PDA

View Full Version : i185



BigganD
10-04-2004, 05:19 PM
It outruns K4, A9, A8<-(very easy) and the rest of the german planes.
Fix the flying model or remove the plane...

BigganD
10-04-2004, 05:19 PM
It outruns K4, A9, A8&lt;-(very easy) and the rest of the german planes.
Fix the flying model or remove the plane...

3.JG51_BigBear
10-04-2004, 05:24 PM
Brutal. Its a beautiful model and even though it didn't serve I think its a cool addition to the game. The cockpit of the plane really gives a taste of what I hope are things to come.

I wouldn't say I love absolutely everything about this game but making demands like this is not going to help your cause.

Now I'm going to duck because this is going to get ugly.

faustnik
10-04-2004, 05:37 PM
You could say the same thing about the 109Z, Gotha and XP-80.

I'd rather keep them in the sim.

I love to take the I-185 out for a spin just to pan around the pit. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

clint-ruin
10-04-2004, 05:55 PM
The uncomfortable throttle lever makes it even worse than the back of a volkswagen.

p1ngu666
10-04-2004, 06:00 PM
the m82? one that has rockets etc isnt that uber
m72 has similer speed to la7 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif
cos it has a chuffin hoooge engine and good areodynamics

VW-IceFire
10-04-2004, 07:13 PM
Whatever it is...its almost impossible to get away from these things in everything except a jet.

YP-80 and Gotha you expect to be fast.

crazyivan1970
10-05-2004, 12:35 AM
I remember running a COOP... 12 G2s VS 12 I-185s... G2s won http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
All Humans, no AI. So, you were saying&gt; http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

plumps_
10-05-2004, 01:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
I remember running a COOP... 12 G2s VS 12 I-185s... G2s won http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
All Humans, no AI. So, you were saying&gt; http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, we have many experienced G-2 pilots, but how many people know how to fly an I-185 when they just join a coop? Maybe most of them were thinking that they will easily outturn a G-2, which is not the right strategy in this matchup.

robban75
10-05-2004, 06:18 AM
According to Russian data the I-185 had the same turning time at 1000m as the Fw 190 ~22 sec for a full 360. How come it can turn like an La-7 in game? It also absorbs damage like a P-47.

p1ngu666
10-05-2004, 06:58 AM
combat flaps?, i find it worse than la7, la7 is best performer, its better than yak9X in every department of flying.

ivan was that the m72 or m82 version?

Bill_Door
10-05-2004, 07:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BigganD:
Fix the flying model or remove the plane... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Remove? No way!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

It has to stay. And if it is only for the cool radiators http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

ELEM
10-05-2004, 09:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 3.JG51_BigBear:
Brutal. Its a beautiful model and even though it didn't serve I think its a cool addition to the game. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tut, tut, tut, how many time has it got to be said? The I-185 DID see service.

Daiichidoku
10-05-2004, 10:53 AM
ok, it saw service....HOW much service?...Im sure it saw a lot more service from mechanics and riggers than any combat service http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

this 1942 type easily competes with 44-45 types

if only they made the throttle lever comrfortable, the USSR would have beaten the Germans in 1943...


Be nice to see this POS gone, but that wont happen, ever

Only hope is 1C WILLNOT include this sort of cr@p in future, in FB or PF

B1, 109Z, Go229, I-185 are an example of types that never flew or have no relevance to wwII

Ki84C, La7 3xB20, Yak3P, 109K-4 among others, are marginal at best, in terms of deployment during the war and probably should have been omitted....funny how in df servers, at least, these types that saw very little action or deployment are the most commonly flown...

Sure, the host can preclude these types at will, but few do...if there was an xwing, lasers and all, availible in FB, you can bet you're bottom dollar that many, many servers would include it...its pandering to the lowest common denominator, that sorta thing...

If 1C chose not to include these types in the game in the first place, there would be no cry of unbalancing the game, or speculative FMs...

I just hope 1C tightens up a lot in this regard, in future

crazyivan1970
10-05-2004, 11:09 AM
Some of you guys are incredible... people spend time and effort and deliver something rather extraordinary... and you complain about it. Don`t like it, don`t fly it or don`t participate in the games that have it. Instead of appriciation, complains. Why? I bet you never heard of Z or 3P or I-185 before... now you not only heard of it, you actually saw it and flew it. Is that too hard to appriciate? Jeez..

ZG77_Nagual
10-05-2004, 12:28 PM
Polikparov was an unsung genius - the I-185 is a beaut and belongs here because this is very much an aviation enthusiasts simm.
I've had no problems with 185s. They are very good but certainly not the most formidable planes in the game.

Cossack13
10-05-2004, 12:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Some of you guys are incredible... people spend time and effort and deliver something rather extraordinary... and you complain about it. Don`t like it, don`t fly it or don`t participate in the games that have it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Griping about the existence of a plane on a server has become a staple of this forum. It's on par with griping about other people's difficulty settings.

Since I primarily fly VEF, VFW, and historically based Coops and scripted DF servers, I have yet to see an I-185 in flight.

crazyivan1970
10-05-2004, 01:14 PM
I had it on my Kuban 1943 avail. Not a single one in the air. What gives?

LEXX_Luthor
10-05-2004, 01:53 PM
Nagual:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I-185 is a beaut and belongs here because this is very much an aviation enthusiasts simm. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, military aviation enthusiasts enjoy FB.

Not so sure about arcade computer gamers though, bizzare morons who know nothing about World War 2 aviation ("morons" because the less they know the more they claim to know)...

Daiichidoku:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>B1, 109Z, Go229, I-185 are an example of types that never flew or have no relevance to wwII <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, these know nothing about how hard the warring nations and engineers and test pilots tried to develop these aircraft for WW2, although they register on flight sim webboards trying to claim they know something, and that is the sad part. They don't just register to honestly learn, but to decieve and trick others.

Atomic_Marten
10-05-2004, 01:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
The uncomfortable throttle lever makes it even worse than the back of a volkswagen. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What are you talking about?!? I see, clearly you don't drive VW. Well I do (Golf). And I can tell you that I would rather sit on the back-seat than on driver seat. My back are killing me after 2 hrs of driving. Back seat are somewhat more comfortable. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif
________________________________________________
BTW I-185 is very nice bird and stuff, but not my kind of ride. And I have observation about that bird, Mr.Stalin (or whoever was in charge) was clearly made a huge mistake about not putting that fighter into mass production.

jeroen_R90S
10-05-2004, 02:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Atomic_Marten:
What are you talking about?!? I see, clearly you don't drive VW. Well I do (Golf). And I can tell you that I would rather sit on the back-seat than on driver seat. My back are killing me after 2 hrs of driving. Back seat are somewhat more comfortable. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Me thinks he's referring to the K¤fer here... I HATE KӞFERS! Ok, that's just personal, nothing serious.

But he could have taken a BMW 3-series (be it the 1970s, 80s, 90s or current model) as well, I've never been mangled so badly in my life as in the backseat of one of those! Even the Tourings are cramped inside and they cost a hell of a lot more.

I'm conviced Saddam had several 3-series for use as torture-machines... :P

Jeroen

Gato__Loco
10-05-2004, 03:29 PM
Remove?? NOOOOOO!!!!!!!
Okey, I admit that there are a few important plane missing from this game. BUT!! FB is like a fruit salad. Because the apple is missing it doesn't mean you will spit the peaches out!

LEXX_Luthor
10-05-2004, 09:26 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
And, you still don't see Do~335 on the amatuer lists of "less is more" Whinig.


Do~335 cockpit thread
http://www.netwings.org/dcforum/DCForumID43/1209.html

VW-IceFire
10-05-2004, 09:34 PM
Oh I'm not at all for removing it. Its a beautiful piece of work and a neat addition to the game.

But its bloody fast, turns well, good firepower, and it out classes everything in its time and generally beyond it.

I find it generally out performing FW190D-9's and Bf109K-4's in late war servers. I say generally because both of these are still better but in a fairly level playing field you're going to be in for some serious trouble. These are definately powerful fighters to contend with. I question if they are really supposed to be that good.

But hey...whatever http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

DangerForward
10-05-2004, 09:53 PM
No one's forcing anyone to fly with the I185. Just don't join the room if you don't like it. Planes like the I-185, Go-229, or BI-1 were probably just fun for the modelers and developers, they were ahead of their time and are. They weren't meant to make the game fair or something like that. Make a map that has your favorites planes on it.

Giganoni
10-06-2004, 05:00 AM
Hehe, I love the I-185! It is a beautiful plane. I don't play online, so I never complain about the 109z, yp-80, etc etc because I don't have to face them if I don't want to. However, I do like to pretend the I-185-82 is a Jack as I wait for PF to come around since on paper they have similar numbers.

robban75
10-06-2004, 06:01 AM
Just thought I'd make this clear with everyone, I have no problem with the I-185 being in this sim. It's a great looking fighter and the 3D model is amongst the best in the game. There are some performance aspects of this fighter I have some problems with, that's all. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

The190Flyer
10-06-2004, 11:57 AM
Daiich are you CRAZY, the Go-229 had no relevance huh, just think if the war had gone on for another few months they would have unleashed that thing, to bomb America. Where do you think the idea for the B-2 came from, that plane was as revolutionary as you could get. It barely was shown on radar, need I say more. But anyway, yes I agree I do not like these planes one bit either, but it still can be fun to fly just for fun, I still think they should be in the game though.

WUAF_Badsight
10-06-2004, 11:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The190Flyer:
Daiich are you CRAZY, the Go-229 had no relevance huh, just think if the war had gone on for another few months they would have unleashed that thing, to bomb America. Where do you think the idea for the B-2 came from,. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

the Go-229 would not have reached America , it was not the America bomber

the Americans had Flying Wings flying before they found out about the Go-229

the Americans had Flying Wings flying before the Go-229 flew for the first time

p1ngu666
10-07-2004, 09:15 AM
http://premium.uploadit.org/pingu666/i185vsd9.jpg

it doesnt turn THAT well tbh, the uber bird is the la7.

ppl just use combat flaps with it thats why it can turn good

The190Flyer
10-07-2004, 10:03 AM
I know that America has flying wings mainly designed by Northrop. But they were prop driven, the Go, or the Horten bomber could have reached America, with droptanks, and incredible speed. Thats what it was designed for.

BigganD
10-07-2004, 10:04 AM
He who made this model did a good work but I think that Olegs team didnt have much info about the i185 and so they just made the flyingmodel fast to put it in the game..or?

Luftcaca
10-07-2004, 10:10 AM
waitasec...it says 1340 HP for Dora without the boost...shouldnt it be something like 1770 hp???

DuxCorvan
10-07-2004, 10:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
The Americans had Flying Wings flying before the Go-229 flew for the first time <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And not only Americans. Flying wing was everything but a new idea:

Dunne D.5 (1910)

http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/images/dunne_5_3v_500.jpg

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The190Flyer:
I know that America has flying wings mainly designed by Northrop. But they were prop driven, the Go, or the Horten bomber could have reached America, with droptanks, and incredible speed. Thats what it was designed for. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jet engines of the era were noy so reliable to be functioning for such a long flight, and they were fuel devorers. Don't know if they could have reached America with drop tanks -although it is unlikeky- but they could have never got back... Even today only a few jets could make that Transatlantic trip and return without refueling with an air tanker.

As for removing I-185, setup your own server and remove it yourself.

p1ngu666
10-07-2004, 10:16 AM
http://premium.uploadit.org/pingu666/i185vs190a.jpg

190a speed maybe with teh bomb rack, im not sure, im sure a fw190 flier will know http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Nubarus
10-07-2004, 11:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BigganD:
He who made this model did a good work but I think that Olegs team didnt have much info about the i185 and so they just made the flyingmodel fast to put it in the game..or? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or it's BigganD jumping to conclusions and trying to stir things up again.

Daiichidoku
10-07-2004, 11:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Nagual:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I-185 is a beaut and belongs here because this is very much an aviation enthusiasts simm. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, military aviation enthusiasts enjoy FB.

Not so sure about arcade computer gamers though, bizzare morons who know nothing about World War 2 aviation ("morons" because the less they know the more they claim to know)...

Daiichidoku:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>B1, 109Z, Go229, I-185 are an example of types that never flew or have no relevance to wwII <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, these know nothing about how hard the warring nations and engineers and test pilots tried to develop these aircraft for WW2, although they register on flight sim webboards trying to claim they know something, and that is the sad part. They don't just register to honestly learn, but to decieve and trick others. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Show me where or how I know "little", LEXXX...you can surmise that from one line I wrote in a post? seems to me you are more in disagreeing with my opinion and have to attack me...where have I shown (in this thread, at least, hehe) that I know little?

"never flown or of no relevance to WWII"
109Z never flew...am I wrong?
I-185, B1 Go 229...no relevance to WWII...well, LEXXX, sure a lot of man-hours went into testing of these...but in the context of WWII, and what happened, do the B1 and I-185 have any relevance, much less any impact at all?

the Goth, sure, relevance AFTER WWII, in terms of data on flying wings, aerodymanics, jet propulsion, etc..

the B1 may have helped develop very late and post war rocket types

the I-185 made sure that all other Russian throttle control levers stayed nice n comfortable! hehehe

really now, how little do I know? please tell me...just WHAT relevance did these 3 types have to the conflict 1939-45 specifically?

Dont forget to infer that I belong to groups such as "morons" some more...it shows how objective you are being http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Daiichidoku
10-07-2004, 12:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The190Flyer:
Daiich are you CRAZY, the Go-229 had no relevance huh, just think if the war had gone on for another few months they would have unleashed that thing, to bomb America. Where do you think the idea for the B-2 came from, that plane was as revolutionary as you could get. It barely was shown on radar, need I say more. But anyway, yes I agree I do not like these planes one bit either, but it still can be fun to fly just for fun, I still think they should be in the game though. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Well, ditto what Badsight said....it wasn't there to bomb america...

But perhaps more importantly, I did not say no relevance, I said no relevance to WWII please read throughly before responding, to make sure your rebuttal is in context...what MAY have been is of no importance, and I did not state anything close to that, merely that those types were not built, flown, or had any relevance DURING WWII, thats all

Did the presence of the Goth have any relevance or impact on the war? no way

crazyivan1970
10-07-2004, 12:11 PM
Just to clear things up on I-185. The I-185 was a gift to the owner of sukhoi.ru for his dedication and support of IL2 series. He`s a good friend of Oleg and plane was included as a tribute to his grandfather who flew I-185 in combat trials. I-185 did see the combat in limited numbers and it doesn`t belong in the same group of planes that never flew , the Z and Go.

As far as others two go... i never even tried Go229.. but as far as 109Z conserned, even P-38 can whoop its behind and i`m not talking about Spitfires or Mustangs or Soviet AC. So you were saying?

Daiichidoku
10-07-2004, 12:31 PM
Crazy Ivan, I have read the readme which includes the info on the I-185, and how it came to FB...including the weakness, "uncomfortable throttle lever" hehe sorry, I just have to mention that all the time, but its SO funny!

I am guessing that your pointing out the I-185 does not belong in an "unflown" group is NOT pointed at any statement I have made...but in case it was, to clear it up, I only stated that the I-185 was in a group that included "unflown" types, not that it was never flown...I realize that it was....I do, however, feel it had no relevance to WWII

the Z indeed, never flew ( and the FB version was never even built ) but to correct you, sir, the Go229 DID fly, technically, hehe

I have tried Go 229...a truly nasty machine...when flown correctly, a Goth will thrash ANY other type in FB, even if also flown correctly, in a 1v1 every time...actually, a joy to fly a Goth...BUT, it made few flights, around only a dozen or so made, and no combat time...even any lessons to be learned from it were not in time for WWII...a case of a type with no relevance to WWII...do I liek the Go? yes...do I want to see it removed? no, thats dumb, and would never happen anyhow...would I like to see any other "marginal" types like it released for FB? NO WAY!

All I can say about the 38 whoopin a 109Z is that any type CAN whoop any other types @ss...but you put roughly equallly skilled pilots in those two?....my $$$ would be on the Z, every time

Im sure there will be more comments about the 38 "whoopin" the 109Z tho, be sure, hehehehe

Daiichidoku
10-07-2004, 12:36 PM
Just a thought...

is there another type that even comes close to the I-185 in a 1942 planeset?...IMO, it is in a class by itself in 42

crazyivan1970
10-07-2004, 12:45 PM
G2 handles it pretty well http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

geetarman
10-07-2004, 02:49 PM
I'll whoop it's fanny in a P-38! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

LEXX_Luthor
10-07-2004, 08:11 PM
He~100D would be a class unto itself in 1940. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Conclusion

In 1939 the He 100 was clearly the most advanced fighter in the world. It was even faster than the Fw 190, and wouldn't be bested until the introduction of the Vought F4U Corsair in 1943. Nevertheless the plane was not ordered into production. The reason the He 100 wasn't put into service seems to vary depending on the person telling the story, and picking any one version results in a firestorm of protest.

&lt;sounds like I~185 Whining on flight sim webboards&gt;

Some say it was politics that killed the He 100. However this seems to stem primarily from Heinkel's own telling of the story, which in turn seems to be based on some general malaise over the He 112 debacle. The fact is that Heinkel was well respected within the establishment regardless of Messerschmitt's success with the 109 and 110, and this argument seems particularly weak.

Others blame the bizarre production line philosophy of the RLM, which valued huge numbers of single designs over a mix of different planes. This too seems somewhat suspect considering that the Fw 190 was purchased shortly after this story ends.

For these reasons it seems safe to accept the RLM version of the story largely at face value; that the production problems with the DB series of engines was so acute that all other designs based on the engine were canceled. At the time the DB 601 engines were being used in both the 109 and 110 aircraft, and Daimler couldn't keep up with those demands alone. The RLM eventually forbade anyone but Messerschmitt to receive any DB 601's, leading to the shelving of many designs from a number of vendors. After all, the 109 and 110 were better than anything out there, so another plane that was even better didn't seem important at all.

The only option open to Heinkel was a switch to another engine, and the RLM expressed some interest in purchasing such a version. At the time the only other useful inline was the Junkers Jumo 211, and even that was in short supply. However the design of the He 100 made adaptation to the 211 difficult; both the cooling system and the engine mounts were designed for the 601, and a switch to the 211 would have required a redesign. Heinkel felt it wasn't worth the effort considering the plane would end up with inferior performance, and so the He 100 production ends on that sour note.

For this reason more than any other the Focke-Wulf Fw 190 became the next great plane of the Luftwaffe, as it was based around the otherwise unused BMW 139 (and later BMW 801) radial engine. Although production of these engines was only starting, the lines for the airframes and planes could be geared up in parallel without interrupting production of any existing design. And that's exactly what happened.
~ http://www.fact-index.com/h/he/heinkel_he_100.html
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Any thoughts of using Ki~61 as 1940 He~100D? Pro/Con? (like the Lonely and the Desperate used Yak~1 as Spit~1 for "bob" missions before the AEP).

--------

The difference between military aviation enthusiasts and no-nothing "gamers" is the latter type flame aircraft over the internet. They Hate airplanes. They say they have no relevance when the nations, engineers, and pilots held them in great relevance (well, some of the nations, as I~185, He~100, and XP~39 were not held in great relevance by their respective government leaders or Army Air Corps).

XP~39 vs USAAF ~~&gt; http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/XP-39.html

and the USAAF won http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

clint-ruin
10-07-2004, 08:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Any thoughts of using Ki~61 as 1940 He~100D? Pro/Con? (like the Lonely and the Desperate used Yak~1 as Spit~1 for "bob" missions before the AEP).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

MC202 as well? I use that as as Ki61 standin so maybe it would work :&gt;

p1ngu666
10-07-2004, 08:21 PM
british had the m52 thing.
1000mph, jet engine, nearly done, canceled after war for no reason.

later the design was copied to some amount for teh x1. later still a model with rocket was testflown, and passed mach1 easily.

btw, miles aircraft was given the brief for 1000mph aircraft (in a dive possibly). how long u think the deadline was? 3 years? 2 years? nope
3 months http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif. fastest aircraft where doing 500mph ish at the time, if that. no surprise they didnt meet the deadline, but they where close, and it would be a seriously major leap forward http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif.
yeah, i whine for teh uber m52 supersonic jet http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

LEXX_Luthor
10-07-2004, 08:46 PM
mmm, MC.202? Have not thought about that.

MC.202 ~~&gt; Ki~61 ~~&gt; He~100

Perhaps too manueverable? He~100 was a real straight arrow, high wingloading. I am a total "no nothing" gamer when it comes to the later Italian planes...a brain problem that will be Fixed soon enough, thanks to more planes = more. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Also wondering what early carrier bomber would make good Su~2 or R~10 (maybe Kingfisher with wheels for R~10--if Kingfisher is Flyable a treat in its own right can turn with Zero they say as well as float on Perfect water). I have not begun looking at the specs comparing all these aircraft. Finding a good Hs~123 "stand in" is ~very~ difficult.

m52 was a pure research aircraft. That is where I can begin questioning inclusion in the game. It must have a use in a campaign. Even U~2 would have a use at the frontlines. If you get killed in your hotrod Ace La~7 campaign, you get "reincarnated" flying U~2 gunner until you can transfer to fighters again. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Although just for fun even pure research aircraft would be nice by raw definition. Can't Whine about that given my record of more = more (like, duh, 2=2).

clint-ruin
10-07-2004, 09:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Also wondering what early carrier bomber would make good Su~2 or R~10 (maybe Kingfisher with wheels for R~10--if Kingfisher is Flyable a treat in its own right can turn with Zero they say as well as float on Perfect water). I have not begun looking at the specs comparing all these aircraft. Finding a good Hs~123 "stand in" is ~very~ difficult. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The other good He-100 stand-in is the 3/3u. I find the MC202 gives the best resemblence visually and the Mig3/3u armament/performance wise. Plus the very inflammable wing tanks give a good representation of lighting up the 100ds radiators.

I also use the Lagg3-66 as a Ki61 sometimes, but it's not a fantastic match.

I am so looking forward to PF, half the battles I make these days are done with skinned AEP aircraft made to look like similar japanese models.

The Ar-196 looks like an E14Y1,
The Ki-59 can be done by the Fi-156,
The Betty bomber looks anc acts pretty similar to the DB3/Il4 series [or He111 if you want a bum-cannon],
The IAR80 or even I-16 makes a decent Ki43,
FW190A9 can stand in for a George [4x20mm, higher alt radial engine fighter]
I-185 makes a good Jack,
Ju87 makes an OK D3A Val,
Me-210 or Pe3 makes a good Ki-45,
The PBY can be skinned to look like a H8K2,
Both the R10 and the Su2 looks sort of like a B5N/B6N Kate,
The Pe-8 looks like a G8N Renzan,
The U2 looks like a B4Y.

That's about all I can think of having used right now.

Very glad they decided to combine PF and AEP installations :&gt;

i like the reincarnation idea. Reminds me of the Dr Seuss comic of Hitler and Goebells leading a group of fascist sexually transmitted diseases.

WUAF_Badsight
10-07-2004, 09:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The190Flyer:
Where do you think the idea for the B-2 came from. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The190Flyer:
I know that America has flying wings mainly designed by Northrop. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

exactly

WUAF_Badsight
10-07-2004, 10:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The190Flyer:
or the Horten bomber could have reached America, with droptanks, and incredible speed. Thats what it was designed for. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

incorrect !

you are thinking of the "America Bomber" , this plane is not the Go-229

see link ---&gt; FW-283 "America Bomber" (http://www.luft46.com/fw/fw238.html)

LEXX_Luthor
10-07-2004, 10:53 PM
Yes, but I'll be using He~100 in the Easter Front, so don't wanna use MiG~3 obviously, or MiG~3U...if I can allow He~100 I could allow MiG~3U.

Yes, in an especially immersive *dynanmic* campaign you begin by picking a side, then fly for that side until you get killed or captured. The you get reincarnated but as Newbie and lower rank...say gunner or bombadier. This should provide incentive to fly to not take too many chances. Optionally, you can not just pick one "country" but if you pick Axis side you could opt for being reincarnated as German, Italian, Finn, or Japanese if your campaign has Japan invade USSR 1941 as Hitler hoped.

HellToupee
10-08-2004, 02:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The190Flyer:
or the Horten bomber could have reached America, with droptanks, and incredible speed. Thats what it was designed for. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

incorrect !

you are thinking of the "America Bomber" , this plane is not the Go-229

see link ---&gt; http://www.luft46.com/fw/fw238.html <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

im pretty sure the america bomber was of me make, me 263 i think, i know there was a 6 engined version as well, one of them not sure if 6 engined bomber or not made test flight close to american coast i think.

WUAF_Badsight
10-08-2004, 03:46 AM
true !

messerschmitt had a plane in prototype stage !

Me-264 Amerika Bomber (http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/me264.html)

Junkers & Fock Wulfs designs never got to Messers deveolpment stage

BigganD
10-08-2004, 10:30 AM
Amerika Bomber LOL, i have heard of it before, there was only one test flight to the american coast and then back to france.

WUAF_Badsight
10-08-2004, 02:04 PM
i think it was tested a lot more than just one flight

dont know wether they flew the Me264 to america or not but i do know that the prototype had less range than what the RLM was told it was going to have