Zanadu Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 Actually, it was the British Royal Navy who proved that the Corsair could be operated from carriers. They'd been using the Seafire, which had a lot of the same visibility problems (along with that dawdawful narrow, weak landing gear) and desprately needed something that could match a '109 or '190. They got a lot of F4Us leand lease, and developed a curving landing approach that kept the flight deck in view until the last second. The Corsiar was considered the better fighter, but the Hellcat was MUCH easier to land on a carrier. As for structure, both were as tough as old bootleather. Compared to a Corsiar, a Hellcat should probably be about the same except -1 performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixxkiller Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 The Hellcat was also a bit more armored. Both were good planes but since the Corsair is my favorite plane ever I will give it the nod. But the Hellcat would be a GREAT addition. -Ray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zanadu Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 Of the current list of a/c, it seems to me that the most obviously missing are the US F6F, the British Spitfire MkIX (or the VIII which was about the same performance, but had more range, and was extensively used in the MTO and Asia), the Germans should have both the FW190A and D, and the Japanese Ki84 (Frank) and/or NiK1/2-J (George). The A6M8 Zero is kind of fun to use, even though it never got beyond prototype stage. Guess you could include the A7M Reppu (the Zero's replacement) as it got to about the same stage. You might consider including the Bell P39 Airacobra with the Russians, as they used more that the US did. With the US types it would be pretty close to the P40s anyway. A little less performance, but more firepower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zanadu Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 Sorry, that should be N1K1/2-J, not NiKi/2-J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bartbert Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 Zanadu, you will probably like the expansion pack because most of the aircraft you mentioned will likely be in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zanadu Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 Am much looking forward to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixxkiller Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 Moved to new thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Harrison Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 Originally posted by Stalin's Organist: I think htere's sufficient gap betwen the F4F and the F4U to slot the F6 - 5 performance vs 7 leaves 6 spare The F6 would, I think, have the following: Perf 6 Hp 3 Bursts/Damage 1/0 Airframe 7 Special: None Wing offence: 2 Wing defence: 2 Not a lot of difference you may think, but quite significant in a game where 1 extra card really does matter! The F6 was considered "easy meat" by experienced Jap pilots in some of their later a/c, but shuold be much better than the F4 and more than a match for the A6M2 - which I think this would make it. F6F shot down more Japanese aircraft than any other plane of the war, and it could manuver much better than the Corsair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 It shot down more planes because there were more F-6's, and being the Navy's basic carrier fighter it was always in the thick of the action. Navy pilots actually compared the 2 side by side, and improvements were made to both as a result, buthe score card was even - see http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_199812/ai_n8817082 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Harrison Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 Originally posted by Stalin's Organist: It shot down more planes because there were more F-6's, and being the Navy's basic carrier fighter it was always in the thick of the action. Navy pilots actually compared the 2 side by side, and improvements were made to both as a result, buthe score card was even - see http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_199812/ai_n8817082 Wonder why there were more F6F's?? I bet there was a reason:) I also wonder how many dead Japanese pilots thought the F6F was "easy meat" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talorien Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 Originally posted by Stalin's Organist: I think htere's sufficient gap betwen the F4F and the F4U to slot the F6 - 5 performance vs 7 leaves 6 spare The F6 would, I think, have the following: Perf 6 Hp 3 Bursts/Damage 1/0 Airframe 7 Special: None Wing offence: 2 Wing defence: 2 Not a lot of difference you may think, but quite significant in a game where 1 extra card really does matter! The F6 was considered "easy meat" by experienced Jap pilots in some of their later a/c, but shuold be much better than the F4 and more than a match for the A6M2 - which I think this would make it. I second Stalin's statline for the Hellcat. For the sake of additional flavour and to represent its extra robustness it could have Airframe 4/4 (damaged at 5, destroyed at 8). I might also give it an OK Wingman Defense of 2. These changes would overall make it much better than the Wildcat but a tad below the Corsair in performance, though a smidgen tougher. Btw if it's not too much of a PITA, this format for Airframe may be clearer (e.g. Corsair Airframe 4/3). The database online and in the manual also seems outdated. Really enjoying this outstanding game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zanadu Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 With the expansion coming out (I expect mine any day, I'm still on dial-up so don't feel like trying to download it) I think it's time to restart the wish list. I propose, for comment and consideration: The F4U-4. A Corsair with a Supercharger (and performance) nearly equal to a MkXIV Spitfire. The P39 Airacobra (for the Soviets, who used more that the US did). The German He100 (referred to by the RAF as the He113), a Battle of Britain 'might have been' that was faster, and longer ranged than the '109, but served only in propaganda photos and defending the Heinkle factory. The Westland Whirlwind, a fast, very heavily armed twin engine fighter which saw limited service with the RAF, but could have been a major factor if the British had been willing to invest more engineering effort on the RR Peregrine engine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixxkiller Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 Hi Zanadu, I am in total agreement about the P-39. Make Russian Campaigns way better I do think if the Germans got a new plane it should be a Tu-152. Something a bit better than a Fw190 but not as good as a Me262. But the Brits and US need a nice little Jet to grace the blue skies! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred19 Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 Ta 152. From Kurt Tank who developed the plane. And I would like the Do-335. :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixxkiller Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 Ya the TA, was a typo sorry!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zanadu Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 I've alway thought the He100 was a particularly slick-looking machine. If you want a super piston-engine type, others for consideration would include the He219, and Do335 twine engine fighters for the Germans, the Spitfie Mk21 and DeHavilland Hornet for the UK, the P51H, P82 (twin Mustang), F8F1 (fastest climbing piston fighter ever), F7F and P47M for the US. All of these were either actually used in combat, or were closer to combat than the Japanese Shinden (J7W). And, of course, I'm still campaigning for the George (N1K2-J). It wasn't particularly fast, but had a very nasty combination of ruggedness, firepower and agility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 I'd like to see the Defiant in here actually - that'd be a real challenge for everyone.....except people intercepting it!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zanadu Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 Defiant. Hmmm. I guess it would get no shot when neutral or tailing, one burts when advantaged, three bursts when disadvantaged and two burst when tailed (his own tail in the way). Sound about right?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 Something like that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rivven_darke Posted October 1, 2006 Share Posted October 1, 2006 As Sixx said some other Jets would be fine. Why not the first Jet of all, the Gloster Meteor for the Brits? Ok, it was crap and spent most of its time tipping V1 cause the guns never worked but hey...its a jet. For the US the P-80 shooting star. Ok, only 4 have seen duty in WW2 (one exploded, one crashed) but with the Shinden its the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixxkiller Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 The Shinden was actually going to be produced as is, even before testing. They even had plans to install a rocket type engine on it J7W2, so I guess maybe it or the Mizuno "Sinryu" Type 2 Rocket Intercepter could be good for a Japanese jet a/c. Only thing about the Sinryu was that it had about 30 seconds of flight time. That could be good for turn 1 and then it crashes in DIF . Hate to be the lucky pilot for that one as even a kamakaze pilot had a better chance at surviving. Most likely the one that would have been good would be the Mitsubishi J8M Shusui which was a copy of the Me-163. The Kawanishi N1K2-J "Shiden-Kai would be cool to have also even if only 450 were produced. No jet though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lakespeed Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 Well, you could always go with the "Kikka" which was a loose copy of the Me-262. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zanadu Posted October 15, 2006 Share Posted October 15, 2006 To Sixxkiller: So what if only 450 N1K2-J's were built?? There were less than a thousand MkXIV Spitfires built. I'd still like to see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted October 15, 2006 Share Posted October 15, 2006 Mk XIV?? Errr..it is in the game already...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zanadu Posted October 16, 2006 Share Posted October 16, 2006 Yes, I know. AS is the J7W and A6M8, neither of which actually went beyond prototype. Sixxkiller commented that the N1K2J would be nice even tho only about 450 were built. I wanted to point out that size of production wasn't a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts