Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: save on November 02, 2016, 06:03:08 AM
-
Fill in your blanks, think however about the number of produced planes .. those rare examples should have lower priority.
B17- F
Bf109- G6AS, G14AS
Fw190- A3, A9 and remove 13mm on 30mm R2 planes
LA-5F
F6F-3
Spit- 5VD
Ju88-A1, G
-
109T! :x
-
Heinkel 111 H-11,H-20
Tu-2 (earlier variant)
-
Ju188
-
you forgot the Lancaster with the belly turret
-
Heinkel 111 H-11,H-20
Tu-2 (earlier variant)
why would you want an earlier variant of a plane esp a bomber..when 99.99% in my book the later versions are better-( ie )P51-D better than P51-B---109 f4 better 109 e4
-
A6M2-N:- The floatplane variant of the Zero, could spawn from ports and maybe PT spawns.
B-17F, B-24D and B-25J:- Useful for scenarios and from my POV lots of potential for skins.
C.200 and Curtiss Hawk 75:- Early radial variants of the C.202 and P-40.
Mosquito Mk XVIII:- Similar to Mk VI but with 57 mm cannon firing AP rounds and extra armour.
Mosquito Mk NF 30:- Four Hispanos and similar high alt engines to the Mk XVI bomber.
P-51A/Mk Ia:- Allison-engined Mustang, still pretty fast low down and RAF version had four Hispanos.
Seafire Mk III:- More power and better prop than the Mk IIc.
-
I want variants to be used in scenarios, much like the Ju88a4 saw litle or no combat in BOB for example, but the JU88a1 did the fighting there.
a big fraction of the 109s in BoB where the E1 model armed only with machineguns.
why would you want an earlier variant of a plane esp a bomber..when 99.99% in my book the later versions are better-( ie )P51-D better than P51-B---109 f4 better 109 e4
-
Great topic. I've been thinking about this lately.
P-40K - Basically the P-40E with an extra couple hundred horsepower engine and a tail fillet to counter the additional torque. The ugly P-40. 1300 made and saw extensive use by US in CBI theater.
P-51B - with the birdcage canopy
P-51D-5 Early model without tail fillet
Early FW-190A
A6M2-N - the float plane version of the zero
Ki.61-1-Otsu - shorter nose, 4x12.7mm machine guns, 2 in cowl, 2 in wings.
Ki.61-1-Hei - 2x20mm German MG151 cannon in wings replacing the 2 wing MGs
-
Bf109E1 BOB
P47C for 1943 scenarios
-
yes to these:
A6M2-N:- The floatplane variant of the Zero, could spawn from ports and maybe PT spawns.
P-51A/Mk Ia:- Allison-engined Mustang, still pretty fast low down and RAF version had four Hispanos.
Seafire Mk III:- More power and better prop than the Mk IIc.
was hoping A6M5 had a float plane version.
-
was hoping A6M5 had a float plane version.
Expand your range beyond the Zero. N1K originally started life as a float plane, for example. They had some later versions that were float-based.
-
The floatplane N1K was a substantially different aircraft to our N1K-2 and couldn't be done as a variant.
The Ju 188 wouldn't really work as a variant either, it would need new cockpit art for starters. The Ju 88A-5 would be easier to model than the A-1 as a BoB variant. The A-5 was essentially an A-1 but with the A-4's extended outer wing panels.
IIRC I did suggest to HTC that they add the earlier armament options to the remodelled Ki-61 as hangar loadouts, like they did with the Hurri IIA/B/C. Not sure why they didn't go for this, it would have been handy for New Guinea scenarios.
The Me-109E-1 could probably be added as a hangar loadout to the existing or a future remodelled aircraft as well.
Thought of another good variant. The F4F-3:- great for early Pacific scenarios, less guns but a lot lighter than the F4F-4.
-
A lot of the "variants" would be significantly different. Including Ju-188s, Bf109Ts, etc. That wasn't part of the original parameters to make them visibly be the same :P
Let's be honest, any floatplane version of any land based fighter would require a total re-do of that plane in almost every aspect of flight, performance, handling, and damage modeling.
-
The 109E variant which is really needed is the -7.
- DB601N engine (same as the 109F)
- ability to carry drop tanks
- Quintessential Emil of North Africa and Russia.
Of course, the 109E needs a general update as well. The external shape is more similar to AH1 standard than 2.
-
The point about the A6M2-N is that apart from the floats the rest of the internal and external 3D shape is almost identical. It would just need the gear deleted and the 3D shapes of the floats made. I could do a new skin for it based on my existing A6M-2 template so there is not much work to do there either. The flight and damage models would need revision, but still much less work than a new aircraft.
Our N1K-2 however was a complete redesign of the N1K-1 land plane, which in turn was based on the N1K-1 float plane. The 3D shape is totally different, mid-wing, long gear and short fuselage on the N1K-1, low wing, short gear and long fuselage on the N1K-2. Animating different gear and flaps on the 3D shape is a big job for HTC. The float plane had a less powerful engine too. Flight and damage models would be substantially different even for the land plane N1K-1. The cockpit art might be transferable though, would have to research that to be sure.
I've already said the Ju-188 wouldn't really work as a variant. The 109T though as it was used operationally was essentially a 109E with longer wings, I can't see it getting modelled as a carrier plane. It would just need an altered 3D shape and a flight model revision.
-
Greebo: Initial versions of the DB601N had the exact same horsepower as the updated DB601Aa that was in the E-3 and E-4 variants. In the early 109Fs it may have had a small boost in horsepower, it was also quite trouble-plagued.
For all intents and purposes, the E-7 would be an E-4 with a drop tank, bomb rack, and may be 90-round drums on the MG/FFm instead of the earlier 60 round drums..
-
The floatplane N1K was a substantially different aircraft to our N1K-2 and couldn't be done as a variant.
The Ju 188 wouldn't really work as a variant either, it would need new cockpit art for starters. The Ju 88A-5 would be easier to model than the A-1 as a BoB variant. The A-5 was essentially an A-1 but with the A-4's extended outer wing panels.
IIRC I did suggest to HTC that they add the earlier armament options to the remodelled Ki-61 as hangar loadouts, like they did with the Hurri IIA/B/C. Not sure why they didn't go for this, it would have been handy for New Guinea scenarios.
The Me-109E-1 could probably be added as a hangar loadout to the existing or a future remodelled aircraft as well.
Thought of another good variant. The F4F-3:- great for early Pacific scenarios, less guns but a lot lighter than the F4F-4.
The Ki.61 model we have, with the fuselage-mounted Ho-5 20mm cannon, actually has a longer fuselage (I think the nose was stretched to accommodate the cannon) than earlier Ki.61 models, and enlarged tail surfaces and a non-retractable tail wheel. The earlier models' fuselages were actually shorter by 8".
-
I knew the fuselage was longer, but figured it would be a worthwhile compromise to just put the earlier armament on the later airframe.
-
Its very tempting, for sure.
I *think* the longer fuselage is the one that became the Ki.61-II, with the 1500 hp engine, and was modified later into the Ki.100 with a Mitsubishi radial when the Kawasaki engine factory was destroyed. Either of those would be welcome, too...
-
F4F-3 - Would perform better than F4F-4 and maybe get some 1941 skins.
F6F-3 - I want my little windows.
P-47D-23 - Razorback canopy with a paddle prop. Would be a formidable machine. Easiest model to add.
-
Its very tempting, for sure.
I *think* the longer fuselage is the one that became the Ki.61-II, with the 1500 hp engine, and was modified later into the Ki.100 with a Mitsubishi radial when the Kawasaki engine factory was destroyed. Either of those would be welcome, too...
The length of the fuselage isn't really the issue, though. The early variants had very different weights both dry and full, very different systems including the fuel tanks and the armor and self-sealing coatings on the fuel tanks. The early models would be interesting because they would be lighter and more nimble than our version. I think the differences are great enough that they'd need their own hangar entries, rather than just sharing weapons options on the same airframe.
-
Why no love for the F6F-3??
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Why no love for the F6F-3??
Almost positive its because no-one can take their eyes off the P-40K:
(http://i.imgur.com/wes49kr.jpg)
-
Almost positive its because no-one can take their eyes off the P-40K:
P-40s are for weirdos.
-
I'd like to see the P-38H added to the game.
-
Paddle props on the D11. They did have them. In Gabby, A Fighter Pilot's Life, he explained getting his new D11. It was the P47 he got most his kills in.
He mentioned when he received it, it had a paddle prop. He also referenced the paddle prop in later pages describing a dog fight he was in and he mentioned thanks to the paddle prop.
I don't know if it is included in the modeling of the D11 in game. Mr. Gabreski's word should be proof that the D11 had them. Hard to tell if it is in game visually.
-
The one ac we have that I'd love to see more variants added for is the B-17; the D, E and F. :)
-
There were many JU88 and 110 variants.
The 109T is cool and did score kills/losses in the war and flew substantially different than the other 109s.
Mosquito with the Molins 57mm.
-
The 109E variant which is really needed is the -7.
- DB601N engine (same as the 109F)
- ability to carry drop tanks
- Quintessential Emil of North Africa and Russia.
Of course, the 109E needs a general update as well. The external shape is more similar to AH1 standard than 2.
Then SpitII would be needed also for contemporary scenario use.
-
The Majority of Bf 109Es used the DB 601A, some used the 601Aa with a tad more power (likely refit for bomber versions like E-1/B, E-3/B and E-4/B).
The DB 601N was not a stadard equipment of the E-7 - they had 601A or Aa as standard. Production version with 601N were E-7/N although many were likely upgraded to 601N once reliability issues were solved and sufficient engines on hand.
The 601N offered the same take-off power as 601Aa but it had a higher critical/rated altitude of 4.9km vs 4.5km of 601A or 4km of 601Aa/early 601A.
I have seen claims the 109E used 601N-1 whereas 109F used an improved 601N-2 with some structural changes and a modified supercharger, both intended to fix reliability issues.
No Ju 88A-4 was available for the classic period of BoB - just A-1 and A-5. Most bomber units in BoB used He 111H/P or Do 17Z.
-
TBM-3R
Was used to ferry equipment, supplies, and/or up to 7 passengers from shore bases to aircraft carriers. Maybe use it as an alternative to the LVT to resupply fields from carriers, or to land troops.
-
30mm Mk 101 to the 110C and the 37mm to the 110G!
:salute
-
Then SpitII would be needed also for contemporary scenario use.
Not really. Like I mentioned, the main areas where you would see the E-7 used in events would be North Africa and Russia - where the SpitII was not used.
-
- Yak-1, Yak-1b
- La-5, La-5F, LaGG-3
- 109F-2 (weaker engine)
Most important:
Yak-1, La-5F
-
Not really. Like I mentioned, the main areas where you would see the E-7 used in events would be North Africa and Russia - where the SpitII was not used.
You can make an argument that the bf 109E-7 and Spitfire Mk IIa and IIb would have a place in a BoB scenario as all three types flew at the tail end of the BoB.
-
You can make an argument that the bf 109E-7 and Spitfire Mk IIa and IIb would have a place in a BoB scenario as all three types flew at the tail end of the BoB.
True, but my point is that having the E-7 makes most of it's impact on events in theaters where the SpitII is not used and the idea that it's inclusion should somehow be tied to having the SpitII as a counter is laughable. The benefits in having the E-7 merit it's inclusion by themselves.
-
The 109E variant which is really needed is the -7.
- DB601N engine (same as the 109F)
- ability to carry drop tanks
- Quintessential Emil of North Africa and Russia.
Of course, the 109E needs a general update as well. The external shape is more similar to AH1 standard than 2.
Same engine as the 109F2, not the same as the 109F4.
-
An Allison powered Mustang variant or two would be nice:
A-36A
P-51A
Also the P-51B with the birdcage
F4F-3
F6F-3
SBD-2
TBF-1C
B-17F
B-24D
-
Spitfire HF Mk. IX and maybe a Mk. VII
Yak-1 should also be considered. (im counting it as a variant of the Yak-7/9.)
Lancaster Mk I (special)
-
According to "the battle of Britain, an epic conflict revisited" (best book I've read about the subject),
109E7, 109F1, SpitII, where used in limited numbers in BOB, but had more usage later in the conflict.
You can make an argument that the bf 109E-7 and Spitfire Mk IIa and IIb would have a place in a BoB scenario as all three types flew at the tail end of the BoB.
-
Yak-1 should also be considered. (im counting it as a variant of the Yak-7/9.)
Although they look similar at a glance the Yak-1 is a completely different airframe to the Yak-7 or 9 and so would need a new 3D shape done for it. All four Yaks that we currently have are quite different to each other in shape, far more so than most other multiple variant aircraft we have in the game.
-
That is also true for a bunch of other planes, Spit I and Spit XIV has almost nothing in common but both are considered variants of the spitfire.
Same for B-17F vs G and so on.
So pretty much all new variants wished for in this thread would require some remake of the existing airframe.
-
I researched and made the default skins for all the Spits and Yaks and I can tell you from experience the Spits are much closer to each other 3D shape-wise than the Yaks. The Spits are all variations of the same basic airframe. The fuselage aft of the firewall, gear, wing and tail are essentially the same, but with different engines, wingtips, props, rudders and guns etc. They all use the same cockpit art.
The Yaks are based on two different airframe series. The Yak-1 was a small lightweight fighter and has more in common with the later Yak-3 than the 7 or 9 series but still less than any two Spits. The Yak-7 was a larger airframe developed from a two-seat trainer and designed to carry a heavier armament. The Yak-9 series was developed from the 7 but the Yak-9T we have has the cut down cockpit moved aft on the fuselage and a different wing shape while the Yak-9U has the wing mounted further forward on the fuselage to balance the heavier longer engine.
-
And...?
I dont disagree with you, im just saying that almost all wishes for new variants of existing planes will require a remake of an existing model - more or less. B-17F would need the removal of the chin turret on the -17G, a teardrop canopy on the spit would require a redesign of the aft fuselage and so on...
This thread is about wishing for new versions of the planes that we have in the game and that is what i did...
-
All this talk about new variants requiring new models is irrelevant. The OP did not mention anything about new variants not requiring work. Of course they do.
-
57mm Mollins totting Mosquito XVIII... :x :banana: :joystick: :rock
Because there's nothing like lobbing 6 lbs AP high velocity projectiles at your enemies at a rate of 1 per second. Not to mention that you sit in a mossie while doing that.
-
Wrong, I found two better - though I do not want experimental stuff into AH invetory.
(http://i2.wp.com/militaryhistorynow.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/maxresdefault.jpg?resize=560%2C401)
(http://i1.wp.com/militaryhistorynow.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/junkers_ju88_image_12.jpg?resize=558%2C298)
Junkers 88 P-5 with a 88mm !!!!, not a puny little 6-pounder, it spells "HO me you #"¤%/&(!!!"
57mm Mollins totting Mosquito XVIII... :x :banana: :joystick: :rock
Because there's nothing like lobbing 6 lbs AP high velocity projectiles at your enemies at a rate of 1 per second. Not to mention that you sit in a mossie while doing that.
-
I like this one better, 1x57mm, 2x 20mm plus rockets and bombs. :cheers: (and i know its not qualified for being in AH)
(http://www.aef.se/Flygvapnet/Bilder/T18_57mm_akan_1000p.jpg)
-
Why not wish for the Hs129? It had combat variants with 30mm and 75mm which slaughtered Russian tanks. The draw back to the 30mm MK101\MK103 tungsten carbide round was it had to be fired sub 100m. But, no Russian tank's armor stopped the round fired at that range. There was even a German tank killing ace who flew down town streets to sneak up behind tanks hiding in ambush. The 75mm obliterated tanks because of it's AP round but, nearly stopped the plane in flight when it was fired.
(https://farm7.staticflickr.com/6185/6096062712_dd9a1afdc9.jpg)
(http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/3e/e1/9c/3ee19c2f42180c447fd8d5ac8750048b.jpg)
-
Why not wish for the Hs129? It had combat variants with 30mm and 75mm which slaughtered Russian tanks. The draw back to the 30mm MK101\MK103 tungsten carbide round was it had to be fired sub 100m. But, no Russian tank's armor stopped the round fired at that range. There was even a German tank killing ace who flew down town streets to sneak up behind tanks hiding in ambush. The 75mm obliterated tanks because of it's AP round but, nearly stopped the plane in flight when it was fired.
The Bordkanone 7,5 also seriously hampered the performance of the Hs 129B-3, it was barely able to maneuver with the 75mm cannon.
-
It also most likely only had single digits built. I'd be all for a Hs-129 with realitic wartime loadouts, but it would be a total pig worse than the Ju-87 and IL-2 combined. Overweight, underpowered, and in terms of AH probably dogmeat to any wirble or ground gun that's nearby. Still, it would add depth to the planeset for general MA ground attack duties.
-
Sluggish as it may be, I still want the 129. Setting up attack runs will be challenging and fun..
-
About 30 Hs129 B3 were completed before the factories in France were repatriated and the final numbers assembled at another location in Germany. The 7.5BK mussel brake was so well designed the plane only lost 6mph when a round was fired. The pilot could fire 4 rounds in 1000m while approaching a target. They were used in combat to great effect with single shot kills to tanks due to the tungsten carbide round. Losses were mostly due to air attacks on feilds and destruction by ground crew when abandoning forward locations. About 1200 of the B2 with Mk101\Mk103 were produced. The B3 was up to it's wing rivets on the eastern front in combat compared to the Ta152 H1.
-
We could really use a 109G6/As, as it saw fairly significant use with units tasked with air defense. Most 8th AF scenarios and special events, this, or a variation thereof, would have been the most common fighter encountered. Luckily, it was virtually identical to the 109G-5/As, with exception of a pressurized cockpit. We could just call it a G-5, and while not technically correct, it would be effectively correct.
We could also use a G-14/As, which was also significant with interceptor units late in the war. I've seen a reluctance to use the K4 as a stand in, which is understandable, as the K4 exceeds G-14/As performance significantly at its critical altitude. However, the Bf-109G-10 would roughly match high altitude performance of the G-14/As, which is really the relevant attitude band for scenario use, but would significantly outperform it at lower altitudes, more closely matching the K-4. There's no ideal solution, so long as Hitech wishes to avoid subdesignations in the plane list. However a G-10 would work acceptably for scenarios, with certain restrictions as to employment.
We could also use an earlier Fw-190. An A-2 or an A-3 would be a good choice. Both would be fairly similar, the A-3 being fairly similar to our current A-5, but with about 500 less pounds of weight. The A-2 would be a pure fighter, carrying little to no ordnance, but would be the lightest we could get while still being representative. It would be slightly slower, however, using the 801C-1, producing 138 less horsepower at the driveshaft. However, it would retain all of the positive aspects of the 190's, high roll rate, stability, excellent dive characteristics, good acceleration, but it would be much more maneuverable, something on the order of a G-2's wing loading. This would be a very dangerous fighter in EW and midwar.
I would also like to see the 190F's ordnance options expanded. It was a robust, versatile, and highly capable attack aircraft, and that's just not represented in AH. It should also have an ETC503 rack under each wing for a 250kg bomb each, as well as provisions for centerline racks with 4 50kg bombs, and outer wing 300L drop tanks.
-
B-17 F please. She's a good looking bird. I think the chin gun on the G model is not that seemly.
-
And it was added to counter the head on attacks, which we dont see in AH so the -17 F would be more suited for the MA than the G
(I know what you are thinking but no - very few players attacks buffs head on, at least not on any higher altitude.)
-
POTW takes any chance we get to shoot the pilot. Fastest way to get rid of bombers is to shoot into the windscreen.
-
Bustr,
I don't doubt that as underpowered as it was, it had a lot of combat in areas where no air cover was present to knock it out of the skies. End-of-war Soviet troops and tanks often ran past the short-range typical sorties of their VVS friends. The VVS would have to keep moving up further and further to keep up with the ground forces they wanted to cover.
However, we can both agree that almost all of that was with the 30mm cannon variants. These were widely lauded by pilots as useless against late-war Soviet armor. The 75mm versions were not very common. They were dangerous to fly and only finalized production as the factory was over-run. Some sources say only 20 (give or take a few) made it off the production lines at the end of the war -- and that's no guarantee that they actually made it to a front-line unit. German aircraft production was notorious for losing hundreds of planes between factories and frontlines.
Reports of the actual 75mm in use are few and far between. It seems like only single-digits were ever in use, and in 1-off situations. Not even in unit strength. It doesn't matter if the firing of the gun "only" slowed the airframe down 6mph, because the extreme weight and underpowered nature of the engines made this a very bad combination. SG9 also found that firing the guns caused damage to the airframes, and they frequently jammed. It took many months to figure out a possible solution, stretching into Nov 1944, but by this time they actually destroyed their own airframes (to retreat at the end of the war) before anything could be done about it. Also, this wasn't a frontline unit testing against actual combat situations. It was an operational testing situation and they were using it in controlled tests.
I'd be all for the 30mm variants, but this 75mm pipe dream just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
EDIT: The 75mm loadout on the Hs129B-3 would be akin to asking for the Do-335.
-
If the hs129 75mm was fired in combat, it should be added as an option.
-
No, that's not a good standard to use as a baseline.
-
From what I've gathered, HiTech's ONLY requirement is that a vehicle is to have seen combat. :headscratch: So if there is solid documentation for the 75mm, it's a good bet he'll add it in as an option.
-
No, Volron. He's spoken about it before. Whether or not some of these have changed or shifted over time, there are three "general" requirements.
- Seen combat at LEAST in unit strength (no non-combat planes)
- No field-mods, only official versions (i.e. 6-gun P-38s and sticking guns out the back of an IL2 with no turret)
- No prototypes or experimental planes -- must have been an actual production variant officially used.
-
Curious, what does "seen combat" mean to you (or more importantly, what does it mean to HTC)?
Does it mean scored a kill? Traded fire with the enemy? Or flew missions in a combat area would've be likely and expected?
I'm asking in particular cause I think the Meteor should fit the criteria, and I hope we get one eventually. I think it would be interesting to see how the Meteor fares against the 262. Someday. I *think* the 262 would have the advantage, but not sure.
-
The Meteor was in service in squadron strength well before the end of the war and saw combat shooting down V-2s and in ground attack sorties. Besides, HTC think its OK otherwise they wouldn't have put it in the list of aircraft in their last next plane player poll.
Compared to the 262 the Mk III was a fair bit slower and suffered badly from compressibility which caused it to snake at high speed. OTOH it had a much lower wing loading, dive brakes and a better gun package for fighter to fighter combat. It would be faster than any prop plane and could probably turn with many of the faster ones.
-
It sounds like the last, great, late-War monster ride that HTC can include in the game?
4 20mms, bubble canopy for great visibility, 500 mph speed AND good turning? Could be just the ticket for chasing down all the Yaks...
-
Depends on HTC's views on what "combat" is. The He 162 would likely qualify, and be even faster than the 262, and carry 2 Mg 151/20's. Although with a relatively high wing loading, the 162 would have a much better thrust to weight ratio, meaning acceleration would actually be quite reasonable, even with the early turbojet.
-
From what I've gathered, HiTech's ONLY requirement is that a vehicle is to have seen combat. :headscratch: So if there is solid documentation for the 75mm, it's a good bet he'll add it in as an option.
Agreed. I think krusty is afraid of what I'll do to his tank or plane with the 129 75mm melon chucker!
-
What I wanted with this thread is to create variants of existing plane types with little effort ie to get them into AH.
Let's take a FW190A9 for example:
Compared with the A8 - same gun package, 30mm longer airframe, better TS engine that increases it's speed, better climb, better armour (almost doubled) in front of it's oil cooler. same canopy as the F8 - more than 900 produced ! + the spin-off would be the Fw190F8-Fw190F9.
Removal of the machineguns on the A8-A9 R2 model with 30mm.
-
190D-12... 3x30mm and 2x 20mm....
-
Agreed. I think krusty is afraid of what I'll do to his tank or plane with the 129 75mm melon chucker!
All B3 delivered to the Eastern front were used. 30 were produced before production lines were stopped. They were utilized with the B2 from November 44 trickling out to the front in twos and fives until all Hs129 units pulled out of the East at the end. As Hs129 groups were converting to Fw190 they were passed around to remaining Hs129 units across the front. One 7,5BK round would destroy any tank the Russians fielded. They were highly effective in some of the same ground attack rolls the B25H was and didn't focus entirely on tanks. A perk would solve the potency problem.
-
The Meteor was in service in squadron strength well before the end of the war and saw combat shooting down V-2s and in ground attack sorties. Besides, HTC think its OK otherwise they wouldn't have put it in the list of aircraft in their last next plane player poll.
Compared to the 262 the Mk III was a fair bit slower and suffered badly from compressibility which caused it to snake at high speed. OTOH it had a much lower wing loading, dive brakes and a better gun package for fighter to fighter combat. It would be faster than any prop plane and could probably turn with many of the faster ones.
lets also add that it was an RAF decision to hold them back so the tech didn't get captured by nazis or ruskies.
This plane will bring much fun to late war and it will be fun to fight against (unlike a 262 flown properly) Perk it to heaven if needed, I wants one! :x
-
still waiting for the 4 x 20mm 2x .50 gun package for A-20 g :bhead
-
Depends on HTC's views on what "combat" is. The He 162 would likely qualify, and be even faster than the 262, and carry 2 Mg 151/20's. Although with a relatively high wing loading, the 162 would have a much better thrust to weight ratio, meaning acceleration would actually be quite reasonable, even with the early turbojet.
The 162 would qualify under the HTC rules, but would be useless as an MA ride. The thing only had a 30 minute fuel range, at 2.0 burn that gives you 15 minutes before you are out of gas. Only thing you could use it for would be base defense.
-
It did over 550 on the deck, and could climb over 4300fpm, with a correspondingly greater rate of acceleration. Endurance would limit it, yes, but you can clear a sector in 2.72 minutes. You'll have enough time for a few kills before rtb, even with a relatively long ingress.
-
perk it to high heaven. We do not want an arena full of jets picking prop planes that are engaged by someone else.
Real men fly props and if they fly jets, they take mossies HO. :old:
-
Ju 88C-6.
-
P39 with 20mm (P-400)
Easy to implement, export version of the P39
To those who wants new planes, there is other threads for those planes.
The intention is to get in new options fast into AH3, for scenario, and fun in arenas.
-
Sorry about going off the rails with your original thread idea. Meteor, Hs.129, He.162 - all would be new planes, not variants of existing planes.
P-400 I believe is already implemented, as the P-39D has a 20mm option in the hangar.
My top three would be an early FW190, P-36C, and an early Ki.61.
-
I thought the p400 had 30s, 50s, and the 20mm.
-
I thought the p400 had 30s, 50s, and the 20mm.
Think the P-400 was outfitted with a 20mm cannon and either .303 or .30 caliber machine guns.
-
P39 with 20mm (P-400)
Easy to implement, export version of the P39
To those who wants new planes, there is other threads for those planes.
The intention is to get in new options fast into AH3, for scenario, and fun in arenas.
Think the P-400 was outfitted with a 20mm cannon and either .303 or .30 caliber machine guns.
:aok :aok Please!
-
Take this for what its worth (source is Wikipedia), but:
Airacobra IA
Bell Model 14. Briefly named Caribou. V-1710-E4 (1,150 hp/858 kW) engine, 1 × 20 mm (.79 in) cannon with 60 rounds & 2 × 0.50 in (12.7 mm) machine guns were mounted nose and four 0.303 in (7.7 mm) machine guns were mounted in the wings. IFF set removed from behind pilot. note: the designation IA indicates direct purchase aircraft; 675 built. The USAAF operated 128 former RAF aircraft with the designation P-400.
The Bell Model 14 corresponds to the P-39D, so I really think we do already have the P-400 if you just choose the 20mm loadout for the P-39D.
-
breda ba 65
-
All B3 delivered to the Eastern front were used. 30 were produced before production lines were stopped. They were utilized with the B2 from November 44 trickling out to the front in twos and fives until all Hs129 units pulled out of the East at the end. As Hs129 groups were converting to Fw190 they were passed around to remaining Hs129 units across the front. One 7,5BK round would destroy any tank the Russians fielded. They were highly effective in some of the same ground attack rolls the B25H was and didn't focus entirely on tanks. A perk would solve the potency problem.
Not entirely true. There are only 26 serial numbers from the factory roster. Of those, most went to an operational testing unit, NOT a frontline attack unit. Define used? They tested the practical uses of the weapons system on captured and stationary targets, away from front lines. They also destroyed their airframes on the ground when retreating some months later. They found several key setbacks on using the large gun including cracks on the airframe after use. As to the 1 or 2 that may have trickled to an actual front-line unit, you couldn't even claim they were in unit strength.
You have a similar problem with the 190D-12 -- limited numbers and may have reached greater distribution had the war continued.
The 190 A-9 didn't have an engine any stronger than the A-8. The myth of the A-9 having a more powerful engine never really materialized.
Oh ok, I looked it up more thoroughly, 2 or 3 were MAYBE built.
According to "The History of German Aviation: KURT TANK: FOCK-WULF'S DESIGNER AND TEST PILOT" by Wolfgang Wagner ©1998 Schiffer Publishing,
"A series of prototypes were made available for testing the new Fw 190A-9 series and its more powerful, improved BMW 801 engine. These included V34(410230, V 35(816, BMW 801TU), V36, V72(170727, BMW 801TS), V73(733705) and V74(733713). Work on these aircraft had been completed by September 1944. Neither the BMW 801TS, 801TU nor the 801TH were equipped with exhause turbochargers, as has often been erroneously assumed, but was initially planned to utilize the BMW 801F for the A-9, but this engine was not completed until the final days of the war--and even then only a single example was available. The TS, TU and TH engine were completely interchangeable with theand could be swapped with the BMW 801D. Performance had increased to 1470kw/2000hp for take off and ermgency power at 2700 rpm, 1.65 atas boost pressure at fuel consumption rate of 290g/hp/hr. The motor evidenced changes to the oil cooler, plus the armor for the cooler and oil tank had been increased to 10 and 6mm, respectively. The exhause system also now made use of single pipes."
"Production of the Fw 190A-9 was to have begun in Septemeber/October 1944. Two versions were planned: and A-9/R11 with the TS engine for all-weather combat and an A-9/R8, also with the TS, as a Sturm-jeager with thicker armor. It cannnot be determined with certainty wether the A-9 ever entered full scale production in any great numbers. According to Focke-Wulf documents, a specific deadline had been set for production to begin. In additiion to the previously mentioned conversion kits, it was also planned to have the airplane make use of the R1, R2, R3 and R12. However, RLM files covering actual production numbers make no mention of the A-9. It is just as likely that production was dropped in favor of the F-series, particularly since the anticipated BMW 801F never materialized and the BMW TS and Tu enginse were only delivered in small quanitities."
The BMW801TS/TU or TH wre deliberatly laid out as interim stages toward the planned 801F. The BMW 801TS caused many accidents in its early operational stages because the Kommandogeraet's servo valve often became stuck; as a result, the engine would not respond when throttle was applied on landing approach or during missed approaches. A provisiional solution to this aggravating tendency was the fitting of a so-called "primer" which the pilot could pull it such cases.
The single BMW 801F was installed in an aircraft during the last days of the war for testing purposes. It had been designed as a replacement for the 801D and attained an output of 1764 kw/2400hp.
While the He162 would be cool, it also wasn't super maneuverable, had a very short range, structural limitations to maneuvers, but it did see combat. Two units were equipped with them, one of them being a hastily trained Hitler Youth unit, and while it spent most of its time in hiding or being attacked on runways due to lack of fuel, it was actually shot down in combat a few times. That would count.
-
Sorry for the double post, but this is rather a separate topic from my wall of text above.
Sorry about going off the rails with your original thread idea. Meteor, Hs.129, He.162 - all would be new planes, not variants of existing planes.
P-400 I believe is already implemented, as the P-39D has a 20mm option in the hangar.
My top three would be an early FW190, P-36C, and an early Ki.61.
I agree. Hawk 75 being top on my list. Ki-61 with 4x 12mm MGs, and the version after that with MG151/20s from Germany as well being next.
-
P-38H.
-
Can you remind me where the H fits in terms of differences between the G and J? My problem is that the differences are so minimal after a certain point on P-38 variants that you can just add weapons options to an existing plane. What sets the H apart?
-
The first production model, the P-38-LO with a 37mm would be fun, 30 built.
-
The first production model, the P-38-LO with a 37mm would be fun, 30 built.
The P-38-L0 never saw any service with any operational squadron and no P-38 with a 37mm cannon entered into operational service. The first major production model of the P-38 (P-38E) was produced with the 20mm cannon as tests with the 37mm cannon on various P-38 test platforms (YP-38, XP-38, P-38D) showed the 37mm cannon was unreliable in flight.
-
Can you remind me where the H fits in terms of differences between the G and J? My problem is that the differences are so minimal after a certain point on P-38 variants that you can just add weapons options to an existing plane. What sets the H apart?
P-38H had more powerful engines (1425 hp Allison V-1710-89/91 engines) than the G. The P-38H was fitted with automatic oil radiator flaps in order to solve a chronic engine overheating problem and enable military power above 25,000 feet to be increased from 1150 to 1240 hp. The M1 20mm cannon was replaced by the more reliable M-2C 20mm cannon and bomb capacity for each underwing rack was raised to 1600 pounds. It also introduced WEP, as previous versions of the P-38 lacked WEP.
-
Mosquito F.Mk II
Mosquito B.Mk IV
Mosquito FB.Mk XVIII
Mosquito NF.Mk 30
Ju88C-6
Ju88G-6
B-17F
LaGG-3
La-5
Yak-1
B-24D
Ki-61-I
P-51A
Seafire Mk III
Bf109G-6/AS
C.200
P-38H
-
Bf 110F
-
The Fw 190 A-9 for sure had a more powerful engine, that's what made it different from the A-8. Both were produced simultaneously due to lower availability of the stronger engines. By the end of November 1944 the A-9 delivery count was at 215 and the A-9/R11 at 185. Some ~250 more of both until 2/45. It's not known how many were produced afterwards, it may be possible they focussed on the F-9 ground attack version with the same engine instead as the Jumo-engined D-9 proved to be the better fighter.
-
I want the B-17F model in a hurry - mostly so i can get the "Miss Ouachita" skin (of local significance to Arkansas).
-
From everything I can find, it really seems like the early US bombers are kind of unneeded, even from a scenario standpoint. Frontal attacks are exceedingly rare in the MA, and typically a one-shot deal in special events from what I've seen. And major variants we would like be likely to get would mostly have the same tail and belly armament.
-
Speaking of the P-38, wikipedia lists some interesting options for the -L.
Apart from the 2000 lbs bombs, and the large number of 500 lbs bombs, the most interesting option being the troop pods.
"Standard Lightnings were used as crew and cargo transports in the South Pacific. They were fitted with pods attached to the underwing pylons, replacing drop tanks or bombs, that could carry a single passenger in a lying-down position, or cargo. This was a very uncomfortable way to fly. Some of the pods were not even fitted with a window to let the passenger see out or bring in light." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_P-38_Lightning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_P-38_Lightning))
Surely, someone added this to wikipedia as an april fools joke?
-
Speaking of the P-38, wikipedia lists some interesting options for the -L.
Apart from the 2000 lbs bombs, and the large number of 500 lbs bombs, the most interesting option being the troop pods.
"Standard Lightnings were used as crew and cargo transports in the South Pacific. They were fitted with pods attached to the underwing pylons, replacing drop tanks or bombs, that could carry a single passenger in a lying-down position, or cargo. This was a very uncomfortable way to fly. Some of the pods were not even fitted with a window to let the passenger see out or bring in light." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_P-38_Lightning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_P-38_Lightning))
Surely, someone added this to wikipedia as an april fools joke?
(http://i.imgur.com/qGxPBHR.jpg)
-
Brits had it covered....
(http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff274/lowerbrook/spitfire%20beer_zpskfke2fop.jpg) (http://s237.photobucket.com/user/lowerbrook/media/spitfire%20beer_zpskfke2fop.jpg.html)
-
That's just a new way to deliver cybro to a base :cool:
Speaking of the P-38, wikipedia lists some interesting options for the -L.
"Standard Lightnings were used as crew and cargo transports in the South Pacific. They were fitted with pods attached to the underwing pylons, replacing drop tanks or bombs, that could carry a single passenger in a lying-down position, or cargo. This was a very uncomfortable way to fly. Some of the pods were not even fitted with a window to let the passenger see out or bring in light." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_P-38_Lightning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_P-38_Lightning))
Surely, someone added this to wikipedia as an april fools joke?
-
Sorry, somehow made a miss post on my phone :bolt:
-
That's just a new way to deliver cybro to a base :cool:
Is cybro RuPaUl's shade? They have the same alternating type fetish.
-
variants of planes of existance
-
The A9 did have the TS engine, the F-engine however never enter service, it was a 30mm longer version of the A8 (The current A8 airframe can be reused, maybe with the exception of the canopy that was the same as the F8)
The A-9 used both the new wood paddle propeller, and the metal propeller.
The TS engine had 1,471 kW instead of the BMW 801 D-2 that had 1,250 kW the A7-A8 had.
The BMW F-1-engine had 1,765 kW.
Source : FW190 volume 3 1944-1945
The 190 A-9 didn't have an engine any stronger than the A-8. The myth of the A-9 having a more powerful engine never really materialized.
-
Maybe as an early Christmas present Hitech could let Waffle list what is on his work list for updating the old 3D models and any new rides for the first quarter of 2017. Strangely, over the years asking politely has often been answered with something.
-
ki-61 mid and late variant....early .plane already in game would have more performance with the 4 50cal gun package.....and the late would have bossted performance with better reward vision
-
ki-61 mid and late variant....early .plane already in game would have more performance with the 4 50cal gun package.....and the late would have bossted performance with better reward vision
Ki-61 in game is a very late Ki-61-I.
-
I suspect he's talking about the basically nonexistent Ki-61-II, which had some canopy revisions leading into the Ki-100 style of canopy. His comment about visibility makes me think that's the intent.
:huh
-
Ki-100
We already have about 2/3 of it
-
I suspect he's talking about the basically nonexistent Ki-61-II, which had some canopy revisions leading into the Ki-100 style of canopy. His comment about visibility makes me think that's the intent.
:huh
Correct. But he also references the existing Ki-61 as a "early .plane already in game", which it most certainly is not.
-
True, but I suppose if he was thinking Ki-61-II and Ki-100 were "mid and late" then maybe he thinks the Ki-61-I is "early" (lol)
But I won't second guess him. I'll let him chime in on his own. Whatever.
I have expressed interest in 3 other versions of the Ki-61, with different weights, armors, and loadouts. I think at least we need one other (4x 12.7mm variant) but would also love the MG151/20 version as well, with a much lighter configuration but with the 20mm in the wings instead of the nose. I think it's different enough to be included in the game and yet still useful. Truth be told, as much as the early, lighter, MG-only versions interest me, I think I would mostly use the MG151-armed version more (if we had all 4 to pick from). But, that's just me.