PDA

View Full Version : Final Pacific Fighters plane list



Gbucket
10-07-2004, 04:23 AM
New flyable:
A-20G
B-25J-1NA
DAB Beaufighter Mk21
F4F-3
F4F-4
FM-2
F4U-1A
F4U-1C
F4U-1D
Corsair MK.I
Corsair MK.II
Corsair MK.IV
F6F-3 Late
F6F-5
P-400
P-39D-1
P-39D-2
Hawk 81A-2
P-40B
P-40C
Tomahawk Mk. IIa
Tomahawk Mk. IIb
SBD-3
SBD-5
Seafire L.MK.III
Seafire F.MK.III
Spitfire MK. VIII
Spitfire MK. VIII(CW)
A6M2-21
A6M2-N
A6M3
A6M5
A6M5a
A6M5b
A6M5c
A6M7-62
A6M7-63
D3A1
Ki-43-Ia
Ki-43-Ib
Ki-43-Ic
Ki-61-Ki
Ki-61-Hei
Ki-61-Otsu

AI:
B-17D
B-17E
B-17F
B-17G
B-24J-100CF
B-25C-25NA
B-25G-1NA
B-25H-1NA
B-29
Blenheim Mk.IV
Hawk 75A-3
Hawk 75A-4
PBN Nomad
TBF-1
TBF-1C
TBM-3
Avenger MK.III
B5N2
Ki-43-II
Ki-43-II Kai
Ki-46-III Kai
Ki-46-III Kai Otsu
Ki-46-III Recce
N1K1-J
N1K1-Ja
H8K1
L2D

Flyable if you install over IL2:
Hurricane Mk.IIb
Hurricane Mk.IIc
P-38J
P-38L
P-39N-1
P-40E
P-40M
P-47D-10
P-47D-22
P-47D-27
P-51B-NA
P-51C-NT
P-51D-5NT
P-51D-20NA
P-63C-5
A6M2
Ki-84-Ia
Ki-84-Ib
Ki-84-Ic

Available in new free add-on:
F2A-2
G4M1-11

Gbucket
10-07-2004, 04:23 AM
New flyable:
A-20G
B-25J-1NA
DAB Beaufighter Mk21
F4F-3
F4F-4
FM-2
F4U-1A
F4U-1C
F4U-1D
Corsair MK.I
Corsair MK.II
Corsair MK.IV
F6F-3 Late
F6F-5
P-400
P-39D-1
P-39D-2
Hawk 81A-2
P-40B
P-40C
Tomahawk Mk. IIa
Tomahawk Mk. IIb
SBD-3
SBD-5
Seafire L.MK.III
Seafire F.MK.III
Spitfire MK. VIII
Spitfire MK. VIII(CW)
A6M2-21
A6M2-N
A6M3
A6M5
A6M5a
A6M5b
A6M5c
A6M7-62
A6M7-63
D3A1
Ki-43-Ia
Ki-43-Ib
Ki-43-Ic
Ki-61-Ki
Ki-61-Hei
Ki-61-Otsu

AI:
B-17D
B-17E
B-17F
B-17G
B-24J-100CF
B-25C-25NA
B-25G-1NA
B-25H-1NA
B-29
Blenheim Mk.IV
Hawk 75A-3
Hawk 75A-4
PBN Nomad
TBF-1
TBF-1C
TBM-3
Avenger MK.III
B5N2
Ki-43-II
Ki-43-II Kai
Ki-46-III Kai
Ki-46-III Kai Otsu
Ki-46-III Recce
N1K1-J
N1K1-Ja
H8K1
L2D

Flyable if you install over IL2:
Hurricane Mk.IIb
Hurricane Mk.IIc
P-38J
P-38L
P-39N-1
P-40E
P-40M
P-47D-10
P-47D-22
P-47D-27
P-51B-NA
P-51C-NT
P-51D-5NT
P-51D-20NA
P-63C-5
A6M2
Ki-84-Ia
Ki-84-Ib
Ki-84-Ic

Available in new free add-on:
F2A-2
G4M1-11

10-07-2004, 04:43 AM
I suppose there will be two uncompatible kind of games online: add-on to FB and separate PF. Of course all "veterans" will fly the first one, but such a division is not a good thing

MajorBloodnok
10-07-2004, 05:50 AM
My that's a lot of planes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

SlickStick
10-07-2004, 06:16 AM
"Flyable if you install over IL2:

Hurricane Mk.IIb
Hurricane Mk.IIc
P-38J
P-38L
P-39N-1
P-40E
P-40M
P-47D-10
P-47D-22
P-47D-27
P-51B-NA
P-51C-NT
P-51D-5NT
P-51D-20NA
P-63C-5
A6M2
Ki-84-Ia
Ki-84-Ib
Ki-84-Ic"

What does that mean exactly? Install over IL2? Or does that mean if we install PF over AEP, only those planes remain flyable from AEP?

I'm a little confused and that's not a hard thing to do. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

JG54_Arnie
10-07-2004, 06:24 AM
Flyable within the campaigns and missions of PF I assume? Or is it stupid to assume anything when it comes to the mixed installs.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Aeronautico
10-07-2004, 06:32 AM
PF can host for PF/FB (not the other way round.

Heavy_Weather
10-07-2004, 07:23 AM
sweet, cant wait http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Spitf_ACE
10-07-2004, 07:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SlickStick:

What does that mean exactly? Install over IL2? Or does that mean if we install PF over AEP, only those planes remain flyable from AEP?

I'm a little confused and that's not a hard thing to do. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I assume it is saying that these planes were present in the Pacific theatre, but aren't included in PF.

They are already in FB/AEP so you'll have them for PF if you install it over the top.

SlickStick
10-07-2004, 07:36 AM
Sounds feasible.

I guess I was just thrown by the "IL2" part of that. I started thinking PF could go over the original IL2 and would only yield the planes in that list or something.

I'm still a little confused, but you've shed a bit of light on the end of the tunnel. Thanks.

Spitf_ACE
10-07-2004, 07:51 AM
What to call the game confuses me too sometimes. It's still IL2 but with more planes and better graphics (worse sounds too if you listen to some). Is it IL2/FB/AEP?

What do we call it after Pacific Fighters comes out? Does it depend on what install you do. It helps if you know what to call it so you can recommend it to friends.

I'm looking for clarification from Oleg

Capt._Tenneal
10-07-2004, 09:10 AM
Available in new free add-on:
F2A-2
G4M1-11

Sorry, I've been away for a while... what does this mean ? Is the free add-on out now? Is this the PF patch ? Will it come in the PF box when you buy it ? Thanks.

KAMI_1
10-07-2004, 09:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by luthier1:
In general I would highly recommend not to trust rumors too much. Even if you asked me a month ago which planes we'll have in the release I wouldn't be able to answer with 100% certainty.

Regarding flyable heavies, B-29 has been in the works for quite some time. B-17 and B-24 - I'm really hoping at least one of those will accompany the B-29 when it's released.

And regarding planes which had been mentioned before, but didn't make the release, what can I say. We're shipping with almost 3 times as many new planes as we ever expected to have completed in the time we had. We also have almost two dozen other planes in various stages of development, and we don't plan to stop there.

We have an excellent track record when it comes to adding lots of new content to our sims absolutely free of charge. We plan to do even more with PF. While before you mostly just got new planes, with PF you'll be getting new ships including whole new carrier classes, new maps, new nations with new career types, and more. I don't think there are ANY other developers like us anywhere in the world that continue to expand, and not just patch up and fix, their products for free long after the release.

The release version offers an incredible amount of varied gameplay. I'm sure there's more than enough to keep most people entertained until more content is released in the future. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Chuck_Older
10-07-2004, 10:26 AM
I have no idea what point you are trying to make, Kami.

Do you mean this thread is a 'rumour', started by the UK Community Manager? I doubt it.

Do you mean that this is a warning by Luthier to not count your chickens before they hatch? How can that be reliable info, if so? That post you quoted was from...when, exactly?

Maybe you should just post what you mean to say.

KAMI_1
10-07-2004, 11:20 AM
nothing want to say , only posted it so u don´t missed it ,

Why u attack me??

here the original thread from today
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=26310365&m=3441017722&p=1

Snuffy Smith
10-07-2004, 11:41 AM
I think we can expect a major add-on and patch to PF fairly soon based on Oleg's comments in an earlier note to a reply by Kami-1. It looks like there was simply not enough time or space to put everything into the initial release package. A lot more is coming soon. I think that's great. This is exciting. The support of Oleg & company for their enterprise is off-the-page.

Oleg Maddox 9/27/04:
"There will be just several skins from our beta testers. Even these where cut due to lack of space on 2CD PF. We even needed to remove several aircraft and a couple of cockpits to place all on this two CDs." ['Wow, the first patch will be worth waiting for, then We're all looking forward to seeing what's in there, Oleg. Thanks for all your hard work, and thanks for dropping by!'] "Yes in the first add-on will be several flyables and AI that aren't going in release. Mainly becasue of CD space. Cokpits of some bombers take the space equal to many fighter planes. But we need to compromise and remove/add things to get the free CD space, that sometimes may seem strange, but when you get the add-on you will understand why there is some AI (low space) present that didn't fly on the maps that are present in release. So, not only planes, but at least one-two new maps will be in free add-on."

Atomic_Marten
10-07-2004, 12:20 PM
I'm satisfied. Big time. Now I'm waiting for the release day. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Jagdgeschwader2
10-07-2004, 01:12 PM
Now that's a plane list! I still haven't flown many of the planes from IL-2/FB/ACES and now there are even more. More than enough here to keep me busy until BoB. My hats off to Oleg and team. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


http://home.earthlink.net/~jagdgeschwader26/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/jagdgeschwader2s.jpg

JSG72
10-07-2004, 01:38 PM
? Will I be able to shoot down/fly A-20s/B-25s in AEP.
If I install PF over.IL2/FB/AEP?
Can you have B29s over Berlin?(I know!...But can you?)

p1ngu666
10-07-2004, 02:25 PM
yeah u should, give ta152 a meaning http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

i think the Flyable if you install over IL2:
means planes that where in the pto, that we have already, and will have dynamic campaigns

civildog
10-07-2004, 05:39 PM
hmmmm....I don't see any flyable torpedo bombers in the list, but we get 6! types of corsairs?! I sure hope this gets fixed in a hurry 'cuz this is a mighty big omission.

I like a lot of planes as much as the next guy but do we really have to have every version of a particular plane ever made when it's at the cost of some important flyable planes? Like say, the Helldiver or the Devastator? Or the Kate?

SlickStick
10-07-2004, 06:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
i think the Flyable if you install over IL2:
means planes that where in the pto, that we have already, and will have dynamic campaigns <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah yes, that makes sense now. Thanks.

Korolov
10-07-2004, 09:05 PM
CivilDog - because the cockpit is generally unchanged between the models. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

civildog
10-07-2004, 09:38 PM
I see.

Still, not to whine too much but, wouldn't you think that flyable torpedo bombers would be pretty important? Without them the player wanting to play a Pearl Harbor or Midway battle would be pretty limited in his role and miss out on flying some of the most important planes in those battles. And even online, torpedoing the enemy team's carrier would really make someone's day.

The whole IL2/FB/PF franchise is a dream come true, but I really hope the torp planes become flyable soon.

Korolov
10-07-2004, 10:47 PM
I do think torpedo bombers would be pretty swell, but admittedly, I think the dive bombers will serve a better purpose than torpedo bombers would. Not to say it wouldn't be nice to have them, just that bombs, on the whole, seem to be more effective than torpedoes.

WTE_Ibis
10-07-2004, 11:40 PM
Remember there is a patch to follow,
fingers crossed. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

civildog
10-08-2004, 12:12 AM
Korolov:

Torpedo bombers would be more than just "pretty swell", this is supposed to be an accurate simulation. Why the heck is the IL-2T flyable in a game about the Eastern Front? If it weren't for torpedo bombers then the attack on Pearl Harbor would not have succeeded. The shallow running torpedo modifications were instrumental. The converted armor-piercing artillery shells carried by B5N2 Kates (which were also carrying the torps) were likewise instrumental in sinking the battleship fleet.

At Midway the torpedo bombers flown by both sides were incredibly important tactically as well as strategically. Jeez, it was the Japanese who practically wrote the book on torpedo bombing.

And as for dive bombers being "more useful", well that may be true if we ignore the truths of WW2 history.
For Ubi to dismiss torpedo bombers as flyable planes in what otherwise appears to be a serious simulation is inexcusable.

But I guess Christmas is coming so like all the other developers out there it's better to release half a product than do it right.

Jasko76
10-08-2004, 04:52 AM
Will we still be able to fly other types present in Il2, German and Russian fighters?

Bearcat99
10-08-2004, 05:10 AM
I would call this FB3.0........

I am sure you will be able to fly some of the other planes. From what I understand you couild use maps and planes from FB or fly Corsairs in Smolensk if you wanted to so I see no reason why they would change that. I guess will have to just wait and see. Either way we can rest assured that a patch or twoo will be coming out pretty quick.

Jasko76
10-08-2004, 06:09 AM
Thanks Bear! Now I just can't wait to get the game. I've preordered it already here in Sweden!

SlickStick
10-08-2004, 06:30 AM
As Bearcat stated and from what I've gathered as well, all planes from AEP will be flyable online when installing PF over it, but the smaller list of planes are the ones that will only be available for PTO single-player missions and campaigns?

SpartanHoplite
10-08-2004, 06:12 PM
So, will any new planes be made available in Il2:FB Dynamic Campaigns, if appropriate? I am particularly thinking of the new P-39s and P-40s, some of which I believe served with the VVS as well.

Korolov
10-08-2004, 11:04 PM
CivilDog - if you're going to go down that path, then Pearl Harbor was a utter failure, and merely a sting when considered in the entire picture. Most of the boats that were sank, were refloated and sent on their way, requiring some repairs here and there and sent on their way. Then consider the Arizona, which was struck by bombs, was heavily damaged and unable to be refloated.

In Midway, the Devastators for example, served only as a distraction while dive bombers ran off with the prize.

Try this: take a bunch of IL-2Ts, and try to sink the Tirpitz. Then try using Stukas to dive bomb it. Additionally, try to destroy vehicles and armor with torpedoes, then try bombs - the capability of the bomb to excell in all roles and uses makes it better than the torpedo in this sense.

Since torpedoes are more complex and more expensive than bombs, not to mention useful only against surface vessels, the bomb simply wins out.

civildog
10-09-2004, 01:00 AM
Wellllll, Korolov...then to follow your line of unreason we ought to forget the whole thing then, right? I mean, why play these sims at all, or any other serious wargame?

After all, we won so what does it matter if we replay any famous WW2 battles? Why bother with FB when we consider the Reds stomped the Hun in the end? All those "stings" at Stalingrad, Kursk, Leningrad, etc. were nothing in the greater scheme of things right? Let me enlighten you as to why most of us SERIOUS simmers, wargamers, and amateur historians play these games:

Pearl Harbor is like Kursk is like Stalingrad is like Dunkirk is like the Battle of Britain.

Each of these (there were more but let's stick with these for brevity's sake) were those great "what if" battles that were turning points in the war. What if that lone German bomber hadn't gotten lost in the night sky over London and dropped it's bombs there in spite of orders to only attack the military targets? What if Hitler hadn't fixated on Stalingrad and bled his army white there, but instead had bypassed it and kept it bottled up like Leningrad, regrouped and dug in in better defensible positions? What if the Kursk campaign (Citadel) hadn't been stopped because Hilter was worried about the American landings in Italy and instead the Germans had pressed the advantage they had already gained in that battle? And...

What if the Japanese had managed to catch the American carriers at or near Pearl? What if they had attacked AFTER giving the diplomatic warning Yamamoto, had previous to leaving Japan, planned to give instead of gaming it out on the way and realising it would be fatal to kick America's pillow? And for some strange reason (no doubt they didn't have your insight to guide them) ALL the Navies really found torpedo planes to be really really useful. Most of the ships sunk at Pearl were sunk by torpedos, not bombs. If you don't think so go argue with the ghosts at Pearl about it.

What would have been like to lead a flight of Kates into Pearl to torpedo the BB's that morning? Not a lot of dogfighting that day you see, gawdawful films notwithstanding, so the torpedo bombers were pretty important. And it sure woke people up, killed a lot of people, and seriously hurt the Japanese in the long run, too. So I would say it was more that just a sting. Pretty pivital, and pretty interesting to those of us who seriously explore these historical questions.

There was post a while ago with a lot of people on it talking about how much history they've learned by playing IL2 and FB. Too many get their history from TV and games like this can help correct that.

Maybe even help someone see what happened from a new perspective...like say, that of a young Japanese pilot aiming his Kate at a giant battleship with only a torpedo and his devotion to his Emperor to help him. Or a young Navy Ensign at Midway, who after seeing his flight and even his gunner killed all around him, still attacks alone a Japanese carrier in an obsolete TBD-1.

Now, at Midway...what if the Japanese had used more torpedoes instead of vacillating about whether to rearm with bombs or torps long enough to get caught with their pants down with planes, bombs, and torpedoes all on the deck? hmmmm all those what if's.....

civildog
10-09-2004, 01:12 AM
And another point, Korolov, is this:

YOU are PLAYING a GAME about what really happened in real war. In a game things tend to work quite a bit differently than in real life. Like, say...they work along more predictable lines. Like that bomb will ALWAYS detonate. The torpedo bulges on the Tirpitz will ALWAYS work as designed and keep torps from blasting through it.

You know you won't die if the Arizona's myriad AA guns blow you out of the sky so you can refly as many times as you want to till you drop that puppy right into the forward magazine. The Arizona was a very lucky hit by anyone's honest standards. And the very fact that the Japanese proved that Pearl was vulnerable to torpedo attack (which was WHY the Navy had the BB's there - because torps couldn't be airdropped in the shallow water) if special modifications and tactics were used was a VERY important issue at the time. And those repairs "here and there"? Wat about the massive loss of lives? The material, manpower, and the huge amount of time it took to rebuild the fleet? Jeez, bucko, it took the suicidal Tokyo Raid to show the country what could be done after Pearl. Here's a tip: they hide that kind of info in books.

In real life it's different, and since in real life torpedos were much admired and used throughout WW2 on all fronts to great effect your gaming opinion is ridiculous. A serious wargamer/simmer uses what was really used to recreate and experience what was really going on in history. Billy Mitchell showed how planes could sink warship with a bomb, but in the end torpedos were just as effective, too. And hit a lot more often. Otherwise no one would have used them. The proof is that if they weren't that good why would they be used in a real shooting war?

In a game you can use what you want. I just want to have the options to do that if you want me to throw down 30-40 bucks on a half finished product. I don't play AirQuake, I prefer the tactical and realistic mission based battles that were really flown. You may prefer to just fly around, grab point, burn up your engine, whatever, but a thinking man's serious sim requires more realistic choices than that or it's just a complicated arcade game.

tank_hunter
10-09-2004, 02:27 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif (spank-spank-spank) Well put and so there you have it.

LC34
10-09-2004, 10:19 AM
I cant see this game ever being patched sometime in the future without having a flyable torpedo bomber.

This company is smart enough and they have done this for a long enough time to know what to do and when to do it.

Like others have said it is easy to make 4 versions of the Corsair because the cockpit pretty much stays the same. So instead of releasing the game with 1 Corsair, you get 3 or 4 or something. Instead of having to waste time on a patch to impliment them.

As for the TBers. I am sure they want to release the game for all us people who want it now. They could include those planes in the game now, but then it wouldnt be released until later in the year or next year. I for one am grateful they are answering our calls of "Ohh man we cant wait! Lets have it now!"

Deep breaths everyone. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif We'll get through this with the great developers who actually listen to us! For the time being, I would suggest everyone read up on the proper ways to land on a carrier. There are going to be a lot of questions in posts on how to do this Im sure. And no offense as I will probably be one of them lol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

DJKruse
10-10-2004, 02:56 PM
I thought the P-61 was in a list at some point as either flyable or AI. Maybe I just misread something. I'd love to see that plane in the game though.

tank_hunter
10-11-2004, 03:05 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif Well, I just want one more thing: a flyable B-29 with.......you guessed it......a "little boy" to drop on select targets of opportunity. If these rooms have 128 people flying in it, you can really rack up some points with one of those babies!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

Raider_356th
10-11-2004, 04:56 PM
isnt the Corsairs with the Mk the Royal Navy's?

zeppelin5000
10-11-2004, 09:45 PM
So pretty much, you can call Pacific Fighters an "expansion pack" to IL2 only in the sense that if you didn't have IL2 installed whatsoever, you couldn't fly the IL2 planes that were listed, right?

VFA-25Apache
10-12-2004, 12:26 PM
So with that list, no TBM or TBF for us to fly only ai. What kind of **** is that. The pacific theatre and the avenger is only ai.

BIG BIG BIG Mistake.

FI.Snaphoo
10-13-2004, 03:04 AM
Nevermind.

ltforce
10-13-2004, 10:08 PM
dude no 4 engine bomers??? wat is this?? like i hate the medium bombers the HE111 in general such a small bombload and no power and u dont even put in 4 engine heavies another big mistake aside from the avenger http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

buz13
10-14-2004, 03:01 AM
Guess the Beaufighter should be able to carry torpedos(?). But not having flyable torpedo bombers (US and Japanese)is disappointing. Hopefully the AI torpedo planes will become flyable in a patch in the near future....
Guess marketing for holiday season left not enough time to finish the flyable plane list...?????

woofiedog
10-16-2004, 03:58 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gifWow... this is going to be One Hec of a Game.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gifThe Skies will be Smoking!!!http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
10-16-2004, 12:30 PM
japanese have only Zeros and KI61 in 42 upwards...what a **** is this. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

fighting the Corsair with an A6Mx nice ....

Bogun
10-18-2004, 02:31 PM
Cough... Ki-84... Cough...
and Ki-100 in the pipeline...

Marek_Steele
10-18-2004, 03:18 PM
I'm very curious about these ki61's, as they seem to be very similar to 109's but better in many aspects as turning rate, altough they might be a tad underpowered.

I've been looking for what kind of guns were on these planes but info seems mismatched on many sites.

So I ask about these variants in case someone can give a hint about this:

Ki-61-Ki : I guess this is a typo, I can only find "Ko" for the early series. Is this the 2x7mm(wings)+12mm(nose) (K-61 1 a(ko))or 4x12mm (k-61 lb(ko))?

Ki-61-Otsu Is this the 2x12mm(wings) + 2x20 (nose) ho-5 (Ki-61 1 KAIc)or 2x12mm(nose)+2x20mm (wings)(mg151/20)(Ki-61 Ia/Ib)?

Ki-61-Hei Is this the 2x12mm ho-5(nose)+2x30mm (ho-105) (Ki-61 1 KAId)or 2x20 ho-5(nose)+2x13mm(wings?)?

And what about engines? Did they all use the 605a with near 1145hp?

...and any ki-100 on the horizon? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

(sorry if it sounds too confusing)

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
10-19-2004, 09:43 AM
they are **** underpowered...turnrate is good. but climb and acceleration is inferror to any 109.

DJKruse
10-19-2004, 12:01 PM
Is the Betty going to be flyable? On Ebgames it says it is?

http://www.ebgames.com/ebx/product/244218.asp

Is the list wrong, or is it going to be something that comes out in a patch later?

Destraex
10-20-2004, 03:18 AM
Betty looks like being in a free addon, its the G4m mentioned

steve_v
10-28-2004, 02:34 PM
bump