Brewster is over modeled
Since spending some time in the P39, I understand why people think the Brewster is over modeled. I too thought the Brewster was over modeled but now I know given the right circumstances, the Brewster or P39 can out fly most planes in the game. The key is the "right circumstances" which makes the Brewster and planes like the P39 look like super planes not the planes modeling.
-
Since spending some time in the P39, I understand why people think the Brewster is over modeled. I too thought the Brewster was over modeled but now I know given the right circumstances, the Brewster or P39 can out fly most planes in the game. The key is the "right circumstances" which makes the Brewster and planes like the P39 look like super planes not the planes modeling.
Indeed. People take their late war monster and then do something stupid around a Brewster or P-39 or P-40 and get killed, then whine about it because they feel (yes feel, not think) that the monster is supposed to out everything the POS. Of course in reality there are almost always tradeoffs and powerful engines that bring small, low drag airframes to 450mph are heavy causing turn radius and low speed handling to deteriorate.
If you look at the B-239's usage and K/D ratio in AH you see it is nothing special and claims of it pulling a 180 and chasing down a faster fighter are absurd excuses to justify why one just died to such a poor performing fighter.
-
Indeed. People take their late war monster and then do something stupid around a Brewster or P-39 or P-40 and get killed, then whine about it because they feel (yes feel, not think) that the monster is supposed to out everything the POS. Of course in reality there are almost always tradeoffs and powerful engines that bring small, low drag airframes to 450mph are heavy causing turn radius and low speed handling to deteriorate.
If you look at the B-239's usage and K/D ratio in AH you see it is nothing special and claims of it pulling a 180 and chasing down a faster fighter are absurd excuses to justify why one just died to such a poor performing fighter.
The B-239 is not exceptional in any way, however you are exactly right - one of the reasons I stick to flying 20 eny fighters is they are not overated or underated. I can still catch someone much easier then if I were in a B-239.
One tour I ended up #1 in fighers flying the C.205 for a reason - people always considered it wasn't a threat until that big gun package started blazing away at them then they cried foul.
205 isn't nothing special, it climbs well and does 400 at 15k, I was amazed after the first handful would try to out run it, or out climb it expecting their late war monster to just pull away and end up getting killed.
Against a decent pilot, I was dead pretty much most of the time - there is no "cheat box" for the 205 to escape any real situation (for example a co-alt spit 8 will just school it).
Same people that get schooled by a B-239 are same ones who whine about everything, I've flown countless times against 239s and i've never seen anything special - unless its 10k above me I really don't even worry about one.
-
Indeed. People take their late war monster and then do something stupid around a Brewster or P-39 or P-40 and get killed, then whine about it because they feel (yes feel, not think) that the monster is supposed to out everything the POS. Of course in reality there are almost always tradeoffs and powerful engines that bring small, low drag airframes to 450mph are heavy causing turn radius and low speed handling to deteriorate.
If you look at the B-239's usage and K/D ratio in AH you see it is nothing special and claims of it pulling a 180 and chasing down a faster fighter are absurd excuses to justify why one just died to such a poor performing fighter.
To a certain extent I agree, and yet I have film of me overflying a base in a balls to the wall Typhoon as a Zeke was lifting, he managed to turn towards me and chase me down, now I am trying to put the film on but my technophobia is playing up :uhoh
-
He-177 please! :)
What every 'luftwaffle', 'luftwobble', and 'luftwhinner' in the game wants to fly! :cheers: And what every allied wants to shoot down!
-
To a certain extent I agree, and yet I have film of me overflying a base in a balls to the wall Typhoon as a Zeke was lifting, he managed to turn towards me and chase me down, now I am trying to put the film on but my technophobia is playing up :uhoh
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/wiki/images/thumb/4/48/A6m5bspd.jpg/300px-A6m5bspd.jpg)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/wiki/images/thumb/c/c3/Typhoonspd.jpg/300px-Typhoonspd.jpg)
You must of screwed up hard...
-
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/wiki/images/thumb/4/48/A6m5bspd.jpg/300px-A6m5bspd.jpg)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/wiki/images/thumb/c/c3/Typhoonspd.jpg/300px-Typhoonspd.jpg)
You must of screwed up hard...
First of all it's must "have"
Secondly: quite probably did.
Thirdly, happened nevertheless, happened today, I dived on a Zeke in a f6f from alt, passed him by as he turned hard then he ran me down
-
There was a player in Air Warrior, a WW2 vet that went by the handle of Earl1 (his P-47, "Viking" is skinned in this game), flew the P-39, P-38G and P-47 in the MTO. When he was asked which plane he enjoyed flying the most, he replied that it was the P-39, which he flew during convoy escort duties. He did mention that in inexperienced hands, it was a difficult plane to fly but if you knew the ins and outs of the plane, it was a joy.
ack-ack
Earl's P-39 is skinned in the game aswell "Eloise" 345FS/350FG by Fencer
-
butcher you dream would come true with the Yak3p.
It has 3*20mm, and have much better overall performance than the p63 and flew on the same front.
It would also be higher perked than the p63.
It will get used, tank just assumes it won't. Problem with the aircraft lineup we have that are perked, not many interest me - I'm not a corsair fan, and 262s are expensive. If the Yak-3 had a pair of 20mm with 200 rpg I'd be flying that perk baby every sortie.
My point is we have a very limited perk selection, it would be nice to expand it a little.
;
-
First of all it's must "have"
Secondly: quite probably did.
Thirdly, happened nevertheless, happened today, I dived on a Zeke in a f6f from alt, passed him by as he turned hard then he ran me down
I would love to see film of it. You mentioned you have film of one or both of the incidents. Would you mind emailing it to me?
I don't mean this in an "Oh yeah? I bet he is lying." way. I mean this in a "Somebody finally has film of one of these incidents and I really am curious to see it." way.
-
He-177 please! :)
What every 'luftwaffle', 'luftwobble', and 'luftwhinner' in the game wants to fly! :cheers: And what every allied wants to shoot down!
Check the Do217 thread for some Do217, Ju188 and He177 discussion.
-
butcher you dream would come true with the Yak3p.
It has 3*20mm, and have much better overall performance than the p63 and flew on the same front.
It would also be higher perked than the p63.
;
how is that possible when the Yak-3p started production in April 1945? P-63 was already at front line service and flying before the Yak-3p even rolled out the factories.
Closest numbers I have shows it entered service in 1946.
-
The P-39 was absolutely terrible. There is no pluses when trying to describe the P-39. The russians might have some aces who used it, but given how many pilots were expended over it, its best use was against unescorted betty bombers and nothing more.
There are very few aircraft I believe should never of exited or been developed, the P-39 is just one of those. How many books were written by fighter pilots praising the P-39? I don't have any.
Your view of the P-39 is rather myopic, completely ignoring it's actions in the Pacific in the early part of the war. For the USAAF, it as the P-40 and the P-39/P-400 that checked the IJAAF in the SW Pacific in the early days.
Well, at least for one P-39 pilot that flew them in the MTO, it was a joy to fly for him. Earl1 never said the P-39 was better than any of the other fighters he flew during the war, it was just the most enjoyable for him to fly.
ack-ack
-
Your view of the P-39 is rather myopic, completely ignoring it's actions in the Pacific in the early part of the war. For the USAAF, it as the P-40 and the P-39/P-400 that checked the IJAAF in the SW Pacific in the early days.
I've read fire in the sky, I know what the P-39 did, but it still is the biggest piece of crap fighter in my opinion regardless of what it did in the SW P. I do have tremendous respect for the pilots who flew it, even the russian pilots who threw themselves at the luftwaffe with it.
If you had to fly a P-40 or P-39 what would you choose? the majority I'm betting are going to pick the P-40, I know I would in a heart beat.
-
If you had to fly a P-40 or P-39 what would you choose? the majority I'm betting are going to pick the P-40, I know I would in a heart beat.
Can I whimper while I make my choice?
I recall reading about the first USAAF fighter squadron to get sent to the UK and how they had trained on P-39s in the States. They arrived in the UK to find that rather than waiting for their P-39s to arrive the UK had provided Spitfire Mk Vs in reverse lend-lease to their substantial relief as they had not been looking forward to going at the Luftwaffe in the P-39.
-
Butcher, in full squadron duty you are probably right, however they where produced from april-45 and Manchuria ended late summer -45, I so far only have internet sources, and my russian is more limited than my klingon.
If full squadron strength is needed, we already have some planes that would be in trouble.
Im not advocating for later stuff at all, but if King cobra enters the scene using Manchuria as latest date, we see some planes and tanks that would blow the socks of the rest.
I prefer to reinforce the mid-war plane/tank selection that go late war.
-
Butcher, in full squadron duty you are probably right, however they where produced from april-45 and Manchuria ended late summer -45, I so far only have internet sources, and my russian is more limited than my klingon.
The whole P-63 argument brought me to read up on a ton of information, I don't have anything that says Yak9-P's flew during WW2.
If I could find information that would say it flew in combat I would jump on it, but someone needs to get concrete evidence which I don't have.
-
You seriously need to do some actual reading. On multiple subjects. Offering opinions on things you, self evidently, know nothing about only provides illumination about your shortcomings, not your target's shortcomings.
Karnak. You can kiss my ack. I have read plenty about Brewster, it's woeful corporate mismanagement and it's pitiful airframes.The company was so bad it even managed to screw up a proven war winner. It's licensed built version of the Corsair, the F3A-1, had a reputation amongst pilots for poor quality, shoddy workmanship and a "plane not to fly if you could avoid it." <---- A quote from another book I have read on the subject. I really couldn't care less what a great job the Buffalo did in the skies over Finland. For me, it's what it couldn't do in the skies over Midway and Singapore. My grandfather was there flying SBDs and had to be protected by that unmitigated disaster. And that title is not one I gave the tubby little fighter that just looks like it has one foot in the monoplane era and one foot stuck in 1921. It was the title of a chapter in a book I used to own about carrier fighters of WWII.
So yes .. I read.
Yes ...you are extremely quick to judge.
And no ...I don't give a rat's patookus about your opinion.
Have a nice day, sir. :rock
-
Karnak. You can kiss my ack. I have read plenty about Brewster, it's woeful corporate mismanagement and it's pitiful airframes.The company was so bad it even managed to screw up a proven war winner. It's licensed built version of the Corsair, the F3A-1, had a reputation amongst pilots for poor quality, shoddy workmanship and a "plane not to fly if you could avoid it." <---- A quote from another book I have read on the subject. I really couldn't care less what a great job the Buffalo did in the skies over Finland. For me, it's what it couldn't do in the skies over Midway and Singapore. My grandfather was there flying SBDs and had to be protected by that unmitigated disaster. And that title is not one I gave the tubby little fighter that just looks like it has one foot in the monoplane era and one foot stuck in 1921. It was the title of a chapter in a book I used to own about carrier fighters of WWII.
So yes .. I read.
Yes ...you are extremely quick to judge.
And no ...I don't give a rat's patookus about your opinion.
Have a nice day, sir. :rock
It isn't my "opinion", it is historical fact. The fact that you conflate the disaster that was supposed to protect your grandfather with the B-239 used by the Finns and get upset when somebody dares to contradict your feelings indicates that you are making emotional decisions, not fact based decisions in regards to how it is modeled. Yes, the F2A3 Buffalo was a disaster, but it was also a far different machine than the B-239 and the fact that the B-239 in AH is not a disaster has no bearing on how the F2A3 Buffalo would be in AH.
I do agree with you that using the B-239 in AH as a substitute for the F2A3 is absurd and I have argued against it every time I see it happen used thusly.
-
It isn't my "opinion", it is historical fact. The fact that you conflate the disaster that was supposed to protect your grandfather with the B-239 used by the Finns and get upset when somebody dares to contradict your feelings indicates that you are making emotional decisions, not fact based decisions in regards to how it is modeled. Yes, the F2A3 Buffalo was a disaster, but it was also a far different machine than the B-239 and the fact that the B-239 in AH is not a disaster has no bearing on how the F2A3 Buffalo would be in AH.
I do agree with you that using the B-239 in AH as a substitute for the F2A3 is absurd and I have argued against it every time I see it happen used thusly.
Ah ...so it appears we do have some common ground after all. Very well. But my biased is against the Brewster Aeronautical Corporation in its entirety. Right, wrong or indifferent I have no love of any Brewster aircraft. It's a little different reading about it versus hearing the actual tales come out of the mouth of your greatest childhood hero.
-
Blinder, if you think the B-239 why did the Fins manage to shoot down so many russian aircraft with so very few?
How do you explain the fins shooting down 500 russian aircraft for the loss of 19 B-239s?
-
It's a little different reading about it versus hearing the actual tales come out of the mouth of your greatest childhood hero.
He did fly the Finnish version against the Soviet?
-
Superior training and tactics and not necessarily the machine. Also, in those early winter war days exactly what were the Finn's up against? I do know that Stalin purged his military so badly that they had a large deficiency in leadership, motivation and training. Many Finnish pilots racked up enormous scores on the Finnish/Soviet front by using formulaic defensive tactics against Soviet aircraft. The default tactic was the four-plane "parvi" with a pair flying low (but visible, not too close to the terrain) as the bait, and a pair flying high to dive on the eventual interceptors. In the long run, the Soviet Air Force on the Finnish front never developed an efficient approach to counter this tactic. According to some reports, this tactic also inspired the German Luftwaffe's kette.
Upon further inspection the export B-239 is little more than a F2A-1 with a two extra guns and a 950hp rated R-1820-G5 instead of a 940 or 950 hp rated R-1820-34. Once in country the Finns added armored backrests for their pilots, metric flight instruments, the Finnish Väisälä T.h.m.40 gunsight, and four .50 in (12.7 mm) machine guns. The top speed of the Finnish Buffalos, as modified, was 297 mph (478 km/h) at 15,675 ft, and their loaded weight was 5,820 lb. Not a tremendous difference between the US navalized version and this version.
So how was it we got our MiG kill ratios back up to snuff during the Vietnam conflict? We took on inferior machines such as the MiG-19 Farmer with the state of the art Phantom II and still from 2 March 1965 to 1 November 1968 we saw almost 1,000 U.S. aircraft losses in about one million sorties. The advent of Top Gun did not change the equipment, except to give the Phantom II an internal cannon. It provided for superior tactics and training.
This also brings to mind the subject of Jimmy Thach and his weave that confounded the superior Zero. The B-239 was not a superior weapon of war ....the Finnish pilots were.
-
He did fly the Finnish version against the Soviet?
Apples, oranges or grapes .... a B-239 by any other name ... is still a Buffalo. :airplane:
-
It's a little different reading about it versus hearing the actual tales come out of the mouth of your greatest childhood hero.
There are people (unlike you) however, who manage to remain objective regardless. My grandfather used tell me how the Stuka was one of the faster combat aircraft in flying in Finland during the war. Honest mistake really, he was an infantry man, not an aviation enthusiast and that was what he had heard during the war. He was and is my hero aswell, and yet I'm not repeating his factual error here.
Regarding Midway you either don't know or conveniently left unmentioned the fact that Marines were vastly outnumbered against the Japanese and didn't have any previous combat experience and that F4Fs also suffered heavy losses in that battle.
-
There are people (unlike you) however, who manage to remain objective regardless. My grandfather used tell me how the Stuka was one of the faster combat aircraft in flying in Finland during the war. Honest mistake really, he was an infantry man, not an aviation enthusiast and that was what he had heard during the war. He was and is my hero aswell, and yet I'm not repeating his factual error here.
Regarding Midway you either don't know or conveniently left unmentioned the fact that Marines were vastly outnumbered against the Japanese and didn't have any previous combat experience and that F4Fs also suffered heavy losses in that battle.
And at that time, the F4F, without the superior tactics put in place by Thach's experimentation, was still inferior to the Zeke. Gentlemen, I've already established my biases against Brewster. You can continue to beat that dead horse all you like. It doesn't change the fact that my argument about mechanical shortcomings is solid, nor does it change the fact that tubby little fighters from the late 1930s were inferior machines to the best the Axis could put up in those days.
Your quote here "Regarding Midway you either don't know or conveniently left unmentioned the fact that Marines were vastly outnumbered against the Japanese and didn't have any previous combat experience and that F4Fs also suffered heavy losses in that battle." simply reenforces my argument. it's not necessarily the machine that makes it superior ...its also the pilot.
Any of you ever have the pleasure of going H2H against a P-40 driver from Warbirds 2.77 whose handle was Ibex?
He personified my argument to a tee. He flew only the P-40 and more often then not, won the engagement against all comers.
-
The B-239 was not a superior weapon of war ....the Finnish pilots were.
...and it isn't one in Aces High either.
When you start making claims that an aircraft (any aircraft) is over modeled in Aces High you are the one that needs to prove your claims. Repeating (selective) facts about what happened in the war won't get you anywhere. You need to pint point what is wrong with the aircraft and prove it by testing the aircraft in the game against real life, primary source flight test data. Saying that your grandfather hated them ain't gonna cut it, sorry.
-
...and it isn't one in Aces High either.
When you start making claims that an aircraft (any aircraft) is over modeled in Aces High you are the one that needs to prove your claims. Repeating (selective) facts about what happened in the war won't get you anywhere. You need to pint point what is wrong with the aircraft and prove it by testing the aircraft in the game against real life, primary source flight test data. Saying that your grandfather hated them ain't gonna cut it, sorry.
I never made the claim that it was overmodeled. I merely referred to the fact that in the Pacific it was a disaster. Thats when all the B-239 defenders showed up.
This has been truly a hoot. But steaks on the grill are just about done and that means infinitely more to me than this thread. Cheers all!
-
I've already established my biases against Brewster.
Duly noted. So since you knew that your bias prevents you from saying anything objective about the subject, why say anything at all?
It doesn't change the fact that my argument about mechanical shortcomings is solid, nor does it change the fact that tubby little fighters from the late 1930s were inferior machines to the best the Axis could put up in those days.
Actually regarding Brewster Corp. your argument isn't solid as far as B239 is concerned. The true problems with the quality started after the delivery of B239s as the company expanded rapidly due to the war. It was mismanaged company in many ways but that really didn't affect the Finnish order of B239s or their capability in combat.
-
I never made the claim that it was overmodeled. I merely referred to the fact that in the Pacific it was a disaster.
Ok. My mistake, sorry. I interpeted the "unmitigated disaster" in your initial post as "unmitigated disaster regarding modeling" as there has been countless upon countless BS-claims on this BBS calling B239 overmodelled without a shred of evidence. As this board is saturated with such claims, I thought this is another one. Again, my mistake.
My apologies for the misunderstanding regarding your initial comment.
-
Blinder, nobody was attacking you - problem is when someone argues against the "brewster" in Aces high they are referring to the B-239 which is a totally different aircraft then the Brewster Buffalo.
Apples to Oranges as its been said, only reason I cannot be bias'ed on the B-239 is everything is correct about it, its performance is what I have on charts, its kill record shows it was a pretty good weapon for the Finns, its only a shame the Finns didn't have an equal aircraft at the time of the War to see what different that would of played (Spitfires or hurricanes for example).
-
Ok. My mistake, sorry. I interpeted the "unmitigated disaster" in your initial post as "unmitigated disaster regarding modeling" as there has been countless upon countless BS-claims on this BBS calling B239 overmodelled without a shred of evidence. As this board is saturated with such claims, I thought this is another one. Again, my mistake.
My apologies for the misunderstanding regarding your initial comment.
Wmaker - I assumed blinder was talking about the same thing, however most are simply confused by the "Buffalo vs B-239". Apples to oranges :)