Plane poll results thread

[Wmaker]

Yep, having only two Yaks in the planeset really makes for a big hole in it.

Yak-1, Yak-7b and Yak-9 is the bare minimum which should be added.

[uptown]

Yep, having only two Yaks in the planeset really makes for a big hole in it.

Yak-1, Yak-7b and Yak-9 is the bare minimum which should be added.

I agree

[Tilt]

Yep, having only two Yaks in the planeset really makes for a big hole in it.

Yak-1, Yak-7b and Yak-9 is the bare minimum which should be added.

Agreed the best spread for me would be

Yak1   {M105PA}
Yak7b {M105PF}
Yak9D {M105PF}
Yak9T {VK105PF}
Yak3   {VK105PF2}

[Brooke]

I would much rather have a Yak-1 and then a LaGG-3 before any other Yak variants.

[DMVIAGRA]

P-47....

[tassos]

When is AH3 coming out? 

Ask not for AH 3 ,ask for AH 3D

[Karnak]

P-47....

We have a higher density of P-47s than we do of any other aircraft.

Seven Spitfires covering from 1940 through 1945. One point one seven models per year covered.
Six Bf109s covering from 1940 through 1945. One model per year covered.
Five P-47s covering from 1943 through 1945.  Two and a half models per year covered.

[PJ_Godzilla]

now that the cat's out of the bag, i can admit i was voting Yak-3 from the jump.   WE NEED MORE SOVIET PLANES!!      i'm sure the 410 will be cool tho.    better than a meteor, that's for sure.

We need a whole load of twins. I voted 410 but we could also use the Beau, the A-26, the Pe-2, the Blenheim, and even the Ki-45. This would do a lot for scenario play and would also add quite a bit of color to the MA.

I reckon they'll model the remote guns in some way analogous to RL. You sight and move and either one or both guns track - ie, each gun is constrained.

[Krusty]

I'd say I agree we need more twins -- be it fighters, attackers, bombers.

I don't think the Blenheim has much use. It was obsolete when the war started. It didn't have much of a career. It would be nice to have some bombers in that class (old, slow, weak bombload) for all the many early scenarios and as a stand-in for other planes, but there may be a better solution than the Blenheim. That said, the Blenheim is rather iconic... It does hold some sentimental appeal!

The A-26 IMO is one of those things folks want because it's uber. I recall more the photos I saw of them flying as level bombers in WW2, rather than as heavily-laden, bombs-under-wings, turn-fighting, cannon-armed-strafers...

I'd like an A-26 if it was just a fast level bomber. That wouldn't be worthy of perkage (or, at least not much). What I don't like is the idea of what folks describe as a super turn fighter, nimble, fast, climbs like a rocket, carries 8k or ord and has a nose bristling with enough guns to orbit Schwarzeneger. THAT setup doesn't appeal so much as the level bomber I recall first reading about when I was younger.

[Volron]

What's funny is when the A-26 get's added, some will treat it like a fighter only to find out that they are easy pickings against a real fighter.

Which actually has me wanting to ask, the A-26 vs the Me-410.  What are the advantages and disadvantages that each hold against the other, both with fight each other and as a comparison.

[Krusty]

410s more on the fighter side, a26 more on the bomber side... like how you can fly an A-20G like a fighter but it really isn't one?

I actually think a-20G would be a harder fight for the 410, assuming top speeds and high alts don't come into play.

[PJ_Godzilla]

I actually think a-20G would be a harder fight for the 410, assuming top speeds and high alts don't come into play.

The A-20 has significantly lower wingloading (by my calcs) and would probably be a more vicious tangle. The 26 is about 20mph faster. In short, I think your assessment is probably about right.

I should say, the 20 is kind of a dangerous bird. I've flown it and gotten kills in it. My main problem with that one has been ripping its wings off but it has a wingloading that maxs at about 43.7 psf, from what I can see. This means, when it's light, it's got a good sustained turn capability, assuming, as I do, that it's got a good enough powerloading to crank the big bank angle.

I think the 26 is going to be a real BnZ strike bird - now you see it, now you don't.

Regardless, I'm looking forward to trying to pull diving lead shots in the 410. I can't seem to aim well past the schnoots of most of my rides.

[moot]

I'm curious how HTC will model bomb bay aerodynamics.  If they model it.  Cause you have the cockpit glass floor to see thru if the bay doors are open, on top of the glass cockpit sections.  Does anyone even have a screen set up large enough to use that?  But you could just look fwd+down.. Doesn't that almost sound like it's as much of an advantage as flying with external view?  It sounds like a non negligible factor in dogfighting performance, to be assessed with whatever the 410's actual combat flight performance is. But then it would only apply for 2x 131 + 2x 151 loadout.

[Krusty]

Moot: I've seen the footage showing how the external panel folds inwards when the doors open, but what's there when it is closed? A hole into the bomb bay? A separate glass panel? I never understood why they did that, really.

F3 gives a very large camera angle on all sides, allowing almost perfect SA for anything in your front hemisphere. I think fears of this downard view are unnecessary for AH. In an F1 mode it will only allow for better lead and only if you're perfectly in plane with the target. If you're doing banked shots, crossing shots, etc, it just won't help at all.

It might be good to note this if you're trying to getaway from a tight turning 410, stay at an angle so you're not in his window! (or... something like that)

[moot]

What fears?