Voted

[B-17]

THERE WAS A VOTE?!?!?






Does anybody want to lend me their account?

[killerdude8]

yak

I was debating the 410 but i went for yak

should've went 410

[ghi]

yak

[Ruah]

should've went 410

my only issue with the yak3 coming out is that before I became a die-hard 109 (and A5 if I can find a wingman because its great with e-cooperation) stick, I was flying the 9U just waiting for the yak3.  If (when) the yak comes out, I will be tempted to fly it now an again. . .but I think I can be forgiven that.  

I picked the Yak because I want to see more LW fighters. And the Yak3 is/was one of the best produced by the russians in WW2.

oh and screw the meteor, the last thing we need is another jet, especially one that was not built to shoot down planes but to shoot down rockets. 

[Wmaker]

I would support any of them except the Meteor,

Yeh, all are good or very good choises except for the Meteor. Gonna be pretty sad if that thing gets chosen in another poll after the B-29 won the last one...

[Tilt]

I favour the Yak3. I always thought that when it finally gets introduced it would be part of a general re work of all the Yaks a bit like the recent work done on the P40's.

I struggle with the idea of the Beaufighter as  a "fighter" to me its an "attack" air craft / intruder. I would not have placed it as an air superiority weapon. An arguement which could be equally laid at the door of the ME410.

[moot]

So you'd be ok with the 410 if only it was competitive with e.g. the Mossie or 38 in terms of "fighter" performance?

Separate nit pick:  It's a minor niche but non-negligible IMO, that of heavier fighters exploiting furballs.  Not at all the air superiority type, but fighter nonetheless.. ?   Diametrically opposite to lighter "harmless" non-superiority types like the 202 or Brewster, etc.  But on that same axis.

[waystin2]

I would love to see the Yak-3!  However, being a scenario and AVA participant has made me aware of the gaps that are in the plane set so I chose the KI-43.

[Tilt]

So you'd be ok with the 410 if only it was competitive with e.g. the Mossie or 38 in terms of "fighter" performance?

Separate nit pick:  It's a minor niche but non-negligible IMO, that of heavier fighters exploiting furballs.  Not at all the air superiority type, but fighter nonetheless.. ?   Diametrically opposite to lighter "harmless" non-superiority types like the 202 or Brewster, etc.  But on that same axis.

Well the 202 and Brewster were used as air superiority weapons. They may not have have been the best in the air but their purpose was to deny their enemy control of the skies.

If we have a 410 I want it to be accurately modelled regardless of how that relates to other aircraft.

It was merely an observation that the term "fighter" was being loosely used to include ac that were not air superiority weapons. Some may argue that the 410 was an "interceptor" with respect to an anti bomber role (where typically it had to be escorted by "fighters) but to me the term "heavy fighter" as applied to the Me 410 is a misnomer (as it is to the Beaufighter).

Historically it (the 410)was used as either a bomber interceptor  or an "intruder" very similar in functionality to the Mossie.

Indeed similarly the Beaufighter was not generally  "missioned" to control the skies..its mission was agin ground and sea born targets.

[wiskyfog]

Beau!!

[moot]

Well the 202 and Brewster were used as air superiority weapons. They may not have have been the best in the air but their purpose was to deny their enemy control of the skies.

If we have a 410 I want it to be accurately modelled regardless of how that relates to other aircraft.

It was merely an observation that the term "fighter" was being loosely used to include ac that were not air superiority weapons. Some may argue that the 410 was an "interceptor" with respect to an anti bomber role (where typically it had to be escorted by "fighters) but to me the term "heavy fighter" as applied to the Me 410 is a misnomer (as it is to the Beaufighter).

Historically it (the 410)was used as either a bomber interceptor  or an "intruder" very similar in functionality to the Mossie.

Indeed similarly the Beaufighter was not generally  "missioned" to control the skies..its mission was agin ground and sea born targets.

I was/am speaking strictly RE: the clear majority of use this next plane will get: in MA air combat and esp. the late war arena.   I think fighters in the 38 and Mossie VI's performance tier qualify as air superiority, in many players' hands.  The 410 could be in that performance margin.

[Tilt]

I was/am speaking strictly RE: the clear majority of use this next plane will get: in MA air combat and esp. the late war arena.   I think fighters in the 38 and Mossie VI's performance tier qualify as air superiority, in many players' hands.  The 410 could be in that performance margin.

Yes experten in arenas will take ac out of their "envelopes" so to speak. I would park the P38 out side of this debate ( a sort of rule proving exception )........... but we could all imagine how e.g. an A26 would be used by those able to "exploit its assets" to the full in the MA and that sort of proves your point.

but I would not use the term fighter for the A26 either...............

[Tyrannis]

Beau!!(Image removed from quote.)

Looks like a mossie who needs on a diet.

[B4Buster]

I really hope the Meteor isn't voted in. I'm worried that people will vote it in just because it's a jet. While I would like it in game eventually, now isn't the time for the Meteor in Aces High, with so many other deserving aircraft on the vote list. I'm sure the 410 will be voted in as it was the runner up last vote. The 410 is pretty far down on my list of aircraft to add, but it will see a lot of use in the MA at least.

[Krusty]

Tilt you have a far more narrow personal definition of what "fighter" is than most nations in the world. While you might argue the Beau is an "attacker" (variation on "fighter") the 410 is a fighter just as much as the 110 is, just as much as a Sturmbock Fw190 is. Just as much as a 262 is. None of these were "air superiority" fighters, a term which was not created until the F-15 design many many years later.

They simply were fighters. Or do you consider a P-47 no longer a "fighter" because it's used to carry bombs so much?