1. #1
    I know there have been TM issues regarding incorporation of additional U.S. aircraft into FB. I think it is ******ed that these companies would be so greedy to hunt down monitary compensation for a 60+ year old airframe... but there is nothing I can do, and is beside the point I'm trying to make. I'm sure this isn't an original thought, but I never read anything about it, so here I am asking:

    Why can't 1C Maddox take exsisting AI U.S. aircraft, that were a part of the sim PRIOR to the TM payoff, do the work required to make them flyable? Just off the top of my head, it would give us:

    TBM
    B-17
    B-24
    B-29

    I'm sure there are others, but I don't know what right now.

    So, whats the deal? Why can't we turn those exsisting aircraft into flyable birds?
    Share this post

  2. #2
    Good question, I have wondered about the same thing. I know it would be extra work that 1C will be too busy to do as they will be focusing on BoB now but surely 3rd party modellers would jump at the chance to do this and have it included in a small future patch.
    Share this post

  3. #3
    One bomber interior equals work done for three fighter cockpits.Look how long it took them to get the flyable Me110 in here!
    Share this post

  4. #4
    I would say yup on the TBM as it is a carrier aircraft, which is a primary thrust of the game, as I see it.

    My guess is, if the TM issue ever went to court, the fact that age of the items invovled, there is no trade issues involved and that the existence of the aircraft and ships were due to taxpayers, the defense contractor would loose.

    Ships in particular. WWII Ships were designed by the US Navy bureau of ships and named by the Department of the Navy. The guy at N-G was blowing smoke.

    However, sim developers are small and both 1C and Ubi are foreign. I think it will take a large US company to fight this.
    Share this post

  5. #5
    TAGERT.'s Avatar Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,293
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
    I know there have been TM issues regarding incorporation of additional U.S. aircraft into FB. I think it is ******ed that these companies would be so greedy to hunt down monitary compensation for a 60+ year old airframe... but there is nothing I can do, and is beside the point I'm trying to make. I'm sure this isn't an original thought, but I never read anything about it, so here I am asking:

    Why can't 1C Maddox take exsisting AI U.S. aircraft, that were a part of the sim PRIOR to the TM payoff, do the work required to make them flyable? Just off the top of my head, it would give us:

    TBM
    B-17
    B-24
    B-29

    I'm sure there are others, but I don't know what right now.

    So, whats the deal? Why can't we turn those exsisting aircraft into flyable birds? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>not sure.. but Ill be the phrase "cease and dismiss" was very close to the point in the text.

    But, as far as we know, sense Oleg has not said a word.. even though he said he would.. Only Northrop planes fall into this.. P-38 is not owned by Northrop.. Nor is the B17.. So there is no excuse for more varations of those planes being added.. If you cant give us a P47M.. Then give us the best P38 ever made even if they only made ONE of them! In that it would be ONE more than the total number of 109Zs ever made!
    Share this post

  6. #6
    the K

    460 MPH level flight at 25,000 ft
    4900 FPM climb rate
    Share this post

  7. #7
    "In that it would be ONE more than the total number of 109Zs ever made! "

    just as question:
    Were there not 3 prototyps of the 109z that already flew?
    Share this post

  8. #8
    WOLFMondo's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4,910
    I think the mans right ya know, there were more 109z's built than P38K's. Wasn't there only a few P47M's as well? I though the N was the last best and greatest production model?!?

    I can't see Boeing being any different from Grumman though. Maybe thats the reason the B29 interior that was made never made it in? Not read anything about it not meeting the Oleg standard to be put in PF.
    Share this post

  9. #9
    TAGERT.'s Avatar Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,293
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hetzer_II:
    just as question:
    Were there not 3 prototyps of the 109z that already flew? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nope.
    Share this post

  10. #10
    As an American this whole situation shames me. Someone needs to stand up to this big business bullying, unfortunately the resources required for such a legal battle are probably on a par with *insert your favorite epic battle here*.

    Wouldn't it be nice if we could start some kind of grassroots action group to take on this challenge? Run it like any other PAC or political campaign.

    I'm a sucker for the little guy taking on the monolithic giant.

    I don't know the inside details of this law suit, but I'd imagine Oleg and company are a bit gun shy about doing any US planes now, and I can't say I blame them. This is their livelihood, after all.

    -Bill
    Share this post