Variants of existing planes

[Greebo]

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.

[Krusty]

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..

[oboe]

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".

[Greebo]

I knew the fuselage was longer, but figured it would be a worthwhile compromise to just put the earlier armament on the later airframe.

[oboe]

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...

[caldera]

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.

[Krusty]

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.

[branch37]

Why no love for the F6F-3??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[oboe]

Why no love for the F6F-3??

Almost positive its because no-one can take their eyes off the P-40K:

[caldera]

Almost positive its because no-one can take their eyes off the P-40K:

P-40s are for weirdos.

[Ack-Ack]

I'd like to see the P-38H added to the game.

[Hajo]

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.

[Volron]

The one ac we have that I'd love to see more variants added for is the B-17; the D, E and F.

[icepac]

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.

[save]

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.