Jump to content


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

Douglas Martin Curtis tree line dive bomber GA Invader Bell Airacobra

  • Please log in to reply
76 replies to this topic

Carl_the_Cuttlefish #61 Posted 19 October 2014 - 02:06 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 20 battles
  • 1,416
  • Member since:
    11-06-2012
Interesting... The history of these planes is so intertwined :). Anyways, that would make for a easy tier X for WG to both make and balance. I don't know if it would be a deterrent for others to get that tier X if they already have the P.1101?

"It's about to get real inky in here!!!"

- Carl the Cuttlefish, the artist formerly known as S01836775, now in an all new user friendly format.

I hope it doesn't sound like I'm whining in my posts 

And why do we balance???


Raindrops #62 Posted 19 October 2014 - 04:57 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

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

Well, besides looks, the X-5 has little to do with the P.1101. Here's the comparative stats:

 

                   P.1101(WoWP)   P.1101(Actual)   X5

Weight:      4459kg                4070kg              4487kg

Armament: 4x20mm               4x30mm             6x12.7mm

Speed:       980kmh               981kmh             1134kmh

Altitude:     2500m(optimum) 13800m(ceiling) 12800m(ceiling)

 

A punchier engine means more speed, but it falters at altitude - partly due to the increase in weight. So a 1101 can out-turn the X-5, but the X-5 can out-run it on a level field. The cannon vs. MG change is also highly important, as it's more damage/hit for the 1101 at greater range - my prediction is that the 1101 would win most engagements between the two.

 

Also, they really should have min-max altitude in the plane statistics sidebar in-game...

 

Otherwise: New planes are up. Not only that, but I (am) rebuilt(building) the OPs as well - lines on the top, most sources and to-dos in OP#2. Been meaning to do it for awhile. Some of the bonus historical info has been cut, but you can either A) Look it up yourself/use the sources provided or, B) Ask me about the background/details of any plane, and I'll give the best answer I can find. (And in many cases: C) Read the thread, as the plane has already been discussed.)

Also compiling images so people can see all the shiny planes while slipping under the forum photo limit, should be up soon.

 

If anybody knows why the forums are so broken as of late, let me know. Images and spoiler tags both are busted for now. (Though it looks like Photobucket may be at fault for the images...)


Edited by Raindrops, 19 October 2014 - 05:40 PM.

I never said I was good.

USA needs GA too.


Raindrops #63 Posted 22 October 2014 - 04:19 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

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

Small update - Bell is now footed by the XP/YP-37, bringing the line down to IV. For those who don't know what it is, it was the P-36 with the V-1710 inline that was used in the P-39 through the initial P-51s before the Merlin engine. It developed into the P-40 eventually, but it does leave us two airframes, (YP being the latter, longer one,) as well as three engines to start us towards the Bells.

 

Besides that, pictures!

*celebratory dance*

28 planes, 1.5 paper projects. Not too shabby a ratio, if I say so myself. (1.5 because the NA-98X did have a proto-prototype to test the engine/wing arrangement, even if the full project was unrealized.)

 

Seeing these planes is a pretty big deal for me, as I'm a very visual person. Trying to get images that sufficiently describe the planes along with ordinance, if available. Will be captioning the plane names onto the images themselves, in due time. The big deal right now is that Photobucket and the forums refuse to play nice right now - it refuses the standard [img] BBCode, and then reports that I'm not allowed to upload the full-size images with the editing tools, because Photobucket slips a ~original tag on the end of the name. So yeah, for the time being, preview-size is the only size available, until whatever broke the image system is reverted.

 

I've decided to leave the DBs as GAs for now as well - VII-X are large, heavy aircraft that wouldn't be good fighters, and II-VI have gunners - while not necessarily prohibitive of a MR status, (Skua, Demon,) I've decided to not term them as the "GA-Fighter" class. This may change again later on, depending on what the MR class has to offer in the future, but even if I do change to MR, only the bottom half will do so.

 

Oh, yeah - and new thread name to go with the changes this last week.


Edited by Raindrops, 22 October 2014 - 04:25 PM.

I never said I was good.

USA needs GA too.


Nihtwaco #64 Posted 23 October 2014 - 06:20 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

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

A note on the P-80C a long time ago in Wings there were photos taken at Kimpo field in Korea of P-80C taking off with 6 napalm Tanks. Stations were Wing tips, Regular Bomb Pylon then an added station outboard in area where HVAR Zero Length Stubs were. Total load was 7,200 pounds. 2 x 1,000 lb. GP bombs and 8 HVAR were carried for ground support also. In WW II Western Desert Operations by RAF had P-40 Carrying 3 Pairs of 250 lb. Bombs. High Performance Fighters when tasked could carry very large loads once the Higher ups allowed crews to make the Field Modifications needed. Also take off procedures had to follow what Lindberg taught crews in the Pacific to allow Corsairs to get airborne with 2 x 2,000 lb. GP bombs.

Keep digging there are lots of interesting planes we all would love to have a chance of flying in Game.

 



Raindrops #65 Posted 16 November 2014 - 04:53 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

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

Thanks for the info, Nihtwaco. I won't be updating the P-80 yet, as for now I still hope to shift it out to the side and fill Bell with a one-off from somewhere else - I'll be devoting more time to the P-80 later, to test the viability of it having a tier VIII variant as well.

 

For the moment, I'm doing this:

Basically, running about for basic info on armament/ordinance/possible class of all planes I've got so far so that I can better tag planes for various lines. We'll see if I can pick some patterns out of it when I'm done.


I never said I was good.

USA needs GA too.


Raindrops #66 Posted 14 December 2014 - 08:09 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

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

Need to update again to prevent archiving... But what to say...

Oh! this is the WoWS Beta weekend event, is it not? Well... How about discussing what carrier-based planes are featured?

 

I will say this: I did not get into WoWS this weekend - but I did see the WoWS stream from awhile back. In it, is the Essex-class carrier, and on the deck two researchable sets of planes are shown. The Essex is a tier IX, with a full compliment of fighters, bombers, and torpedo-bombers representative of high-tier slots. The planes shown are as follows:

Fighters: F4F/F4U

DBs: SB2U/XSB2D

TBs: AD1/TBY1

Fighters are unexceptional, as they already feature in-game as tier V/VI MRs.

TBs are... Odd. Namely the fact that the AD1 is placed on the "lower-tier" slot with the F4F - both carried a single torpedo typically, so I'm guessing they ran with that, despite the AD1 having the loading capacity to back it up with an additional 6000lbs of rockets and bombs. The other reason I can think of for this is the fact that the TBY does mount a defensive gun, while the AD is one-seat. The TBY is also much slower, so I must imagine they are using arbitrary speeds to make sure squadrons are easier to organize and arrange by tiers.

The gunner also becomes important in the XSB2D. No, not the Destroyer, but the prototype XSB2D that I have right here in the tree. Not only are they aware of the prototype, but are quite willing to use it as well - which I consider a good thing on my end here. The SB2U is rather unexceptional, so the XSB2D would be an excellent upgrade here.

There are a few other images of US carriers in action - showing what looks to be the F3F, (once again, in WoWP) TBM Avenger, (Placed as a V,) and T3M2 in the background of the Langley art. (No forward armament.)

 

How does that all effect me here in WoWP? Well... Not much. All in all, it is a different game, with different requirements. On the other hand, the use of these various planes (AD1, XSB2D, TBM, TBY, and SB2U are all candidates for MR/attack,)  may increase the likelyhood of their inclusion in WoWP in the long run. The biggest thing for me was seeing the XSB2D model on deck.

 

If anyone has more info on carrier aircraft in WoWS, let me know. Otherwise, I've finally freed up a bit of time to finish the categorization I started in the post above - but that's likely the last I'll get around to this year. So stay frosty, and I'll see you in 2015, pilots.


I never said I was good.

USA needs GA too.


Raindrops #67 Posted 04 March 2015 - 06:26 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

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

Sitting down to do a bit of general cleanup while preparing to fiddle with the DB line in the wake of the German GA introduction.

The big kicker is, of course, that the infamous divebomber that is the Stuka was introduced sans bombs. Combined with the ILs, in enforces the need for cannons early in GAs, with the Uhu and Bsh both having 2x20mm at tier four. In contrast, I leave off the 20s until tier six. (XSB2D-1) I'll be trying to stay as true to the current as possible, as I believe an ordinance-based line is possible, but this reonsideration will likely will require a major overhaul of the bottom half of the line, and may be a bad portent for future DBs.

 

Still, while waiting for the edits and/or the forums borking all the code in the OP, here's a partial snapshot of my current list of planes, along with a speed comparison sheet: https://drive.google...iew?usp=sharing


I never said I was good.

USA needs GA too.


Autolycus7 #68 Posted 04 March 2015 - 08:35 AM

    Feedback Airedale

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 2 battles
  • 1,744
  • Member since:
    10-24-2012

I think you've put more research effort into understanding a proper placement of American planes into WoWP than the entire Persha development team.

 

They really need to hire somebody that understands American aviation...


Mountains are OP. Nerf plz.
Vis consili expers mole ruit sua.
Dignum laude virum Musa vetat mori, cœlo Musa beat.

Raindrops #69 Posted 24 May 2015 - 10:59 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

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

So, long time no see. I don't know about being someone who understands American aviation - after all, I'm not even a pilot, just an enthusiast - but I will say that Persha has probably done more research than I in the last couple months.

 

...probably...

 

But! That doesn't mean I haven't been considering what to do with these planes.

As I said last, the German GAs do change things a bit - namely in the DB line - but they also effect the 75mm demi. The 57mm is proven more than effective as a tier VI tool, not to mention the Hs-129, so I'm looking at limiting the 75mm to VI and above in accordance. I was already looking at merging the B-25G into the NA-98X, or rather, merging the NA-98's "true" modules into the elite B-25. That would give me one less paper plane to worry about - and I could properly split off the B-25J below it to have a gun-heavy plane leading into the cannon-armed.  The whole set is also to be up-tiered - it really isn't fair to leave the B-25 on the same tier as the A-20. Close enough in speed, but with more guns, more turrets, and more ordnance. This could put the Grizzly in a bit of a pickle, as it would then face up against the Mixmaster and other, much faster planes, but I have hopes in its maneuverability being enough to bring the autoloading 75mm to bear for a fighting chance.

There is also the Grumman XTB2F and Curtiss XP-71 to consider along the lines of the 75mm, but the former (though it has modules enough that it would be a waste as a premium,) is very close to the NA-98 in performance, and the latter is an excellent high-tier HF candidate, leaving neither in a good spot for the demi-line.

 

The DBs are pretty radically changed as well - the TBD Devastator drops down a tier into the lead position, as well as the Dauntless and Destroyer. This is done to get the guns more properly aligned to tiers, namely drawing 20mms down a bit. There's some gaps being filled by Douglas paper projects, (so much for eliminating one with the NA-98X,) assuming of course I can find some development to draw modules out of.  Paper is substituted in particular as I'm trying to draw the Avenger and other companies' TB/DB projects into an alt line, to debut alongside the new DB line. And then, on top of that, there's the option of getting Curtiss their own complete DB line as well, making for two full and one partial!

Appearance for those three at the moment are as follows:

Devastator > Dauntless > VTB 1939 > XSB2D-1 > D-557 > Skypirate > Skyraider > Skyshark > Skyhawk

XA-2 > Vengance > Buccaneer > XA-41 > XBTK > Mauler > XF8B (Tops out at VIII)

F8C Falcon > SBC Helldiver > Avenger > SB2C Helldiver > XBT2C-1 > XBTC-2 > XSB3C > XF15C > Mighty Midget

 

So yes, a lot of potential, and a fair number of proposals and projects I need to follow up on. The VTBm 1939 is the proposal that lost out to the Avenger, and the D-557 was a pair of studies that have similar powerplant setups to the Skyshark and Skypirate. Curtis is a bit sketchy in the VI-VIII range, and depending on what happens with the XF15C (which I believe I heard hit supertest already) I may be down my IX as well. Still, I'll have to decide on what to finish for the next OP update.

 

Last detail I'm working with is the P-80. I want to move the Shooting Star over to the new Starfire, and will likely tag the F-89C Scorpion on as well. But to do that, I need to plug the hole in the Bell line first, which isn't the greatest due to trying to tie down most high-tier candidates to other companies already. The fact that I'm trying to reconcile the .50-armed X-5 with the 37mm toting XP-83 doesn't help any either. Stuck the Goblin in there for the moment, but the twitchy death egg is probably even further away from the lumbering XP-83 than the X-5 is. Honestly, I'm still hoping I'll stumble across another prototype that can fit the bill.

 

 

 

 

Oh, and I suppose I have taken a look at Grumman/Republic lines as well, but don't expect that in the next update. I'll save those for the Mk.13 prototype tree rather than the Mk.12 And yes, I am working on the twelfth personal "iteration" of this setup. Funny how this once started as one complete line, and two demis, and Mk.13 is looking at four complete new lines (Douglas twins, Douglas DBs, Curtis DBs, Republic,) and five demis. (Bell, Starfighter, Alternate DBs, 75mm, and Grumman - or Vought, I suppose? Grumman would be the new one, but it's Vought that's borrowing the footer.)


Edited by Raindrops, 25 July 2015 - 06:57 PM.

I never said I was good.

USA needs GA too.


FreeFOXMIKE #70 Posted 24 May 2015 - 11:41 PM

    G.A.T.P. (Global Alpha Test Pilot)

  • Member
  • 4960 battles
  • 6,738
  • [332ND] 332ND
  • Member since:
    10-25-2011

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

 

 

silly me took a little reading to see it was a wish list    lol


Edited by FreeFOXMIKE, 24 May 2015 - 11:42 PM.

           332 Virtual  Fighter  Group

 


Raindrops #71 Posted 25 May 2015 - 02:12 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 92 battles
  • 782
  • [EDF] EDF
  • Member since:
    02-05-2012
Well... It is in suggestions, not game discussion or off-topic. (Which is where leaks typically go, depending on validity.) But yeah, it is a wish list. And I wish SO HARD for that 75mm. I don't have the best record with heavy cannons in this game, but still, it's a M1 tank gun. In a plane. Do want.

I never said I was good.

USA needs GA too.


J311yfish #72 Posted 11 August 2015 - 10:31 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2619 battles
  • 1,362
  • [343] 343
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013
Bump to keep out of archive!

Main tech tree projects:   JAPAN    UNITED KINGDOM  •  UNITED STATES    GERMANY  •  USSR  // aircraft to China

Europe tech tree projects:  ITALY    FRANCE    SWEDEN    Finland (skins•  Poland  •  International  //  Retired projects:  China    Brazil

Historical scenarios:  Spanish Civil War (skins•  Invasion of Poland  •  Winter War  •  Continuation War

Map proposals:   Panama Canal    Great Wall of China    Cliffs of Dover   //  Clan:  343 Kokutai  //  Tutorial:  How to ignore forum posts and signatures


BOT_ROCKET #73 Posted 12 August 2015 - 01:20 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 529 battles
  • 663
  • [-WS-] -WS-
  • Member since:
    06-17-2012
There is more effort put into this thread than all of the effort WG has put into the game for the last 5 patches.

Just close your eyes and get ready for the Robo ride of your life.


Mainerd #74 Posted 13 August 2015 - 10:55 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 0 battles
  • 52
  • [DRB] DRB
  • Member since:
    09-04-2014
Is this just a hope thread or is there a US GAA line planned?

Edited by Mainerd, 13 August 2015 - 10:55 AM.


Raindrops #75 Posted 13 August 2015 - 11:23 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

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

Hope thread - it's assumed the US will get a GA line eventually, but updates are slow and, well, noone's really mining for spoilers either. We have no idea when or what US GAs will come to be. These are simply planes/companies/lines I know of that I think would fit the game's current methods of tree-building. (And an additional petition for the 75mm cannon as well.)

View PostJ311yfish, on 11 August 2015 - 10:31 PM, said:

Bump to keep out of archive!

 

Thanks for the assist! I really haven't had time to put towards WoWP/this thread in... Well, three months apparently. Eugh...

 

Last point i left off with was rebuilding in light of German GAs, and while the DBs are straightforward, (though I would like to mine more on the paper projects,) I was hung up on deciding what to do with the 75mms. Simply up-tiering them to bring them in line with where I believe high-caliber guns should be would put the Grizzly at a supreme disadvantage, but simply mashing the B-25s together makes an over-moduled monster and trying to strip out the "J" model brought out unhistoric combinations/low module counts. Not to mention I tried to find a way to mix the XBT2F in and... Things really got out of hand.

I've been in off-season hours for the last few months, but hopefully I'll have time to sit down and properly pick the lines apart come next month.


I never said I was good.

USA needs GA too.


BOT_ROCKET #76 Posted 15 August 2015 - 05:36 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 529 battles
  • 663
  • [-WS-] -WS-
  • Member since:
    06-17-2012
I have a geeling that the pancake and XP-58 are the closest we're going to get to US GAA.

Just close your eyes and get ready for the Robo ride of your life.


J311yfish #77 Posted 21 November 2015 - 01:59 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2619 battles
  • 1,362
  • [343] 343
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013
Bump to keep out of archive!

Main tech tree projects:   JAPAN    UNITED KINGDOM  •  UNITED STATES    GERMANY  •  USSR  // aircraft to China

Europe tech tree projects:  ITALY    FRANCE    SWEDEN    Finland (skins•  Poland  •  International  //  Retired projects:  China    Brazil

Historical scenarios:  Spanish Civil War (skins•  Invasion of Poland  •  Winter War  •  Continuation War

Map proposals:   Panama Canal    Great Wall of China    Cliffs of Dover   //  Clan:  343 Kokutai  //  Tutorial:  How to ignore forum posts and signatures






Also tagged with Douglas, Martin, Curtis, tree, line, dive bomber, GA, Invader, Bell, Airacobra

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users