NEW PLANE: Tupolev TU-2

[Rich46yo]

the Tu-2 has indeed just one slot in the gunsight options list and the not showing gunsight on the gunners position is a bug on your end.

The big is that they didnt make gunner positions separate in preferences/gunsights like as in every other airplane/vehicle in the game with more then one gunner position.

Thats the only bug I can see.

[Fish42]

Does it seam that the guns on the TU-2 do not line up with these number? It looks like the top guns can depress ether side of the body, but atm it feels like a flat plan as you traverse them.

[Lusche]

The big is that they didnt make gunner positions separate in preferences/gunsights like as in every other airplane/vehicle in the game with more then one gunner position.

Thats the only bug I can see.

So not being able to see the default gunsight in gunners position while others players do is none? 

[Rich46yo]

So not being able to see the default gunsight in gunners position while others players do is none? 

Well I have no problem seeing the B26s in exterior views while on the runway.

[bozon]

F3 views not working. Did HTC managed to make a bomber with F3 disabled?

Somehow I was able to deack an entire v base with this one without taking a hit. I my mossie gets anywhere within auto back range I start losing coolant oil and blood almost instantly. Perhaps just luck.

[Lusche]

F3 views not working. Did HTC managed to make a bomber with F3 disabled?

It's rolling from the fighter hangar at the moment, that's why

[Lusche]

Tu-2S vs Ki-67


A direct comparison at almost same loadout and fuel endurance:





Of course, the Tu-2 will probably rarely actually flown with such a light bomb load, while the Ki-67 can greatly extend its range (+~20minutes) by taking 100% fuel with only a minor reduction in climb rate. The Ki-67 has also better defensive capabilities.

[Slate]

It's rolling from the fighter hangar at the moment, that's why

  Ah OK, Skuzzy had said would be fixed in next patch.

[artik]

F3 views not working. Did HTC managed to make a bomber with F3 disabled?

Somehow I was able to deack an entire v base with this one without taking a hit. I my mossie gets anywhere within auto back range I start losing coolant oil and blood almost instantly. Perhaps just luck.

I think it is connected to the difference between 2 liquid cooled engines and two radial engines + the difference between the wooden plane and metal one.

Now, if

Mosquito VI - twice the spitfire

Than Tu-2S is twice the LaLa... 

I have a feeling I'm going to love this plane, according to the charts its performance (climb speed) is very close to Boston and little bit better than K-67, but it has much more defensive power then Boston and it has a much higher bomb load than both of these planes.

Flew it one sortie, managed to do some damage to airfield and than escape a Spit-9 that managed to do only one pass and than stayed behind...

[Karnak]

The Japanese didn't seem to keen on heavy bomb loads, even for bombers that clearly had the power and lift to carry much, much heavier loads.

[Rich46yo]

I have a feeling I'm going to love this plane, according to the charts its performance (climb speed) is very close to Boston and little bit better than K-67, but it has much more defensive power then Boston and it has a much higher bomb load than both of these planes.

Thats why Ive been screaming for it for years. Yesterday I had one hold together at 450 mph in a dive. Can any of its contemporaries match that?

And its a beautiful bird as well. I think. Course for sheer two engined beauty nothing comes close to a Mossie.

[Karnak]

Thats why Ive been screaming for it for years. Yesterday I had one hold together at 450 mph in a dive. Can any of its contemporaries match that?

And its a beautiful bird as well. I think. Course for sheer two engined beauty nothing comes close to a Mossie.

Mitsubishi Ki-46-III is the prettiest twin engined aircraft of WWII.  Mossie is good looking too, but not as much.

[bozon]

The Japanese didn't seem to keen on heavy bomb loads, even for bombers that clearly had the power and lift to carry much, much heavier loads.

B17s did not carry the max load that we have in the game to Berlin. Long ranges required smaller payloads. I think the Japanese bombers we have carry the bomb load that correspond to the typical long ranges they flew.

[Karnak]

B17s did not carry the max load that we have in the game to Berlin. Long ranges required smaller payloads. I think the Japanese bombers we have carry the bomb load that correspond to the typical long ranges they flew.

The IJA's design specifications for the Ki-67 are for an 800kg bomb load.  Mitsubishi complied, even though its 1800hp engines and size would have easily allowed a 4-6k load for shorter flights.

[SirNuke]

B17s did not carry the max load that we have in the game to Berlin. Long ranges required smaller payloads. I think the Japanese bombers we have carry the bomb load that correspond to the typical long ranges they flew.

I don't know, was it because the Japanese planes were just not made for overload bomb loadouts, or that the US pushed their planes to the limit during testing and documented it?