Jump to content
[Pb]Cybermat47

What are you looking forward to the most in Battle of Normandy?

Recommended Posts

On 5/19/2020 at 3:05 PM, Feathered_IV said:

Amiens Prison included on the map...

 

57e27cd6c4c840d96ed4c0e1a93153db.jpg.1db4d0c3aa1e5fe820a26918634d733a.jpg

 

In respect of the Amiens Raid, I hope that the game engine allows for individual perimeter walls to be damaged / destroyed rather that the whole building. As you know the raid was designed to take out the prison walls so that the prisoners could escape. I don't think there are individual wall objects in the mission designer yet. A small detail I know but quite an important one.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

I think there'll be a lot of 109s having their AS handed to them...

 

Screenshot_20200526-103157.thumb.png.f53f80e43649ed8cd10062c542d0a856.png

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I'm really looking forward to almost everything. The Me-410, Mosquito, Griffon Spitfire, Razorbacks and Fw 190 A6 are my highlights 😄 It breaks my heart that the Skytrain and the Marauder are AI only. (I have hope that they will implement them fully in the future.)  The Ju-88 C6 could be also quite interesting.  What I'm looking forward to most will be the channel map, which will hopefully inspire some earlier scenarios in the MP.

 

I'm sorry but I can't make a more restricted selection 😄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, No145_Bunny said:

 

In respect of the Amiens Raid, I hope that the game engine allows for individual perimeter walls to be damaged / destroyed rather that the whole building. As you know the raid was designed to take out the prison walls so that the prisoners could escape. I don't think there are individual wall objects in the mission designer yet. A small detail I know but quite an important one.

 

Would be a cool mission. I love this plane:

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mosquito, mosquito, mosquito, typhoon, and another mosquito

And I actually sat as a small child and watched them filming some of 633flight scenes. Love at first sight

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Honestly, there isn't a bad choice in the whole lineup. All these planes are going to be awesome. My only maybe is the 109. If it's just the same old 3d model again, that will be a disappointment. If they revamp it in the same manner as the D9 and Yak-9s, I think it will quickly become a favorite. Imagine a 109 cockpit with the new modeling and texturing style... Mmmmmm...

23 hours ago, 216th_LuseKofte said:

this is why we bomber jockeys mention it is ok with a B26/25 with ai only gunners but with a bombardier cockpit as often as we possible can. 

This x100. Screw modeling the gunner positions (on big bombers). Leave the gunners ai only. Model the cockpit and bombardier positions only. That's all you need to fly bombers.

Edited by Danziger
  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Danziger said:

Screw modeling the gunner positions (on big bombers). Leave the gunners ai only. Model the cockpit and bombardier positions only. That's all you need to fly bombers.

 

As cool as turrets are, this definitely makes sense to me. Utilization of the current gunner positions by players has got to be pretty low.

 

Aside from trolls that jump in people's planes for the purpose of deliberately shooting the tail off 🤣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, MattS said:

 

As cool as turrets are, this definitely makes sense to me. Utilization of the current gunner positions by players has got to be pretty low.

 

Aside from trolls that jump in people's planes for the purpose of deliberately shooting the tail off 🤣


Or just one gunner position. In MP it often happens when you fly as a group that someone gets shot down and then it’s nice if you can enter another plane as gunner and continue the mission. But I agree, a lot of gunner positions are quite useless anyway (side gunner, belly gunner) with very limited field of fire.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SYN_Vander said:


Or just one gunner position. In MP it often happens when you fly as a group that someone gets shot down and then it’s nice if you can enter another plane as gunner and continue the mission. But I agree, a lot of gunner positions are quite useless anyway (side gunner, belly gunner) with very limited field of fire.

You are of course right. 
But I just try to leave a opening fir them to make it cheaper. 
in my point of view A 20 would have been perfect with a bombardier cockpit. 
If we replaced the gunner position with that and moved bomb aiming to that position your mate will have a job to do

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I'm not really happy by getting "only" a 109G6 "Late", I really don't see how the AS/M can be added as a mod to the G6. The engine covers were totally different between the G6, and the G6/AS/M versions. The AS/M ones were redesigned to be more streamlined.

 

Having said that, I would love to see the AS/M, as a high-altitude fighter. As some said here, we could go and simulate/create more operations with the Normandy map than just the invasion.

 

If we do get just the G6 "Late" at lease add the GM-1 mod to it, for high altitude performance.

 

Having more options means that servers can tailor their mission sets better, and not stick to just June/July 1944.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, SYN_Vander said:


Or just one gunner position. In MP it often happens when you fly as a group that someone gets shot down and then it’s nice if you can enter another plane as gunner and continue the mission. But I agree, a lot of gunner positions are quite useless anyway (side gunner, belly gunner) with very limited field of fire.

 

Absolutely...the dorsal turret on the He-111 or Peshka would have been plenty!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SYN_Vander said:


Or just one gunner position. In MP it often happens when you fly as a group that someone gets shot down and then it’s nice if you can enter another plane as gunner and continue the mission. But I agree, a lot of gunner positions are quite useless anyway (side gunner, belly gunner) with very limited field of fire.

 

 

Yeah for S&G I jumped in a few planes gunners position. Most are like trying to shoot and kill elephant that moves like a jackrabbit with a .38 pistol. The only exception was the Bf 110. One burst with that gun and I turn a plane into a flaming pile of junk. 

 

However, it would be fun to get a bunch of bombers and have gunners with fighter escort and have a group attack the formation. it would be interesting to see how that would turn out. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mossie could be nice 

 

 

Mossies Prelude to Peace.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 56RAF_Stickz said:

mosquito, mosquito, mosquito, typhoon, [mosquito] and another mosquito

 

Fixed that for you mate ;)

 

27 minutes ago, Heliopause said:

Mossie could be nice 

 

Could? Could be nice? World's greatest airplane could be nice:umnik2:

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, busdriver said:

Could? Could be nice? World's greatest airplane could be nice:umnik2:

 

They’re talking about the Mosquito, not the Bob Semple tank (such a good tank that it’s also the best aircraft).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, [=PzG=]-FlyinPinkPanther said:

 

 

109 

You have to have at least one German fighter and it is my understanding that it was a different; it had the Erla Hood, and a larger tail (according to Wikipedia). It doesn't appear to be a simple modification to me. According to the same article, it was the second most produced variant. (tied with the other G-6). There is a slightly earlier "late G-6) with just the addition of the Erla Hood, but these would have been phased out by the later one by the time of Normandy. (Guessing, I am not an expert). 

The majority of G6 Lates did not have the taller tail unit (Depended each factory, as each factory had differences. Erla made a slightly different 109 to Regensburg, suppose it could be a mod I guess). It was a fairly simple modification (the erla haube, and mw50 that is) as it was done in the field to already existing G6's. They didn't have to produce an entirely different G6... if that was the case it the late G6 would've had a new variant name. 

20 hours ago, 41Sqn_Skipper said:

 

I assume the "whining" for AS/ASM engine is mainly caused by the "average" performance that the Bf 106 G6 with a regular DB605 engine will have compared to the relatively strong opposition in early/mid 1944. The allied fighters in early/mid 1944 have mostly the same - or even slightly more - performance compared to what we have now in end 1944/1945. 

How do earlier 1944 allied aircraft have better performance then late 1944 ones? Especially once 150 oct comes in. It's not like the 1941-42 situation for German where they had to implement the lack luster G2 after the F4... 

 

Also the "whining" for a AS/ASM engine is the fact that they were present in large enough numbers to constitute representation in the game. Not to mention, its a modification for the G6/14 in game to give it better high alt performance against its allied adversaries who enjoy much much better high alt performance. It's not like were talking a huge mod, its essentially an different engine on the same airframe. The "average performance" of the 605 in 1943 is now quite a disadvantage by mid 44 and its not too insane to ask for a simple engine upgrade that was historically used, and in numbers. 

 

I should mention I'm not arguing against similar mods for allied aircraft either. I fly both sides and value competitive aircraft on each side. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, SCG_Sinerox said:

How do earlier 1944 allied aircraft have better performance then late 1944 ones? Especially once 150 oct comes in.

 

The late 44 "bubble canopy" version of P47 and P51 are slighlty slower than the early 1944 "Razorback" version due to higher drag. Spitfire XIV is obviously better than Spitfire IX. Typhoon is not really the earlier counterpart of Tempest, as Typhoon was a pure fighter bomber at that time and Tempest didn't carry bombs until May 1945. And Tempest was already available prior D-Day.

Today 150 octane is often unavailable as it was only available later on the continent. It was however available for squadrons based in UK in mid 1944, so basically the 150 octane situation is the same for Normandy and Bodenplatte scenarios: Sometimes it's available, sometimes not.

 

So a slightly better performance in the earlier scenario because of the "Razorback" and the fact that the Spitfire XIV is not yet available in the later scenario. Luftwaffe has no K-4, no D-9 and no G-14 available in the earlier scenario, so they certainly have a only lower performing aircraft available in the first half of 1944 compared to the second half of 1944.

 

12 minutes ago, SCG_Sinerox said:

Also the "whining" for a AS/ASM engine is the fact that they were present in large enough numbers to constitute representation in the game. 

 

Bf 109G-6 ~5000+ 1943 February-1943 August - October
Bf 109G-6 with Erla Hood ~2000+ 1943 August-October - 1944 January
Bf 109G-6 with Erla Hood,
larger tail, and MW-50
~5,000+ 1944 January - 1944 July
Bf 109G-6/AS with MW-50 226 produced + 460 converted 1944 April - 1944 August

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Bf_109

 

10% of G-6 "Late" received AS engine and 5% of all G-6 Early and Late combined. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC 150 octane became available and field modifications started on the P-51's and P-47's in late May 1944

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, 41Sqn_Skipper said:

 

The late 44 "bubble canopy" version of P47 and P51 are slighlty slower than the early 1944 "Razorback" version due to higher drag. Spitfire XIV is obviously better than Spitfire IX. Typhoon is not really the earlier counterpart of Tempest, as Typhoon was a pure fighter bomber at that time and Tempest didn't carry bombs until May 1945. And Tempest was already available prior D-Day.

Today 150 octane is often unavailable as it was only available later on the continent. It was however available for squadrons based in UK in mid 1944, so basically the 150 octane situation is the same for Normandy and Bodenplatte scenarios: Sometimes it's available, sometimes not.

 

So a slightly better performance in the earlier scenario because of the "Razorback" and the fact that the Spitfire XIV is not yet available in the later scenario. Luftwaffe has no K-4, no D-9 and no G-14 available in the earlier scenario, so they certainly have a only lower performing aircraft available in the first half of 1944 compared to the second half of 1944.

 

 

Bf 109G-6 ~5000+ 1943 February-1943 August - October
Bf 109G-6 with Erla Hood ~2000+ 1943 August-October - 1944 January
Bf 109G-6 with Erla Hood,
larger tail, and MW-50
~5,000+ 1944 January - 1944 July
Bf 109G-6/AS with MW-50 226 produced + 460 converted 1944 April - 1944 August

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Bf_109

 

10% of G-6 "Late" received AS engine and 5% of all G-6 Early and Late combined. 

 

Well, according to that table, if we go by numbers, we should be getting the G-6 with Erla Hood, larger tail and MW-50, which is the not yet standardized G-14.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SCG_Sinerox said:

The majority of G6 Lates did not have the taller tail unit (Depended each factory, as each factory had differences. Erla made a slightly different 109 to Regensburg, suppose it could be a mod I guess). It was a fairly simple modification (the erla haube, and mw50 that is) as it was done in the field to already existing G6's. They didn't have to produce an entirely different G6... if that was the case it the late G6 would've had a new variant name. 

How do earlier 1944 allied aircraft have better performance then late 1944 ones? Especially once 150 oct comes in. It's not like the 1941-42 situation for German where they had to implement the lack luster G2 after the F4... 

 

There is a couple of issues. If field changes was the case, then why do we have production numbers for G6's with the modification? The article makes a distinction between production and conversions. Do you have a source that state that refutes the article? 

 

According to the article, over 5000 "Late" G6's had the larger tail. The way this works, if I provide a source that states "x" then you need to have a source that states "x" is incorrect. You cannot just blatantly say a source i wrong without a source to dispute it. I am assuming you are not an aircraft engineer and have personal knowledge of the 109. You have yet to prove this is the case. I am not an expert myself and i will never claim to be so, but If I have one source saying one thing, you going to have to provide something to at least cast doubt. I am not going to believe you because "you said so." 

 

The reality of the problem is that these games are created in a vacuum. They design for you to have a "career.." The older G6 would be inaccurate. It makes "zero" marketing sense to take a "collector Plane" had a "free" modification and include it in the next release. Whether or not they could just do a modification isn't the issue. There is already a 190 that change be change to a different variant. It is not as tough the 'Late" G6 is a collector or premium plane. it is par of the base game. it is what was flown at the time. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 109G6/AS is part of the G6 Late lineup and were used by the several hundreds across several different fighter wings beginning in June 1944 (maybe sooner?) You can't build an accurate campaign for many of the JGs and omit them.

 

It's part of the typical G6 Late fighter branch. There is no real debate to be had regarding it's historic place.

 

Since doubt/confusion as to it's inclusion in the sim it would be good to have a direct answer from the developers what their intention is: Will you be modelling the G6/AS in Battle of Normandy or will you be omitting it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I would like the most is the capacity of the game to accept in one mission, the D-day re-enactment. With hundreds of boats to not say thousands, and a bunch of planes in the same place.

If I could ask for another dream, it would be to have C-47 towing a glider. Could be useful for Normandy scenarios, but also for Market-Garden ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, CUJO_1970 said:

The 109G6/AS is part of the G6 Late lineup and were used by the several hundreds across several different fighter wings beginning in June 1944 (maybe sooner?) You can't build an accurate campaign for many of the JGs and omit them.

 

It's part of the typical G6 Late fighter branch. There is no real debate to be had regarding it's historic place.

 

Since doubt/confusion as to it's inclusion in the sim it would be good to have a direct answer from the developers what their intention is: Will you be modelling the G6/AS in Battle of Normandy or will you be omitting it?

 

 

"one Gruppe in France after the invasion was underway and then were in France for about 2 weeks"

 

Technically the AS could be difficult to create as a mod: the skin would need to contain 2 different engine cowlings.

 

I'm not going further into this, there is no point discussing it as numbers used is not an important factor for inclusion in the sim. 

Edited by 41Sqn_Skipper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully the prospect of bombing Weymouth

 

(My hometown) 😆😆

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, i_r_olav said:

Hopefully the prospect of bombing Weymouth

 

(My hometown) 😆😆

 

Why? Were Weymouth FC relegated out of National League South? Poor buggers. :o:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, DN308 said:

What I would like the most is the capacity of the game to accept in one mission, the D-day re-enactment. With hundreds of boats to not say thousands, and a bunch of planes in the same place.

If I could ask for another dream, it would be to have C-47 towing a glider. Could be useful for Normandy scenarios, but also for Market-Garden ones.

 

That definitely would be pretty cool.  But don't you think of Pips Priller and his wingman as depicted in The Longest Day?  Those two weren't the only Luftwaffe pilots aloft over the beaches, but they were amongst a very few.

 

I'm not much of a ground attack pilot, but I'm definitely anxious to get my hands on an Arado 234.

Edited by SeaSerpent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎28‎/‎2020 at 6:44 AM, 216th_LuseKofte said:

in my point of view A 20 would have been perfect with a bombardier cockpit. 

@216th_LuseKofte....it's not perfect but you could try the A-20 navigator Mod. I think its ok and it's the only Mod I run

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, 41Sqn_Skipper said:

I'm not going further into this, there is no point discussing it as numbers used is not an important factor for inclusion in the sim. 

 

I´m pretty sure it will be close to Bremspropellers proposal here in the quoted thread, because release of that G6 (late) will be late in the BoN cycle. Otherwise we would already have seen it as a G14 minus MW 50 and 605AM engine replaced with the 605A.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, gn728 said:

@216th_LuseKofte....it's not perfect but you could try the A-20 navigator Mod. I think its ok and it's the only Mod I run

Would you tell us more about that mod?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
51 minutes ago, DN308 said:

Would you tell us more about that mod?

this is what its called - its in with the mods       [MOD] Mannable navigator position in A-20B

By Murleen, August 17, 2018 in Mods

Sorry I didn't copy the link properly, but that's what its called..

A-20.jpg

Edited by gn728
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

id love a slightly higger res  bomber station even if unuseable.

 

just fantastic views!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, gn728 said:

@216th_LuseKofte....it's not perfect but you could try the A-20 navigator Mod. I think its ok and it's the only Mod I run

Is there a mod?

Edited by 216th_LuseKofte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/28/2020 at 7:49 PM, [=PzG=]-FlyinPinkPanther said:

 

There is a couple of issues. If field changes was the case, then why do we have production numbers for G6's with the modification? The article makes a distinction between production and conversions. Do you have a source that state that refutes the article? 

 

 

Ok, so a bit to unpack here. G6 late with mw50,erla haube, and larger tail was produced... I don't think I ever refuted that. I did say " It was a fairly simple modification (the erla haube, and mw50 that is) as it was done in the field to already existing G6's." This is true as to the 109 G6. Erla haube is as difficult as replacing the canopy, and the mw50 would require the AM version of the DB 605 instead of the DB 605 A which the regular G6 used. Then you would need to install a MW-50 tank  and connect it up to the supercharger intake as it would spray mw50 into the intake. Pretty easy system to set up. (For someone I consider an expert on the system 12:57 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PA70pN6zPM). I don't personally have any sources, so remain skeptical of my claim sure. But I'd like to redirect you to 

where this topic was discussed heavily with many many sources given. Many people point out as I would tend to agree that 109 G6 were converted to 109 G6 late. Hell G2 were converted to G4s (Different but you get my point). Even Greg in the video I post mentions it was a relatively simple conversation and many aircraft were converted to later models with MW50.

700~ G6 AS were made. For some context thats enough to equip 3 and a half Jagdgeschwaders at full strength with G6 AS.

 

Skipper table that he posted from Wikipedia even shows that G6 were converted to AS

 

On 5/28/2020 at 6:02 PM, Raven109 said:

 

Well, according to that table, if we go by numbers, we should be getting the G-6 with Erla Hood, larger tail and MW-50, which is the not yet standardized G-14.

And thank god!!! someone understands why the G6 late is basically a G14...

Edited by SCG_Sinerox
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spitfire Mk.XIVe. And possibly a bit of Typhoon, but mainly Spitfire Mk.XIVe.

 

Taxiing and landing will be fun. No, really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a historical point of view, a late build of the 109 G6 makes sense. The Luftwaffe's fighter force was absolutely ill-equipped to deal with its western opponents when Overlord began, not just in terms of numbers. There is some merit in recreating that scenario faithfully, and it is not like we did not get our online-competitive late '44 Luftwaffe fighters already.

 

I admit it is very sad that the G6AS was not included, though. It would have made a great collector's aircraft since it was there (far more so than the great but not so fitting Ar234), it was not insignificant at all, and it would generate some sales imo.

 

As a sidenote, other than the G10, the G14AS is one of the few remaining late war high performance fighters of the Luftwaffe, and there are some intresting, not yet done scenarios in which it could be used.

The G6AS on the other hand... if you do not bring it in a Normandy scenario, where/when do you want to bring it at all? It is a bit of a wasted opportunity.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, SCG_Sinerox said:

Ok, so a bit to unpack here. G6 late with mw50,erla haube, and larger tail was produced... I don't think I ever refuted that. I did say " It was a fairly simple modification (the erla haube, and mw50 that is) as it was done in the field to already existing G6's." This is true as to the 109 G6. Erla haube is as difficult as replacing the canopy, and the mw50 would require the AM version of the DB 605 instead of the DB 605 A which the regular G6 used. Then you would need to install a MW-50 tank  and connect it up to the supercharger intake as it would spray mw50 into the intake. Pretty easy system to set up. (For someone I consider an expert on the system 12:57 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PA70pN6zPM). I don't personally have any sources, so remain skeptical of my claim sure. But I'd like to redirect you to 

where this topic was discussed heavily with many many sources given. Many people point out as I would tend to agree that 109 G6 were converted to 109 G6 late. Hell G2 were converted to G4s (Different but you get my point). Even Greg in the video I post mentions it was a relatively simple conversation and many aircraft were converted to later models with MW50.

700~ G6 AS were made. For some context thats enough to equip 3 and a half Jagdgeschwaders at full strength with G6 AS.

 

Skipper table that he posted from Wikipedia even shows that G6 were converted to AS

 

And thank god!!! someone understands why the G6 late is basically a G14...

 

Thanks for sharing the video. I watched that guys videos before. he knows his stuff and he explains it that even the most ignorant of engine mechanics can follow what he is saying. 

 

Just to be honest here. I fly in "combat conditions" all of the 109s and whether or not the differences are small or not, I definitely fly some better than others. G4 being the best thus far. For me the G4 flies "much better" than the G6 even though the performance indicates may suggest otherwise. This is why I am curious on how the G6 late would handle relative to the G6 we have now. By extension, I haven't flown the G14  as well as the G6 and definitely better than the G4. The G14, according to the video and the wiki performed better than the G6 late. 

 

He did mentioned in regards to the G14 field conversions of 'G models," but he didn't go into specifics and wikipedia article would be misleading if it includes field conversion as "production." 

 

It does make you wonder if the development team actually developed a long term plans for development. Based on Jason's interview recently, my guess is that they are "feeling" their way through the content. Anyway, I wonder if offering the G6 as a collector plane was prudent. I understand it was used in Kuban time-frame, but if they knew they were producing a Normandy standalone, they probably should had waited. A counter-argument would be that they still needed it to complete Kuban careers. 

 

Another reason is I portray III./JG77. They never flew the G14 (the inventory had only a few). What they flew was the G6 then switched to the K4. I am guessing, based on the time frame and inventory that they lfew the later models of the G6. This was brought up when TAW did late war scenario The option was G14 for one map and a K4 for the second map, but no G6 for the first map. It would be nice to have the option to fly the G6 rather than the G14 for the hat first map. Yes, I am one of those Historical accurate guys. 

 

In the link provided on the previous discussion, I like what  Bremspropeller stated. 

Quote

 

You know, I'm not the biggest fan of the 109, but why not make the "late G-6" the real clusterduck it was:

 

Give it a normal hood, an Erla hood, a tall tail and the AS engines/ cowling as a mod each. Hardly more stuff than what was done on the A-8 in BoBP.

Coming to think of it: Why not go Full Nelson and do the PX cabin and the GM-1 mixture of the G-5 as well?

 

I know, lots of options to implement, but it would justify a new, "late" G-6 and it wouldn't kill off the early collector's model.

 

 

Giving the "Late 6" more option probably would satisfied the harshest critics. 

 

Thanks for sharing your sources. 

 

 

Edited by [=PzG=]-FlyinPinkPanther

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like a flyable B-26 with a bombardier cockpit too

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hands down Me 410. lots of loadout options, unique cockpit and hopefully a StuVi that can be added to the Ju-87 and Ju-88

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...