Jump to content


Planes you would like to see


  • Please log in to reply
55 replies to this topic

Mattis_Santos #21 Posted 28 December 2021 - 05:18 PM

    Senior Airman

  • Member
  • 1164 battles
  • 24
  • Member since:
    04-12-2021
plus it had supersonic performance in a dive

12_inch_Hawk #22 Posted 28 December 2021 - 06:14 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 38397 battles
  • 1,167
  • [GW__S] GW__S
  • Member since:
    06-02-2018

View PostMattis_Santos, on 28 December 2021 - 12:08 PM, said:

would be fun if we gave something to do to the torpedo bombers

Torpedo bombers still carried bombs for ground attack.  Just look at the TBM Avenger.  George Bush was shot down while hitting a radio tower.  The TBM-3 had wing hard points to carry rockets as well as bombs in the bomb bay.  It could carry 4 x 500lb bombs internally.  The TBM-3M could launch Tiny Tims.  Later models of the TBF/TBM omitted the cowl-mount synchronized 0.30 caliber (7.62 mm) gun, and replaced it with twin Browning AN/M2 0.50 caliber (12.7 mm) light-barrel guns, one in each wing outboard of the propeller arc, per pilots' requests for better forward firepower and increased strafing ability.  After the US gained naval supremacy they were mostly used to bomb and strafe islands in the ground attack role during the island hoping campaign.  

 

If the game gave the Avenger 4 x 500lb bombs and 8 x HVAR's with a good reload time it would make a pretty good GA at tier 7.  Compared to the IL-8 the Avenger had less guns but more payload, slightly higher service ceiling but slightly less speed,  It was probably more maneuverable and only slightly less rugged.   


Edited by 12_inch_Hawk, 28 December 2021 - 06:26 PM.


12_inch_Hawk #23 Posted 28 December 2021 - 11:09 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 38397 battles
  • 1,167
  • [GW__S] GW__S
  • Member since:
    06-02-2018

Here is what I think a TBM Avenger would look like as a tier 7 GA;

 

  il-8 il-10 me265 TBM Avenger
gun armament 54 31 21 11
front 2 x 45mm 2x 7.62 2x 23mm 2 x 20mm 2x 7.62 2 x .50
turret 1 x 20mm 1 x 20mm 4 x 13mm 1 x .50, 1 x 7.62
bombs and rockets 31 31 13 44
  2 x fab250 2 x fab250 2 x SC250 4 x 500lb
  8 x rockets 8 x rockets 2 x 30mm guns 8 x HVAR's
survivability 35 26 25 31
gross weight 16,887 lb 13,966 lb 24,251 lb 15,536 lb
airspeed 27 36 44 28
cruise   190 mph   215 mph
max 294 mph 342 mph 419 mph 278 mph
maneuverability 19 29 25 35
wing area 420 sq ft 322.9 sq ft 480 sq ft 490 sq ft
wing loading 40.21 lb/sq ft 43.25 lb/sq ft 50.52 lb/sq ft 31.71 lb/sq ft
altitude performance 4 6 9 7
service ceiling in game 5,259 ft 5,577 ft 6,234, ft 5,800 ft
service ceiling 21,000 ft 18,000 ft 31,200 ft 22,600 ft
 

The text in bold is in game numbers, all other numbers are real life.  It is hard to equate real life to in game because who knows where WG gets its numbers from.  For example the Me 265 has vastly higher wing loading than the IL-8 so should be less maneuverable not more but it is a twin engine so has more power to pull through the turn.  The IL-10 has a lower service ceiling than the IL-8 in real life (at least according to Wikipedia) but it is the opposite in game.  The Me 265 gets half of its real life payload but gets wing mounted 30mm cannons instead.

 

The Avenger has a similar service ceiling to the il-8 and il-10 but slightly better.  It has a higher cruise speed compared to the Il-10 but a lower max speed.  The guns are pitiful but the huge payload should make up for it if it gets a similar reload time.  A gun equipment slot should also help a little bit.  It is heavier than the il-10 but not as heavy as the il-8 so its survivability should be somewhere in between.  The lower wing loading of the Avenger should make it the most maneuverable GA at tier 7.   It would still not be nearly as maneuverable as the least maneuverable tier 7 multirole fighter, the P-47N.  That makes sense because it was even heavier than the P-47


Edited by 12_inch_Hawk, 28 December 2021 - 11:26 PM.


CorvusCorvax #24 Posted 28 December 2021 - 11:27 PM

    Colonel

  • Member
  • 7229 battles
  • 8,512
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Post12_inch_Hawk, on 28 December 2021 - 06:14 PM, said:

  Compared to the IL-8 the Avenger had less guns but more payload, slightly higher service ceiling but slightly less speed 

Considering how slow the IL-8 is, that would make the TBM almost intolerable.

The IL-8 on a map like Cold Peak is insufferable because of how long it takes to get anywhere.


I might not be King of the Hill, but I am the Prince of Potatoes.

fredfredburger86 #25 Posted 28 December 2021 - 11:29 PM

    Airman Basic

  • Member
  • 1330 battles
  • 5
  • Member since:
    02-13-2013

P-61A BLACK WIDOW night fighter/heavyfighter. They can make a few a/b/c versions of it. I like this plane I built the revell-monogram model of it in 1:48 scale beautiful plane.

I also want a Poland Tech Tree by itself like in tanks and not "Europe" that is mixed with France, Israel, etc...

Poland had a decent number of planes before ww2 even such as this even in wikipedia:

 

List of 1939-1945[edit]

(Built vs Used in Combat)

Fighters[edit]

Light/Tactical Bombers[edit]

Medium/Heavy Bombers[edit]

Reconnaissance/Close Support aircraft[edit]

Trainers[edit]

Transports[edit]



12_inch_Hawk #26 Posted 28 December 2021 - 11:32 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 38397 battles
  • 1,167
  • [GW__S] GW__S
  • Member since:
    06-02-2018

View PostCorvusCorvax, on 28 December 2021 - 06:27 PM, said:

Considering how slow the IL-8 is, that would make the TBM almost intolerable.

The IL-8 on a map like Cold Peak is insufferable because of how long it takes to get anywhere.

Not necessarily I couldn't find info on the IL-8's cruise speed but since it is slower than the IL-10 I am assuming its cruise speed is as well.  That would mean the Avenger would have a much higher cruise speed than the IL-8 and only slightly less boost speed.  On a map like cold peak the higher cruise speed would mean the Avenger would actually get around the map quicker than the IL-8.



12_inch_Hawk #27 Posted 29 December 2021 - 12:04 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 38397 battles
  • 1,167
  • [GW__S] GW__S
  • Member since:
    06-02-2018

View Postfredfredburger86, on 28 December 2021 - 06:29 PM, said:

I also want a Poland Tech Tree by itself like in tanks and not "Europe" that is mixed with France, Israel, etc...

Poland had a decent number of planes before ww2 even such as this even in wikipedia:

There are a few problems with that.  First it would take away resources from finishing the tech trees of existing major nations like UK, US, and Japan for obscure planes that are less popular among non Polish players and historically built in less numbers.  Second If Poland had a decent number of planes before WW2 how would you fill out the tech tree from tier 4 up?  



CorvusCorvax #28 Posted 29 December 2021 - 12:51 AM

    Colonel

  • Member
  • 7229 battles
  • 8,512
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Post12_inch_Hawk, on 28 December 2021 - 11:32 PM, said:

Not necessarily I couldn't find info on the IL-8's cruise speed but since it is slower than the IL-10 I am assuming its cruise speed is as well.  That would mean the Avenger would have a much higher cruise speed than the IL-8 and only slightly less boost speed.  On a map like cold peak the higher cruise speed would mean the Avenger would actually get around the map quicker than the IL-8.

Ahhh, thank you.  Yes, higher cruise would make it acceptable at T7.  Maybe between the Me-265 and the IL-8.  Actually, maybe between the IL-10 and the Me-265...


I might not be King of the Hill, but I am the Prince of Potatoes.

12_inch_Hawk #29 Posted 29 December 2021 - 12:54 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 38397 battles
  • 1,167
  • [GW__S] GW__S
  • Member since:
    06-02-2018

View PostCorvusCorvax, on 28 December 2021 - 07:51 PM, said:

Ahhh, thank you.  Yes, higher cruise would make it acceptable at T7.  Maybe between the Me-265 and the IL-8.  Actually, maybe between the IL-10 and the Me-265...

The Avenger did have a higher cruise speed than the il-10.  Il-10 was 190 mph and the Avenger was 215 mph.  So it is between the il-10 and the Me-265.  It is only the Avengers top speed that is lacking.  



12_inch_Hawk #30 Posted 29 December 2021 - 02:24 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 38397 battles
  • 1,167
  • [GW__S] GW__S
  • Member since:
    06-02-2018

View PostMattis_Santos, on 28 December 2021 - 12:08 PM, said:

would be fun if we gave something to do to the torpedo bombers

Another example is the B5N Kate "torpedo" bomber during the attack on Pearl Harbor.  Only 40 planes in the first wave were armed with torpedoes while all the rest were armed with bombs.  49 in the first wave (that were still targeting ships) and 54 in the second wave, 103 total B5N "torpedo" bombers were armed with bombs not a torpedo.  Bombs were much more commonly used than torpedoes even when targeting ships.



J311yfish #31 Posted 29 December 2021 - 02:56 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 8035 battles
  • 1,691
  • [343] 343
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013

New Aircraft You Would Like to See In Game (2014)

Raindrops USA tech tree project (2014)


Edited by J311yfish, 29 December 2021 - 03:09 AM.

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 // History of World of Warplanes

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


jack_wdw #32 Posted 29 December 2021 - 01:18 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 4681 battles
  • 1,224
  • Member since:
    09-28-2012

View PostMattis_Santos, on 28 December 2021 - 05:08 PM, said:

would be fun if we gave something to do to the torpedo bombers

http://forum.worldof...er-iv-tier-vii/


This account is the family car, my other car is wack007@eu

crzyhawk #33 Posted 01 January 2022 - 05:20 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 8040 battles
  • 1,850
  • [3D_MI] 3D_MI
  • Member since:
    05-08-2015

View Post12_inch_Hawk, on 28 December 2021 - 06:10 AM, said:

tier US bombers US multirole US GA UK bombers UK GA Japan GA Japan Bomber Japan multirole
2             G3M Nell ki 3
3           D1A Susie ki 21 Sally ki 32 Mary
4 PBY-5 catalina   devastator wellington swordfish B5N Kate ki 48 Lily ki 36 Ida
5     dauntless stirling albacore D3A Val G4M Betty ki 51 Sonia
6   hellcat helldiver halifax baracuda D4Y Judy ki 67 Peggy ki 44 Tojo
7   bearcat F8F-1 avenger lancaster spearfish B6N Jill P1Y Frances N1Ki-J George
8 B-29 bearcat F8F-2 skyraider valiant firebrand   G8N Rita  
9 YB-35 panther skyshark victor wyvern   G10N  
10 YB-49 cougar skyhawk vulcan buccaneer    

 

premiums 

B-25H
B-24 Liberator
P-63 kingcobra
CF-100 canuck
Ju 52
HP 52
Fw 200

I'd really like to see the USN Grumman fighters removed from the multi-role...role.  They were primarily fighters, and should be represented as much.


 


wylleEcoyote #34 Posted 02 January 2022 - 10:02 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 12145 battles
  • 1,721
  • [ALAS] ALAS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Postcrzyhawk, on 01 January 2022 - 12:20 PM, said:

I'd really like to see the USN Grumman fighters removed from the multi-role...role.  They were primarily fighters, and should be represented as much.

You arent wrong ... but if your light fighter can carry ordnance you are a Multirole in this game. 


Fair warning. My success rate at speculative guesswork is on par with my WinRate. Hit or Miss.
 I start on the right track and then sometimes make a weird left turn and get lost in the weeds ... 

Specialist Planes earned: Japan, USA, UK, Germany, USSR, Europe
Light Fighters:  Germans? All of them. I-17Yak-1MiG-3, La-5
Ki-5/8/10/27/43-I/43-II, A4N, A5M, A6M1/2/3/5, Hurricane Ia, Bristol 146, Spitfire I/Ia/Vb IM, DH.100 F1,
F2A-1,P-23/36/36C/39N-1/40 /51 A/D/H, XF15CXP-31/36F/55, YP-29Hawk 75M, Model 81A-1,  

MultiRole Fighters: Type 91, P-12/26/35/43, XP-44/72, P-47B/N, F11C-2, F2A, F4F/U-1, 
Rule Britannia, Deutschland uber alles, I-5/15/16(e)(l)

Heavy Fighters: F5F, P-38 F/J, XP-54/58/75, F7F, P-82 B, Beaufighter/ V,  All of zeGermans, Tu-1, SE 100,

Attack Aircraft: BSh-2, All of zeGermans, Wirraway
Bombers: B-17 G, Do 17 Z / 217 M, He 111 H2, Ju 288 C, EF 131, Pe-2 

 


Dennez #35 Posted 02 January 2022 - 12:19 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 2078 battles
  • 544
  • [COD-] COD-
  • Member since:
    09-25-2021

the devastator sucked.and our torpedoes sucked as well.

 

most of our torpedoes didnt even detonate and most of our pilots flying the devastator were shot down.

the dauntless however was a great bomber and fighter= multi-role.


Edited by Dennez, 02 January 2022 - 12:22 PM.

just a man with a big rooster.

J311yfish #36 Posted 02 January 2022 - 09:04 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 8035 battles
  • 1,691
  • [343] 343
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013

Quick overview of Japanese bombers below

 

 

It would be a mistake to try and mix/match bombers together from both Army and Navy, for at least 3 reasons:

- 1) it isn't necessary -- they can each get to VII or VIII on their own

- 2) different requirements -- Army preferred higher defensive armament, for example

- 3) differentiation vs. existing bombers -- pick the one from Japan that offers the greatest difference to Germany, U.S.S.R., and eventually U.K.  The major playable difference would be the ability to deliver bombs from afar (via Ohka for IJN, or I-Go for IJA).


Edited by J311yfish, 08 January 2022 - 06:03 AM.

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 // History of World of Warplanes

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


12_inch_Hawk #37 Posted 02 January 2022 - 09:33 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 38397 battles
  • 1,167
  • [GW__S] GW__S
  • Member since:
    06-02-2018

View PostJ311yfish, on 02 January 2022 - 04:04 PM, said:

Quick overview of Japanese bombers below

 

 

It would be a mistake to try and mix/match bombers together from both Army and Navy, for at least 3 reasons:

- 1) it isn't necessary -- they can each get to VII or VIII on their own

- 2) different requirements -- Army preferred higher defensive armament, for example

- 3) differentiation vs. existing bombers -- pick the one from Japan that offers the greatest difference to Germany, U.S.S.R., and eventually U.K.  The major playable difference would be the ability to deliver bombs from afar (via Ohka for IJN, or I-Go for IJA).

The only Japanese bomber I care about is the betty so I will defer the rest to you.



J311yfish #38 Posted 09 January 2022 - 04:54 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 8035 battles
  • 1,691
  • [343] 343
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013

 

 

U.K.

bombers

Japan

interceptors (IJA)

Japan

interceptors (IJN)

Germany

interceptors

Europe

U.S.A.

bombers

II            
III Whitley (Tiger, Deerhound)      

Fiat CR.42

Gloster Gladiator (Mercury)

 
IV Wellington (Pegasus, Hercules, Merlin)          
V Stirling (Hercules) Nakajima Ki-44-I (Ha-41)        
VI Halifax (Hercules, Merlin) Nakajima Ki-44-II (Ha-109) Mitsubishi J2M (Kasei)   Savoia-Marchetti SM.89  
VII Lancaster (Merlin, Griffon) Kayaba Katsuodori (Ne 20) Kawanishi N1K2-J (Homare)      
VIII Windsor (Merlin, Griffon, Clyde) Ki-200 Nakajima Kikka (Ne 130) Me 163 Komet   B-29/50
IX Vulcan B.1 (Avon, Sapphire, Olympus) Ki-202-I Kugisho R2Y2 Keiun Me 263 Scholle   YB-35
X Vulcan B.2 (Olympus) Ki-202-III Kugisho R2Y3 EF 127 Walli   YB-49

 

I remain hopeful for the following, and this order of introduction makes sense to me:

 

1 -- U.S. flying wing bombers

2 -- rocket-powered interceptors for Germany or Japan

3 -- U.K. bombers

4 -- mid-tier interceptors to bolster Japan

 

I am also partial to 'anything from Europe' because I like the option of being able to move them around.

-- Fiat CR.42 and Gloster Gladiator are both significant, and both had an export market so giving them to Europe for horizontal transferability could be fun

-- SM.89 is a mid-tier, big-gun, attack aircraft with a turret; horizontal transferability would give it to U.K., U.S., Japan, countries that otherwise do not have an attack aircraft

 

Regarding the Katsuodori, it began as a ramjet fighter, but was proposed also to use the Ne-20 (early jet engine used in Kikka), or Toku-Ro 2 (rocket engine used in J8M).  Using the Ne-20 makes sense for balance and provides variation from Kostikov 302 at same tier.  The Kikka as an interceptor was projected to use Ne-130 (as found on Ki-162-I and J7W2).


Edited by J311yfish, 09 January 2022 - 03:52 PM.

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 // History of World of Warplanes

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


crzyhawk #39 Posted 09 January 2022 - 11:34 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 8040 battles
  • 1,850
  • [3D_MI] 3D_MI
  • Member since:
    05-08-2015

View PostwylleEcoyote, on 02 January 2022 - 05:02 AM, said:

You arent wrong ... but if your light fighter can carry ordnance you are a Multirole in this game. 

Take the bombs off and let them be the fighters they were born to be.  Mustangs could carry bombs as well, but nobody's trying to force them into a MR line.  P-40s spent more of the war being used as MR than they did as fighters, and were arguably better MR than they were pure air-to-air fighters.

 

The problem is, the Corsairs are /certainly/ a MR fighter and needed a /line/ so they got the Brewsters and Grummans and they created a USN line rather than a Grumman line and a Vought line.  They only Grumman that really carried any ordnance on anything resembling a regular basis, the F6F isn't even in game.


 


crzyhawk #40 Posted 09 January 2022 - 11:43 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 8040 battles
  • 1,850
  • [3D_MI] 3D_MI
  • Member since:
    05-08-2015

View PostDennez, on 02 January 2022 - 07:19 AM, said:

the devastator sucked.and our torpedoes sucked as well.

 

most of our torpedoes didnt even detonate and most of our pilots flying the devastator were shot down.

the dauntless however was a great bomber and fighter= multi-role.

The Devastator wasn't nearly as bad as people make it out to be.  It was the second best torpedo bomber in the world in 1941, behind only the B5N Kate.  The Kate would have been murdered just as badly if employed like the TBD was at Midway, against Zeroes without fighter protection.  People talk about the greatness of the Swordfish, but I'd rather fly against the Kido Butai in a Devastator than a Swordfish.


 





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users