No love for p- 39 Aerocobra?

[TripRodriguez]

So... this thread blew up in some interesting directions!

 

As for my original topic: I'd be very happy with a P-63 instead of the P-39, whichever would be better for DCS gameplay. My love for this plane by the way is based on features (mid engine, huge cannon, tricycle landing gear) and not performance. I just always thought it was a super cool innovative design (but I'm also a Pontiac Fiero and Chevrolet Corvair fan IRL if you can see the pattern here! Innovative vehicles that were ultimately failures LOL).

 

As for the argument of whether or not the P-39 belongs in Normandy and by extension whether or not the variants of the WWII planes we currently have available belong there, I kinda suspect the WWII planes that were made for DCS so far weren't chosen based on whether or not they'd be in Normandy. The Zero is in the works and pretty sure they weren't in Normandy right? At any rate I wasn't looking at the plane historically fitting into the Normandy setting as a prerequisite, maybe I was wrong i that regard and maybe not. I hope someone eventually makes a P-39 or P-63 for DCS and if they do I'll definitely buy it. On the other hand I can see based this thread why it's unlikely to be selected. =(

 

Lastly let me say I'm very impressed with the knowledge of some of you folks, and I sincerely thank you for the education.

[probad]

there is only one criteria for best in dcs:

 

fidelity.

[NeilWillis]

I never realized that people bought warplanes on moral grounds! I find that a pretty strange criterion given that any weapon is always used to inflict death and destruction.

 

What that has to do with an assessment of the Airacobra is another puzzler!

 

As for the Stuka, read the excellent book Stuka Pilot by Hans Ulrich Rudel, and then comment. And yes, the A-10C was definitely designed around the role that Rudel defined, and the Skyraider was just an interim aircraft that was placed in the role because there was nothing better available at the time. It fulfilled that role incredibly well, clearly, and experiences gained also fed into the A-10C, but the philosophy was born long before Viet Nam.

 

The Airacobra was used to fill gaps, but as a subject for the next module - no thanks. There are far better subjects out there, with more compelling reasons for making them. I see the Airacobra as a better choice than the Pucara of course, as it did play an important role in some theatres, but any number of aircraft should take priority.

 

All airframes have their champions, and I can definitely see why such a strikingly different design would appeal. Like most strikingly different designs however, they are striking because they were not repeated - usually because they were failed concepts.

[Kev2go]

I never realized that people bought warplanes on moral grounds! I find that a pretty strange criterion given that any weapon is always used to inflict death and destruction.

 

What that has to do with an assessment of the Airacobra is another puzzler!

 

As for the Stuka, read the excellent book Stuka Pilot by Hans Ulrich Rudel, and then comment. And yes, the A-10C was definitely designed around the role that Rudel defined, and the Skyraider was just an interim aircraft that was placed in the role because there was nothing better available at the time. It fulfilled that role incredibly well, clearly, and experiences gained also fed into the A-10C, but the philosophy was born long before Viet Nam.

 

The Airacobra was used to fill gaps, but as a subject for the next module - no thanks. There are far better subjects out there, with more compelling reasons for making them. I see the Airacobra as a better choice than the Pucara of course, as it did play an important role in some theatres, but any number of aircraft should take priority.

 

All airframes have their champions, and I can definitely see why such a strikingly different design would appeal. Like most strikingly different designs however, they are striking because they were not repeated - usually because they were failed concepts.

 

correction A10A. A10C was not around in 1977, it reached IOC in 2007.

 

and yes they asked Rudel for advice, but apart from the Guns against tanks the A10A didnt quite operate as Ju87 dive bomber. DIve angles arent set in stone, especially when youve got a HUD with CCIP or CCRP assistance. The Ju87 was designed at a time when much simpler technology existed, and when aircraft didnt carry as much ordinance. So ultimately due to the technology difference the tactics werent quite the same . ultimately Its Maverick Missiles were responsible for far more tank kills in the gulf war than its guns.

 

A10C can be used more like a standoff mid level precision bomber with C model introduced, the precision engagement upgrades. The reason it got this upgrade package was to keep it relevant, because today the traditional idea fF CAS ( low n slow, traditional dive bombing) has become Niche. It just isn't really practical in a non permissive environment. Its a better idea to not get hit in the first place and attack from a longer stand off range where its harder to hit you.

 

the old fashioned CAS only works well if the enemy has nothing more than small arms to shoot back at you.

 

while the A1 may have been a interim solution for the AIr force, however the A1 had been in service since 1946 in the US navy. this thing was still arguably its prime when it first made its combat debut in the Korean war.

Edited January 10, 2017 by Kev2go

[Krupi]

Right, thankyou!

 

@silverdragon,

 

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

 

As was the Spit XIV ;)

[Krupi]

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

 

Interesting I don't ever recall reading a statement to that affect, who posted it?