No love for p- 39 Aerocobra?

[TripRodriguez]

* Airacobra curse you autocorrect! On a phone and can't see how to fix the thread title.

 

I know ED have lots of irons in the fire but the p- 39 has always been my favorite warbird and my understanding is it was much loved by the Russian pilots.

 

Anyone think we're likely to see it as a module eventually?

Edited January 8, 2017 by TripRodriguez

[Krupi]

* Airacobra curse you autocorrect! On a phone and can't see how to fix the thread title.

 

I know ED have lots of irons in the fire but the p- 39 has always been my favorite warbird and my understanding is it was much loved by the Russian pilots.

 

Anyone think we're likely to see it as a module eventually?

 

I hope eventually, however first they need to give us a complete west front :D

[NeilWillis]

Nope, no love for the Airacobra. Flawed design, can't operate at any great altitude, and it just wouldn't hold it's own in any kind of dogfight.

 

Apart from that, fine!

[gavagai]

The original design was fine before the Air Force brass made them remove the supercharger.

 

But as for including it in the sim, the subforum title is Europe 1944-1945, right?

[PiedDroit]

Russians loved it for its big cannon, to shred bombers and ground targets, but it didn't particularly shine anywhere else.

[Silver_Dragon]

 

But as for including it in the sim, the subforum title is Europe 1944-1945, right?

 

The sub-forum name has only "subjective", remember:

- ED Spitfire Mk.IX has (1942-1943) and P-51D (1943)

- VEAO Work on a P-40F (1943) and a Spitfire Mk XIV (Late 1944).

- Polychop has plans to Ju-87D-7 (1942), G (1943)

- Octopus-G work on a I-16 Type 24 (1939)

and a long etc...

[MiloMorai]

The original design was fine before the Air Force brass made them remove the supercharger.

 

But as for including it in the sim, the subforum title is Europe 1944-1945, right?

 

All Allison V-1710 airplane engines had a supercharger. It is my understanding that it was Bell that removed the turbocharger.

[X_Man]

As NeilWills pointed out, it was a flawed aircraft for what the USAAF wanted.

 

Oleg and his team's rendition of the aircraft was not correct. The IL-2 FM over exaggeration the impact of wing load to aircraft performance and not enough on all of the other forces that govern flight.

 

The P-39 had a single-stage, single-speed supercharger. MiloMorai is also correct - it was removed because the intake crated an incredible amount of drag and it was also expensive.

 

My guess is the cannon firing through the propeller hub, in addition to the location of the engine (behind the pilot) made the aircraft great for ground strafing which would be important over the eastern front.

[Andy1966]

Allison was having teething problems with the 1710 and turbocharger on airacobra. the Army made them remove turbo due to longevity issues. problems were mostly solved on Kingcobra. P-38used same set-up but had less cooling problems due to better radiator and aftercooler design, however was still prone to over heating problems especially on early models. Lockheed redesigned the cowling pretty much solving the problems. I would be ok with an air or Kingcobra. Not a dogfighter, although they would be great for ground attack...mid engine= good handling, dives good,(most would be surprised how good) well armed and armored, just have to remember its underpowered over 10,000ft.

[gavagai]

All Allison V-1710 airplane engines had a supercharger. It is my understanding that it was Bell that removed the turbocharger.

 

Right, thankyou!

 

@silverdragon,

 

What 3rd parties do doesn't count, and the Spit IX was definitely in service through 1944-45.

[firmek]

...

- Polychop has plans to Ju-87D-7 (1942), G (1943)

...

Sorry for a side comment, but I can't imaging how anyone would like to fly the Stuka. At least no way I'm going to spend even a single penny on it and strongly reconsider buying anything from a dev that makes it. It's pretty much a symbol of Nazi horror war machine, including bombing cities and civilians from the very first days of WW2.

[Yo-Yo]

Sorry for a side comment, but I can't imaging how anyone would like to fly the Stuka. At least no way I'm going to spend even a single penny on it and strongly reconsider buying anything from a dev that makes it. It's pretty much a symbol of Nazi horror war machine, including bombing cities and civilians from the very first days of WW2.

 

Ju-87 was a very effective strike dive-bomber more than a horror for cities and civilians. He-111 was more suitable for the role of horror.

[rel4y]

...you do realize that Lancasters, B-24s and B-17s and the like killed maybe a million german civilians alone, right? That doesnt even count french, italian, netherlands, belgian, bulgarian, romanian, etc.. victims.

 

And B-17s and Lancs are what exactly to you then? The Allied Horror machines that rained death from above to kill as many civilians as possible? Moral bombing at its best I guess.

 

Its a plane for gods sake.. and its history. Dont buy it, dont play the moral (bombing) apostle..

Edited January 8, 2017 by rel4y

[firmek]

Ju-87 was a very effective strike dive-bomber more than a horror for cities and civilians. He-111 was more suitable for the role of horror.

YoYo I really respect you but read a bit more about Ju-87. One of many examples was Warsaw uprising in 1944 where Stukas were used to level the city to the ground, attacking both the resistance fighters as also civilians, including those trying to flee from the city. Even clearly marked hostpitals have been leveled to the ground by Stukas. That's one of many horor examples how the Ju-87 has been applied during invation and later occpuation of Poland.

And then the siren which it had only for one single obvious purpose.

Edited January 8, 2017 by firmek

[Rotorhead]

One of many examples was Warsaw uprising in 1944 where Stukas were used to level the city to the ground, attacking both the resistance fighters as also civilians, including those trying to flee from the city. Even clearly marked hostpitals have been leveled to the ground by Stukas. That's one of many horor examples how the Ju-87 has been applied during invation and later occpuation of Poland.

 

Then you should clearly have issues with people who sent them there (as I do), but hardly with the aircraft itself. I admit I never liked to fly Nazi planes (or generally play any game where I am Nazi soldier) for exactly the same reason, but blaming WW2 horrors on an airplane, simulated no less, and attack its developer (who will surely put many efforts into faithfully recreating it) in the process, well, that's ridiculous...

 

Anyway, waaay off topic now... Back to the P-39 - I certainly don't have any good knowledge about the aircraft and its performance, but how I understand it, it had some revolutionary features that are worth mentioning - like engine placed near CoG, tricycle undercarriage etc., and in my opinion, these are enough to make the potential module interesting and unique.

 

Who says all planes in DCS must be top performance ones? (If so, I'd like to know who will buy P-40 then... Good luck against those K-4's :music_whistling:) It's a simulator, and its purpose is to simulate any given piece of equipment, with all its advantages and downsides.

 

I'd buy a well-made P-39 for sure! :thumbup:

[Solty]

The sub-forum name has only "subjective", remember:

- ED Spitfire Mk.IX has (1942-1943) and P-51D (1943)

- VEAO Work on a P-40F (1943) and a Spitfire Mk XIV (Late 1944).

- Polychop has plans to Ju-87D-7 (1942), G (1943)

- Octopus-G work on a I-16 Type 24 (1939)

and a long etc...

Ahem. Sorry, but I had to:

- ED Spitfire LF. Mk.IXc (1943-44) and P-51D (1944).

-VEAO Work on a P-40F (1941/42) and a Spitfire Mk XIV (Early 1944).

:smartass:

Sorry for a side comment, but I can't imaging how anyone would like to fly the Stuka. At least no way I'm going to spend even a single penny on it and strongly reconsider buying anything from a dev that makes it. It's pretty much a symbol of Nazi horror war machine, including bombing cities and civilians from the very first days of WW2.

 

You know, all the planes in DCS are actually weapons made to kill people. Stuka was indeed a weapon of terror, but so was every other bomber constructed. And fighter pilots killed civilians too. War is war. Never more wars... But we need bombers for DCS to become a living platform for some realy good sim WW2 action. It was not a problem in the past, why now? I would much rather see some Me410 than the Stuka for the period, but Stuka was in service for a long time... so I guess it could fit in.

Edited January 8, 2017 by Solty

[msalama]

I'd buy a well-made P-39 for sure!

 

I'd certainly buy one as well, but would like to have an Eastern Front map to go with it. But I've read somewhere that the Russians didn't actually use the plane as a ground pounder all that much, but rather as a pure fighter - and succeeded well with it, too, because most aerial combat there was at low altitude where the plane performed adequately. Anyway, plenty of VVS aces flew the beast back in the day, so it _must've_ been good for something! And yeah, there's that humongous cannon too... ;)

[msalama]

and strongly reconsider buying anything from a dev that makes it

 

Now, now, you're overreacting a tad there mate. It's a historical plane and as such, more than welcome in DCS:WW2 IMO.

 

Would you buy the B-29, BTW?

[firmek]

Maybe I wasn't clear. I can see a line between an equipment and people that used it. There are however some things that became more than just a historical equipment, that are a symbol. In some cases a really negative one. For this reason some modules I would find controversial.

As for the B-29 - don't ask me, ask someone from Japan what they would think about having it in DCS and if they would be eager to buy and fly it. Maybe then you'll get my point.

Anyway, apologies for deviating from the main topic of this thread. Everyone has his own conscience and there is no point in discussing it.

[Kev2go]

The sub-forum name has only "subjective", remember:

- ED Spitfire Mk.IX has (1942-1943) and P-51D (1943)

- VEAO Work on a P-40F (1943) and a Spitfire Mk XIV (Late 1944).

- Polychop has plans to Ju-87D-7 (1942), G (1943)

- Octopus-G work on a I-16 Type 24 (1939)

and a long etc...

 

but the spitfire LF mk 9c is a 1943 aircraft. and it was still in service till the end of ww2. If it got access to its 150 octane fuel plus higher engine settings, its basically a 1944 aircraft.

 

the P51D is being updated to have 1944 setting as well, with higher grade fuel and ability to reach 75HG. After its needed considering the 1944 Europe setting and to better perform against the latewar german aircraft.

 

 

so yeah despite some future plans as of right now the focus is indeed on fleshing out Western European theatre from 1944-45.

Edited January 9, 2017 by Kev2go

[DD_Fenrir]

but the spitfire LF mk 9c is a 1943 aircraft. and it was still in service till the end of ww2. If it got access to its 150 octane fuel plus higher engine settings, its basically a 1944 aircraft.

 

Not quite right.... only a limited number of Air Defence Great Britain units used Mk.IXs with 150 grade fuel in 1944, and 2nd TAF didn't get 150 grade fuel till early 1945 and even then ditched it within a couple of months as incurring too many maintenance issues.

 

A IXe with the 2x .50cal in lieu of the 4x .303s could be argued to be better representative of a late 1944-45 Spitfire IX and a better opponent to the 109K4 and the 190D9 but Mk.IXcs were present in the 18lb boost - as per DCS - till at least the end of the summer of '44 and as such this variant is quite suited to the Normandy map.

 

The primary issue is - and IMHO always has been - the decision to go with the Luftwaffe variants we have and the Normandy map combination. Either an Ardennes map or 109G6 and 109A8 would have been far more appropriate.

 

the P51D is being updated to have 1944 setting as well, with higher grade fuel and ability to reach 75HG. After its needed considering the 1944 Europe setting and to better perform against the latewar german aircraft.

 

Be careful here. Yes the 75"HG mustang was more prolific against this German plane set being as the 8th AF used them in some numbers. However, the 9th Air Force had traditional 61" HG Ponies - 354th FG - and they did not get upgraded at all during the War in the West and thusly it is entirely appropriate for the current Mustang to go up against the 109K4 or 190D9.

[Kev2go]

Not quite right.... only a limited number of Air Defence Great Britain units used Mk.IXs with 150 grade fuel in 1944, and 2nd TAF didn't get 150 grade fuel till early 1945 and even then ditched it within a couple of months as incurring too many maintenance issues.

 

A IXe with the 2x .50cal in lieu of the 4x .303s could be argued to be better representative of a late 1944-45 Spitfire IX and a better opponent to the 109K4 and the 190D9 but Mk.IXcs were present in the 18lb boost - as per DCS - till at least the end of the summer of '44 and as such this variant is quite suited to the Normandy map.

 

The primary issue is - and IMHO always has been - the decision to go with the Luftwaffe variants we have and the Normandy map combination. Either an Ardennes map or 109G6 and 109A8 would have been far more appropriate.

 

 

 

Be careful here. Yes the 75"HG mustang was more prolific against this German plane set being as the 8th AF used them in some numbers. However, the 9th Air Force had traditional 61" HG Ponies - 354th FG - and they did not get upgraded at all during the War in the West and thusly it is entirely appropriate for the current Mustang to go up against the 109K4 or 190D9.

 

 

Carefull here, the P51D has the characteristics of the P51D block 30, which did not even make it to the western front at all.... it was produced in 1945. if you really want to nitpic about very specific characteristics, the p51 in its current state shouldn't be in Normandy at all.

 

thats the point... so in 1944 At the start of Normandy operation Germans would have still been operating Fw190 A8s, and Bf109 G6's in use still up to the operations in Ardennes. even by end of 44 going into 45. this planes were still more common than K4,s or D9s.

 

but then if we want to split hairs even further we ought to have earlier P51D variants. D20 was the first to come with the K14 gyrosights, and was only around in october of 44 when those came about, also after Normandy.

 

so our current performing planes would have been fine agianst G6s or A8s, but at this point Higher engine settings for the P51 aren't just needed for Historical setups, but for balance so they better perform against these aircraft. its only fair. Sure whoever decided to these german planes made a mistake, but at this point they just gotta make the best of it.

 

as far as IXE, it could happen, i think devs said they would consider adding this variant with the 50's

Edited January 10, 2017 by Kev2go

[javelina1]

 

Would you buy the B-29, BTW?

 

Yes!!!!

 

(and also a P-39 if it's ever modeled). :thumbup:

[Kev2go]

You might not be in the right place...

 

This is a combat sim. Every aircraft in it is somebody's nightmare and a symbol of some horror if you want to look at it that way. That's perfectly legit. You might be happier with a copy of Flight Simulator X.

 

An aircraft is just a tool. It's not evil. It's just an object.

 

Engineers were thinking about the Stuka when they designed the A-10. The A-10 has been and continues to be ED's flagship module IMHO, and it was purpose built to be the nightmare horror of every Soviet tank crew, jsut like the Stuka was meant to kill Soviets. I think people will be very interested in it, just like they were interested in the Il-2 Sturmovik, and we all know how long that sim has been alive for in it's various incarnations.

 

Combat aircraft are meant for killing. First and last, that's what they're for.

 

 

To me the A10 is closer to a spiritual successor ot the A1 skyraider TBH. more similarities with the A1. yeah sure it was originally meant as a torpedo bomber & single seat attacker for the navy, yet it was also eventually adopted by AF as well. the role it performed in Korea & especially inVietnam closer resembles the mission the A10 performed through its life.

 

A10 Designed as a tank buster, ultimately used more as a CAS platform and COIN purposes.

 

but yet the design principles and tactics for the A10 were entirely different than the ju87.

 

Also to note yes weapons are made to kill... enemy combatants. but then again A10 wouldn't be controversial because iT didnt Firebomb or nuke a couple of cities with innocent civilians like a specific bomber did in WW2. ( Cough B29) not saying this is a reason to preclude such a module it, its really insensitive to just respond with yeah oh well Too bad war is war in such circumstances. in this example this inst quite fair. Only thing is these were the victors so its not really portrayed as an Atrocity yet the occurrence of such is very much so.

Edited January 10, 2017 by Kev2go

[PiedDroit]

Don't mix genuine interest in military aeronautics and technology with ideology or politics. I bet 99.99% of people flying DCS are of the former category, not blood thirsty civilian-killing naziterrocommunists.

 

I would even fly an Ohka just for fun :D

 

On the design of A-10, it was closer to an IL-2 IMO. But yet it had those massive airbrakes, ready for some dive attack fiesta.