1. #1
    Oleg plz, before you release the new flyable Buffalo, remember to give her a proper default skin....

    The current dirty white is terrible.... Plz, add a medium blue for the US planes and a green/brown camo for the RAF planes. I'm sure many talent skinners here would be very happy to give you good skins to be default.

    Thx again and again for this wonderful game
    Share this post

  2. #2
    Oleg plz, before you release the new flyable Buffalo, remember to give her a proper default skin....

    The current dirty white is terrible.... Plz, add a medium blue for the US planes and a green/brown camo for the RAF planes. I'm sure many talent skinners here would be very happy to give you good skins to be default.

    Thx again and again for this wonderful game
    Share this post

  3. #3
    SkyChimp's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,896
    Why are we getting a F2A-2? Few were in service with the USN/USMC at the beginning of the war, and none saw combat. The only F2A that saw combat in American hands was the F2A-3.
    Share this post

  4. #4
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
    Why are we getting a F2A-2? Few were in service with the USN/USMC at the beginning of the war, and none saw combat. The only F2A that saw combat in American hands was the F2A-3. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    wondering also for a long time. but it is on line with the last 3 years - planes without maps ore actualy saw no combat at all.

    porpably they wanted to use the F2A-2 as basis for future B-339s
    Share this post

  5. #5
    Well, the plane IS in the game as AI, with a blanc skin. AFAK, this bird is going to be flyable in the next add on, with the flyable Betty and flyable KI-100, and i'll love to have the Buffalo, as i'll love any other WWII plane to be insert in the game.

    I'm just asking for a proper skin.
    Share this post

  6. #6
    SkyChimp I think the F2-A2 was the same model that the Brits and Dutch flew against the forces of Japan. (Only given a different designation)
    Share this post

  7. #7
    B-339, but it didn't have any of the Navy equipment (telescope sight, tail hook, life raft, etc.)
    Share this post

  8. #8
    necrobaron's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,369
    I've wondered the same thing. It seems to me that a F2A-3 would've made more sense, but maybe I'm missing something.
    Share this post

  9. #9
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 3.JG51_BigBear:
    B-339, but it didn't have any of the Navy equipment (telescope sight, tail hook, life raft, etc.) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    there are still a lot of differences betwenn a F2A-2 and the British and Dutch B-339s
    Engines , weight = performance
    weapons
    equipment,cockpit

    Share this post

  10. #10
    A.K.Davis's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    1,010
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by necrobaron:
    I've wondered the same thing. It seems to me that a F2A-3 would've made more sense, but maybe I'm missing something. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I think you're missing the basic fact that the F2A-3 participated in only one major action during the war. That was in Marine service at Midway. The flew just one day and suffered heavy losses.

    RAF and Dutch Buffaloes saw much more extensive combat service over a much longer period of time.
    Share this post