PDA

View Full Version : XF5U



Corsair-D
11-22-2005, 05:21 PM
How cool would it be to have a XF5U Flying pancake in PF? Would it be that hard to create?

Corsair-D
11-22-2005, 05:21 PM
How cool would it be to have a XF5U Flying pancake in PF? Would it be that hard to create?

LEXX_Luthor
11-22-2005, 05:30 PM
Ask modder Gibbage, he has researched this.

Dogfight Pancakes aside, Ar-234 bomber would be sweet.

Gibbage1
11-22-2005, 07:44 PM
I did in fact model an F5U. Ilya and Oleg said no way in hell. Lol. The Lufties and Japanese would have a whine fest with a 500MPH prop aircraft that could fly at 50MPH.

Chuck_Older
11-22-2005, 07:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I did in fact model an F5U. Ilya and Oleg said no way in hell. Lol. The Lufties and Japanese would have a whine fest with a 500MPH prop aircraft that could fly at 50MPH. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As if they don't have a whine fest with the Spit, Mustang, Yak, MiG, time of day, color of the sky, ice cream cones, puppy dog tails and the FW 190 as it is http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

maybe this type of whine would break the monotony http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

And before the IJ and luftwaffles chime in indignantly, my AVG Hawks are too slow, my visibility in my Mustang is undermodelled to the rear, and my Corsair overheats too quickly- NONE of which I complain about! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Copperhead310th
11-22-2005, 09:47 PM
hell why not the lufties are getting the D0-335?
seems oly fitting. Hey gib still got the moddel?
run it up the flag pole once more & see?

Unknown-Pilot
11-22-2005, 09:50 PM
Funny how the red-whiners never see the reflection in the mirror. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Gibbage1
11-22-2005, 10:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
hell why not the lufties are getting the D0-335?
seems oly fitting. Hey gib still got the moddel?
run it up the flag pole once more & see? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The model was not 100% complete. I modeled it for fun, but was low poly so it could be converted to IL2. I also have a J7W model that I started. I could start my own Navy 46 mod if I wanted.

Oilburner_TAW
11-23-2005, 05:10 AM
Glad to know there are other XF-5 fans here http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

The xf-5 actually flew and had been ordered, then the jet craze took off and prop planes became "un-cool". I just wonder how far this plane would have gone and what refinements would have been made had it actually gone into service. The film showing it take off is crazy..about 20 ft down the runway and it's off!

gthgrrl4game
11-23-2005, 07:29 AM
I wouldn't whine.
Heck we have the Go229 and Bf109Z
The latter never flew either.
And to be fair, if we got the XF5U the IJ should get the Ki83.
Look it up- twin engine, 438MPH, 2x20mm and 2x30mm!!!!
Sweet Ride!!!

Unknown-Pilot
11-23-2005, 09:14 AM
Stuff the flying pancake. We need the Tigercat and Bearcat to complete the family. AND they not only flew, but were ready for service before the end of the war. And Oleg has said that up to '46 was allowed.

While we're at it, what about the Kika and Susui?(sp?) They were not mere copies of the 262 and 163. The jet was smaller and more agile and the rocket was larger with more endurance. And there was a killer 2nd gen Susui planned as well.

WOLFMondo
11-23-2005, 09:17 AM
In that case throw in a Tempest II, Fury, Seafury and Seafire 47.

Chuck_Older
11-23-2005, 09:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
Stuff the flying pancake. We need the Tigercat and Bearcat to complete the family. AND they not only flew, but were ready for service before the end of the war. And Oleg has said that up to '46 was allowed.

While we're at it, what about the Kika and Susui?(sp?) They were not mere copies of the 262 and 163. The jet was smaller and more agile and the rocket was larger with more endurance. And there was a killer 2nd gen Susui planned as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ready for service but never saw combat, just like the YP-80. The Spitfire MkI is much more sorely needed than a Bearcat or Tigercat.

There is no need to 'finish the family', especially when you consider that this would have to include the F-14 Tomcat. Bearcat and Tigercat were not combatants in WWII

gthgrrl4game
11-23-2005, 10:12 AM
Personally, I have NO interest in the "what if" aircraft.
I agree with Chuck, we need the full suite of a actual combatants from all fronts far more.
Ki45, Mosquito, Ar234, P-61 etc.

Unknown-Pilot
11-23-2005, 10:50 AM
If speaking across all of time, then it would include the Panther, Cougar, and Tiger as well.

However, obviously, I'm talking about WWII. And any aircraft flying during the war, is a WWII plane, whether it saw combat or not. I think people are afraid of the utter domination the F7F an F8F represent. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

The Mk.1 is coming - in BoB. We don't need it for anything else, so there's no point in getting it now. (besides, it's better to wait so as to have something fresh when BoB does come out)

On a related note - Any simulation is about "what if". "What if" you were a pilot during the war? "What if" you flew for the opposing side? "What if" you and your online friends can win a virtual war? "What if" soviet pilots were as good as German pilots in '41? "What if".....

It's all hypothetical. Having the planes that fit that criteria even more so just adds to the fun and opens up the possibilities ten fold. (or more)

gthgrrl4game
11-23-2005, 10:56 AM
The 'what if' planes can be fun.
I doubt if many are scared by "domination" by Bearcats or Tigercats.
Both Japan and especially Germany had planes in developement that likely would cause just as much whining.
IMHO I would just as soon settle for a full set of actual combatants first.

Unknown-Pilot
11-23-2005, 11:22 AM
The F8F held the climb record for prop planes for decades.

It would mop the floor with anything the LW, IJN/A, or (preferably http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif ) the soviets could throw at it.

Jets and rocket-planes are about the only exception. And even then, probably not jets. (in that era)

gthgrrl4game
11-23-2005, 11:34 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
The F8F held the climb record for prop planes for decades.
QUOTE]


I looked it up, nice plane!!!
I still wouldn't whine (too much) to have to fight one. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

IL2-chuter
11-23-2005, 11:35 AM
Tigercats almost made it to Guam when the war ended. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I'm not so sure about the XF5U's performance expectations. Top speeds quoted vary from 388mph to 425mph military and 460mph with water. 550mph seems to be projected for a turboprop model. The extraordinarely complex drive is the reason the type was never flown although it was ready to go. It had four 90 degree drive couplings and each "prop" was really two two-blade flapping rotors one slightly in front of the other. Although the speed range and accelleration were amazing and the climb rate good the ability to quickly put the nose on target was yet to be proven although it was expected that the XF5U was improved from the V173 in this area. Being an oddball and only having flown in proof of concept form it's hard to be terribly exact on much. It would have been cool if they'd flown it . . . bastards . . . http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

Chuck_Older
11-23-2005, 11:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:

The Mk.1 is coming - in BoB. We don't need it for anything else, so there's no point in getting it now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nobody has a need for a Mk I Spit because you say so? I'm sorry, but this is nothing more than your opinion dressed up as fact

I can name dozens of aircraft that flew from the late '30s to 1945. Not all of them belong in the sim. The 'what if' scenarios are fine, but there is no historical base for these aircraft. We have several 'What if' aircraft now- and not because they 'deserve' to be in the sim, it's because somebody took time to make them. There is a big difference in that

Unknown-Pilot
11-23-2005, 12:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:

The Mk.1 is coming - in BoB. We don't need it for anything else, so there's no point in getting it now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nobody has a need for a Mk I Spit because you say so? I'm sorry, but this is nothing more than your opinion dressed up as fact

I can name dozens of aircraft that flew from the late '30s to 1945. Not all of them belong in the sim. The 'what if' scenarios are fine, but there is no historical base for these aircraft. We have several 'What if' aircraft now- and not because they 'deserve' to be in the sim, it's because somebody took time to make them. There is a big difference in that </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

lol

So touchy. Lexx got it right when he talked about simmers that hate planes. ANY plane added is a good thing. Such balking indicates dislike or fear. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Your facetious remark about 30-45 is incorrect since it is too long a span and hints at civilian craft and the like.

Finally, adding BoB planes now is repetition. It's going to cause 1C:Maddox headaches from people assuming the PF version to be 100% accurate and crying about the changes in BoB (on both sides), and it's going to cause competition with an upcoming product - for the average joe, why spend twice as much to get half the planes when the ones you want (Mk1 and Emil) are in PF? And of course, it takes away from us as well. Getting it now means one less new plane to get in BoB, and also 1 less plane overall between the 2 (due to the duplication).

gthgrrl4game
11-23-2005, 12:49 PM
I would be happy just to have a flyable Ki-43II or III http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Chuck_Older
11-23-2005, 02:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:

The Mk.1 is coming - in BoB. We don't need it for anything else, so there's no point in getting it now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nobody has a need for a Mk I Spit because you say so? I'm sorry, but this is nothing more than your opinion dressed up as fact

I can name dozens of aircraft that flew from the late '30s to 1945. Not all of them belong in the sim. The 'what if' scenarios are fine, but there is no historical base for these aircraft. We have several 'What if' aircraft now- and not because they 'deserve' to be in the sim, it's because somebody took time to make them. There is a big difference in that </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

lol

So touchy. Lexx got it right when he talked about simmers that hate planes. ANY plane added is a good thing. Such balking indicates dislike or fear. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Your facetious remark about 30-45 is incorrect since it is too long a span and hints at civilian craft and the like.

Finally, adding BoB planes now is repetition. It's going to cause 1C:Maddox headaches from people assuming the PF version to be 100% accurate and crying about the changes in BoB (on both sides), and it's going to cause competition with an upcoming product - for the average joe, why spend twice as much to get half the planes when the ones you want (Mk1 and Emil) are in PF? And of course, it takes away from us as well. Getting it now means one less new plane to get in BoB, and also 1 less plane overall between the 2 (due to the duplication). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Touchy? I disagree with you so I'm too sensitive? Hogwash.

Dislike or fear of what on my part, exactly? If you have a point, make it. If you think I'm afraid of my precious blue planes being shot down by USN aircraft, think again, I don't play online

Facetious my *ss. You said, and I quote:

"However, obviously, I'm talking about WWII. And any aircraft flying during the war, is a WWII plane, whether it saw combat or not."

You did post this, did you not?

Your criteria is "any aircraft that flew during the war." You said that, not me. So the facetious bit is BS. These are your guidelines, not mine. It's not my job to guess or assume what you mean; I respond to what you post, not what I guess you wanted to post

You say that getting planes such as the Spitfire Mk. I in this sim is repetition. Well, duh. So with that logic, so is the Hurricane. FB or PF is NOT BoB however, so the repetition eludes me. But the most interesting (and actually hypocritical) thing about it is that you say we don't need the Spit Mk. I in virtually the same breath you say this, and I again quote you:

"Lexx got it right when he talked about simmers that hate planes. ANY plane added is a good thing. Such balking indicates dislike or fear. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif"

Again, you did post that, correct?

You're telling me we should get the F7F and F8F because it's always good to get more planes, while also telling me why we shouldn't get the Spitfire Mk. I. You also tell me that somehow I fear the F7F or F8F because I say we don't need it. Are you also saying that you fear the Spitfire Mk I for some reason? Seriously, do you read what you post?

You really don't take the time to think through your arguments. You are contradicting yourself a lot. Please take a look at what you posted; it makes very little sense

I can understand why in a practical sense, redoing a plane for a sim is a waste; however, i think you're forgetting that this sim and BoB are not the same thing. BoB is not an add-on or even based on this sim's engine. They are two distinct and seperate sims. In order to re-do a Spitfire Mk. I, it would have to be done to begin with. If we had a SPit Mk. I in FB, then it could be re-done. You're telling me that the "re-do" is in BoB. Absolutely not. When you see the BoB Spit Mk. I, it will be absoultely, undoubtably and inarguably the very first time you see a Spit Mk I in BoB. How can we re-do something for a sim that doesn't exist? You really need to think about your own arguments a little bit

ashley2005
11-23-2005, 02:17 PM
http://hsfeatures.com/features04/images/xf5u1ah_6.jpg http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Unknown-Pilot
11-23-2005, 02:30 PM
No, not touchy at all. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

You must still be hung over from the other night. Run out of whiskey or something?

Sleep it off and then come back and think about it. 1930-1937 is not during the war. As we are talking about a war sim, clearly, civ planes are not included either. Your tone was facetious in that remark.

The Hurricane in BoB will be a repeat since we have it here. Again, simple logic, I'm sure you'll be able to understand it when your head clears. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Anything here, being in the next sim will be getting made again. Thus, a repetition. We got the Hurricane early, and aside from the Finn version, I'm not really sure why.

Spit vs Grummans? The early Spit is boring. But more to the point, we WILL be getting it very soon. The wait for pacific planes will be VERY LONG after PF is done. So again, it's logical to get the late war stuff here (from any theater, but in particular the Pacific).

You also got your back up about the suggestion, and even more so about the simple logic of it's benefit over your own. There's only so many possibilities as to why. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Chuck_Older
11-23-2005, 02:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You must still be hung over from the other night. Run out of whiskey or something?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very droll. For your information, Scotch is not whiskey. Whiskey is Whiskey, Scotch whisky is not Whiskey. Learn about what you're talking about here. One product can be truly whisky, and that's Scotch. All others are Whiskey. Look it up

Can we progress right to the Mother jokes now? Because if you think my ability to verbally degrade a person is secondary to my ability to debate an issue, you're sadly wrong. I can be meaner and much more insulting than you, or anyone you've ever met. Ask anyone here, they'll tell you. But I never, ever start the name calling and personal remarks. I leave that to the folks who have little to back up their own arguments. Like you, for instance.

I'll thank you to address the points I present, and leave comedy to the people who say funny things

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Sleep it off and then come back and think about it. 1930-1937 is not during the war. As we are talking about a war sim, clearly, civ planes are not included either. Your tone was facetious in that remark. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

When do you think WWII started? And again, YOU made the guidelines here, not me. You said, and for the SECOND time I quote that:

"However, obviously, I'm talking about WWII. And any aircraft flying during the war, is a WWII plane, whether it saw combat or not."

That's TWICE. You deny you posted that? Whether it saw combat or not. Any aircraft flying, as well. Don't make your own inability to be clear my flaw. It is yours, don't pretend it's my probelm. Post what you mean in the future.

You also posted this:

"Your facetious remark about 30-45 is incorrect"

I never, ever said anything about 1930 aircraft and I defy you to prove otherwise

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The Hurricane in BoB will be a repeat since we have it here. Again, simple logic, I'm sure you'll be able to understand it when your head clears. Wink Anything here, being in the next sim will be getting made again. Thus, a repetition. We got the Hurricane early, and aside from the Finn version, I'm not really sure why.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This might be logical to you, but once again, you make little sense. Why? because most of the planes in Il-2 Forgotten Battles was then a repeat of the planes from the original Il-2

My head is not the one that needs clearing. You need to stop and think about your arguments, once again. They don't hold water. By your own argument, then, the Bf 109s from Il-2 Sturmovik shouldn't have been included in FB

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Spit vs Grummans? The early Spit is boring. But more to the point, we WILL be getting it very soon. The wait for pacific planes will be VERY LONG after PF is done. So again, it's logical to get the late war stuff here (from any theater, but in particular the Pacific). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never suggested a Spit versus Grumman fight. Go read my post, since you didn't before.

Your argument before was that ANY plane was a good addition- except of course the one I suggested. You then implied that I was afraid of the ones you want in the sim.

How conveniently you've avoided that issue! Was your standpoint a double standard? Yes! Hypocritical? Yes! So to make up for it, you completely abandon your previous standpoint and pick up a new one; any one will do apparently.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The early Spit is boring </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What a convincing argument! How could anyone assail this logic! Boring, of course, so it doesn't deserve to be in the sim. Flying against the Spit Mk I in a Bf 109E-4 is terribly boring, why didn't I realise that before?

Of course, you realise that you're running right off the edge of even a pretense of a credible argument, and headed straight for the "pure opinion as 100% fact" bastion.

The Spit is boring according to you, so it doesn't have a place here. Well the F7F and the F8F must be dashingly interesting then, right? So you are the arbiter of exciting versus boring, and that also means what should be in the sim and what should not?

Your arguments hold as much water as a screen door, your standpoint is as shaky as Mohhamed Ali giving Michael J. Fox a piggy-back ride, and your conviction in standing behind what you post is as dependable as a rustbucket Yugo.

May I suggest you think for more than the customary two seconds before you reply this time!

SkyChimp
11-23-2005, 03:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I did in fact model an F5U. Ilya and Oleg said no way in hell. Lol. The Lufties and Japanese would have a whine fest with a 500MPH prop aircraft that could fly at 50MPH. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you still have some screens of your creation???

SkyChimp
11-23-2005, 03:14 PM
http://hsfeatures.com/features04/images/xf5u1ah_6.jpg

Wow!

I agree with Unknown_Pilot, the F8F would be a good, legitimate addition. But any add-on is a good add-on.

What about the Ryan FR-1 Fireball? It was in service before the end of WWII. It climbed as well as the Bearcat, and was puportedly the only USN fighter that could outturn the FM-2 Wildcat.

I think a US/Japanese '46 add-on would be great. The Japanese had more interesting planes in developement at the end of the war than the Germans. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Chuck_Older
11-23-2005, 03:21 PM
The issue isn't "Is the F8F a good addition or not"

The issue was that the SPitfire Mk I shouldn't be included, while the F8F should. And I still find it sophomoric poppycock, because it just isn't a defendable standpoint. planes that never saw combat shouldn't get more attention as a possible inlusin just because people think it's a cool plane; the Spit Mk I would have an awful lot to offer. It didn't just fly during the Battle of Britain. I know you know that, Chimp, but I don't see evidence that unknown-pilot can look past that point. He's stuck on the point that the Mk I will be in BoB. Can't very well have the sim without it, can you? But as a mount, and as an opponent, the Mk I Spit is an aircraft that could benefit this sim. Moreso than the F8F. What was the F8F's opponent, again?

Sure, great plane and all that. But is it needed? What void does it fill? What scenario can we not replicate since the F8F is missing?

OK, what sceanrio can we not replicate since the Mk I Spit is missing? Battle of Britain? No.

The Hurricane was the principle RAF fighter. Outnumbered the Spit handily

But how can I make a real whole-war Luftwaffe campaign without the Mk I as an opponent? A real Mk I, not a dumbed down Mk V.

Unknown-Pilot
11-23-2005, 03:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You must still be hung over from the other night. Run out of whiskey or something?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very droll. For your information, Scotch is not whiskey. Whiskey is Whiskey, Scotch whisky is not Whiskey. Learn about what you're talking about here. One product can be truly whisky, and that's Scotch. All others are Whiskey. Look it up

Can we progress right to the Mother jokes now? Because if you think my ability to verbally degrade a person is secondary to my ability to debate an issue, you're sadly wrong. I can be meaner and much more insulting than you, or anyone you've ever met. Ask anyone here, they'll tell you. But I never, ever start the name calling and personal remarks. I leave that to the folks who have little to back up their own arguments. Like you, for instance.

I'll thank you to address the points I present, and leave comedy to the people who say funny things </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

More proof about how you're not touchy and apparently itching for a fight (or just way too full of attitude for your own good)?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Sleep it off and then come back and think about it. 1930-1937 is not during the war. As we are talking about a war sim, clearly, civ planes are not included either. Your tone was facetious in that remark. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

When do you think WWII started? And again, YOU made the guidelines here, not me. You said, and for the SECOND time I quote that:

"However, obviously, I'm talking about WWII. And any aircraft flying during the war, is a WWII plane, whether it saw combat or not."

That's TWICE. You deny you posted that? Whether it saw combat or not. Any aircraft flying, as well. Don't make your own inability to be clear my flaw. It is yours, don't pretend it's my probelm. Post what you mean in the future. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was clear, you chose to be an *** instead. Which means it is your problem.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The Hurricane in BoB will be a repeat since we have it here. Again, simple logic, I'm sure you'll be able to understand it when your head clears. Wink Anything here, being in the next sim will be getting made again. Thus, a repetition. We got the Hurricane early, and aside from the Finn version, I'm not really sure why. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This might be logical to you, but once again, you make little sense. Why? because most of the planes in Il-2 Forgotten Battles was then a repeat of the planes from the original Il-2

My head is not the one that needs clearing. You need to stop and think about your arguments, once again. They don't hold water. By your own argument, then, the Bf 109s from Il-2 Sturmovik shouldn't have been included in FB
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

You're not even remotely interested in any sort of discussion. (which is why you got your backup so fast the minute someone suggested something other than what YOU want)

Even though it's pointless to bother, I'll point out that transferring work is not repeition. Apparently you're not a coder. Resuse of code happens all the time. Coders developt their own personal "tool box" of routines and objects and reuse them as often as possible to write faster. That's not repetition. Quite a difference. FB was SOLD as a sequel, but was planned as an addon. Just like AEP. And PF was also SOLD as a sequel, but made as an addon. It's the same engine with patch updates incorporated, and new planes and maps added. (really, it's not that hard to understand either, which just says more about your actions here)



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Spit vs Grummans? The early Spit is boring. But more to the point, we WILL be getting it very soon. The wait for pacific planes will be VERY LONG after PF is done. So again, it's logical to get the late war stuff here (from any theater, but in particular the Pacific). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never suggested a Spit versus Grumman fight. Go read my post, since you didn't before. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Neither did I. So which is it, you knew this and are just being an ***, or you weren't able to comprehend simple conversational English?

Like I said before, the list of possibilities is short.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Your argument before was that ANY plane was a good addition- except of course the one I suggested. You then implied that I was afraid of the ones you want in the sim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Surely someone as literate and clear headed as you claim to be can discern and understand the difference between getting a plane shortly vs. maybe never.

You're painting yourself into a corner here.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">How conveniently you've avoided that issue! Was your standpoint a double standard? Yes! Hypocritical? Yes! So to make up for it, you completely abandon your previous standpoint and pick up a new one; any one will do apparently. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

lol


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The early Spit is boring </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What a convincing argument! How could anyone assail this logic! Boring, of course, so it doesn't deserve to be in the sim. Flying against the Spit Mk I in a Bf 109E-4 is terribly boring, why didn't I realise that before? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Play BoB before BoB is released. That way, when BoB is released, you won't have to bother! Great idea.

Bad buisness move too. But then, a brilliant, level headed, laid back guy such as yourself already understands that, right? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Spit is boring according to you, so it doesn't have a place here. Well the F7F and the F8F must be dashingly interesting then, right? So you are the arbiter of exciting versus boring, and that also means what should be in the sim and what should not?

Your arguments hold as much water as a screen door, your standpoint is as shaky as Mohhamed Ali giving Michael J. Fox a piggy-back ride, and your conviction in standing behind what you post is as dependable as a rustbucket Yugo.

May I suggest you think for more than the customary two seconds before you reply this time! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Are you done yet?

It's too bad you couldn't at least keep the entertainment value up. You slipped out of humorous and right into predictable, trite, cliched, and boring.

Unknown-Pilot
11-23-2005, 03:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:
http://hsfeatures.com/features04/images/xf5u1ah_6.jpg

Wow!

I agree with Unknown_Pilot, the F8F would be a good, legitimate addition. But any add-on is a good add-on.

What about the Ryan FR-1 Fireball? It was in service before the end of WWII. It climbed as well as the Bearcat, and was puportedly the only USN fighter that could outturn the FM-2 Wildcat.

I think a US/Japanese '46 add-on would be great. The Japanese had more interesting planes in developement at the end of the war than the Germans. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know about more interesting, but would certainly be a great addition.

But yeah ANY plane added is a good thing, even an early Spit, but hell, we have that coming already anyway. Oleg has enough buisness sense to not cut his own nose off like that.

Chuck_Older
11-23-2005, 03:37 PM
Utter rubbish, Unknown-Pilot

Your arguments are hypocritical. You cannot even be bothered to defend your own standpoints, and you are immune to making sense. You contradict yourself happily, and when it's pointed out to you, you simply use another, convenient argument

You don't know what you're taking about, and quite to the contrary, I am not the one picking a fight. May I call your attention to your personal remarks, or have you forgotten you made them already? Do you even know you made them?

If you have nothing to say about the subject, I suggest you stop taking about it.

If you do, then present what you want to say, and stop making excuses about it. Right now, I'm your excuse. You can keep posting, without making even a feeble attempt to stay on-topic, because of me. You have much less to say about the subject than you do about me.

You're a hypocrite, pure and simple. I don't make that statement lightly, and it's not just a name I'm calling you; you are a hypocrite. What you posted is hypocritical and you make not a single comment about it. nothing like it's a mistake, I didn't mean to say it that way, nothing. It doesn't even bother you that your arguments are hypocritical

the only point you make is "Play BoB before it's released"

HOW? By using a map we don't have? We have to use the Gulf of Finland map, do you know that? Do you also know I and many others have already played the Battle of Britain on this sim? How can the addition of ONE aircraft ruin sales of BoB? You're nonsensical. Do you know what flew during the Battle of Britain? What percentage of RAF planes were Spits in the BOB, Unknown-pilot? Do you even have a guess?

If you have a valid reason to present with what you say, then do it. if you care to address the points I've brought up, do it. But stop using what I post as an excuse to avoid defending your own arguments.

Unknown-Pilot
11-23-2005, 05:14 PM
lol!

You can't understand simple points so you claim they aren't made or are contradictory. I love it! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I can't tell if you're a lowly troll, are just miserable because of the holidays (common thing), or misplaced your midol.

Either way though, you clearly need to spew vitrol out your a$$ to be happy.

I'm a caring guy, so I don't mind helping you out. I'll keep posting to this thread to give you an outlet as long as you want it. All I ask is that you at least try to keep it interesting. Your last post was a bit better, but I'm sure you're capable of even more. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Gibbage1
11-23-2005, 05:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
The issue isn't "Is the F8F a good addition or not"

The issue was that the SPitfire Mk I shouldn't be included, while the F8F should. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Face it Chuck. You wont get your MkI in FB. Oleg would be insane to market himself out of his next flight sim. Once the MkI was in, why would you upgrade to BoB if you have all the aircraft already in IL2?

Gibbage1
11-23-2005, 05:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:

Do you still have some screens of your creation??? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I will check, but I think so. I will post later tonight.

vocatx
11-23-2005, 09:04 PM
To Gibbage: Please, to all you guys who helped develop this sim, PLEASE at least save your old WIPs on disk. All the time and hard work you guys put in on this should not just disappear by hitting "delete".

To Chuck: I clearly see your point, as I believe everyone else does. I think you are arguing with a brick, however. Save your time and effort for something worthwhile, like another campaign like WTCF (I'm about half way through it now...GREAT!)

To Unknown Pilot: You have a couple of good points, but I think attacking someone of long-time and honored standing like Chuck is going a little overboard. Also, inviting contentious arguments like this, and another post of yours yesterday, which I refrained from answering, are not going to make you a very popular fellow around here, and could in the end invite a ban from a moderator. Arguing just for the sake of it is nothing but childish.

Chuck_Older
11-23-2005, 09:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
The issue isn't "Is the F8F a good addition or not"

The issue was that the SPitfire Mk I shouldn't be included, while the F8F should. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Face it Chuck. You wont get your MkI in FB. Oleg would be insane to market himself out of his next flight sim. Once the MkI was in, why would you upgrade to BoB if you have all the aircraft already in IL2? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Two reasons why:

because the inclusion of the SPit Mk I doesn't make this sim into a better sim, with more accurate modelling. All it does is add a plane. The Spit Mk I won't automatically upgrade my FB installation into BoB. In short- I had a friend who once had a Kathy Ireland cardboard standup. lifesize. He had something that looked like Kathy Ireland- he didn't really have Kathy Ireland, he had a poor substitute http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



Because I still can't play the Battle of Britain in Fb with the Spit Mk I. We don't have the right campaign structure for a dynamic campaign for it, and we don't have the right maps. the Spitfire Mk I doesn't make this sim instantly into something that can do the Battle of Britain properly. You don't need the Spit Mk I to do it; you simply use the Hurricane. It's already been done, quite cleverly, by Extreme_One and Poymando.

Why is there this hangup on the Battle of Britain? The Spitfire Mk I's presence in this sim is something you honestly feel makes a threat to sales of Oleg's next sim? One plane's inclusion in this sim makes the BoB house of cards fall down? You seriously feel that way?

We have the He 111, the Bf 109E-4 and 7, we have the Bf 110 (wrong model, true) we have the Blenheim, we have the Hurricane. All right now in FB+AEP+PF v4.02.

So the Spit Mk I tips the scales? Huh? Why? We have all the planeset that is needed for the recreation of the Battle of Britain right now. And if I want to or need to, I can always substitute the SPit MkV into my potential Battle of Britain campaign planeset for this sim.

The Spitfire has the reputation of being the main reason the RAF won. The facts are very different.

But anyway, you don't need the Spit Mk I to do the very thing you feel puts Oleg out of a market- he's already done that with the planes he's given us, and that hasn't put him out of the market for his next sim, has it?

Chuck_Older
11-23-2005, 09:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by vocatx:


To Chuck: I clearly see your point, as I believe everyone else does. I think you are arguing with a brick, however. Save your time and effort for something worthwhile, like another campaign like WTCF (I'm about half way through it now...GREAT!)

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not that honored...and I can be wrong, too. In this case I don't think I am though

Anyway, hope you enjoy the rest of the campaign. I'm working on part of an update right now. Trouble is, my new medals pack is doing some weird things and I can't figure it out. It just shouldn't behave the way it is

hey Gib, you don't have any insight into how the medals work do you? I'm having a heck of a time- medals won't display in order

I outlined it here:
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=5...021028973#8021028973 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&amp;s=400102&amp;f=50910533&amp;m=4801028973&amp;r=80 21028973#8021028973)


but anyway, back on topic-

Please do post some pics if you have them, Gib

Badsight.
11-23-2005, 10:13 PM
Chuck , you got to handel it m8 if some peeps couldnt care about the mk1 Spit

id like to see a fairly moddeled E4 & a proper Hp Hurricane , but it aint going to happen

the way the Emils are in FB , the Mk1 Spits would wipe the floor with them with ease

Badsight.
11-23-2005, 10:15 PM
BTW , im one of the f5U's biggest fans

it would be SOOO interesting to see how it would have flowen in gunzo combat

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/2305/xf5ux72gc.jpg

Gibbage1
11-23-2005, 10:28 PM
I dont know how the medals work. I dont fly offline but a few QMB's every now and then. I find the AI too stupid and predictable to be any funt to fly against or even with. Nothing like a squad of B-25's dropping there bombs to go chasing after some Zero's to fubar a bomb raid http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Please note. These models are not finished and VERY low polygon. I only modeled them in a few hours for fun, and sort of taunt some Ubi forum members. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/f5u04.jpg

Chuck_Older
11-24-2005, 07:48 AM
Thanks, Gib

SkyChimp
11-24-2005, 12:18 PM
My understanding was that the XF5U-1 never officially flew. But that once when taxiing, it actually lifted off the ground due.

vocatx
11-24-2005, 02:13 PM
While the XF5U itself never flew, it's proof-of-concept predecessor, the V-173 did. According to an Air Classics publication, Fabulous Flying Flops (1985):

"Built out of wood and covered with fabric, the V-173 first flew on 23 November 1942 and proved that the concept could at least fly...The V-173 did continue a limited test program, its rather attractive circualr shape becoming a familiar sight to residents around the Vought factory."

I also recall reading that with a very minor head wind (the exact speed eludes me right now), the 173 could almost take off vertically.

A very amazing aircraft, and one that has fascinated me for years.

Who knows how much more life FB/AEP/PF have left, but I would say at least three to five years. When you consider it will be about another year before BoB hits the market, and it will only cover the Battle of Britian era to begin with, I would say a whole lot of us will continue with what we have now until the next generation is more developed. I would hope that Oleg might find a way to let folks like Gibbage and other talented artists continue to suppliment PF with new aircraft from time to time as BoB becomes more developed and well rounded. I would urge you guys not to delete these works of art to the ether until you know for a fact that they can NEVER be used. Maybe a couple years down the road there will be room for the XF5U, F8F, and others.

Badsight.
11-24-2005, 10:04 PM
& here it is ! , the prototype "proof-of-concept" V-173 flying back in the 1940's

http://xs56.xs.to/pics/05475/v-173_zimmer_skimmer.jpg are those gears fixed or did they retract on the V-173 ?

& here below is the actual prototype XF5U

http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/1427/votxf5u6nq.jpg

does anyone know if the working XF5U was a full scale prototype with the intended motors ? (turbo-jets ? or turbo-props ?)

did the XF5U survive like the N9M-1 flying wing did ?

Gibbage1
11-24-2005, 11:30 PM
The final F5U prototype was 100% scale and 100% ready to fly. It never did. The Navy orderd it scrapped suddenly and it was never able to take its test flight.

VT-51_Razor
11-25-2005, 10:48 AM
I read somewhere that after the Navy scrapped the program, they decreed that the prototypes be destroyed. They were sent to the guillotine where other surplus aircraft were being destroyed and melted down for scrap aluminium, and they couldn't be cut!! They were so well built that they had to be dismantled by hand with tools before they could be destroyed.

I'm sure that Gib has read this in his research, so I'd be happy if he would chime in here and supply the facts.

Regardless, the point is that they couldn't be destroyed in the conventional way other surplus aircraft were, due to their robust construction. It's a shame they didn't keep one for the museum.

Chuck_Older
11-25-2005, 11:00 AM
I know a flying pancake was crated up and shipped to some former engineers for restoration in the last few years. It had to be shipped in a special crate they designed (the former engineers) that was canted on an angle so that it could be shipped overland via oversize-load tractor trailer

Daiichidoku
11-25-2005, 03:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I did in fact model an F5U. Ilya and Oleg said no way in hell. Lol. The Lufties and Japanese would have a whine fest with a 500MPH prop aircraft that could fly at 50MPH. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



A shmoke und a pancake. You know, a flapjack und a shigarette? No? Shigar und a waffle? No? Pipe und a crepe? No? Bong und a blintz? No? Well, then there ish no pleashing you.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/goldmember.jpg

Daiichidoku
11-25-2005, 03:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
hell why not the lufties are getting the D0-335?
seems oly fitting. Hey gib still got the moddel?
run it up the flag pole once more & see? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The model was not 100% complete. I modeled it for fun, but was low poly so it could be converted to IL2. I also have a J7W model that I started. I could start my own Navy 46 mod if I wanted. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


does Badsight know about this?

Daiichidoku
11-25-2005, 03:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gthgrrl4game:
I wouldn't whine.
Heck we have the Go229 and Bf109Z
The latter never flew either.
And to be fair, if we got the XF5U the IJ should get the Ki83.
Look it up- twin engine, 438MPH, 2x20mm and 2x30mm!!!!
Sweet Ride!!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


does this suit your fancy?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/ki83.jpg

Daiichidoku
11-25-2005, 06:37 PM
@ Badsight

the gears were fixed

btw, i recall seeing colour pics of the V-173
overall yellow, with red, white and blue prop tips

woofiedog
11-26-2005, 12:50 AM
Vought XF5U-1

Type: Fighter
Crew: 1, Pilot
Armament: six .50 cal machine guns
or four 20mm cannon
or two 1000-lb. bombs

Specifications:
Length: 28' 7.5"
Height: 14' 9"
Width: 32' 6"
Empty Weight: n/a
Gross Weight: 14550 lbs
Max Weight: n/a

Propulsion:
No. of Engines: 2
Powerplant: Pratt & Whitney R-2000-7
Horsepower 1600 hp each
Prop diameter: 16'

Performance:
Range: 910 miles
Max Speed: 504 mph at 20,000 ft.
Climb: 3000 ft/min at sea level
Ceiling: n/a

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a8/Xf5u_ld.jpg/800px-Xf5u_ld.jpg

Weird Wings - Chance Vought V-173 / XF5U 'Flying Flapjack'

The XF5U discoidal aircraft was an invention of Charles H. Zimmerman, who conceived the design in the early 1930s. He won a 1933 National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) design competition with a disc-shaped concept capable of flying at high speeds or hovering; NACA rejected further development because they thought the design was "too advanced".

Zimmerman was not discouraged and in his spare time built a number of test models, including a rubber-band powered flying version. His original plan was an aircraft which carried three crew, in a prone position to allow maximum streamlining. The idea was subject to a 1938 patent he filed.

Zimmerman joined Chance Vought Aircraft in 1937, and there was able to produce an electric powered model of his design, designated V-162, flown by remote control in test situations, tethered in a hangar. The rear fuselage was hinged to act as an elevator.

Zimmerman provided an original blueprint to the US Navy (featuring no horizontal stabilisers) in March 1939. A month later, the Navy asked NACA (which later became NASA) to investigate the proposal. In October 1939 manufacture by Chance Vought of a small scale model for wind tunnel testing was approved. The design was referred to as V-173.

This revealed problems with the trailing edge "ailevator" design, and horizontal "flying tail" stabilisers were introduced. After full-scale wind tunnel tests in September 1941 at Langley Field, Va., the Navy asked Vought to build two military versions of the aircraft, to be designated XF5U-1. One would be for flight testing and the other for static testing.

The first flight took place of a V-173 on 23rd November, 1942. Soon after takeoff, Boone T. Guyton, Vought's chief test pilot, found the controls sluggish, and had to struggle to make a wide turn back to base. Otherwise the design was a promising one, and a wooden mockup XFU5-1 was completed the following June.

Flight tests progressed slowly but satisfactorily. On July 15, 1944, a development contract consolidated the V-173 and XF5U-1 programs.
By the end of the V-173 flight tests convinced Boone Guyton and designer Zimmerman that the design had potential. They had faced financial and technical problems but had persisted. One major problem was the propellors, initially the same as those used on the F4U-4 Corsair. These had to be replaced with flapping blades to avoid vibration; a four-bladed design was finally produced, each propellor having one pair of blades staggered agead of the other pair set at right angles.

The twin 1,350 hp Pratt & Whitney engines gave the XF5U-1 an excellent speed range of 40 mph to 425 mph, much better than the usual 1 to 4 ratio of landing speed to top speed of other good designs. Water injected engines gave a 20-460 mph range, and gas turbines allowed 0-550 mph. The ship carried 261 gal. of internal fuel, and six 20 mm cannons, three stacked vertically in each "wing root".

In June 1947, Boone T. Guyton flew the V-173 to Floyd Bennett NAS for a Navy Day display. As he neared the base, bathers on the Long Island Sound beaches saw a silver and yellow disc moving slowly overhead and rushed to report a "flying saucer". Guyton participated in the display then returned to the Vought factory at Stratford, Conn. This was the final performance of the Flying Flapjack.

On March 17, 1947 the Navy had cancelled the XF5U-1 development, preferring to go with jet aircraft. The static test aircraft had already been demolished during laboratory tests, and the Navy ordered destruction of the flying version. Its engines, instruments and other salvageable items were removed and the airframe placed under the steel ball of a demolition crane. The first few drops failed to dent the aircraft.

After careful measurements the ball was dropped between the main beams and spars, and the aircraft was eventually reduced to crumpled wreckage. The V-173 was approved for display at the Smithsonian.

actionhank1786
11-26-2005, 02:37 AM
I may be wrong about this, but wasn't a carrier decked out with a flight of Bearcats heading for the pacific when World War II was ended with the dropping of the bombs?
I could have just pulled that from my rear quarters but i swear i read that somewhere!
I'm too lazy to hit Ctrl+N and bring up a new window to search it.
All in all however, i am a fan of the late war planes, but i'd much rather have the planes that played crucial roles covered, and flyable at best. I know that's asking a lot, especially with Pacific Fighters how it is now, with development being shifted to BOB. But hell, i can't wait for BOB.
I wish we had the Ar-124 (?) Blitz, my Grandpa shot one down in a 51 at some point. I read it in a book about his fighter group.

Badsight.
11-26-2005, 05:18 AM
cool grandad Actionhank : )

this is the carrier your thinking of

& yes it was well on its way to okinawa when japan officially surendered

http://xs56.xs.to/pics/05476/Bearcat_WW2_Carrier.jpg

Aaron_GT
11-26-2005, 08:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In that case throw in a Tempest II, Fury, Seafury and Seafire 47. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You forgot the Meteor, Vampire, Firebrand and Wyvern, Hornet and Brigand in that line up! Oh, and the MB-5 and the Lincoln. And an M-52 would be jolly nice too.

gthgrrl4game
11-26-2005, 08:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/ki83.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ohhhhhhhh Yessssss!!!!!

F7f versus Ki83.....

*doeshappydance*

ashley2005
11-26-2005, 11:41 AM
http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SgDYAlkXR4nye8bifqbpwazgHFYjlU7CDI0Y244p5J3DVTTZQ QNbkwMKhfXxCgoXNGHBFt3mTBCaRZvmsd5A3zHmAA8*w03EZHK 03QW5VShkymEi2UWgRQ/homer_drooling.gif ummmm flying pancake!!!

Daiichidoku
11-26-2005, 11:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight.:
cool grandad Actionhank : )

this is the carrier your thinking of

& yes it was well on its way to okinawa when japan officially surendered

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Marine F7F 2-Ns were also asea during aug 45 on the CVE-92 windham bay

actionhank1786
11-26-2005, 06:48 PM
I bet they'd give the Ki-84's a run for their money! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

gthgrrl4game
11-27-2005, 10:17 AM
One thing I never understood, *why* did the Ki-83 designers feel a need for a second crew memeber? Especially one buried deep in the rear fuselage with only tiny windows. He cannot even keep a second set of eyes out to warn you!!!!

Gibbage1
11-27-2005, 10:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gthgrrl4game:
One thing I never understood, *why* did the Ki-83 designers feel a need for a second crew memeber? Especially one buried deep in the rear fuselage with only tiny windows. He cannot even keep a second set of eyes out to warn you!!!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Im guessing he was the navigator, hence the "long range".

polak5
11-27-2005, 11:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gthgrrl4game:
IMHO I would just as soon settle for a full set of actual combatants first. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ditto

nakamura_kenji
11-28-2005, 03:33 AM
big problem see ever were model xf5u for game be much alien design far many not know about design and problem or advantage might have had. if plane had fly and be test could have made as would know much more about problem be figure on performance will be calculated so much chance those performance figure would never be reach example be ki-78 which japanese design to 500mph but never do so only reason know this was because aircraft was test if not have flew people would still say speed 500mph. also design because so odd may have problem in flight not able predict with calculation where it some what easier predict what more conventional plane belike handle thing odd like xf5u/j7w shinden/ki-93(pusher) would be much hard compare. simply much unknow i no against 46 fantasy plane but rather plane that fly and contribute to war. also have admit one favorite plane be ki-64 (allie code name rob) i make 3d model for fun plane 3d model practise ^_^

gthgrrl4game
11-28-2005, 11:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Im guessing he was the navigator, hence the "long range". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gibbage so this extra guy; he was like an early GPS then? I see. He wouldn't fit in the instrument panel so they had to stick him somewhere? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

darkhorizon11
11-28-2005, 04:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by polak5:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gthgrrl4game:
IMHO I would just as soon settle for a full set of actual combatants first. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ditto </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah theres still uber planes that did fly and see some combat that we dont have like the Meteor Mk.I and Mk.III and the Ar.234. Not to mention the dozen other Japanese aircraft that are pertinent that we don't have.

Corsair-D
12-01-2005, 07:13 PM
Sorry for the bother but you say that you can make a 1946 add-on Gibbage. Why dont you, is it illegal or somthing?

Corsair-D
12-01-2005, 07:29 PM
I agree that any new plane is a good plane. Bearcat was an excellent plane, but before pf goes into the what if stage, we should have planes like the Vindicator, Kingfiser(A.I. only),and Devistator. You can tell that I am a United Statesian can't you. But also planes like the a5m would be cool for the Japanese, also if the Kate were flyable that would be my dancing day.http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/k01000/k01948.jpg http://www.bluejacket.com/usn/images/ac/os2u-2_vought_kingfisher.jpg

Gibbage1
12-02-2005, 02:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Corsair-D:
Sorry for the bother but you say that you can make a 1946 add-on Gibbage. Why dont you, is it illegal or somthing? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It takes a LOT more then just models.

Fritzofn
12-02-2005, 06:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gthgrrl4game:
I wouldn't whine.
Heck we have the Go229 and Bf109Z
The latter never flew either.
And to be fair, if we got the XF5U the IJ should get the Ki83.
Look it up- twin engine, 438MPH, 2x20mm and 2x30mm!!!!
Sweet Ride!!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

uhm, GO229 DID fly, even if it's just a test flight it DID fly once, and had a burnout on landing..., the one in the game is also underarmed...US militarys scariest sight was finding the shop full of wingless 229's....

oh, and the ME262 with the 50mm, also only flew once, exept, on it's test flight it scored 3-4 B17 kills....

but, we do need more planes, 335, AR234 and the tank killer Henchel...

Badsight.
12-03-2005, 12:38 AM
Me-262A-1aU4 flew at least 4 combat sorties

the cannon jammed every time

Go-229 prototypes had at least 3 test flights , with the last losing an engine & crashing

BigKahuna_GS
12-03-2005, 10:54 AM
S!
__________________________________________________ _____________________________________________
Unknown-Pilot Posted Wed November 23 2005 10:22
The F8F held the climb record for prop planes for decades.

It would mop the floor with anything the LW, IJN/A, or (preferably ) the soviets could throw at it.
__________________________________________________ ______________________________________________



Rgr that.
My dad said it was the best performing prop fighter he ever flew and he flew the whole line of Navy/Marine prop fighters.

What Pacific Fighters should of included upon it's release:

Flyable:
B5N2 Kate Torpedo bomber
Nakajima B6N Tenzan Jill Torpedo bomber
Kawanishi N1K Shiden George
TBF Avenger Torpedo bomber
Curtiss SB2C Helldiver
Consolidated PBY Catalina or PBM-5 with bomb/depth charge/torpedo load outs
F4U-4 Corsair
P47N

Optional Flyable:
F7F Tigercat
F8F Bearcat
Kawanishi H8K 'Emily' --optional only because the B-17 isnt flyable else put it in the list above

F8F/F7F aircraft were loaded onto carriers and just about arrrived at Japan before the war ended. The F8F Bearcat was flying combat air patrols over the carrier fleet while enroute to Japan.


The new super Jug (P47D '44) is actualy slower than than the P47D-27 at altitude by at least 10-15mph. So actually having a Jug that could do it's rated speed of 468mph would have been nice. Plus the P47N having a re-designed wing surface turned better and rolled better (100deg/sec)than previous Jugs.

The F4U-4 Corsair was a stellar performer, it saw combat and should have been included.



___

nakamura_kenji
12-05-2005, 04:54 AM
why 3d model when there pic real ki-83 ^_^. since bore some ija late airplane here go

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/Ki-83-1s.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/Ki-83-3.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/Ki-83-34s.jpg

ki-87 (intended ki-84 replacement enter production war end think)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/Ki-87-9.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/Ki-87-1s.jpg

ki-94-I(only mockup make think)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/Ki-94I-4.jpg

ki-94-II(normal design choose over ki-94-I think)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/Ki-94II-1s.jpg

gthgrrl4game
12-05-2005, 10:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
uhm, GO229 DID fly, even if it's just a test flight it DID fly once, and had a burnout on landing..., the one in the game is also underarmed...US militarys scariest sight was finding the shop full of wingless 229's....
but, we do need more planes, 335, AR234 and the tank killer Henchel... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fritzofn, oh yes I had read about the 229. I was referring to the 109Z. AS far I have been able to research, the zwilling did not fly at all.
The Arado 234 did fly combat missions and would be cool to have flyable. Sighting the fixed, rear firing 20mm's would be a bit of challenge...

actionhank1786
12-06-2005, 05:29 AM
"The Arado 234 did fly combat missions and would be cool to have flyable. Sighting the fixed, rear firing 20mm's would be a bit of challenge..."
And from what i read in a book, my Grandpa shot one down in a P-51 in the war.
Unfortunately i can't get any info on him or his plane, since i dont know where to look on the internet, and i'm an 8 hour drive away from the book my uncle owns.

berg417448
12-06-2005, 09:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by actionhank1786:
"The Arado 234 did fly combat missions and would be cool to have flyable. Sighting the fixed, rear firing 20mm's would be a bit of challenge..."
And from what i read in a book, my Grandpa shot one down in a P-51 in the war.
Unfortunately i can't get any info on him or his plane, since i dont know where to look on the internet, and i'm an 8 hour drive away from the book my uncle owns. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I have a book entitled " German Jets vs the US Army Air Force" which lists all US claims against jets in WWII. Give me some info and I'll look him up.

actionhank1786
12-06-2005, 09:15 PM
I found out his plane was "Wisconsin Whistler" i think it was.
He flew for the 364th FG, and his name was "Richard '****' Peterson".
I found a webpage with just the first two numbers of his plane's serial number, but 44 was all it had.

berg417448
12-06-2005, 09:44 PM
Ok. I have not found him so far. The book lists 9 German jets shot down by the 364th fighter group during the war but his name is not on the list. I'll check a bit more.

EDIT:

Just found something odd. Found a web site which lists the aircraft's name of
"Wisconsin Whistler" but it is listed as assigned to Richard E "****" White instead of Richard Peterson as you posted. According to my book, White (364th fighter Group) is credited with 1/2 of an Arado 234 destroyed on February 25th 1945.

actionhank1786
12-07-2005, 03:29 AM
Ah that's right! White was the married name my grandma took after he died in a plane crash!
Peterson was the original name!
Thanks that's pretty cool!
Half's almost a whole kill! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif