Second World War Era Aircraft Wish List

[NeilWillis]

+111

 

OK, going slightly OT here, please bear with me. From the top of my head if memory serves:

 

The VVS used Airacobras to a good effect on the Eastern front, but it wasn't used much in the Western theater. The USAAF, however, operated them in the Pacific, but the results there were bad. The main reason for its poor success was Bell leaving out an engine supercharger, and thus totally nerfing its high-altitude performance.

 

The Russians were able to use the plane effectively, because most Eastern Front air fighting happened low where the lacking supercharger didn't matter. Every operator of the plane, however, commented on its vicious spinning characteristics, which were caused by the mid-fuselage engine placement and subsequent CoG problems. All in all, the bird could've been an excellent fighter, but always suffered from poor design decisions that were never rectified.

 

PS. As you can probably see, this bird was one of my all-time favorites in IL-2

 

It strikes me that the Airacobra was a very poorly designed aircraft. Engine position, poor performance at any reasonable altitude, and what were those doors about?

[20thBG_Blackwolf]

While the P38 does get a lot of attention(there is one in every aviation sim out there) There is nothing really Special about it.

 

Fixed :) sorry that was bugging me.

[Art-J]

+111

 

OK, going slightly OT here, please bear with me. From the top of my head if memory serves:

 

The VVS used Airacobras to a good effect on the Eastern front, but it wasn't used much in the Western theater. The USAAF, however, operated them in the Pacific, but the results there were bad. The main reason for its poor success was Bell leaving out an engine supercharger, and thus totally nerfing its high-altitude performance.

 

The Russians were able to use the plane effectively, because most Eastern Front air fighting happened low where the lacking supercharger didn't matter. Every operator of the plane, however, commented on its vicious spinning characteristics, which were caused by the mid-fuselage engine placement and subsequent CoG problems. All in all, the bird could've been an excellent fighter, but always suffered from poor design decisions that were never rectified.

 

PS. As you can probably see, this bird was one of my all-time favorites in IL-2

 

Just for the sake of nitpicking (or making sure tech vocabulary is used properly) it was missing turbocharger, dropped from initial project, while one stage mechanical supercharger was indeed there, as an integral part of V-1710 engine (or any big pitston engine from that era, for that matter). Single stage was clearly not quite enough.

 

I'd love to have a P-38, not sure however how the problem of assigning two MAP levers and two RPM levers to single HOTAS controller would be solved. There are throttle quadrants available on the market, but they're quite expensive. Maybe toggling between engines via a button click, like in Il-2 series? I don't think current DCS code supports something like that, could be modified though.

Edited September 11, 2014 by Art-J

[msalama]

it was missing turbocharger

 

Yeah, you're entirely correct, should've been more precise with my little blurb up there.

[WinterH]

Although, generally, I've always liked Axis side warbirds more, I appreciate USAAF fighters for being quite multirole : besides being good fighters, they are also pretty damn good ground attackers too, sometimes as good or even better than dedicated ground attack craft used by other other countries.

 

P-38 is one of the most adaptable aircraft in this respect, it turns well and can dogfight with most single engine fighters, it can be a high speed high alt heavy fighter / interceptor, and it can be either a direct attack or dive bombing strike aircraft, it's among the few WW II fighters with a dive brake, should be nice to dive bomb with.

 

As for the P-39, actually I fid it to be one of the most beautiful Allied warbirds :D it can be quite agile too, but yeah, high alt and departure characteristics leaves quite a bit to be desired, and being a early to mid-war aircraft, it would suffer against later warbirds available in sim. 37mm cannon sould be interesting too.

 

Slightly off topic may be, but since I mentioned periods of WW II, I like mid war period of 41-42, may be 43 ish most for air combat. Fighters of the both sides tends to be lighter and more agility oriented in this period.

[Hood]

The P39 underwent trials with No601 squadron around early 1942 but it killed some pilots in quick succession and was deemed unreliable and not suitable for operations.

 

In my opinion it wouldn't be appropriate to have it in a '44 Bormandy scenario.

 

Hood

[Echo38]

While the P38 does get alot of attention(theirs one in every aviation sim out there) theirs nothing really Special about it.

 

Please, be honest. There's never been a flight sim featuring the P-38. Oh, sure, bunch of flying games have portrayed it (very poorly), but there's never been a high-fidelity sim with a P-38. The Lightning receives far less attention than the P-51 and the Spitfire, and perhaps even less than the Me-109.

 

As to "nothing special about it," I'm perplexed; there are so many things about the P-38 that were unique to it, more of them than most aircraft. It was a singular, highly-unusual design -- revolutionary, even -- the likes of which was never seen before nor since.

Edited September 12, 2014 by Echo38

[gavagai]

Oh lord

don't give me a P-39

she'll tumble and roll

and dig a big hole

Oh lord

don't give me a P-39

[arglmauf]

I too would love to see the Lightning. Love that plane since Aces of the pacific:) But before that, I think the bomber lovers should get some attention first. We need them too in the game:)

[pakfront]

The P-38 is a beaut, but if I was looking for a two engine fighter-bomber that fits in with the current mix, I sure wouldn't mind a Mosquito. Given that we may have multi-seat working soonish, it would really shine if some effort is put into nightfigter radars and searchlights.

[nervousenergy]

P-38 all the way. I'd pay a lot to fly that beautiful plane with a two engine PFM simulation. IIRC, the old IL2 engine didn't do true multi engine flight dynamics at all.

[Soulres]

Please, be honest. There's never been a flight sim featuring the P-38. Oh, sure, bunch of flying games have portrayed it (very poorly), but there's never been a high-fidelity sim with a P-38. The Lightning receives far less attention than the P-51 and the Spitfire, and perhaps even less than the Me-109.

 

As to "nothing special about it," I'm perplexed; there are so many things about the P-38 that were unique to it, more of them than most aircraft. It was a singular, highly-unusual design -- revolutionary, even -- the likes of which was never seen before nor since.

And their isnt alot of high quality WW2 Aviation sims out there Featureing American Aircraft.and the 109's get more attention because most Sims are European.While the P38 was diffrent, it really wasnt that great.only thing notiable is that is the plane that Americans learned what 'Compression' Was when youd dive too fast.(rip those pilots who died in testing phases)

 

Now if you put in say,Douglas A-1 Skyraider,which was the last of an Era for CAS roles. thats more Significant, the P38 to me just doesnt have enough to it awe inspiring as a Simulation,kinda like the F86f, Its simple to learn, Simple to fly. has little quirks but takes afew hours to master, Compared to the P51D or FW109 which take days to get how the plane handles in turns,speeds,landing take off going from minimum weight to maximum.

but if you want a twin engine that badly(I want a 4 engine plane/jet) why not the A-26 invader?

[Teapot]

Hear-hear! The mozziquito would be great. However the Bristol Beaufighter would be greater!

 

For a bomber, I believe a Lancaster and Wellington would be most welcome. After they're done the B-17 would be superfluous to requirements .. joking of course .. although, maybe not :pilotfly:

[SAM77]

So was the camel! :megalol:

 

Clarence Kelly Johnson

 

Go look him up:thumbup:

[FraserNZL]

The P-38 is a beaut, but if I was looking for a two engine fighter-bomber that fits in with the current mix, I sure wouldn't mind a Mosquito. Given that we may have multi-seat working soonish, it would really shine if some effort is put into nightfigter radars and searchlights.

 

we are getting a mosie mate VEAO is doing 2 variants i think

[Weta43]

the P-39 was actually used, but it was meant for Anti-Vehical Purposes and the Unted States didnt really use it as multi-Roled Aircraft was PRiority.

 

Maybe, but it was a successful A2A fighter - just in a specific role:

The Soviets used the Airacobra primarily for air-to-air combat[56] against a variety of German aircraft, including Bf 109s, Focke-Wulf Fw 190s, Ju 87s, and Ju 88s. During the battle of Kuban River, VVS relied on P-39s much more than Spitfires and P-40s. Aleksandr Pokryshkin, from 16.Gv.IAP, (16th Guards Fighter Aviation Regiment) claimed 20 air victories in that campaign.[57] Pokryshkin, the second-highest scoring Allied ace (59 air victories plus six shared)[58] flew the P-39 from late 1942 until the end of the war (though rumors exist that he changed in late 1944 to a P-63 Kingcobra).

I suspect it might be enough people flying around at altitudes in DCS to let some people end up 'aces' in this aircraft

[ZaltysZ]

I suspect it might be enough people flying around at altitudes in DCS to let some people end up 'aces' in this aircraft

 

P-39 has adequate performance up to 4000m. Yes, it would suck as strategic bomber escort or interceptor, but if you are hunting or covering tactical bombers/ground attack aircraft, then P-39 is a nice tool to do the job. Eastern front featured lots of ground action and CAS, so P-39 did very well there. It would be the same in DCS with ground war based missions.

Edited September 13, 2014 by ZaltysZ

[llama]

yeah....the 38 would eat up my flight time

[Vampyre]

we are getting a mosie mate VEAO is doing 2 variants i think

 

The two variants VEAO are doing (Mk IV and Mk XVI) are both Fast Bombers, not Fighter Bombers. That means no guns. I'm hoping for someone to do a Fighter Bomber Mk VI version which relates more directly to the mission set of the P-38 Lightning.

[westr]

I wouldn't mind trying a lightning. I think it would be very interesting. I remember reading about pilots who became accustomed to the lightning would operate the throttles independently to perform unusual manoeuvres. Sounds interesting to me. The lightning probably wasn't that regarded in the European theatre of ops but had many very successful pilots in the pacific and definitely played its part in the outcome of ww2. Let's not write it off.

[SAM77]

Richard Bong

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Bong

[Demon]

I'm absolutely positive it's already been said here, but the P-47 Thunderbolt would be great as our ground attack fighter.

[Goanna1]

So was the camel! :megalol:

 

So was the Devil if you believe the literature

[PE_Tigar]

P-38 was special - twin engine, twin boom, yoke/steering wheel, 2xturbochargers, all armament in the nose (one cannon and four MGs), long range, high speed, etc. etc. I'd love to have it. However - its combat record in Europe is somewhat... how shall I put it... crappy, due to its poor dive characteristics mostly. In Normandy, however, I'd expect it to be used mostly as a fighter bomber, there's historical record for it.

 

P-39 has nothing to do in Normandy, but it had an excellent combat record in VVS, and flew in North Africa and Southern Europe. As did A-36 for that matter.

 

BTW - P-51 B and Cs would be great for Normandy too.

[Barrett_g]

The P-38 didn't do to well in the Europe theater.... But I would like to see some twins made: