Author Topic: What we need are some What If planes  (Read 10228 times)

Offline Wmaker

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5743
      • Lentolaivue 34 website
Re: What we need are some What If planes
« Reply #75 on: May 19, 2009, 04:19:03 PM »
Why would you want a night fighter?

We were listing planes left that, if added, could be reasonably popular in the main arenas. Whether it's a night fighter or not doesn't nessesarily affect to this distinction at all. For example P-61A could be quite popular "jabo".
Wmaker
Lentolaivue 34

Thank you for the Brewster HTC!

Offline Die Hard

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
Re: What we need are some What If planes
« Reply #76 on: May 19, 2009, 05:28:01 PM »
- Ki-100 would be very similar in performance compared to the KI-61 that we have, and is essentially a variant of the Ki-61.

Yes, and that makes it easy to add to the game (when they get around to remodeling the Ki-61). The Ki-100 is very cool and might get some love from the turn and burn crowd.



- Pe-2 is a very important bomber for special events, but I doubt it would be seen much more in the MAs than Boston III because of it's relatively small bombload and poor defensive armament. The only thing it does that the Boston doesn't do very well is dive bomb which can (some what unfortunately) be done better in many fighters carrying 2000lbs of bombs.

There were many versions of the Pe-2, some more MA friendly than others. I'd like the Pe-2FT and Pe-2I. The FT was the mass produced light-bomber version. I think there is a place in the MA for a 360 mph at 13,000 feet light bomber with 3,527 lb bomb load. The I was a late-war fighter-bomber, based on the Pe-2F, and powered by VK-107A engines. It could carry a bigger bomb load because of the mid-wing configuration, and was configured as a two-seater with a remote controlled .50 cal in the tail. A max level speed of 407 mph at altitude and 343 mph at sea level. It could climb to 16,400 ft (5.000 m) in 7 min 6 sec, and had a range of 1,317 miles.
Often nicknamed the Soviet Mosquito. I think there is room for a 407 mph fighter-bomber twin in the MA.

In any case, there is no excuse for not having such an important, 11,000+ produced combat aircraft in AH.



- He-219 could see some use but as it probably won't be very maneuverable (rather high wing loading) and doesn't have any air to ground ordinance like the Bf 110, I doubt it could approach the usage of the Bf 110 after the novelty wears off.

The wing loading is a bit high when it is carrying extra guns and with full fuel. With a light loadout (in AH you don't have to fly around for hours looking for bombers) the Uhu's wing loading isn't much worse than a P-38L's. It wouldn't match the 110 in usage, no. However that's a hard plane to beat, and I'm sure the 219 would find its use as a 400 mph bomber hunter or B&Z fighter. Its immense coolness factor will attract players as well. I'd like the last production model, the A-7; also the most produced variant (even if we're only talking about 150 planes or so).

« Last Edit: May 19, 2009, 05:32:59 PM by Die Hard »
It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.

-Gandhi

Offline Die Hard

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
Re: What we need are some What If planes
« Reply #77 on: May 19, 2009, 05:29:03 PM »
Why would you want a night fighter?

Why not? The radar will just be one more instrument/equipment not modeled in AH, like the P-38's tail-radar.
It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.

-Gandhi

Offline Motherland

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8110
Re: What we need are some What If planes
« Reply #78 on: May 19, 2009, 05:30:02 PM »
I think in the thread comparing the Uhu with the Me-410 the general consensus was that the Me-410 would be a better fighter.

Offline Die Hard

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
Re: What we need are some What If planes
« Reply #79 on: May 19, 2009, 05:34:13 PM »
I think in the thread comparing the Uhu with the Me-410 the general consensus was that the Me-410 would be a better fighter.

Point being?
It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.

-Gandhi

Offline Motherland

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8110
Re: What we need are some What If planes
« Reply #80 on: May 19, 2009, 05:35:45 PM »
that it would make more sense to have a day fighter with better capabilities to be used during the day than a night fighter, in a setting that is supposed to be semi-historical.

Offline Die Hard

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
Re: What we need are some What If planes
« Reply #81 on: May 19, 2009, 05:43:34 PM »
I don't see why we can't have both. After all in desperation the Germans sometimes flew night-fighters as daytime bomber-destroyers, and as you said... AH is semi-historical.
It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.

-Gandhi

Offline moot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16330
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com
Re: What we need are some What If planes
« Reply #82 on: May 19, 2009, 07:31:06 PM »
No use for a 219 when we could have a 410.  The 410 is already slightly redundant with the 110. The 219 would be even more so. It would only come after the 410, and as such would only come after many other planes.  I reckon that it's really far down the list.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2009, 07:33:30 PM by moot »
Hello ant
running very fast
I squish you

Offline Die Hard

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
Re: What we need are some What If planes
« Reply #83 on: May 19, 2009, 07:42:53 PM »
There are many planes already in the game that are "redundant"... Yet they are there.
It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.

-Gandhi

Offline moot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16330
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com
Re: What we need are some What If planes
« Reply #84 on: May 19, 2009, 08:02:54 PM »
I don't see it happening. Not when the 410 is better in pretty much every way, and like I said, when you add the fact that the 410 is ahead of it and itself probably behind a good number of those JP/RU/IT models, of which there's a lot to add yet.
Hello ant
running very fast
I squish you

Offline Die Hard

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
Re: What we need are some What If planes
« Reply #85 on: May 19, 2009, 08:06:32 PM »
I don't think I've said it should be modeled first...
It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.

-Gandhi

Offline moot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16330
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com
Re: What we need are some What If planes
« Reply #86 on: May 19, 2009, 08:16:36 PM »
My argument is that the 219 isn't going to be in for a long while, if ever, because it's too redundant, pretty crappy, and has a long line of other more interesting models ahead of it.
Hello ant
running very fast
I squish you

Offline Die Hard

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
Re: What we need are some What If planes
« Reply #87 on: May 19, 2009, 08:37:54 PM »
I don't think so.
It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.

-Gandhi

Offline moot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16330
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com
Re: What we need are some What If planes
« Reply #88 on: May 19, 2009, 08:45:38 PM »
Because?
Hello ant
running very fast
I squish you

Offline Die Hard

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
Re: What we need are some What If planes
« Reply #89 on: May 19, 2009, 08:49:14 PM »
I have already explained why. I don't want to repeat myself.
It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.

-Gandhi