Author Topic: Come play in the Snow: New Setup tommorrow (Read 1735 times)

Ripsnort · « **Reply #15 on:** January 18, 2002, 09:39:42 AM »

Actually nifty, the LA5 rocks at 16-20k alt.

LA5

K West · « **Reply #16 on:** January 18, 2002, 09:54:57 AM »

"Actually nifty, the LA5 rocks at 16-20k alt."

Yup. Same with Yak.

The key, IMO, is not to allow yourself to be B&Z'd to death by 109's and 190's perched at 20k plus.

Westy

Wotan · « **Reply #17 on:** January 18, 2002, 12:15:58 PM »

lafn is not a lagg3 or la5 or a la5f and it was introduced later then the g6

to sub the la5fn for a la5 makes about as much sense as replacing beufighter with typhies.

I dont care what ya perk i'd fly a g2.

The la5fn was introduced later then the g6 it out performs a g6 to perk the g6 at a higher vaklue then a l5fn is wrong then to suggest leaving it unperked is way out there.

If the f8 g6 and la5fn werent there then dont include them.......

But to justify perking the g6 at 2 x the la5fn or to then indicate it may not be perked is a bit unreasonable.

I fly the 190f8 more then anyone I get killes in i'm 7to1 k/d this tour and lifetime am prob over 2.3 to 1 in it so i dont care either way.

Nifty · « **Reply #18 on:** January 18, 2002, 12:58:06 PM »

Thanks for proving my subtle point, Rip. It's just darn near impossible to whine about Allied planes in this game!

joke people... take it as a joke!

Reschke · « **Reply #19 on:** January 21, 2002, 06:12:19 PM »

A squadron member posed an interesting question about the plane set on our message board. Well ok not really a question but rather a complaint. His quote was a little less subtle than what I will put here.

Why is the Yak-9T in the arena aside from "gameplay"? According to his source (not internet based) and a few sites I have seen in the last day or so the Yak-9T did not enter combat trials until the summer of 1943. This period is "based" on the winter/spring of 1942/43 right?

So here is the quote he (LJKVR in game ID and we know him as LJK_VonRay) has put on our board for it.

Quote

My information is from "Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War" by Yefim Gordon and Dmitri Khazanov, Midland Publishing Limited. According to them, the Yak-9T was produced in Jan. 43, had armament testing in Feb. 43, flying tests in March 43. She was put into full production in March 43. At the end of March, 3 had been built, and 75 total in April.

"Operational combat trials were conducted on the central front from 5th June to the 6th August during the Battle of the Kursk 'bulge', using 34 Yak-9T's of the 16th Air Army. Half of the 110 enemy aircraft shot fell to Yak-9T's, combat losses of the Yak-9T totalled 12, a third of the losses suffered by Yak fighters."

Buzzbait · « **Reply #20 on:** January 21, 2002, 08:25:58 PM »

S!

You are absolutely right... Even though the Setup is supposed to represent Feb. `43 to Mar. `43, it is a little early to include the 9T.

However we don`t have any Soviets planes from early `43 or `42, unless you count Hurri IIc`s and Spit V`s. And I know people have had their fill of Spits.

The Yak 9T has very similar performance to the Yak 7 or the Yak 1B which were active in `42. So I felt justified in including it.

I could have used the La-5FN instead to represent the La-5, but thought that would help the Soviets too much. Looks like I should have given them that plane anyway since it seems the Germans are having their way....

Reschke · « **Reply #21 on:** January 21, 2002, 08:53:53 PM »

Buzz!

Thanks for comfirming my suspicions on it.

Just a little thought here and you might still catch FLAK for doing it this way. In the future if you have to substitute an aircraft (aside from the C-47 or armored vehicles of any type) a little sidebar might help ease our minds. I know HTC is busting their tails to get stuff handled with the "master plan" for this game so until we have every major aircraft and subtype in the game. That might help you guys so you don't end up feeling overwhelmed.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #22 on:** January 21, 2002, 09:03:09 PM »

Just remove the Bf109G6 and the LA5FN and the 190F, they dont belong here.

K West · « **Reply #23 on:** January 22, 2002, 07:59:30 AM »

lol. I pity the soul who campaigns for an historical RPS here in AH.

Westy

Kratzer · « **Reply #24 on:** January 22, 2002, 10:38:52 AM »

Just unperk the G6 so I can fly it, and lose lots and lots of them - doesn't sound like anyone else will.

It does seem very odd that it is cheaper to get the La5, which is the best fighter in there, IMO.

Buzzbait · « **Reply #25 on:** January 22, 2002, 01:18:21 PM »

S!

Personally I don`t think the La-5FN is the best plane.

The 109F4 will easily outturn it and climbs nearly as well, better at higher alts.

Similar for 109G2, although turn not quite as good as F4 still a little better than La5FN, and climb very close to La-5FN at low alts, better at higher.

Even the MC202 will outturn the La-5FN and can stay with it in vertical maneuvers for quite a while.

The 190A5 is not the best matchup for the La-5FN since the La-5FN does nearly everything the A5 does, plus turns and climbs a little better.

Raubvogel · « **Reply #26 on:** January 22, 2002, 02:15:03 PM »

the G2 turns better than a La5? hmmm

Get 2 newbies....put 1 in a G2, 1 in a La5....the one in the La5 will win most of those battles.

Hamish · « **Reply #27 on:** January 23, 2002, 09:54:19 AM »

You are all wrong, the Hurri is the best plane