PDA

View Full Version : Quick P-63 question, what year?



Hunde_3.JG51
02-28-2004, 10:58 PM
From what I have read the P-63A would belong in the '44 planeset, is this correct?

Now the P-63C (which is what we are getting), what planeset does that belong in? From what I have read deliveries began in December of '44, which means service/combat would have began in early '45 right? So will the P-63C in the expansion be in the '45 planeset?

"The first P-63C deliveries took place in December 1944, with the total production being 1227 aircraft. Most of these aircraft were delivered to the Soviet Union, although 114 were delivered to the Armee de l'Air.

Serials of the P-63C series were as follows:

42-70686/70860 Bell P-63C-1 Kingcobra
43-10893/10932 Bell P-63C-1 Kingcobra
43-10933/11132 Bell RP-63C-2 Kingcobra
44-4001/4427 Bell P-63C-5 Kingcobra
43-11133/11717 Bell P-63C-5 Kingcobra"


http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

Hunde_3.JG51
02-28-2004, 10:58 PM
From what I have read the P-63A would belong in the '44 planeset, is this correct?

Now the P-63C (which is what we are getting), what planeset does that belong in? From what I have read deliveries began in December of '44, which means service/combat would have began in early '45 right? So will the P-63C in the expansion be in the '45 planeset?

"The first P-63C deliveries took place in December 1944, with the total production being 1227 aircraft. Most of these aircraft were delivered to the Soviet Union, although 114 were delivered to the Armee de l'Air.

Serials of the P-63C series were as follows:

42-70686/70860 Bell P-63C-1 Kingcobra
43-10893/10932 Bell P-63C-1 Kingcobra
43-10933/11132 Bell RP-63C-2 Kingcobra
44-4001/4427 Bell P-63C-5 Kingcobra
43-11133/11717 Bell P-63C-5 Kingcobra"


http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

Korolov
02-29-2004, 12:11 AM
The first flight of the P-63 prototype was in December, 1942. It was in production by mid to late '43. This is for the P-63A though... C might be '44.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

Hunde_3.JG51
02-29-2004, 09:16 AM
But when did combat service start, from the statement I included in the original post it would seem the P-63C is a '45 plane? If deliveries didn't start until December of '44 then surely service didn't start until '45. I don't think the P-63A saw action until '44 or no?

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

BuzzU
02-29-2004, 09:52 AM
Are you afraid of them already?

Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://img25.photobucket.com/albums/v76/Jamnut/clark19.jpg

Hunde_3.JG51
02-29-2004, 11:26 AM
No, just curious as to what year people think the P-63C belongs. I'm not afraid of the P-63, what are the chances that anti-gravity devices were installed in both the P-39 and P-63.

"...airspeed indicated 410mph, but it sure was a rough ride even when throttling back to 3000rpm and 60" manifold pressure when going from wet to dry and dry to wet as severe vibration occurred. During the third run, while the rpm was at 3260 and the manifold pressure was at 75", severe backfire and vibration occurred. Even though the engine was behind me, pieces of the cowling and ducting could be seen leaving the P-63. The intake manifold was blown apart and the backfire screens blown out of the exhaust stacks, but luckily no fire occurred."

Bill Littlejohn, Patterson Field 1945 (note the 1945 again), flying the P-63C

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

SkyChimp
02-29-2004, 11:30 AM
I don't think there is any question about the P-63C - it's a 1945 plane. Wasn't even delivered to the USSR until December 1944. At minumum, the plane would not have been ready for combat for at least a few weeks after that.

Earlier models would be 1944 planes.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

BuzzU
02-29-2004, 11:31 AM
It will depend on how good Oleg thinks the plane is. Gib seems to hint he thinks it's pretty good. I'll fool around with it, but will probably still stay in the P-51. I love that plane, even if it's not the best plane.

Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://img25.photobucket.com/albums/v76/Jamnut/clark19.jpg

VW-IceFire
02-29-2004, 11:31 AM
I don't think it saw actual combat until early into 1945. Probably delivered in late 1944. Thats my thinking on this plane.

I think its going to be totally different than the P-39. I don't even think comparison will be fair...the two are similar but the P-63 is almost a total design. I suspect a few will take this plane for a P-39 and not give it much respect until it shows its true worth. I can imagine that some will complain that its overmodeled too http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

Hunde_3.JG51
02-29-2004, 11:34 AM
I wonder if Oleg will put P-63C in '45 then, I hope so. I'm just having fun though, the P-63 was cool and I can't wait to take it for a spin. Wonder why they didn't put in the P-63A as a '44 plane.

Buzz, good to see you again. What do you think of the P-51? It's a damn good plane in RL and FB, its the plane I fear the most along with La-7 which says something for the Stang.

One thing I am curious about and nobody mentions is how dark it is in P-51 cockpit and through the forward view, is this correct? Was there some kind of glare screening on canopy or is the Mustang pit simply too dark?

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

BuzzU
02-29-2004, 11:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
I wonder if Oleg will put P-63C in '45 then, I hope so. I'm just having fun though, the P-63 was cool and I can't wait to take it for a spin.

Buzz, good to see you again. What do you think of the P-51? It's a damn good plane in RL and FB, its the plane I fear the most along with La-7 which says something for the Stang.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/&lt;HR&gt;&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt; (http://www.jg51.com/<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>)

You know i've loved the P-51 since I was a kid. It was a joy to finally fly it from the cockpit. I had some large scale RC P-51's, but there is nothing like sitting in the plane. I love everything about it. You know I have crappy eyesight, and the view out of the P-51 is great. It's a joy to just fly around and sight see,or just fly in formation. I do ok with it in combat, but I won't say it's the most effective plane, but it's good honest plane that seems to be modeled pretty accurate. I have no complaints.

Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://img25.photobucket.com/albums/v76/Jamnut/clark19.jpg

Hunde_3.JG51
02-29-2004, 11:45 AM
Glad you like it Buzz, I think it is one of the best modelled planes in the game (and one of the most effective) and I have to admit I love taking the UQMG and escorting B-17's over Normandy in P-51's. The P-51 with better sound would be sweet, still I'm glad this plane was done justice by Oleg & crew.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

FI-Aflak
02-29-2004, 02:09 PM
For some reason I'm not that afraid of Ponies. When I see a jug above me I get scared, or when I see a K-4 I get scared. When a FW-190 late Anton is flying around I get scared. When I see a Ki-84 I pray that the pilot doesn't know about the water injection.

The Pony is fast, but its firepower is not really the same as, so, an A-9 with 2x 108's or a jug with two extra .50's

And if you get your guns on a pony for a second, you can usually get its engine. The Jug, on the other hand, will take a 108 round right to the front of the engine and hardly loose any power at all (if the pilot is lucky).

I prefer the Jug over the P-51, but when I want a plane that is really easy to do well in, I fly the Frank.

BuzzU
02-29-2004, 02:16 PM
I don't have a problem shooting the wings off of Fw190's with the 6 .50's on the P-51. The Jug may have two extra guns, but it does no good if you can't get the enemy in your sights. I find that much easier in the P-51. Plus it feels better to use an inferior (according to some) to down a tough FW.

Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://img25.photobucket.com/albums/v76/Jamnut/clark19.jpg

Cardinal25
02-29-2004, 02:19 PM
The C should be a '44 plane as it was in production in '44. It takes months to get them packed up and shipped to the ETO/EF.

This goes for all AC, IMO, they should be labeled when they went into full production and not combat.

-----------------------------
CWoS. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php)

92nd Fighter Group (http://www.92ndfg.com)

7./JG77 (http://www.7jg77.com)

CO_Eagle_31stFG
02-29-2004, 02:28 PM
P63A would belong in the late 1943 planeset. The P63C in the 45.
Now keep in mind also:
The Army Air Forces never used the P-63 in combat, although some were used for fighter training. Many P-63s were exported as Lend-Lease aircraft; the Soviet Union recieved 2,456 and Free French forces obtained 300. P-63 performance was adequate for low-level fighting and P-63s were widely used by the Soviets for such missions as "tank busting.

Just the facts http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BuzzU
02-29-2004, 02:52 PM
There's the tank busting rumor again.

Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://img25.photobucket.com/albums/v76/Jamnut/clark19.jpg

resev
02-29-2004, 03:10 PM
Either you like it or not, the P-63C was delivered in 1944, and that is all that matters to the plane set.

For those beating around the bush about it beeing the C5, then let it be known that for starters, this is a 1944 aircraft (nothing new here), and the only significant diference was the adition of a ventral fin, wich for all that matters was also installed on most C1s.

The M10 cannon with 58 rounds was installed on all P-63s since the A-9 variant.


Any more questions about my bird?....................


Cheers.

http://mysite.freeserve.com/resev/images/2-picture2.gif?0.3524929147671928

p1ngu666
02-29-2004, 03:14 PM
kurt tank busting? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/icon_twisted.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg

resev
02-29-2004, 03:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CO_Eagle_31stFG:
P63A would belong in the late 1943 planeset. The P63C in the 45.
Now keep in mind also:
The Army Air Forces never used the P-63 in combat, although some were used for fighter training. Many P-63s were exported as Lend-Lease aircraft; the Soviet Union recieved 2,456 and Free French forces obtained 300. P-63 performance was adequate for low-level fighting and P-63s were widely used by the Soviets for such missions as "tank busting.

Just the facts http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


The fact...........is that you know d!ck about the P-39 and P-63 under Russian managment, otherwise you would not even say such a ridiculous thing.

Were it not for me boyo BuzzU allready pointing it out, and i would light my flametrower and roast your uninformed @$$. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/icon_twisted.gif



Cheers Buzz, long time no see, pal! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://mysite.freeserve.com/resev/images/2-picture2.gif?0.3524929147671928

BuzzU
02-29-2004, 03:19 PM
Hiyas.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://img25.photobucket.com/albums/v76/Jamnut/clark19.jpg

Red_Storm
02-29-2004, 03:28 PM
Hiya Buzz! Seeing as the Dora is my favoured ride, I get in contact with Ponies all the time. I must say it's my preffered enemy, the match-up is great! It always promises to be a difficult fight. Dora and Pony drivers seem to somehow be connected in some way. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Never any hostilities against one another after a fight, always courteous. Sometimes even escorting ano another back to base after one of the birds has been heavily damaged. Sure, the Pony is my favourite enemy a/c. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VW-IceFire
02-29-2004, 03:29 PM
Yeah apparently the tank busting thing is a myth and rumor at best. They used them as fighters and escort fighters...the P-39's for sure and I assume the P-63's got the same treatment.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

Hunde_3.JG51
02-29-2004, 05:07 PM
I'll never understand the logic behind saying that when a plane goes into production or when it is delivered is what planeset it belongs in, not when it began operational service/saw combat. So you guys feel it would be more accurate to be able to fly a plane before anyone else rather than when it actually started combat missions? How does that make sense? Using that logic the Lancaster would be a '41 plane.



http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

[This message was edited by Hunde_3.JG51 on Sun February 29 2004 at 04:17 PM.]

[This message was edited by Hunde_3.JG51 on Sun February 29 2004 at 04:18 PM.]

BuzzU
02-29-2004, 05:14 PM
Why don't we just wait to see what Oleg calls it? I'm sure he has lots of info on it by now. I do know Oleg admitting he made a mistake by not including the P-63 it in the original IL2.

Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://img25.photobucket.com/albums/v76/Jamnut/clark19.jpg

Hunde_3.JG51
02-29-2004, 05:18 PM
Also, you guys might like this quote from FW-190, Production Line to Frontline:

"When it entered production late in 1944, the Ta-152H was representative of the high levels of pistion engine fighter development that had been reached in Germany by the final stages of the war."

From Aircraft of WWII:

"20 pre-series Ta-152H-0's followed and then production Ta-152H-1's from November 1944."

And another from link in Ta-152 thread:

"At the close of November, the Ta 152H-1 began to roll off the lines, 34 being completed by year's end. It was not until January 27, 1945 did the first Ta 152 H models begin to trickle into Luftwaffe service, production being severely hampered by the rapid advance of the Soviets who ultimatly overran the Cottbus facility."



So should the Ta-152H be in the '44 planeset? Personally I don't think it should.



http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

BuzzU
02-29-2004, 05:21 PM
Who cares? It can die in 44 as easy as 45.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://img25.photobucket.com/albums/v76/Jamnut/clark19.jpg

Hunde_3.JG51
02-29-2004, 05:23 PM
Somehow I knew that would be your answer Buzz, good to see you haven't changed http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

BuzzU
02-29-2004, 05:26 PM
Thank you. Changing is not natural.

Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://img25.photobucket.com/albums/v76/Jamnut/clark19.jpg

Hunde_3.JG51
02-29-2004, 05:27 PM
Liking the P-51 Sissy-Pony is not natural http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/icon_twisted.gif.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

BuzzU
02-29-2004, 05:30 PM
An American flying a German plane is not natural.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://img25.photobucket.com/albums/v76/Jamnut/clark19.jpg

Hunde_3.JG51
02-29-2004, 05:38 PM
Now that hurt http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif.

*Goose-steps away in tears*

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

BuzzU
02-29-2004, 05:42 PM
Sorry. Didn't mean to give you a low blow. Have fun in your Fw.

btw..Arn't you in a 262 squad? You never talk about that plane.

Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://img25.photobucket.com/albums/v76/Jamnut/clark19.jpg

Hunde_3.JG51
02-29-2004, 06:00 PM
Yeah, I'm in a 262/LW squad, but we also fly 109 and 190. I never talk about it because I never get to fly it with it being superior and all. Can't say I blame people, it gets boring even for me. I've never been shot down in a 262 but it is far superior to anyhting else so we do alot of coops and stuff with B-17 intercepts, ground attack, etc. On servers we mainly fly the 190 and 109.


And I don't mean to sound arrogant and I'm being serious, the 262 just has too much of an advantage to be included. My squad leader loves the Me-262 and it was/is a newly forming squad so I joined. The members are great and we have a good time which is cool. Still, I like the 262 alot and enjoy flying it when I can.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

faustnik
02-29-2004, 07:39 PM
Kyrule,

You have to pick a date for a/c introduction somehow. Going with production status is much easier and more clear-cut method than any others that I can think of. It's up to the mission designers to research what planes are appropriate for specific times in specific theatres.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

Hunde_3.JG51
02-29-2004, 07:48 PM
Faustnik, I know what you are saying but having a plane like the P-51B/C be a '44 plane doesn't seem right to me since it only operated in that year for less than a month and didn't get a kill until 2 weeks before the end of the year, so in my mind it is a '44 plane. There doesn't have to be a set criteria for determing what planeset an aircraft goes into, and that is my point. Judgement is needed. Like I said, going by production the Ta-152H-1 is a '44 plane, and that doesn't seem right. Going by deliveries the P-63C is a '44 plane and the Lancaster is a '41 plane, and that doesn't seem right either. The P-51B/C got a kill two-weeks before the end of the year, so it should be included in the following year where it saw the bulk of its action/service. Again, judgement is needed, not rules set in stone. This is just my opinion.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

Gibbage1
02-29-2004, 08:13 PM
P.S. P-63 C-5 is a 1944.

Gib

CO_Eagle_31stFG
02-29-2004, 08:19 PM
resev


The fact...........is that you know d!ck about the P-39 and P-63 under Russian managment, otherwise you would not even say such a ridiculous thing.

Were it not for me boyo BuzzU allready pointing it out, and i would light my flametrower and roast your uninformed @$$.
______________________________________________-

Totally uncalled for Resev You need to open a book and get informed. That is fact idiot get your facts straight.
This aircraft information is from the USAF Museum Archives.

Hunde_3.JG51
03-01-2004, 12:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
P.S. P-63 C-5 is a 1944.

Gib<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I hope the Ta-152H is a '44 plane then if we are going by production dates.


.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

robban75
03-01-2004, 02:19 AM
Then there shouldn't be a '45 version of the D-9 either as it was equipped with MW50 in December '44. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

WUAF_Badsight
03-01-2004, 02:32 AM
Hunde_3.JG51 please let me fly with you dude

i Totally love 262 coops & its mainly in coops that i get to fly it

man Ponys are such deadmeat compared to just about every 44 plane but even more so the Schwalbe !

eat that Buzz

anyways gotta hand it to Buzz flying the Mustang ...... i mean Brave & all ......... or no kills & no RTB & lots of flaming Lawn Dartage

either is just the same in teh Pony

Seriously tho ......

IN 1942 THERE WERE MORE Me262S FLYING THAN Mig-3U's

wot you think bout that LMAO

woofiedog
03-01-2004, 02:37 AM
The one of the books I have, it gives a service delivery date of Oct 43 and a final delivery early 45.
It also states that [Though it looked like a P-39 with a different tail, in fact the P-63 was a completely different design, greatly improved in the light of painful combat experience.
Though Bell did a competant job to a fast schedule - the P-63 was out classed by the time it reached squadrons.
3,303 buildt went to the Soviet Union where their tough airframes and good close-support caability maded them popular.
Users; Brazil, France, Italy, Soviet, Union US AAF

(FIN)-Cowboy
03-01-2004, 05:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cardinal25:
This goes for all AC, IMO, they should be labeled when they went into full production and not combat.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely - this way us Finns could use veteran Brewster squadrons in the Winter War and Germans could have the whole Luftwaffe equipped with G-2's for the Battle of Britain!

With this, the realism factor soars towards the roof... wait... wait... it goes right through the roof! Yes, Houston, we have a lift-off!

So, in a word: no.

--
"Mr. Anderson! Surprised ...to see me?""
http://koti.mbnet.fi/tosimies/images/smithcowboy.jpg

Cardinal25
03-01-2004, 08:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tylymiez:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cardinal25:
This goes for all AC, IMO, they should be labeled when they went into full production and not combat.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely - this way us Finns could use veteran Brewster squadrons in the Winter War and Germans could have the whole Luftwaffe equipped with G-2's for the Battle of Britain!

With this, the realism factor soars towards the roof... wait... wait... it goes right through the roof! Yes, Houston, we have a lift-off!

So, in a word: no.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, as Gibb has already confirmed, the 63 is a '44 plane, as it should be.

So, ah, Yes.

When you design your co-op's you can research the dates of combat status for this AC or that but for DF servers, that have ZERO historical relevance, the production date should be adhered to.

This includes the P-51b being a '42 or '43 plane.

-----------------------------
CWoS. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php)

92nd Fighter Group (http://www.92ndfg.com)

7./JG77 (http://www.7jg77.com)

Hunde_3.JG51
03-01-2004, 10:24 AM
So Cardinal, do you agree that the Ta-152H-1 should be a '44 plane? If you do thats fine, if you don't then it is a double-standard. Personally I don't because like I said, judgement is needed when determining what planeset an aircraft is placed in.

Having the P-63C flying combat missions on '44 servers will be purely fantasy stuff and I am disappointed to hear this is the case. I would be equally disappointed if the Ta-152 was placed in the '44 plane-set as well.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

Cardinal25
03-01-2004, 10:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
So Cardinal, do you agree that the Ta-152H-1 should be a '44 plane? If you do thats fine, if you don't then it is a double-standard. Personally I don't because like I said, judgement is needed when determining what planeset an aircraft is placed in.

Having the P-63C flying combat missions on '44 servers will be purely fantasy stuff and I am disappointed to hear this is the case. I would be equally disappointed if the Ta-152 was placed in the '44 plane-set as well.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/&lt;HR&gt;&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt; (http://www.jg51.com/<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>)

If the thing was being produced in '44 than, hell yes it should be.

Look, the VVS recieved 2000+ P-63's right? Well, how long did it take to make those planes, test them, pack them up and get them to the USSR? It would have been a lot faster if the USAAC wanted to use them, be sure.

We have a Mig-3ud right, only six of them ever flew. So why not the TA in '44?

If people really want to break down plane sets Oleg should have month's as well as years for plane sets.

-----------------------------
CWoS. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php)

92nd Fighter Group (http://www.92ndfg.com)

7./JG77 (http://www.7jg77.com)

Hunde_3.JG51
03-01-2004, 11:38 AM
Cardinal, I guess we just have different philosophies regarding plane-sets, which is cool. To each his own.

I agree that more specific dates would help, but even they wouldn't really matter because ultimately the criteria (or lack thereof) is what matters. More specific dates don't really matter if we still use production dates, delivery dates, service dates, etc. if they are not consistent.

The bottom line is that I hope whatever criteria is used is consistent. I have my own opinion of how they should be (using judgement and where a plane saw the bulk of its action), like I said having the P-63C and Ta-152H fighting in '44 servers enters the fantasy realm and detracts from historical accuracy (which I am big on). But if that's not how it is going to be then too bad for me.

Btw, it is the Mig-3U in '42 that had only six produced. If I had my way planes like that wouldn't be in FB but that is another story and I'm sure most disagree. Again, too bad for me http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

Anyway, can't wait for the P-38, P-63, Spitfire, etc. It won't be long now http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

faustnik
03-01-2004, 11:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
The bottom line is that I hope whatever criteria is used is consistent.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's why production dates should be used Hunde, they are reliable and consistant.

Like I said before it's up to us COOP makes to put them in appropriate missions. I would only allow the P-63 at the very end of the war with Germany, if at all. I don't expect to use the Ta152 much either and the P-80, well, never in WWII.

As for DF's, doesn't matter, not much historical accuracy there anyway, just a free-for-all.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

Cardinal25
03-01-2004, 12:57 PM
Which is my point. Had the USAAC wanted 63's in service we'd have had them in '44. Hell, they were in the USSR in Dec of '44.

If TA's were abile to fly in '44 than label them '44. It isn't going to matter as people will ban them if they are uber anyway.

-----------------------------
CWoS. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php)

92nd Fighter Group (http://www.92ndfg.com)

7./JG77 (http://www.7jg77.com)

Hunde_3.JG51
03-01-2004, 04:37 PM
Fair enough guys, and I respect your opinion. I'm sticking to my guns but its no big deal. I hope the Ta-152 is a '44 plane (going by the P-63C being '44) but I doubt it will be. And as you said the servers will/usually put the proper planes in their place anyway and I never fly on open plane DF servers anyway. I didn't mean for this to turn into any kind of argument, I just wanted to see what people thought. Thats what I got and I respect everyone's opinion.

Good hunting.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/