PDA

View Full Version : Yp-80 potential loadouts



3.JG51_BigBear
04-12-2004, 03:59 PM
I know there are a lot of other planes ahead of this one in line for loadouts but I thought it would be cool to see this thing with a pair of 250kg bombs or maybe some rockets. Even some drop tanks would be sweet. Any chance? Did the prototypes have any loadouts?

3.JG51_BigBear
04-12-2004, 03:59 PM
I know there are a lot of other planes ahead of this one in line for loadouts but I thought it would be cool to see this thing with a pair of 250kg bombs or maybe some rockets. Even some drop tanks would be sweet. Any chance? Did the prototypes have any loadouts?

Future-
04-12-2004, 04:04 PM
I think that, apart from their 6 .50s in the nose, the prototypes didn't have any other loadouts.

I can imagine they tested droptanks on the YP-80, but that's probably all.

- Future

Commanding Officer of the 530th Bomb Squad
380th Bomb Group 5th AF USAAF

http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p1083.jpg

Visit us at http://www.310thvfs.com , home of the 310th FS and the 380th BG

PBNA-Boosher
04-13-2004, 07:01 AM
That's quite true Future.

THe YP-80 was experimented with droptanks, but the project was dropped as WW2 ended. It did not become the fighter-bomber people know it as today until the early-mid Korean War. It was then when it was modified to carry droptanks, bombs, and rockets.

SUPERAEREO
04-13-2004, 07:43 AM
One COULD argue that the never-flown, never-existed-in-that-form Bf.109 Z can nevertheless carry bombs... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif

BUT I for one think that that's enough fantasy league in the sim.

S!



"The first time I ever saw a jet, I shot it down."
Chuck Yaeger

dahdah
04-13-2004, 08:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PBNA-Boosher:
That's quite true Future.

THe YP-80 was experimented with droptanks, but the project was dropped as WW2 ended. It did not become the fighter-bomber people know it as today until the early-mid Korean War. It was then when it was modified to carry droptanks, bombs, and rockets.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Strange, since the P-80A of 1945 could carry wing tip tanks. They were usually not dropped since they improved the roll rate.

The P-80C which could carry bombs/rockets flew in 1948. The wings had been strengthened to carry ordanance under the wing.

SteelMag
04-13-2004, 05:07 PM
what about wingtip droptanks?.......im pretty sure that the P-80a in MiG Alley had quad sets of rockets under wings and/or on wingtips....

04-14-2004, 01:38 PM
Yes, P-80A carried wingtip tanks.

We do not have a P-80A. It is a YP-80, because that's what Oleg decided to make. Gibbage and Snorri had already created a P-80A ready-to-go, complete with speedbrakes and tip tanks. Take a look at the P-80's void texture and you'll see all the abandoned P-80A stuff in the texture.

JR_Greenhorn
04-14-2004, 01:52 PM
Perhaps the P-80A will make an appearance in an AEP patch soon. I don't think the YP-80 created nearly the commotion expected of it after AEP was actually released. It's not the Korean War strike fighter many feared it would be in AEP, and the YP-80 and all other planes combined haven't produced nearly as much talk as either the Bf 109Z or P-38s have on their own.

I guess I'm slow to make my point, as usual, but if a major reason for releasing the YP-80 instead of the P-80A in AEP was to avoid whining, it would seem those predictions were unfounded. As the YP-80 is an also-ran presently, would it be too much to ask for a P-80A to be slipped into the patch?

http://www.fargoairmuseum.org/F2G-1D.jpg

SteelMag
04-22-2004, 10:35 AM
You pretty well just have to stick the wingtip tanks on and a different paint job dont you?

it wouldnt really unbalance the game considering there are no multi servers with jets in them anyways...

besides we could have and early korean ground attack campaign with yaks and la's as opponents for rocket firing p-80's

VW-IceFire
04-22-2004, 01:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JR_Greenhorn:
Perhaps the P-80A will make an appearance in an AEP patch soon. I don't think the YP-80 created nearly the commotion expected of it after AEP was actually released. It's not the Korean War strike fighter many feared it would be in AEP, and the YP-80 and all other planes combined haven't produced nearly as much talk as either the Bf 109Z or P-38s have on their own.

I guess I'm slow to make my point, as usual, but if a major reason for releasing the YP-80 instead of the P-80A in AEP was to avoid whining, it would seem those predictions were unfounded. As the YP-80 is an also-ran presently, would it be too much to ask for a P-80A to be slipped into the patch?

http://www.fargoairmuseum.org/F2G-1D.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
They decided on a YP-80 probably because in 1944 a group of YP-80's were sent to Italy as part of a publicity stunt run by the USAAF to boost morale. The Germans have a jet fighter but we've got one too.

These jets were also armed, fueled and were launched to intercept a number of targets. Never did they encounter any targets but in terms of historical reality the YP-80 is in a much truer class than the 109Z. So thats probably why its been done.

The P-51D-20 desperately needs HVAR rocket loadouts and I'd rather see some time put towards that than stuff for the YP-80 as cool as it would be...

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

SteelMag
04-23-2004, 09:29 AM
Yeah id rather go out for a nice ground attack with a p-51d with rockets and bombs than a 47 or 38.....

TAGERT.
04-23-2004, 10:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
They decided on a YP-80 probably because in 1944 a group of YP-80's were sent to Italy as part of a publicity stunt run by the USAAF to boost morale. The Germans have a jet fighter but we've got one too.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Publicity stunt? Boost morale? Actually they deployed four service test YP-80As to Europe to demonstrate their capabilities to combat crews and to help in the development of tactics to be used against Luftwaffe jet fighters.. The war was pretty much won.. no real need to boost morale.. but in light of the Battel of the Buldge.. it was just smart to send them there just encase.. ie not a stunt IMHO.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
These jets were also armed, fueled and were launched to intercept a number of targets. Never did they encounter any targets but in terms of historical reality the YP-80 is in a much truer class than the 109Z. So thats probably why its been done.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually the P-80A would be more justified in ACE than the YP-80... In that P-80A were in production before the war ended and state side units were flying them and getting ready to deploy. Granted, 2 YP-80s were sent to the UK and 2 sent to the Med.. But there were P-80A being used in the states. As a mater of fact, In the summer of 1945, approximately 30 P-80As were sent aboard an aircraft carrier to the Philippines in preparation for the final assault on Japan. The planes were to be issued to the 414th Fighter Group, based at Florida Blanca. Unfortunately, the planes had been sent without their tip tanks and their aircraft batteries, so they sat aboard the aircraft carrier for 30 days waiting for this equipment. By the time that the batteries and wingtip tanks were delivered, the war in the Pacific had ended, so the P-80 never got a chance to enter combat in the war against Japan. Which is very simular to F8F Bearcat situation.. But, even with all that, we GET a 109Z that never got off the drawing board.. and the YP-80 instead of the P-80A? Just doesnt make sense to me.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT