PDA

View Full Version : Avenger, Devestator, Helldiver, Blackwidow, PBY???



slawson612
06-13-2005, 02:22 PM
Two questions -

1. Has anyone heard if any of these planes are planned as flyables? I know not for the new patch but in future? I never heard the outcome of the Avenger legal issues so will we ever get to fly that one?

2. Has anyone ever heard or knows of why the Avenger was only out fitted with a single .30 in the turret (later one .50). A turret seems like it would weigh a whole lot and to go through all that and then only fit it with a single gun seems kinda silly. I read once it was a weight issue that prvented them from installing two guns but if weight was the concern I can't see why they'd have opted for a powered turret in the first place.

Thanks

nakamura_kenji
06-13-2005, 02:28 PM
they dodo ^_^

Art-J
06-13-2005, 02:43 PM
PBY - nope, Gibbage cancelled work on this project (for PF that is... His "Cat" migh fly in other sim someday). Rest of the planes, I don't know, but I rather doubt it (pity, since they would be welcomed add-on).
Regarding the armament: turrets are more stable gun mounts and provide better accuracy than flexible mounts, maybe this was the reason? BTW: I thought it was designed from the beginning to have .50 installed in it? Only front guns were changed from early one .30 (cowling) to two .50s later (wings).

Cheers - Art

VT-51_Razor
06-13-2005, 03:12 PM
Yepeee, .50 in the turret, and .30's in the nose and tunnel gun. Later TBF/Ms had the .30 in the nose removed and replaced with two .50's in the wings.

stansdds
06-13-2005, 04:00 PM
My guess is the power turret fully enclosed the gunner so the slip stream would not impair his abilities. The power turret is smooth in operation and allows the use of an optical sight which could improve the gunner's accuracy.

GoToAway
06-13-2005, 04:34 PM
The PBY is cancelled.
The P-61 is cancelled.
The Avenger will presumably never see the light of day.
Nobody knows the status of the Devastator, but I think that it, like most American planes, has been cancelled.

BlitzPig_Frat
06-13-2005, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by GoToAway:
Nobody knows the status of the Devastator, but I think that it, like most American planes, has been cancelled.

Those blasted Americans have soiled our plans again!!!!!

TC_Stele
06-13-2005, 07:22 PM
Ouch, I didn't know Gibbage cancelled his PBY. I went over to see him once and he showed me and some others his PBY. Very impressive but too bad it won't be in PF.

AerialTarget
06-13-2005, 10:38 PM
We already have the PBN. It's very nearly the same as the PBY. Why was the project cancelled?

Tachyon1000
06-13-2005, 10:43 PM
No PBY is unfortunate. I saw a special on the Wings channel not too long ago that spoke highly of its role in the Pacific. I mean of course no torp planes is clearly ludicrous for the Pacific theatre but the PBY will be missed.

MiamiEagle
06-13-2005, 11:31 PM
BlitzPig_Fat do not bad mouth the Americans. We want those planes more than you do.

Be more correct and blast the Lawyers instead.
Luckly we have most of other important American planes from before the law suite.

I"am as unhappy as you are. So do not blast us. We do not like our Lawyers anymore than you do.

Miamieagle

AerialTarget
06-13-2005, 11:32 PM
I don't get it. The PBN is a variant of the PBY. Saying that it's not in the game is like saying that the Corsair isn't in the game because the early models aren't there.

Kernow
06-14-2005, 02:53 AM
Originally posted by AerialTarget:
I don't get it. The PBN is a variant of the PBY. Saying that it's not in the game is like saying that the Corsair isn't in the game because the early models aren't there.

If you only want to shoot it down, yes, it's in the game; if you want to fly it, it isn't.


MiamiEagle wrote:
Luckly we have most of other important American planes from before the law suite.

Fighter planes, you mean http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

HamishUK
06-14-2005, 05:07 AM
Originally posted by MiamiEagle:
BlitzPig_Fat do not bad mouth the Americans. We want those planes more than you do.

Be more correct and blast the Lawyers instead.
Luckly we have most of other important American planes from before the law suite.

I"am as unhappy as you are. So do not blast us. We do not like our Lawyers anymore than you do.

Miamieagle

Frat is a Yank. The tone of his post was one of sarcasm.

EnGaurde
06-14-2005, 05:56 AM
nice planes.

all good, id lurve to fly them.

dont we need more japanese aircraft?

or is this a reflection of the popular exposure of ww2 aircraft, naturally to the victor, something about history being written etc etc and we risk wonderfully different lesser known aircraft being doomed to obscurity as their light never had the chance to shine?

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JG53Frankyboy
06-14-2005, 06:09 AM
my favorite japanese would be:
- flyable N1K1-J , as late war stuff for the japanese Navy over Okinawa& Kyushu
- AI controled B6N2 , to have something for the Marianes map
- AI controled Ki-21 , the japanese Army is urgent needing a bomber for the Singapor map

my "wet" dreams would be a flyable Ki-51 assault plane for Singapor and a flyable D4Y1 divebomber for later war scenarios- but this will never happen.


as US crates:
- AI controled Devastator is realy missing for the Coral Sea and Midway maps
- im ok with the AI only Avenger
- the AI PBN would be ok if the tesbase4 could be used for seaplanes on water. in 4.0 not possible
- flyable Helldiver would be great http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
- also a flyable P-47N ( i know the treatmark issue )

and not to forgett the Commenwealth in the PTO:
- AI controled Beaufort or Hudson
- a flyable Firelfy , well.......... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Saunders1953
06-14-2005, 06:50 AM
my favorite japanese would be:
- flyable N1K1-J , as late war stuff for the japanese Navy over Okinawa& Kyushu
- AI controled B6N2 , to have something for the Marianes map
- AI controled Ki-21 , the japanese Army is urgent needing a bomber for the Singapor map



And a Ki-27, A5M, Ki-48, and Ki-30 would be nice too. I just hope Ubisoft or 1C, whoever, will put together an add-on with all those PTO/ETO/EF 3rd party planes already completed/WIP. I'd have no hesitation shelling out some clams for that.

slawson612
06-14-2005, 08:25 AM
Ok I had to break out all my WWII AC books and look it up - I was wrong on the the .30 in the turret although again somewhere in the deep dark corners of my mind I thought I had read that is was a .30. What sparked the memory was this shot in the forums here.

Avenger Turret (http://img218.echo.cx/img218/9011/0079sf.jpg)

It sure looked like a .30 and now on closer inspection I can't tell - having never been too close to either in 3D land.

However question remains why only one gun?

It looks like the turret is only handling the lateral movement and the gun is aimed hrz by hand and the site is just a plan iron crosshair.
Also, I am assuming that the strip along the guns path was removed while in operation or was not there at all, becasue it would sure cause problems sighting the weapon.

Is this right or is this a historic victim of not enough WWII Avenger parts being stocked at the local Walmart?

The British Defient packed a four gun turret and granted, it wasn't a great plane by most accounts, it had quite a stinger.

Art-J
06-14-2005, 11:00 AM
That's a very nice photo indeed! Well, it's dificult to judge from the picture what gun they have put into this particular plane, but I'd be very cautious when judging plane equipment from today's restored warbirds. It's just like in Your "Walmart" suggestion, these planes are often restored with a mix of parts currently available.
For example - as You have noticed, the plane on the photo has a simple ring sight. But the original wartime ones were equipped with reflector sights! (for great reference drawings, I recommend taking a look at this document:

http://www.warbirds-eaa.org/featured/Featured%20Article...Crash%20Williams.pdf (http://www.warbirds-eaa.org/featured/Featured%20Articles%20-%20Vol.%2027,%20No.%2007%20Oct.%202004,%20The%20La st%20Hurrah_%20Crash%20Williams.pdf)

And why only one gun? I don't know, but with one gun, the turret is quite narrow and doesn't disturb the airflow over the canopy very much. The turret in Defiant was wider than the upper part of the fuselage and caused excessive drag, the same for the A-20G... I guess it would be very difficult task to build a narrow turret with two guns for the Avenger! With ammo belt feeding mechanism and armour, it was already not too much free space over there http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

Cheers - Art

slawson612
06-14-2005, 11:50 AM
There is a "url" button third in from the left in the reply field for links.

I have to assume your correct however, I'd really like to hear from an old Grumann Engineer before they are all gone on what the process was and how one thing was weighed over the other. The Avenger was not a fast plane to begin with and since getting back to the carrier was a priority - I would think some serious "Get the f*** back!" muscle would be a welcome. I don't have extensive knowlegde of how they flew attacks i.e. in tight formation to amass def fire but what I have seen in WWII footage mostly shows single plane going in a dropping their payloads. So I am really curious as to the process that was involved. If anyone has links I would greatly appreciate a post of them.

Oh speaking of turrets - while going through my old books I found a few pictures of Beaufighters where the rear postition had a single machine gun sticking out. I couldn't find any ref to it so it may have been a field mod but it seems pretty obvious that the plane need something back there. The pilot has no rearward view.

fordfan25
06-14-2005, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by EnGaurde:
nice planes.

all good, id lurve to fly them.

dont we need more japanese aircraft?

or is this a reflection of the popular exposure of ww2 aircraft, naturally to the victor, something about history being written etc etc and we risk wonderfully different lesser known aircraft being doomed to obscurity as their light never had the chance to shine?

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


yea yea yea. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Nimits
06-14-2005, 04:58 PM
Part if it for me is, I am a big fan of carrier aircraft, and we already have enough variants of the Zero to keep most satisified. What I would like to see from the Japanese side is the A5M, B6N, D4Y, and B5N (flyable). But I will admit, I am an American and most enjoy flying my country's planes (particularly torpedo planes), so a flyable TBF or TBD will always be more important to me than a flyable A5M or B6N.

USAAF/USN/USMC
P-39
P-38
P-40
P-47
P-51
P-63
P-80
F2A
F4F
F6F
F4U
SBD
A-20
B-25

IJA/IJN
A6M
A6M2N
D3A
G4M
Ki-47
Ki-61
Ki-84
Ki-100

The Americans have an advantage in total number of aircraft, but some of them are fairly useless for a Pacific map. Anyway, neither side has a flyable torpedo bomber and both are missing their late war dive bombers.

charlielima
06-15-2005, 12:42 PM
Hey Gruppe,
If you can fly off the beech the A-20 is a splendid torpedo launch platform and you get twin 50s in the turret also. The P-61 would be nice. In the other game it hauls 2 torps. If we can't get a PBY a flyable B-25H/PBJ might keep us multi-engine drivers happy for a couple of weeks. V/R, cl

Kernow
06-16-2005, 02:18 AM
Originally posted by charlielima:
... If we can't get a PBY a flyable B-25H/PBJ might keep us multi-engine drivers happy for a couple of weeks. V/R, cl

B-25H - 75 mm cannon - I think it would take more than 2 weeks to get tired of that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

charlielima
06-18-2005, 12:44 AM
Just so Kernow! I didn't mention the cannon cause I forgot the size. I'm rusty on my artillary and the metric system. Are we talking about a round the size of asoup can? CL