PDA

View Full Version : Why ingame P-400 doesn't feature a drop-tank?



JDXKiller
01-26-2007, 08:15 AM
evidence:

P-400 "Flaming Arrow", Richard Suehr, New Guinea, 1942
http://wp.scn.ru/en/ww2/f/297/3/1/7

P-400 (same plane as above), Norb Ruff, Milne Bay, New Guinea, 1943
http://wp.scn.ru/en/ww2/f/297/3/1/8

P-400, Berkley Dillen, Tonotouta, New Caledonia, 1942
http://wp.scn.ru/en/ww2/f/297/3/1/3


Is the ingame P-39 D1 with drop-tank in the loadout the more historical correct P-400?



Fly Friendly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JDXKiller
01-26-2007, 08:15 AM
evidence:

P-400 "Flaming Arrow", Richard Suehr, New Guinea, 1942
http://wp.scn.ru/en/ww2/f/297/3/1/7

P-400 (same plane as above), Norb Ruff, Milne Bay, New Guinea, 1943
http://wp.scn.ru/en/ww2/f/297/3/1/8

P-400, Berkley Dillen, Tonotouta, New Caledonia, 1942
http://wp.scn.ru/en/ww2/f/297/3/1/3


Is the ingame P-39 D1 with drop-tank in the loadout the more historical correct P-400?



Fly Friendly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

3.JG51_BigBear
01-26-2007, 08:47 AM
I don't know if color palettes are the best evidence of widespread drop dank use but I agree that I have seen a number of photos of p-400s sporting drop tanks. Most airplanes in this game are missing some form of armament or load out. As an example, the FW 190D-9 can't carry a bomb or a drop tank. From what I've read, adding ordinance to an airplane in game requires a "new" flight model for every weapon loadout which takes a lot of time. Given the extra work and the relative unimportance of long-range operations in game its not hard to imagine Oleg and Company not thinking a drop tank loadout was necessary.

JG53Frankyboy
01-26-2007, 11:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JDXKiller:
................
Is the ingame P-39 D1 with drop-tank in the loadout the more historical correct P-400?



</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

whatever, beside the skin and the loadoutoptions, they are the same.
"just" the D-2 is a totaly different beast !

JDXKiller
02-02-2007, 08:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">3.JG51_BigBear
...Given the extra work and the relative unimportance of long-range operations in game its not hard to imagine Oleg and Company not thinking a drop tank loadout was necessary. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yeah, think that's it. Beside the many examples of P-400's with drop tank, I found no evidence at all for a P-400 Airacobra Mk.I without drop tank/ bomb mount. The drop tank mounts were added to P-39D models because their self-sealing fuel tanks reduced internal fuel capacity from P-39C's 141.5 Imp. gall. to 100 Imp. gall.
The ingame loadout for the D-2 is also incorrect, it lacks the 145 gallon drop tank it could carry.



Fly Friendly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VW-IceFire
02-02-2007, 03:05 PM
I guess the in-game workaround is using a P-39D-1 which is quite similar overall.

Is it also just me or should the D-2 have a 37mm cannon by default and then let us load the bombs instead of asking us to choose?