PDA

View Full Version : Why no RAF fantasy planes?



djetz
02-08-2006, 06:37 PM
I'm not requesting them, just asking for the hell of it.

Makes sense: the Gloster Meteor actually flew combat sorties (against V1s) and was a lot more widely used than the He162 or Me163, and nobody calls them "fantasy planes" - I'm pretty sure the Me163 only actually flew about half a dozen times in combat and was - as we all know - far more dangerous to its pilot than to allied planes.

We have Luft'46, it'd be nice to have RAF'46 to make it a bit more interesting.

Gloster Meteor
deHavilland Hornet
deHavilland Vampire

...all of which DID see combat...

Now there's some "fantasy" planes I'd like to try out against the Lufties.

djetz
02-08-2006, 06:37 PM
I'm not requesting them, just asking for the hell of it.

Makes sense: the Gloster Meteor actually flew combat sorties (against V1s) and was a lot more widely used than the He162 or Me163, and nobody calls them "fantasy planes" - I'm pretty sure the Me163 only actually flew about half a dozen times in combat and was - as we all know - far more dangerous to its pilot than to allied planes.

We have Luft'46, it'd be nice to have RAF'46 to make it a bit more interesting.

Gloster Meteor
deHavilland Hornet
deHavilland Vampire

...all of which DID see combat...

Now there's some "fantasy" planes I'd like to try out against the Lufties.

JG7_Rall
02-08-2006, 06:46 PM
I dont think anyone's objecting to them, but all the fantasy planes thus far have been modled by 3rd party people. Thus, you can't control what they create. I think people who do have an interest in fantasy planes sort of flock towards German ones because...well....they were just so unique. Other than that, I really dont have a good answer for you

berg417448
02-08-2006, 06:48 PM
I understand your point about including the Meteor but you are not correct about the number of Me-163 missons. For example, here are just a few items:

Captain Otto A. Boehner flew 16 combat missions in the Me 163.

At least 6 Komets were shot down by the USAF.

Sergeant Rolf Glogner shot down a Mosquito in March 1945 while flying a Komet.

Sgt Kurt Schiebeler flew 20 missions in the Me 163.

Lieutenant Adolf Niemeyer Flew more 30 combat missions in the aircraft.

djetz
02-08-2006, 06:55 PM
OK, looks like I'm wrong about the Me163. I may be getting it mixed up with something else that only flew a handful of missions. Maybe I'm thinking of the Bachem thing with the rockets...

Still, I'm sure I'm right about it being more dangerous to the Luftwaffe than than the allies.

berg417448
02-08-2006, 07:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by djetz:

Still, I'm sure I'm right about it being more dangerous to the Luftwaffe than than the allies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most likely correct. I've seen anywhere from 9 to 16 confirmed kills for the Komet but losses due to accident are always listed as higher than that. To be fair, we'd have to get the same accidental loss data for all other fighters to make a comparison.

Here is a good site for Komet info:

http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/me163/me163_1.asp

According to this site 91 Komets were operational December 31, 1944

uglyohyeah
02-08-2006, 07:18 PM
Actually it always mistifies me when people seem to be up in arms when '46 aircraft are included. I think it would be great fun to be able to run a few '46 scenarios in any theatre.

I think the only limitation is the availability of accurate flight data and cockpit details. For a lot of the Allied aircraft this isn't such a problem as a large number of them went on to see post war service e.g Vampire, Skyraider, Hornet, Seafury. Obviously for the Axis most of their proposed '46 aircraft never saw the light of day and certainly aren't as well documented. For example I bet there is a lot more information and references availalble for the vampire than there are for the Ta 183. Maybe that would lead to an unavoidable red bias.

Xiolablu3
02-08-2006, 08:11 PM
he main reason we have other fantasies is because people modelled them,

P80 and Gotha Gibbage made in his own time. (and the Spitfire, which I think many people forget) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Not sure about the He162, I think it was a plane that interested Oleg and so he put it in.

If you want to model them, then feel free and then send them to Oleg. I agree the Meteor would be nice, but dont think it would be competetive against the Me262, it wasnt a very good plane in its early designs.

The Vampire was good tho, as far as I know. Did it see combat? Not in WW2 I dont think)

Remember this is a Russian game and Oleg (like everyone else) is interested in his own countries planes over most others. There are not many Western WW2 flight sims with Russian aircraft in.

ImpStarDuece
02-08-2006, 08:19 PM
Potential RAF lae 1945/early 1946 line up would be:

Spitfire XVIII: Long range fighter bomber version of the MK XIV. Cleared for 1,500 lbs of bombs.

Spitfire XXI: Final wartime Spitfire with a completely new wing, some with a Griffon 85 and contra rotating props

Spitfire 22 and 24: Refined Mk XXI with bubble canopy, enlarged tail surfaces and a 24 volt electrical system.

Seafire 45/46/47: Navalised versions of the Spitfire Mk 21/22 and 24 respectively. Only the Seafire 47 had folding wings and all Mk 47s flew with contra-rotating propellors.

Meteor Mk III: Improved Meteor MK I with revised canpoy arrangements, new Derwent I engines, longer engine nacells and increased fuel capacity. Approximately 70-80 mph faster at all altitudes than the Meteor Mk I.

Meteor Mk IV: The first true fighter Meteor. Clipped wings and revised control arrangements to improve agility. Improved Derwent 5 engines which boosed total thrust by some 75%. Lengthned engine nacelles to eliminate high speed buffet. Roughly 80-100 mph faster than the Meteor Mk III.

Blackburn Firebrand TF III/ TF IV: A single engined, carrier based, torpedo strike fighter. Powered by either a 2,250 hp Napier Sabre III or a 2,550 hp Bristol Centarus in later versions. Able to carry a single 1,800 lb torpedo, 2 1000 lb bombs or 12 rockets.

Bristol Brigand: Long range strike and torpedo bomber. Powered by two 2,200 hp Bristol Centarus 57 engines. It was let down by engine unreliability and was unpopular post-war, used in Malaya and Kenya.

Avro Lincoln: Enlarged and improved Lancaster with increased range and performance. Designed to be used in the Far East and Pacific. 2,800 mile cruising range with a 14,000 lbs bombload. 30,500 foot flight ceiling.

de Havilland Moquito NF Mk 36. Post-war development of NF. MK 30. Capable of 425 mph with MK IX AI Radar in 'bull' type nose.

de Havilland Moquito B Mk 35. Final wartime version of the Mosquito bomber family. Powered by 2 stage Merlin 114 engines. 415 mph with full 2,000 lbs bomb load.

de Havilland Moquito TF Mk 37. Torpedo bomber version of the FB Mk IV. Able to carry 1 2000 lb torpedo or 1 2000 lb bomb internally as well as 2000 lbs externally. 345 mph on the deck, 387 mph at 13,500 feet.

de Havilland Hornet Mk I: Long range, twin engined fighter. Powered by two counter rotating Rolls Royce Merlin 130/131 engines rated at 2030 hp. Lighter, faster, smaller and more manouverable than the Mosquito, from which it draw its basic layout and design. Up to 2,000 lbs external bombload.

de Havilland Vampire Mk I: Single seat, single engine jet powered figher. Entered service inwith 274 squadron in March 1946. The first production aircraft were considered underpowered, with a single 2,700 lbs thrust Goblin 1 engine. Rectified with the fitting of a 3,100 lbs thrust Goblin 2 from the 1st airframe. Range was limited but performance with Goblin 2 engines was considered excellent, sustaining over 530 mph in level flight.

Hawker Tempest Mk II: Bristol Centarus Mk V powered version of the classic wartime Tempest. 2 squadrons ready for deployment to the Pacific just before VJ day. All were completed as fighter bombers with strengthened wings. Approximately 5-10 mph faster than the Tempest Mk V at all altitudes below 16,000 feet.

and that's all I can think of off the top of my head http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

VW-IceFire
02-08-2006, 08:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by djetz:
I'm not requesting them, just asking for the hell of it.

Makes sense: the Gloster Meteor actually flew combat sorties (against V1s) and was a lot more widely used than the He162 or Me163, and nobody calls them "fantasy planes" - I'm pretty sure the Me163 only actually flew about half a dozen times in combat and was - as we all know - far more dangerous to its pilot than to allied planes.

We have Luft'46, it'd be nice to have RAF'46 to make it a bit more interesting.

Gloster Meteor
deHavilland Hornet
deHavilland Vampire

...all of which DID see combat...

Now there's some "fantasy" planes I'd like to try out against the Lufties. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is true. Everyone else has their fantasy aircraft but not the RAF/Commonwealth types. Thats ok, we're more grounded in reality...plus we'd rather have a Lancaster or a Typhoon before any of these I think.

A Meteor Mark III would be perfectly historical. The thing operated in the low countries before the end of the war as I understand it. Nearly engaged some ME-262's in jet to jet air combat...but this was spoiled when USAAF Mustangs mistook the Meteors for ME-262's and the Meteors had to evade.

Waldo.Pepper
02-08-2006, 08:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">de Havilland Moquito NF Mk 36. Post-war development of NF. MK 30. Capable of 425 mph with MK IX AI Radar in 'bull' type nose. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mark X Radar. Mark IX development was dropped when SCR-720 (aka Mk X AI) was developed in 1943.

Tazzers1968
02-08-2006, 08:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by djetz:
I'm not requesting them, just asking for the hell of it.

Makes sense: the Gloster Meteor actually flew combat sorties (against V1s) and was a lot more widely used than the He162 or Me163, and nobody calls them "fantasy planes" - I'm pretty sure the Me163 only actually flew about half a dozen times in combat and was - as we all know - far more dangerous to its pilot than to allied planes.

We have Luft'46, it'd be nice to have RAF'46 to make it a bit more interesting.

Gloster Meteor
deHavilland Hornet
deHavilland Vampire

...all of which DID see combat...

Now there's some "fantasy" planes I'd like to try out against the Lufties. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think the Hornet or the Vampire ever saw combat mate. Not to detract from your question as I think it is a good one. Unless I am mixing it up with the Venom AFAIK the Vampire DID enter service before the end of the war but it DID NOT see combat.

About the Hornet I quote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">...but major orders for the Hornet F1 were cancelled at the end of the war and only 60 were built, entering RAF service in 1946. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

From: Combat Legends. de Havilland Mosquito. Robert Jackson. ISBN 1-84037-358-x. Page 68. Second column.

Now thats okay for your RAF46 idea and it (the Hornet) was very quick indeed. I'd lobby for it.

But the Meteor was the only one to see combat of those three.

Good idea though I like it.

djetz
02-08-2006, 09:22 PM
OK, I wasn't specific enough when I said "saw combat"

All 3 of the planes I mentioned were flying and in production BEFORE the end of WW2. Which certainly qualifies them for a "late '45/'46" type-scenario.

All 3 "saw combat" but only the Meteor "saw combat" in WW2, against the V1 and flying sorties over Germany in the last couple of months of the war, by which time the Luftwaffe had pretty much all gone for a Burton.

The Hornet and Vampire "saw combat" in various military actions in the period '45-'50 such as the Malayan conflict, and both "saw combat" during the Korean war.

Australian pilots flying Meteors shot down a number of Mig jets in Korea, I believe. Which seems to indicate that the later models of Meteor at least weren't entirely rubbish.

I'm not trying to start an argument, I just wanted to discuss the cool RAF/Commonwealth "46" fighters, which seem to get neglected in favour of the German planes.

Actually, the Italians had a jet fighter in service too, though I'm not sure if it "saw combat" in the sense of shooting down (or being shot down) in air-to-air combat. I can't even remember what it was called, but I do remember that it was used by German pilots on the eastern front for recon missions. And the allies were very pleased to get examples to test post-war.

djetz
02-08-2006, 09:31 PM
Campini-Caproni CC-2 - that's the Italian jet.

It seems like the "germans used them on the eastern front" may be a myth, though: it seems like only two prototypes were built.

jarink
02-08-2006, 10:32 PM
You forgot the Sea Fury.
http://www.warbirdaviation.com.au/images/gall/warbirds/Sea%20Fury%20landing.jpg

Prototype flew in early '45 and 1st production aircraft was built in fall of '46.

460mph top speed and 4 Hispanos, plus 2,000 pounds of bombs or 12x3" rockets?

<span class="ev_code_red">Ohhh yeahh!!!</span> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

ImpStarDuece
02-08-2006, 10:50 PM
Sea Fury service didn't start until May, 1948 with Number 802 Squadron. That's probably a little late to be considered for a RAF '46 style of scenario.

Even if the Royal Nevy accelerated service entry, I don't think it would of been available until early 1947, considering that the first production example didn't fly until September 1946, and even then there were still some bugs to iron out.

fordfan25
02-08-2006, 11:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by djetz:
I'm not requesting them, just asking for the hell of it.

Makes sense: the Gloster Meteor actually flew combat sorties (against V1s) and was a lot more widely used than the He162 or Me163, and nobody calls them "fantasy planes" - I'm pretty sure the Me163 only actually flew about half a dozen times in combat and was - as we all know - far more dangerous to its pilot than to allied planes.

We have Luft'46, it'd be nice to have RAF'46 to make it a bit more interesting.

Gloster Meteor
deHavilland Hornet
deHavilland Vampire

...all of which DID see combat...

Now there's some "fantasy" planes I'd like to try out against the Lufties. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

you already have them there called spitfires lol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Xiolablu3
02-09-2006, 01:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by djetz:
Australian pilots flying Meteors shot down a number of Mig jets in Korea, I believe. Which seems to indicate that the later models of Meteor at least weren't entirely rubbish.

. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, I didnt particualrly mean that the early Meteor was a rubbish plane, it was a great start. (its not like it was particularly needed at the time) Its just the Me262 was a phenomenal plane for 1943-44, the same time the Meteor was flying.

The faults were corrected with later Meteors, but by then there were better desins, like you said, such as the Vampire etc. Did the Vampire fly in Korea? I googled it but didnt find anything.

Makes me sad to see all those Meteors being destoyed in Air to Air and Ground to Air missile testing. They were used as target drones in the 50's.

Marak117
02-09-2006, 02:14 AM
If we're talking British fantasy planes for Pacific Fighters, you would have to include the Saunders-Roe SR.A-1. The worlds first jet flying-boat fighter.

Designed for operations against the Japanese and approved for testing in May 1944, The end of the war meant that construction orders were delayed and the first prototypes didn't fly until 1947.

While the 'Squirt' as it was nicknamed was never a particularly successful aircraft, it would be fun to have something totally oddball for the British eccentrics.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
02-09-2006, 02:15 AM
You want British 'fantasy planes'?
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Village/4082/brit/odd_air.htm

That's not even the tip of the iceberg.

p1ngu666
02-09-2006, 02:31 AM
could mod teh tempest into the mark I, and the VI with increased power.

the mk1 had wing rads, mossie and whirlwind style, so it was *REALLY* fast. short range cos rads replaced some of the fuel

Aaron_GT
02-09-2006, 03:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">and that's all I can think of off the top of my head </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What about the Spiteful? Spitfire with a new wing, prototype flew at 494mph.

By the way, the Hornet DID see action - in Malaya as a fighter bomber.

The Vampire saw combat as a strike aircraft with the Rhodesian Air Force in the 1960s and 70s.

WOLFMondo
02-09-2006, 03:21 AM
I don't want RAF fantasy planes, I'd like ones which flew and fought! Its not like the RAF didn't have hundreds of types and variants in active service.

Be all and end all though is if you want new planes you better go buy a copy of 3DMax. Got a few spare? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JG52Karaya-X
02-09-2006, 03:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkVb:
You want British 'fantasy planes'?
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Village/4082/brit/odd_air.htm

That's not even the tip of the iceberg. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's the most frightening freak-show I've ever seen http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

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

Low_Flyer_MkVb
02-09-2006, 03:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkVb:
You want British 'fantasy planes'?
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Village/4082/brit/odd_air.htm

That's not even the tip of the iceberg. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's the most frightening freak-show I've ever seen http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Didn't Wellington say something like that once? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/miles20m3020x-minor.jpg
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/baynes20bat.jpg
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/supermarine20spitfire20floatplane.jpg

I'm just holding the fort till Archie turns up.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

StG2_Schlachter
02-09-2006, 04:10 AM
So why should more fantasy planes be implemented?

So they are banned from almost every online server/game like the german jets and rockets now?

I bet they won't be http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif
Finally the allied side has something more competetive http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Marak117
02-09-2006, 04:12 AM
I would also like to see a greater selection of real war aircraft for the Brits. In particular, Bomber Command is unfortunately neglected. Apart from the more obvious omissions, such as the Lancaster and Wellington, It would be nice to include some of the lesser known planes such as the Handley Page Hampden and the Whitworth Whitley.

The FAA is badly under equipped with Skuas, Fulmars, Fireflies and of course Swordfish just some examples of the MIA.

Finally, fighter command is still missing Typhoons, Whirlwinds and other Meteorological phenomena.

All of these aircraft would be nice to have, but I'm not sure they qualify as fantasy aircraft.
Now the Eurofighter, That would be a fantasy aircraft. All we need is someone to do the cockpit.

StG2_Schlachter
02-09-2006, 04:17 AM
Hello?

This game is primarily an eastern front and PTO game. Wait for TBoB and you will have your Hampden .

Low_Flyer_MkVb
02-09-2006, 04:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by StG2_Schlachter:
Hello?

This game is primarily an eastern front and PTO game. Wait for TBoB and you will have your Hampden . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

1) It's got a Normandy map.
2) The RAF and Fleet Air Arm did some stuff in the PTO.

StG2_Schlachter
02-09-2006, 04:24 AM
It has got one Normandie map.

Developement of PF has been suspended.

I wouldn't mind more RAF planes either, but IL2 is nearing the end of its development. Modelling more and more planes would stall the work on TBoB.

If you wait just a little bit longer, you will get the Hampden with much better graphics and an enhanced FM and DM.

Marak117
02-09-2006, 04:43 AM
I'm sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I wasn't seriously suggesting that the aircraft I listed should be included in the sim at this point.

I was only pointing out that there are other interesting aircraft missing from the list apart from the fantasy rides that this thread is focused on.

When BoB hits the shops I will no doubt obsess about it in the same way I do about IL-2. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Until it arrives however, I'm still stuck dreaming about this game.

Everyone needs their dreams right?

ImpStarDuece
02-09-2006, 04:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">and that's all I can think of off the top of my head </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What about the Spiteful? Spitfire with a new wing, prototype flew at 494mph.

By the way, the Hornet DID see action - in Malaya as a fighter bomber.

The Vampire saw combat as a strike aircraft with the Rhodesian Air Force in the 1960s and 70s. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was just using examples that saw service in between mid 1945 and mid 1946.

Neither the Spitful or Seafang saw squadron service. Handling difficulties basically sunk both fighters, despite excellent level speed.

I'd rather fly a 460 mph Spitfire Mk 22/24 with excellent handling than a 494 mph Spiteful with poor handling.

WOLFMondo
02-09-2006, 04:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkVb:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by StG2_Schlachter:
Hello?

This game is primarily an eastern front and PTO game. Wait for TBoB and you will have your Hampden . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

1) It's got a Normandy map.
2) The RAF and Fleet Air Arm did some stuff in the PTO. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Theres also the new Germany map with Volkel, home to 122 Win 2nd TAF in 1945. The RAF also flew over Berlin once or twice as well as the Ardennes etc.

The Africa/med map is also.

The FAA and RN was present during the 1945 island hoping in the PTO too. The RN had over 800 ships in the Pacific in 1945, 140 of them were combat ships including 12 carriers.

This was dwarfed by the US fleet but its no small fry. Just read up on the RN's presence at Iwo Jima and the Kamikazes that bounced of the armoured decks of the Illustrious class carriers.

Meshsmoother
02-09-2006, 05:37 AM
More Blue than anything else for me. I fly FW190-A (all)and P-51D/MkIII. Will be flying the Tempest too since I like challenging planes... the harder, the better

=S=

T.

Philipscdrw
02-09-2006, 05:57 AM
I'd prefer to see a Dornier Do-17 bomber to anything else in the game. I'm starting to forget that that aircraft ever existed...

mynameisroland
02-09-2006, 06:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by StG2_Schlachter:
Hello?

This game is primarily an eastern front and PTO game. Wait for TBoB and you will have your Hampden . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup and thats why there are so many Mustangs , P47's B17's B24's YP-80's ect in the sim. Hello! heard of AEP and the European theatre of operations&gt;?

mynameisroland
02-09-2006, 06:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">and that's all I can think of off the top of my head </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What about the Spiteful? Spitfire with a new wing, prototype flew at 494mph.

By the way, the Hornet DID see action - in Malaya as a fighter bomber.

The Vampire saw combat as a strike aircraft with the Rhodesian Air Force in the 1960s and 70s. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was just using examples that saw service in between mid 1945 and mid 1946.

Neither the Spitful or Seafang saw squadron service. Handling difficulties basically sunk both fighters, despite excellent level speed.

I'd rather fly a 460 mph Spitfire Mk 22/24 with excellent handling than a 494 mph Spiteful with poor handling. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Imp I dont think any books I have read said that the Spit 22 ever had excellent handling. It was unstable in more than one axis and experienced pilots felt that it had taken the basic Spitfire design too far.

Tazzers1968
02-09-2006, 06:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">and that's all I can think of off the top of my head </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What about the Spiteful? Spitfire with a new wing, prototype flew at 494mph.

By the way, the Hornet DID see action - in Malaya as a fighter bomber.

The Vampire saw combat as a strike aircraft with the Rhodesian Air Force in the 1960s and 70s. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes they did see combat but NOT in WW2. Which is what I said.

Aaron_GT
02-09-2006, 08:04 AM
You didn't qualify with "In WW2", Tazzers, so I assumed you meant no combat ever. Sorry for my misunderstanding.

Tazzers1968
02-09-2006, 09:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
You didn't qualify with "In WW2", Tazzers, so I assumed you meant no combat ever. Sorry for my misunderstanding. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah yes. I see. Don't you just hate semantics?

jds1978
02-09-2006, 09:16 AM
i would love to see a Meteor! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif