Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Slade on April 11, 2015, 11:34:07 AM
-
When was the last new plane added to the game?
Thanks,
Slade :salute
-
:headscratch: Beats me, but I'm guessing the B29 was added last, which leaves many others waiting for their turn.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-2
-
TU2's?
-
Ah yes, the Tu-2.
So what will be next for nomination of AH?
Italian fighters?
American medium bombers?
Soviets?
Something out of the ordinary?
Take your pick.
-
I found this list of aircraft listed by production number surprising.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-produced_aircraft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-produced_aircraft)
-
(http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130929035202/turtledove/images/a/a8/SM.79.jpg)
(http://www.the-vaw.com/images/tbd1.jpg)
(http://www.asisbiz.com/il2/MC-205/Macchi-MC205-Veltro/images/Artwork-Macchi-C.205-Veltro-1-Gruppo-Aeronautica-Nazionale-Repubblicana-6-1-MM92272-Northern-Italy-1943-0A.jpg)
(http://img.wp.scn.ru/camms/ar/1031/pics/65_5.jpg)
-
I'm still waiting for the Fiat G55.
-
I'd like to see some new Luftwaffe bombers. Ju-188, Do-217 for special events and ma, and the He 177 primarily for the MA.
After that, I'd like to see the G.55 and the Ki-44.
-
I'd like to see some new Luftwaffe bombers. Ju-188, Do-217 for special events and ma, and the He 177 primarily for the MA.
After that, I'd like to see the G.55 and the Ki-44.
I'd love to see the british Halifax heavy bomber. That is one sexy bird, imo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_Halifax
-
I'd love to see the british Halifax heavy bomber. That is one sexy bird, imo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_Halifax
Seems a bit too similar to the Lancaster.
-
Seems a bit too similar to the Lancaster.
So?
I'd have that over the Stirling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Stirling
-
I'd have that over the Stirling.
Nice thing about the Stirling was that the pilot was already airborne when the plane was sitting on the ground. Wonder why the main landing gear struts were so long?
Ever read Len Deighton's "Bomber"? In his afterword passage, dealing with the sources he used, he relates that one of his RAF sources remembered the Lancaster crews cheering when they heard that Stirlings would be on the mission, because the Stirlings couldn't fly as high as the Lancs and so would soak up ack and fighters.
What a godawful time.
- oldman
-
Nice thing about the Stirling was that the pilot was already airborne when the plane was sitting on the ground. Wonder why the main landing gear struts were so long?
Ever read Len Deighton's "Bomber"? In his afterword passage, dealing with the sources he used, he relates that one of his RAF sources remembered the Lancaster crews cheering when they heard that Stirlings would be on the mission, because the Stirlings couldn't fly as high as the Lancs and so would soak up ack and fighters.
What a godawful time.
- oldman
:frown:Good Lord. Did any of the Stirlings make it back home? If they did, they'd probably be PO'ed at the fact they were spotted faster than the Lancs, let alone them being happy about their "tag-along".
-
Nice thing about the Stirling was that the pilot was already airborne when the plane was sitting on the ground. Wonder why the main landing gear struts were so long?
According to Wiki the landing gear were lengthened to increase the wing angle, and thus shorten the takeoff roll.
-
So?
I'd have that over the Stirling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Stirling
Indeed, but performance wise the Halifax is so extremely similar to the Lancaster that it seems a waste of the effort it takes HTC to add a four engine airplane unless there simply isn't anything else left to add. For British bombers the Wellington stands out as the biggest gap, by far.
As far as the effort to add big aircraft goes, I'd much rather see the H8K2 or He177 (and most people here know how I argue against the He177) than the Halifax because they would be distinctly different. In medium aircraft the SM.79-II, Ju188A-1 and Wellington Mk III would be my top picks. For fighters the Beaufighter, C.200, G.55, Ki-44 and J2M3 as well as the fighter sized D4Y and B7A.
-
Why are you opposed to the He 177? It seems like a pretty solid addition.
-
Why are you opposed to the He 177? It seems like a pretty solid addition.
I think it would reduce variety in the MA.
It really depends on its actual performance numbers. I've seen so many numbers listed. At the low end it would probably just replace the Lancaster which would be ok, but at the high end it would pretty much replace the Lancaster, B-17 and B-24. Perhaps some of the mediums too. It could be controlled with a perk price, but it just feels wrong to have to perk something that was a complete failure in reality to ensure that three successful aircraft aren't shelved by the failure.
But at least, unlike the Halifax, it would be something distinct.
-
IK we have the B25C & H but we need the J. The Cs are sitting ducks and the H has no formations or bombsight...thats my fav bomber and everyone i talk to wants it as well. + its beautiful decent defence, range, payload. Ive asked for it many many many times.
Also it was the most produced twin engine medium bomber america produced @ 9,984 from 39-45
-
IK we have the B25C & H but we need the J. The Cs are sitting ducks and the H has no formations or bombsight...thats my fav bomber and everyone i talk to wants it as well. + its beautiful decent defence, range, payload. Ive asked for it many many many times.
Also it was the most produced twin engine medium bomber america produced @ 9,984 from 39-45
B-25J would be nice to have, but when people talk about adding new aircraft they usually mean a completely new airframe, not just a new version of an existing airframe.
Hopefully additional variants are added as time goes on, including the B-25J.
-
Italian C.200
Japanese Raiden
boo
-
I don't think the He 177 would replace B-24 and B-17 usage. While the lanc seems to be used purely for utilitarian reasons, the B-24 and B-17 especially seem to be used more for sentimental, and historical reasons.
Additionally, if the B-29 and Me 410 are any indication, the defense will be nowhere near as strong as it is on paper. Those remote turrets really do seem to be made of glass.
And given the historical weakness of the engines, I suspect it would be even worse than the B-29, and likely would be unflyable with one engine.
I imagine it would be rather like a larger version of the Tu-2 in some ways. Amazing on paper, good in reality, but still a tiny bit underwhelming.
-
The Tu-2. What a great bomber and really well modeled as usual.
When was the TU-2 added - how many months ago?