US Tree Extension - Douglass and Bell Lines - now with pictures!

Started by Raindrops, Feb 04 2014 04:28 AM

Douglas Martin Curtis tree line dive bomber GA Invader Bell Airacobra

Page 1 of 4

Please log in to reply

76 replies to this topic

Raindrops #1 Posted 04 February 2014 - 04:28 AM

Command Chief Master Sergeant

Closed Beta Tester
92 battles
782
[EDF]
Member since:
02-05-2012

A couple years ago, while playing with all the twin-engine planes I could find for potential American heavies, (Information now relegated to a portion of the forums that no longer exists.) I started considering what companies could create proper lines. I began fiddling with the concept of a McDonnell-Douglas line, and that eventually spiraled out of control into what you see before you.

Primarily, this was to be a discussion of Douglas dive- and medium-bombers as two lines of GA aircraft, however, as updates have come and gone this project has increased in scope, and more companies and planes will be added as the project continues.

How these planes would appear in WoWP:

Stats aside, organizing these planes int tiers for WoWP is when it gets interesting. Though only a small slice of US aircraft development, there are a lot of planes in this listing, with a wide array of speeds, roles, variants, and armaments, all of which need to be factored into choosing a tier. There are quite a few instances where there are multiple planes capable of filling the same bracket - resulting in the need for some to be put in unfortunate slots, premium'ed, or excluded altogether. Hashing out what goes where is what the rest of this thread is dedicated to.

Current tiering proposal.

Green stands for Light Fighters, blue for Heavy, yellow for Multi-role, and red for Ground Attack.

While most of the discussion will be on appropriate tiers, stats are much easier to find:

THIS SEGMENT DUE FOR FUTURE EXPANSION

LF Line: Bell Cobras

YP-37, Model 3, P-39 Airacobra, P-63 King Cobra and P-52 Airacomet, XP-83, P-80 Shooting Star, X-5 (Model 60)

Spoiler

Curtiss YP-37

Spoiler

The XP-37 is simply a P-36 built with a V-1710 inline engine to mimic what was seen coming out of Europe at the time. The result was a very fast plane, despite Supercharger problems, and a limited run of YP-37s with an extended frame was produced. The P-37 was cancelled in the end, being replaced by the P-40 instead.

Being based on the P-36, it does have the potential of mounting the second synchronized 12.7mm gun, but having been converted from an A model, the wing guns would be a no-go. It trades that armament for far greater speed, and the set-back cockpit that killed it due to visibility concerns.

Bell Model 3

Spoiler

The Model 3 proposal became not one, but two planes - the XP-77, and by way of the Model 4, the P-39. The Model 3 featured a large hub cannon in front of the engine, with the cockpit pushed far to the back. The Model 4 then moved the cockpit to between the engine and armament, pushing the engine even further back, producing an unconventional design with a concentrated center of mass with incredible agility.

Due to only being a mockup proposal, I gave it the speed of the first Airacobra prototype, the YP-39. Expect the Model 3/4 to play like the XFL-1 of XP-77, both Bell planes in the same tier, with similar arrangements and armaments. Fairly agile, quick, and with mediocre weapons.

Bell P-39 Airacobra

Spoiler

The Airacobra was the interceptor that should have been - but government redesigning for "aerodynamics" neutered the Airacobra's speed and altitude performance early on, and the unconventional balance of the plane earned it a terrible reputation that persisted throughout its lifespan. Most were sold to Britain, who then offloaded them to Russia, by way of lend-lease.

Within the safety of WoWP however, hindsight can allow reflection on the incredible punch the P-39 provides with its 37mm cannon, while maintaining its agility with the mid-engine design. Though not as capable at altitude as the F4U or P-51, the P-39 gladly goes toe-to-toe with Russian Yaks.

Bell P-63 King Cobra

Spoiler

The King Cobra was the Airacobra+ Bigger, heavier, and more powerful in every way, and built on the experience gained from the Airacobra. Unfortunately, the stigma surrounding the mid-engine design persisted, with almost all production going to France and Russia. The XP-63N is of note due to its unusual V or "butterfly" tail arrangement, rarely seen even now. Similarly, a couple Cobras went on to test swept wings for the X-5 project as the L-39.

Besides the option for a greater bomb armament, as well as rockets, little change in playstyle would be required when going from the P-39 to the P-63.

Bell P-59 Airacomet

Spoiler

America's first jet fighter, the P-59 is historically significant, if underwhelming. The General Electric engines, while adapted from those on the Gloster Meteor, were less powerful - making it the slowest jet fighter on record. Armament is also less than spectacular, with less punch available than the P-39 that proceeded it and the P-63 that flanks it. Such is the price for early access into the jet age. These drawbacks would likely be compensated with a shorter research time to the far heavier XP-83.

Bell XP-83

Spoiler

The XP-83: when absolutely, positively everything has to die. While the planes was considered to heavy, slow, and generally undesirable, its proposed armaments were extensive, with a 4x37mm loadout capable of vaporizing anything before it. (A 20x12.7mm loadout was also proposed, but I've cut it for now for rather obvious balance reasons.)

After being passed over for the P-80, the XP-83 was used to test Marquardt's 1700hp 20" ramjets, two of which were attached to the wingtips. (These being the same that were tested on the P-51.) It is unknown how much these may have increased the XP-83's speed however, as it crashed soon after, and I have been unable to find performance records.

Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star

Spoiler

While the P-59 was being extrapolated into the XP-83, there was a proposal for a single-engine P-59, that while not pursued further, inspired Lockheed to make their own single-engine jet fighter, the P-80 - a plane that then replaced both the P-59 and XP-83. A much sleeker design, it performs far better than Bells lumbering early jets, although it mounts less in terms of forward guns. However, it does mount under-wing bombs and the large wingtip Zuni rocket pods to compensate. It represents an essential state change between the proceeding "heavy fighters" to the far lighter, faster Model 60.

Bell Model 60

Spoiler

The Model 60 owes its heritage to the German Me P.1101 - it is the fighter proposal for the Bell X-5, which was a direct copy/improvement of the original P.1101 that was shipped over from Bavaria. Comparatively, the Model 60 is faster, heavier, and slightly lower in optimum altitude. As it was a proposed contender to the F-86, it has been given the same armament here.

GA Line: Douglas Dive Bombers

XA-2, TBD Devastator, SBD Dauntless, TBF Avenger, XSB2D-1, XTB2D Skypirate, AD Skyraider, A2D Skyshark, A4 Skyhawk

Spoiler

Douglas XA-2

Spoiler

The ideal competitor for TSh-2, the XA-2 is a slow biplane with a large number of guns. The bomb load, while half the weight of the F2F’s, gives it a slight advantage when attacking large targets as well. However, it does show weaknesses.

While it does have the ability to carry bombs in combination with its guns, 100lbs won't stretch far. It also has two less guns than the TSh’s eight. It maintains almost the same top speed as the TSh as well, leaving its only advantage being nearly 1,100 kilos less in weight. This may translate into (somewhat) better maneuverability, though it will no doubt result in fewer hit points.

Douglas TBD Devastator

Spoiler

The Devastator can pretty much only function as a GA. Having only one forward-mounted gun would make dogfighting less effective than in a Pegas, and its speed as well is less than stellar, putting it just above the TSh-3 removing the option to run from a fight. Its choice of 100lb bomblets or 500lb fortification-busters, to say nothing of the 1000lb nutcracker, does give it usefulness against ground targets however.

However, once the bombs are gone, they're gone. As such, the TBD would likely be a oft-maligned airplane in the game, with players treating it like a bomb-and-die throwaway, when it could still be used as a support aircraft. Staying below a dogfight, it could provide support with its turret, and the fact that it was an early full-metal monoplane would likely allow a buff in armoring and survivability at a low tier.

The Float-equipped TBD-1A is also capable of taking a tier two premium slot, with the float resulting in reduced performance.

Douglas SBD Dauntless

Spoiler

The "world's best dive bomber" is a capable plane in the dive-bomber line. Known for its survivability, maneuverability, defensive armament, and bomb load, it would be a nimble, tough, and capable GA. Of special note is its mixed load of bombs - a 1000 or 1600lb in the centerline, with a pair of 100 or 325lb bombs on the wings. How this would be implemented is up in the air - does it drop lighter bombs first? Main bomb first? Or maybe it would be time to introduce the ability to cycle through bomb types?

Having paired .50s gives it a respectable though not hardly overwhelming punch against other tier four planes, while the bombload makes it more than the equal to the IL-2, and faster besides. Gunpod-carrying SBDs are the ace in the hole though, as they would be dangerous support fighters, with guns equivalent to a tier five - however, they would have to sacrifice most of their ordinance load to do so.

Grumman TBF Avenger

Spoiler

The Avenger is an improvement over the Dauntless in all areas - slightly faster, tougher, and with a slightly better payload as well. Though lacking the gunpods that make the SBD such a surprising threat, it does allow the use of rockets and features Grummans trademark broad wingspan for an easily maneuverable and capable plane. The standardized load of 4x500lb bombs also can be considered an improvement over the mixed setup of the Dauntless, and the ventral gun serves to increase tail cover slightly.

Douglas XSB2D-1

Spoiler

The XSB2D was the precursor to the short-lived BTD Destroyer. The XSB2D upgrades to 20mm cannons as its primary armament, 20mm cannons along with its devastating bombload. The cannons give it better reach for longer strafing runs and better air-to-air capability, and over double the ordinance of the Avenger gives it far more explosive potential than it should need in most cases, with 1600lb bombs capable of leveling any high-value target of choice.

The SBD Devastator proper - which performed almost the same despite losing the defensive turrets - and the XBTD-2 combined-propulsion prototype could both function as premiums - or in the case of the SBD, take the place of the XSB2D. I personally left the XSB2D in because, despite being a production plane, the SBD had only a few more produced, and this prototype also allows the rear gunner to be seen for an extra tier.

Douglas XTB2D Skypirate

Spoiler

The wing mounted .50s may seem a step down from the 20mms of the Devastator, but the fact it can mount eight more in pods in addition to ordinance does help with strafing once researched. However, with low maneuverability due to lengthy endurance-minded wingspan, and only four stations for bombs, (though 2000lb bombs are more than capable in and of themselves,) it still leaves something to be desired. Capable, no doubt, but taking a backseat to the planes yet to come.

Douglas AD Skyraider

Spoiler

The Skyraider was a venerable bird, and would serve the WoWP GA crowd well. With unmatched ruggedness and ordinance, the AD can bend superiority to its whims. Moving about as fast as the tier-higher IL-20, the Skyraider is a lighter partner to the IL series, with less mass to slow down maneuvers.

Quad 20s are capable against a variety of targets, allowing cleanup of damaged planes as easily as damaged GTs. The incredible variety (and quantity) of available ordinance also allows variety in gameplay, making it easy to swap from rocket-armed GA hunting to fast target-cracking bomb runs - and on occasion, load all the weapon stations and lay waste to anything and everything on the map.

The Skyraider is also the sole aircraft that could claim a toilet as an alternative munition - a possibility, should premium ordinance be required in the future.

Douglas A2D Skyshark

Spoiler

While the real-life Skyshark was plagued with engine reliability issues, in-game it would be free to unload its immense ordinance load on enemy targets. Its maximum bombload was equal to that of the B-17 on short-range missions - and it could be configured in many different ways: 2000-pounders on the primary hardpoints, 500-pounders on primary and secondary, and a storm of HVARS on the wings.

Also of note is a series of proposed alternatives to the Allison engine chosen, ranging from G.E. TG 100 to a pair of Westinghouse 24C jet engines, as well as the Pratt&Whitney XT34 which very nearly took the place of the Allison XT40. In case of emergencies, these could act as additional modules, along with a second prototype with modified tail surfaces, should ordinance options be deemed insufficient research.

Douglas A-4 Skyhawk

Spoiler

The first thing to realize about the A-4 is it is a tiny plane - at 3690kg, it easily slips in under the F-86, (6480) F7U, (12799) and IL-40. (17344) Speed-wise, it beats some fighters. For standard armament, it carries the 20mm Colt Mk.12 seen on the F6U and F7U - light compared to the IL's four 23mms, but easily made up for by a 9000lb bomb load. In essence, the A-4 is about as far away from the IL as possible while remaining a dedicated ground-pounder.

The biggest advantage to the A-4 is its agility. Once its ordinance is delivered, it would have no problem finishing the match as a light fighter - and could even adequately perform as a light fighter without ever mounting bombs or rockets.

GA Line: Douglas Twin Engine Attackers

A-12 Shrike, A-18 Shrike II, DB7, A-20 Havoc, A-26 Invader, A-26(75mm), B-42 Mixmaster, B-43 Jetmaster, XB-51

Spoiler

Curtiss A-12 Shrike

Spoiler

Prospectively appearing at tier two, the Shrike has good speed, armament, and bombload for the level. Not exceptional, but capable of being an early workhorse, allowing for a quick grind to tier three and beyond.

Curtiss A-18 Shrike II

Spoiler

Although the four light machine guns are not quite as comfortable a tier higher than the A-12, the A-18 could still pull it off with being the fastest plane around, playing like a souped-up Ao 192, either peppering GTs with a load of 30lb bombs, or planes with steady passes of machine-gun fire.

Douglas Bomber Model 7B

Spoiler

The 7B is the precursor to the Havoc, but it is a different enough airframe to justify being separate. It also allows the “heavy GA” line of Douglas aircraft to start a bit lower. Between the original Wasp Jr. powered 7A proposal and the more powerful 7B, there are also quite a few modules to choose from, starting with a one-gun glass nose and building to a powerful eight-gun nose.

Ordinance too is extensive, with the 7B reported capable of a 2000lb bombload. The 7A can carry a 100lb bomb or 40x17pounders, with the 7B doubling capacity to a 200lb bomb, or a staggering pepperbox of 80x17lb bombs. Though of negligible damage in and of themselves, the sheer number of bomblets opens up the possibility for odd tatics such as air-to-air bombing.

Also of note is the 205mph (402kmh) top speed was an estimate for the Model 7A – the Twin Wasp engines as well as the increased ordinance may cause this to vary one way or the other. Though it may seem similar to the Blenheim F currently in the game, the less powerful engines and large bomb load causes it to play as a GA, even if the flight profile is similar.

The 7B - and the later Havoc, Invader, and Mixmaster - bears some potential of being classed either as a GA or a HF, having twin engines and strong armament. Personally, due to their large ordinance loads, I classed these aircraft as GAs. However, I’d still expect them to fly as something in-between, closer to upper-tier German GAs, with better climb, maneuverability, and speed than the IL series. However, they would not be quite as fast or altitude-capable as the true heavies either, especially when carrying full ordinance loads.

Douglas A-20 Havoc

Spoiler

The Havoc name covers a large number of variants, and thus provides a great number of modules. In airframes alone, the 20A is stock, 20B mounts .50s, 20C is up-armored at the cost of speed, and the F used a single 37mm. The “elite” A-20 would be the G, with 20s and .50s. I personally nixed the F's 37mm in this current stat of modules, as it doesn't mesh with the otherwise machine-gun armament, and adds extra modules that should not be necessary.

The A-20’s early engine-nacelle-mounted guns would likely be axed, due to unnecessary complexity. There is a distinct possibility the ventral gun would also be nixed for similar reasons, but if not, it would give the Havoc greater than usual defensive arcs.

The Havoc name covers a wide range of small tweaks, giving, in turn, a wide range of modules, and even premium opportunities. British Havoc Ones (with glass nose) with .303s, for example. The prototype A-20 with turbo-supercharged engines also is a possibilities, with the boxy air scoops slowing it down for “improved high-altitude performance.” The P-70, with its ventral tray of 4x20mm, is yet another opportunity for a premium.

In all, the A-20 could easily see six incarnations. Model 7B, British Boston and Havoc I, A-20, A-20A-G, and P-70. If the A-20F with the 37mm is introduced separately as well, there could easily be seven. The A-20 with the turbo-superchargers is the least likely to see light of day, having little difference to set it apart as a premium. The Havoc I or even the Boston could be a lend-lease in the British tree, with the XP-70 being a unique HF-trainer. I maintain that the Model 7B is sufficiently different to stay separate, as a tier below the Havoc proper.

Douglas A-26B Invader

Spoiler

Much like the A-20, the A-26 is a case of too many modules, too little time. To properly thrive, I have split it between two tiers, with the early models being represented by the "B" model, and the later versions with the "D" Despite the split, there are still plenty of modules to go around, between gun and ordinance configurations. Though it was around since the first Invaders, the 75mm cannon has been moved up to the later model as a balancing gesture.

Douglas A-26D Invader

Spoiler

The latter half of the A-26, the "D" is representative of the later C models on - while many modules were seen in the prior "B" model, it still has some improved equipment - namely the Chevrolet engine and 75mm cannon option. This use of the 75mm in the latter model is, of course, slightly unhistoric - while a common option on early A-26 models, the A-26 relied solely on .50s for the most of its life. Disregarding this timeline skip, the 75mm was chosen to be shown in the "D" as a gesture of balancing the split Invaders.

The B-26K is also a variant to be considered – it was a Vietnam-era overhaul, with R-2800-103W engines, eight wing hardpoints, and originally with fourteen 12.7mm machine guns, though the wing guns were dropped leaving the production model at eight guns. This also could be a high-tier extension of the A-26, but the late introduction (1964) may not allow that.

The Invader also has a number of variants that are options for premiums - the XA-26A-DE starts with a 4x20mm ventral tray that blocks the use of ordinance the rest of the series dispenses with freely. The XA-26F is also a rare bird, with a General Electric J31 turbojet added to the fuselage, for a top speed of 700kmh, (faster than a F2G) at the cost of a reduced bombload. This specific variant could also be used to extend the Havoc lineage directly into the jet age, if need be.

Douglas XB-42 Mixmaster

Spoiler

The Mixmaster mounts two engines, but not in the usual fashion of wing-mounted nacelles. Both are mounted deep in the fuselage, working to drive a large counter-rotating propellor assembly in the rear. The XB-42 (or XA-42 as the attack proposal was titled,) should be a capable GA despite its odd bug-like split canopy and odd engine arrangements.

It has a good mix of engines, with a final configuration adding jets for a respectable 785kmh, matching most early jets and late prop aircraft. Interestingly enough, the top engine configuration (V-1710-133 and 19XB-2A mix) was produced with the first airframe (50224, with the twin canopies) due to the latter crashing during tests.

Tactics for the Mixmaster would be simple: Rush in, drop the bombs, and then rush out again. Much faster than the IL-20, the Mixmaster can destroy high-value targets deep behind enemy lines and then choose where to continue operations. And, if insanity seems more appealing, the 8000lb bomb may be employed in an attempt to destroy the entire enemy team in a single bomb-kill.

Another note is the defensive turrets - four guns in all, the turrets have a nice view due to not being obstructed by the tail, they had somewhat limited aiming arcs. This results in a narrower defensive range than the multi-place defensive guns on preceding aircraft, but should prove effective when using the Mixmaster's speed to keep opponents directly behind.

Douglas XB-43 Jetmaster

Spoiler

Following the Mixmaster, the Jetmaseter properly puts this line into the jet age. While maintaining the massive bomb capacity of its predecessor, it shows increases in speed and armament, with the beehive nose going from eight to a terrifying sixteen .50-cals.

The engines are of special note as well - while it mounted the J35 during tests - and proved adequate with them - in 1948 the rejected bomber was used to test the J47 that was in development at the time - resulting in an oddly lopsided appearance. As the J47 was in development, I've taken a guess that this could be represented by the GE-1, which provides an additional 850lbf thrust over the 4000lbf J35-GE-3 - and if extrapolated (unhistorically) into a proper twin-engine replacement, it would provide 9700lbf combined thrust, for a 42% increase in power, and a further increase in speed as well.

Martin XB-51

Spoiler

The "Flying Cigar" is a GA pilot's dream. Much faster than the IL-40, a powerful and concentrated set of guns, and an imposing bombload. It goes in fast, destroys all, and shreds any plane dumb enough to get in the way. However, it would not be perfect - despite excellent roll rate, between its weight and speed, the XB-51 would likely have a very large turn radius, making evasive maneuvering a thing of the past. The speed of the XB-51 could also become its downfall, as it would not be able to rely on low-speed loitering tactics to throw off pursuing fighters.

Bomb-wise, it is capable of carrying the silly 4000 pound bomb, though it required a new door to be mounted to carry it. Similarly, the ability to mount a pair of 2000lb bombs externally on the bomb door would be axed in favor of keeping only the internal armament, which should be more than capable at an estimated 88000 points of damage.

GA Line: 75mm Demi-Line

B-25H, NA-98X "Super Strafer," XA-38 Grizzly

Spoiler

North American B-25H Mitchel

Spoiler

The go-to plane for strafing, the B-25 brings a blistering array of firepower to the field, as well as being able to draw from a broad array of non-attacker variants for additional modules. Also, despite its collection of guns, the Mitchel also brings its full ordinance load of 3000lbs of bombs to the field - though they may be removed to focus on the 75mm for the sake of balancing. However, if they are left, the B-25 can hang an impressive array of bombs between its bay and wings - even with a judicious clipping of 300lb bombs and mixed loads, there are still a large number of options available, from 100lb bomblets to 1000lb crushers.

A pilot can choose to take the H model's eight .50s and lighter 75mm and HVAR rockets for maximized strafing power, or fly light with the J's twelve-gun nose and try to maximize the B-25's bombing capabilities with a load of twelve 325lb bombs, all the while being protected by anywhere from two to six .50 defensive guns.

All this ordinance does have a major downside, however - it is extremely large, and flies - as should be expected - like a bomber. Its speed is also unexceptional bringing it in under the likes of the Blenheim, A6M1, and I-16(l). While bringing its array of death to bear on enemy planes may seem attractive, it would not be a small task to do so.

North American NA-98X

Spoiler

The NA-98X "Super Strafer" was a proposed upgrade to the B-25 for a more purpose-built ground attacker - and with increases to both speed and maneuverability, it does just that. Though nothing ground-breaking, the 75mm ensures it continues as a solid ground attacker. The NA-98X was the actual tested model, with the A-26's R-2800 engines and squared wingtips, but the fully proposed NA-98X featured a large, single tail and three-blade propellers in addition to the squared wings.

Beechcraft XA-38 Grizzly

Spoiler

Unlike the B-25 variants, the 75mm cannon in the Grizzly was self-loading, giving an increased rate of fire and much better punch, despite having fewer .50s to supplement it. Combine the autoloading cannon with greater speed and smaller size than its predecessors, and it's a plane more than worth the wait.

One thing it does lack however are modules - only two Grizzlies were built, and while it performed excellently as it was, its components were prioritized for other aircraft, strangling the promising attacker early on. Ordinance loads could make up for this in part, (four positions on the wings, maximum of 2650lbs,) and it would be possible to fit other R-3350 engine variants in to lengthen it researching lifespan, though that would be undesirable due to historical inaccuracy.

THIS SEGMENT DUE FOR FUTURE EXPANSION

Edited by Raindrops, 05 March 2015 - 02:03 PM.

I never said I was good.

USA needs GA too.

Raindrops #2 Posted 04 February 2014 - 04:31 AM

Command Chief Master Sergeant

Closed Beta Tester
92 battles
782
[EDF]
Member since:
02-05-2012

That's it for the moment. This tree is under continuous construction, and changes will occur as the game evolves. Check for updates, and don't forget to leave comments - if you find any odd or important details considering prototypes/planes/ordinance/etc., don't forget to leave it here!

Future update plans:

Merge B-25H with NA-98X

Rebuild DBs in light of Wirraway

Replace P-80 in Bell line

Add statblocks for premiums

Steal PressureLine's Republic line to expand tree

Add Grumman line to expand tree

Various sources:

National USAF Museum Factsheets

Steve Ginter's Airforce Legends and Naval Fighters series.

Putnam, Bell Aircraft Since 1935

E.R.Johnson, American Attack Aircraft Since 1926

Encyclopedia of Air Force Aircraft and Missile Systems, Volume 1; 2

Rene J. Francillon, McDonnell Douglas Aircraft since 1920

Edited by Raindrops, 12 May 2015 - 05:09 AM.

I never said I was good.

USA needs GA too.

Demon93IT #3 Posted 04 February 2014 - 11:20 AM

Senior Master Sergeant

Member
0 battles
348
Member since:
03-06-2012

I've made one for Douglas(considering only the twin engined GAA) here. I haven't considered both the F3D and the F4D because they are fighters rather than ground attackers(by the way the F4D was able to achieve supersonic speeds so i don't think it's suited for the game). In my branch i divided both the A-20 and the A-26 in two(the older models at the lower tier, the more modern ones at the higher) to consider the development of these two models which were quite successful.

As the other Douglas branch is concerned the problem is the A-1 Skyraider. It's slow(slower than the Skypirate) and, although the payload is similar(8000 lbs against 8400 lbs) the A-1 would suffer more due to the drag caused by the bombs(the Skypirate hasn't this issue thanks to the bomb bay).

As McDonnel is concerned the problem is that there isn't something linking these planes due to the fact that they had different roles in mind. Quite difficult to link the XP-67 and the Phantom as they were two different concepts(and visually the XP-67 is cooler i must admit).

Sadly i don't have any ideas on how to link the XP-67 but, as the rest is concerned, i have an idea. This is my proposal:

VII)FH-1

VIII)F2H-1

IX)F2H-4

X)F2H-5(swept wing version with afterburners and tail section of the XP-88).

In any case considering them as heavy fighters isn't correct. The Navy have had twin engined fighters from the '50s on except few exceptions. The Navy chose twin engined fighter for safety measures(for a Navy pilot it's good to know that with an engine down he can still go back home flying rather than ditching and wait to get rescued). Of course this is just a proposal :)

Edited by Demon93IT, 04 February 2014 - 11:24 AM.

Nihtwaco #4 Posted 04 February 2014 - 11:43 AM

Command Chief Master Sergeant

Member
433 battles
649
[DSA]
Member since:
01-26-2012

I think about 2/3 of these may make into the game if it keeps going long enough. First we need a whole bunch more qualified Computer pilots to join us in our fun.

The A-20 and the A-26 are more fragile than the IL series. A-20 Mostly Day attack roles, A-26 served into early years in Nam Mostly Night Intruder Missions. Beaufighter is closest analog in game at present. Ship busting with Para Demo bombs would be a hoot. The were used for Bridge busting in Korea. 1,000 lbs. bomb with a medium Cargo chute rig with 11 sec delay fuze if I remember right triggered by chute opening and snagging the Bridge double chance of function. Bomb would do two loops wrapping up around the Bridge then Bang.

Keep up the research as that is what feeds the Developer idea mill.

Raindrops #5 Posted 04 February 2014 - 02:31 PM

Command Chief Master Sergeant

Closed Beta Tester
92 battles
782
[EDF]
Member since:
02-05-2012

Though less sturdy than the ILs, the A-20/A-26 are faster, and can carry far more ordinance. They lack the cannons, (for the most part) but are capable of wiping out a base very quickly, but are more likely to be shot down while doing so, resulting in a high risk/high reward GA.

Demon93IT, on 04 February 2014 - 11:20 AM, said:

Sadly i don't have any ideas on how to link the XP-67 but, as the rest is concerned, i have an idea. This is my proposal:

VII)FH-1

VIII)F2H-1

IX)F2H-4

X)F2H-5(swept wing version with afterburners and tail section of the XP-88).

The Skyray was originally used primarily because the Skynight is under-powered for a tier ten slot. Its speed is between the IL-40 and -40P, but it has no turret, less durability, and and similar armament to the current F7D. Rather than look for another company, I simply shifted the F4D from the single-engine DB line. I will, however, agree that the Skyray is too strong - while below the 1200kmh mach number, it is faster than the Javelin, currently the fastest in-game plane. One option is to label it by its prototype designation and give it the weaker J40 engine it was originally planned to mount. The over 6000hp drop would definitely check the Skyrays' speed. The other option is still to drop it entirely and use something else - maybe the Canberra or XB-51, for the sake of dropping as many bombs as possible.

The Destroyer/Skyraider/Skypirate is another issue I seem to have not mentioned before either... Basically, when first setting up the lines, I placed the Skyraider on the top because it was the later one in service, and would likely have the most to offer module-wise. However, not only has the Skyraider turned out to be the slowest, but it also got slower through its service era. While it will probably stay above the Destroyer due to service era and armament, the prototype Skypirate is due to take its place at tier eight. It's just a switch I had not gotten around to as of yet.

With the phantoms, the requirement for heavy fighters is twin engines - as stated at the top, this originally came from HF discussion, so that's the Idea I was running with. No they're not truly HFs, save the VooDoo and Moonbat due to their strong armament, but they work in a pinch if given long boost and tiered with decent speed. They could be reclassified as light fighters and go with the Model 40/F2H-5 as a ten, but I'd have to pick something up from another company to support it and find a new home for the Voodoo and Bat as well.

It's a reasonable change to make, but will require more effort to reorganize, so it'll be a bt before I get there. (I've already gone from two lines to four though, what's a few more in the mix, right?)

Also, copying over your other Douglas list so I can comment on it here too.

Demon93IT, on 02 February 2014 - 10:30 PM, said:

In these days i've prepared a branch for Douglas considering only its twin engined attack aircraft(so i haven't considered planes such as the SBD, the A-1, the A-4 yet). This is how is looking

I)Model 7A

III)//(see note below)

IV)Model 7B

V)A-20C

VI)A-20G/H

VII)A-26

VIII)A-26F/Z A-26K(premium)

IX)XA-42(the attacker version of the XB-42)

X)A-43(the attacker version of the XB-43)

First off, the 7A and B really should be combined, for the sake of keeping module numbers up. If split, each only has one researchable module of a gun nose swap. This line doesn't go all the way to the bottom, but that's fine so long as it has something to come off of. In my case, I'm drawing from the dive bombers. It has the potential to be a stand-alone with the Curtis Shrike or Stearman XA-21 though. Starting the DBs with the O-46, and going XA-2, XA-21, Model 7B is a possibility.

Secondly, the Jetmaster, while fast, is around 140kmh slower than the IL-40. Such a slow craft can not possibly survive at tier ten, especially when it relies upon ordinance, and getting it to the target quickly. By putting the A-20 and A-26 in the same line, you ran into a problem I expressed above, and just ran out of space.

Edited by Raindrops, 04 February 2014 - 02:44 PM.

I never said I was good.

USA needs GA too.

Demon93IT #6 Posted 04 February 2014 - 06:52 PM

Senior Master Sergeant

Member
0 battles
348
Member since:
03-06-2012

Raindrops, on 04 February 2014 - 02:31 PM, said:

Also, copying over your other Douglas list so I can comment on it here too.

The XB-51 seems fine as tier X but the problem is that it carries "only" 2000 lbs while the XB-43 has four times the payload. Sure the Jetmaster is slow but it could carry enough bombs to both destroy GTs and defend itself(using also the turret which the XB-51 hasn't). Moreover having a big difference between the fighter and the bomber is not a bad thing(see B-17 vs Me 163). Personally i find it suited for tier X although slow but, due to the lack of comparisons(only the IL40P) it's difficult to judge.

As the A-1 is concerned the problem is speed wise is a tier V, armament wise it isn't and its combat record clearly says that it could be a threat even against jets. Probably it's the most complex plane to balance and the fact that it remained on service for quite some time without a replacement doesn't help.

Yeah you're right, could be problematic dividing the Phantom and the Banshee from the rest. The problem is that McDonnel started(or rather said) restarted in 1938 and there aren't many planes suitable. I don't think there's something before the Model I, maybe i'm wrong.

Speaking about the model 7A and 7B i divided them because the 7A was considered obsolete even before building it(i don't know too well all the specifics but doesn't seem a tier IV to me). Having the XA-2 and the XA-21 at tier II and III though should work out.

In any case i wonder how the A-20 and the A-26 would be considered. In some ways they are ground attackers but they could act as heavy fighters. I guess we have to find out

Raindrops #7 Posted 04 February 2014 - 09:03 PM

Command Chief Master Sergeant

Closed Beta Tester
92 battles
782
[EDF]
Member since:
02-05-2012

Do keep in mind that the only planes mounting bombs at tier ten are the F7D, with 4x500lbs, and the IL-40P at around 1100lbs. It's the combination of speed and armament that makes the IL-40s effective, and the XB-51 can certainly counter that with and octet of 20s, and brings its own rockets to the field as well, in addition to a 2000lb bombload.

The Canberra, well, do you really need 7300lbs of bombs? (The fact that it's a licence-built British design is another matter entirely.)

Another thing to consider is that with the XB-43's speed, it will be BnZ'd by everything at tier ten. Even IL-40s - and two 12.7s in a turret will do very little at that tier. Sure, it has the bombs, but it would never survive long enough to use them all.

As far as the F4D goes in that slot, using the J40 would make it a slower F7D with extra bombs and rockets.

The ain thing to do with the A-1 is remember that it's going into a GA line - if you look at the speeds of the ILs, they stagnate after tier four, with the BSh2, IL-2, IL-2 (t), and IL-8 all around the same 35-kmh zone above the 400 mark. Compared to that, the A-1 is fast enough to be a tier eight, pulling up close to the IL-20. It also is lighter, smaller, and would do better flying defensively should it come under attack. Add in the fact it has 6000lbs of ordinance, and I think it'd do fine. (That's over double the complete ordinance load of the IL-20 or IL-40 by the way.)

No, it won't keep up with a fighter. Compared to the LA line instead of ILs, it trails behind the LaGG. But it will get to a base and completely level it. The big drawback I see with the A-1 is not speed, but the lack of the IL's cannons. Without the 40 or 57mm gun, it does have limited damage potential once the bombs are gone.

Splitting the Phantom/Banshee would not be problematic for them, as they could easily be made to stand alone. It's the others that would suffer. It's a question of giving the Banshee a place of honor, or trimming it down to sustain a couple of less-prominent aircraft I personally like.

7A was obsolete before it came out, which is why it would be a stock config. The 7B is the better half, with the far better engines.

In real life, the A-20 and A-26 were, obviously attack aircraft. Because they have such heay ordinance loads and were indeed designed for GA, I believe they are best suited there. As some variants show however (Havoc I, P-70) they were capable of performing the HF role if needed. Despite predicting them to be GAs, I wouldn't be suprised if they turn out to be the best multi-role aircraft in the game, with people stripping the ordinance and dueling with 110s and Mossies. The 75mm A-26 could be terrifying as a ad-hoc HF.

I never said I was good.

USA needs GA too.

Demon93IT #8 Posted 04 February 2014 - 09:47 PM

Senior Master Sergeant

Member
0 battles
348
Member since:
03-06-2012

Raindrops, on 04 February 2014 - 09:03 PM, said:

The Canberra, well, do you really need 7300lbs of bombs? (The fact that it's a licence-built British design is another matter entirely.)

As far as the F4D goes in that slot, using the J40 would make it a slower F7D with extra bombs and rockets.

7A was obsolete before it came out, which is why it would be a stock config. The 7B is the better half, with the far better engines.

True, then it's more suited the XB-51. Then it should be like this:

IV)Model 7A(stock), model 7B(elite)

V)A-20C(stock), A-20G/H(elite)

VI)A-26C(stock), A-26D(elite)

VII)A-26F(stock), A-26Z(elite)

VIII)XA-42(stock), XB-42A(elite)

IX)XB-43

X)XB-51

As the A-1 is concerned true, should be superior to the ILs speed wise while on armament is inferior due to the lack of heavy cannons. It could become a sort of fighter when the payload is gone(historically it proved to be a nasty opponent), as it happens for the IL-10 now.

Well the problem is that the Bat is a sort of stand alone. There's nothing before and, sadly, nothing came after it. Due to this i'm thinking if it could be possible to make it premium. Sure it won't be normal but it could be a good seller(and i think that WG would like it). In any case if classified as HF the Phantom would have a problem: sure it would be the fastest at tier VII but, ironically for a HF, it would have the worst armament(for this reason i see it fit as light fighter rather than heavy fighter). If considered light figher it should be placed at tier VIII with the F2H at IX and the F2H-5 at X. Another possible tier X is the F3H, slightly faster than the Javelin but marginal(12 km/h more)

Raindrops #9 Posted 09 February 2014 - 11:47 PM

Command Chief Master Sergeant

Closed Beta Tester
92 battles
782
[EDF]
Member since:
02-05-2012

Once again, I still fear for the speed of the Jetmaster, even at tier nine. That's why I fit the Skynight in originally - it was a twin-engine jet that fit the speed gap after the XB-40s. The XBs provide a ridiculous bombload, which is standard throughout the GA lines I have here, but don't have the staying power to compete at the very top. That's also why I reasoned the A-26 would have to be a side-grade from the A-20 (Like the IL-10) simply to allow space once the XBs were dropped.

XB-51 is far more than enough to cap off a line though. No bunker is safe.

Most of the DB line can act as impromptu fighters, allowing them to at least hold their own in air-to-air engagements. The A-1 is no different here.

I just split the OP, and added stats/modules for the SBD Dauntless and TBD Devastator.

I'll be looking at giving the Phantoms thier own line, so I'll be officially dissolving the combined idea. The XP-67 will have to float until I can find a better implementation for it. (A hodge-podge HF line likely.) Any idea as to what I should use for footing the FH line though?

I never said I was good.

USA needs GA too.

Demon93IT #10 Posted 10 February 2014 - 12:16 AM

Senior Master Sergeant

Member
0 battles
348
Member since:
03-06-2012

Raindrops, on 09 February 2014 - 11:47 PM, said:

XB-51 is far more than enough to cap off a line though. No bunker is safe.

Most of the DB line can act as impromptu fighters, allowing them to at least hold their own in air-to-air engagements. The A-1 is no different here.

I just split the OP, and added stats/modules for the SBD Dauntless and TBD Devastator.

Well at tier IX the difference with the IL-40 is marginal. The IL-40 fully upgraded has as maximum speed at optimum altitude 825 km/h with external armament and 920 km/h without. The XB-43 had as maximum speed 860 km/h and, thanks to the internal bomb bay, the payload won't increase drag so the speed lost isn't too much(especially counting the fact that it won't carry 8000 lbs of bombs most probably).

As the McDonnels are concerned the problem is that they became important after the war so i don't really know how you should link the FH line. A possibility is to use the old carrier based branch simply because the FH branch is composed by carrier based jets. It's not so correct but i don't see any other plausible solutions

Raindrops #11 Posted 10 February 2014 - 04:37 AM

Command Chief Master Sergeant

Closed Beta Tester
92 battles
782
[EDF]
Member since:
02-05-2012

It is possible to connect to the carrier line, but I'll have to see if I can find a company that died out in WWII that would fit the bill. It's something I'll have to look into.

Also, the XB-43 is still ~70kmh slower than the IL-40, which is already the ~~slowest tier IX.~~ It would be able to outpace the J7W2 by two whole kmh, which makes it the second-slowest in tier. It still makes me nervous, but it could possibly work. The Skynight would then be out of the running though. The ~200kmh speed jump between the XB-43 and XB-51 is also a bit of a change to look at. (Though the IL-20/IL-40 split is closer to 300, so that's negligible.)

I'll have to fiddle with the modules to see what goes where in the Havoc and Invader, but you've slowly been converting me here... So yeah, Model 7B > A-20 > A-26 > A-26F> XA-42 > XB-43 > XB-51. (Also of note, at tier five, the A-20 would actually be one of the faster planes in-tier.)

Or maybe... Use the O-46 to foot the DBs, then make a full line ground-up from the XA-2 > Stearman XA-21 > A-20, etc... But then the Stearman would be the fastest plane in its tier at III...

Edited by Raindrops, 10 February 2014 - 05:15 AM.

I never said I was good.

USA needs GA too.

Demon93IT #12 Posted 10 February 2014 - 09:14 AM

Senior Master Sergeant

Member
0 battles
348
Member since:
03-06-2012

Raindrops, on 10 February 2014 - 04:37 AM, said:

It is possible to connect to the carrier line, but I'll have to see if I can find a company that died out in WWII that would fit the bill. It's something I'll have to look into.

Or maybe... Use the O-46 to foot the DBs, then make a full line ground-up from the XA-2 > Stearman XA-21 > A-20, etc... But then the Stearman would be the fastest plane in its tier at III...

Well the speed is problematic but not so much for the A-20, the 110B at top configuration can go at 550 km/h(6 km/h less than the A-20, marginal). As the XA-21 is concerned it's speed(414 km/h) is marginally better than the one of the FW 57 top configuration(400 km/h).

In both cases i supposed that the A-20 and the XA-21 don't have any payload whatsoever(which could happen, they can act as heavies). Counting also the payload their maximum speed would be reduced so they would be around the average maximum speed.

As the low tiers are concerned yeah we could link this branch to the XA-2. The problem is that there's a big jump between the XA-2 and the XA-21, mainly because the XA-2 is a single engine biplane and the XA-21 is a twin engine monoplane. In any case the XA-2 would start both lines which is nice :)

Raindrops #13 Posted 10 February 2014 - 02:44 PM

Command Chief Master Sergeant

Closed Beta Tester
92 battles
782
[EDF]
Member since:
02-05-2012

It is a big leap in tech - but the XA-2 is a better start for the heavier-armed attack aircraft line than the O-46, and the XA-21 fits due to size and bombing ability. Another option is the Curtiss Shrike, a single-engine monoplane with a much lower speed, around 300kmh. It has bombing ability and a quartet of .30s like the XA-21.

The big thing I see with the XA-21 is that it just has too much bomb capacity. The FW has one of the best bombloads ever at around 1300lbs, but the XA-21 has a 2700lb capacity on top of being a faster bird. The only thing that really holds it back is its weak armament of four 7.62 wing guns.

I never said I was good.

USA needs GA too.

Demon93IT #14 Posted 10 February 2014 - 02:58 PM

Senior Master Sergeant

Member
0 battles
348
Member since:
03-06-2012

Raindrops, on 10 February 2014 - 02:44 PM, said:

Personally i find the XA-2 fine for tier II, it's a shame there isn't anything twin engined to be implemented at tier II but as it is these branches look nice.

As the XA-21 is concerned well the payload compensates the lack in firepower in some extent. Moreover all the branch has a low firepower(in comparison to the IL branch) but a larger payload. I think that they would be nice to play, especially after dropping the bombs(they would act as HF more or less)

Raindrops #15 Posted 10 February 2014 - 04:02 PM

Command Chief Master Sergeant

Closed Beta Tester
92 battles
782
[EDF]
Member since:
02-05-2012

The A-26 and XB-21 are far from lacking firepower - the former having 75/37mm setups to match anything an IL can carry, and the latter being an absolute hailstorm. The rest of the line, while not lacking firepower in damage potential, lacks adequate range due to large groupings of .50s. Firepower stats will always be high, but they won't be able to engage targets in such long passes as ILs do.

I never said I was good.

USA needs GA too.

Demon93IT #16 Posted 10 February 2014 - 04:06 PM

Senior Master Sergeant

Member
0 battles
348
Member since:
03-06-2012

Raindrops, on 10 February 2014 - 04:02 PM, said:

I forgot about those two yeah. Un until the high tiers though they mounted machine guns only which is less effective than cannons.

By the way i'm not so sure about the 75 mm, especially since the 50 mm got removed from the German tech tree.

Raindrops #17 Posted 11 February 2014 - 01:51 AM

Command Chief Master Sergeant

Closed Beta Tester
92 battles
782
[EDF]
Member since:
02-05-2012

There is a whole slew of 75mm planes in the US arsenal - and even in German, Russian, and Japanese designs as well. The B-25G, XA-38, and A-26 to name a few. However despite precedent, do such derps have place in WoWP? They would be extremely heavy, slow-firing, and not the fastest shell speed ever either, meaning they would be hard to aim. However, a 75mm shell would be a guaranteed one-hit-kill, regardless of tier. It's a question of is rewarding a player who can use it worth the risk of rage from players who are hit by it?

Personally, as much as I like the sound of 75mm guns on planes, it would be bad for WoWP to introduce them.

The A-26 itsself is perfectly capable of performing without it - the 37mms in the nose backed up by the wing guns provide plenty of power - but it could be a proving ground for the 75mm. If you introduce it to the test server/alpha testers first, it's an easy enough asset to remove the 75 and keep the plane, rather than test, say, the XA-38 and give it an unhistorical neutering to keep it in.

I never said I was good.

USA needs GA too.

DracoArgentum #18 Posted 11 February 2014 - 09:00 AM

Command Chief Master Sergeant

Alpha tester
0 battles
803
[IOC]
Member since:
11-18-2011

Demon93IT, on 10 February 2014 - 04:06 PM, said:

I forgot about those two yeah. Un until the high tiers though they mounted machine guns only which is less effective than cannons.

By the way i'm not so sure about the 75 mm, especially since the 50 mm got removed from the German tech tree.

The 50mm was taken from the German fighters. The USSR GA still have 57mm cannon available. So GA can have them still.

Also Overlord said WG is redoing the damage mechanics so they can give the fighters their huge cannons back. Sauce

Demon93IT #19 Posted 11 February 2014 - 10:53 AM

Senior Master Sergeant

Member
0 battles
348
Member since:
03-06-2012

DracoArgentum, on 11 February 2014 - 09:00 AM, said:

The 50mm was taken from the German fighters. The USSR GA still have 57mm cannon available. So GA can have them still.

Also Overlord said WG is redoing the damage mechanics so they can give the fighters their huge cannons back. Sauce

That's nice :). Not that i liked the 50 mm on the Germans(the 2x30 mm are enough) but it's nice to have the option.

As the 75 mm is concerned there are some problems

1)The velocity is lower than the 57 mm one(619 m/s versus 700 m/s)

2)The rate of fire is much lower. The 57 mm can fire 230 rounds per minute, the 75 mm rate of fire should be similar to the Sherman one(the gun is virtually the same)

Personally i'm not so sure about such cannons, especially because it took quite some time before seeing them again in action(on AC 130s over Vietnam)

Raindrops #20 Posted 11 February 2014 - 02:13 PM

Command Chief Master Sergeant

Closed Beta Tester
92 battles
782
[EDF]
Member since:
02-05-2012

There were six or so (B-25G/H, XTB2F-1, XA-38, XA-42, XP-71, and XP-58.) contemporary projects in the US with the 75mm either mounted or as a possible mounting. It was pretty popular in the attack role for its time, but people realized pretty quick that a 20mm will kill just as surely firing quicker and with higher velocity.

A change to the damage system may help alleviate the high-caliber problem, but considering how people like to single out the C6 as OP, I still doubt it'd be wise to give them too much ammunition.

Also, I'm not sure if the plane-mounted M3 M4 had an automatic/assisted loader or not. I'll have to check. ~~I ran across the manual for the gun mount once, but don't think I bookmarked it.~~ Found it.

Shell was about 600m/s, and weighs 893 pounds. There is no loading assistance mechanism, so fire rate is up to the loader.

Additional:

Spoiler

Shell is slow by aircraft standards, but the effective range is quite long, with the last bit putting it at 4.5 kilometers. Fire rate was about once every five seconds, or 12rpm.

Edited by Raindrops, 11 February 2014 - 02:32 PM.

I never said I was good.

USA needs GA too.