Aircraft list (and possible additions, in historical context)

[BrotKasting]

@343KKT_Kintaro Looks like, the gauge in the MiG-15 shows the rpm (Oborotij) in 0 to 15 times 1000 rpm. Found a youtube video from the Norwegian Air force historical squadron, showing the instrument panel. I hope, this helps.

BTW: Not sure about links to products from competitors...

Edited December 1, 2025 by BrotKasting

[Dash,Polder]

3 hours ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

 

6000 RPM? How could a gauge mesure the RPM in a jet fighter? (true question, I'm not being sarcastic).

Can be measured off a tac generator cycles frequency.

[Mysticpuma]

On 11/25/2025 at 11:32 AM, Avimimus said:

Skyraider:

- AD-1/AD-2: Less engine power and lower weight. It has only 2x20mm cannons and half the bombload of the AD-4. But the AD-2 can fly 74 km/h faster, climb 20% faster (competitive with all piston engine fighter other than the F4U-4 and Yak-9P), fly 3000 metres higher, and achieve a longer range.

- AD-4: Much higher weight and more engine power. A higher power to weight ratio. Twice the armament, but 74km/h slower, poor climb rate and ceiling, and reduced range.

I'd like to see the Skyraider make an appearance, summarised perfectly here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A-1_Skyraider

 

[Dora]

6 hours ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

 

Aren't RPM (revolutions per minute) supposed to apply to piston engines? (not to jet engines). In a jet engine, the actual number of RPM is too high, allegedly not on display on the on-board gauges. But I can't be sure, I'm no expert. What gauges do we find on a MiG-15 dashboard and what do they show? Any expert out there? Any one?

 

 

How would you know the revolutions of the turbine blades in a jet engine without a tachometer? Especially in these old jet engines, where there is significant lag between low RPM and where turbine engines like to be and give the most power: High RPM

The real question will be if they have modelled the difference between the lag of the axial-flow engine in the F-86, versus the lazier, but more powerful and reliable Nene/VK-1 combustion chambers. 

Edited December 1, 2025 by Dora

[Avimimus]

2 hours ago, Dora said:

How would you know the revolutions of the turbine blades in a jet engine without a tachometer? Especially in these old jet engines, where there is significant lag between low RPM and where turbine engines like to be and give the most power: High RPM

The real question will be if they have modelled the difference between the lag of the axial-flow engine in the F-86, versus the lazier, but more powerful and reliable Nene/VK-1 combustion chambers. 

 

[343KKT_Kintaro]

👍

[Turbo-Mouse]

On 11/30/2025 at 12:54 PM, Avimimus said:

Didn't concerns about the risk of the radar being captured mean that the F-94 was largely used for defensive patrols, with relatively little combat? Feel free to pitch it to me. I've already been convinced that it'd be really cool to fly the Seafire Fr.47 (even if only 115 ground attack sorties were flown by it, and it saw very little aerial combat).

I think the restrictions on the F-94 were lifted in late 1952/early 1953? Escorting B-29s due to the toll night time MiG-15 intercepts were having on them?

[Turbo-Mouse]

10 hours ago, Avimimus said:

 

At 18:23 - 18:30, isn't the image shown for the "J42-P-8 Jet Engine" actually an Allison J33? It has the distinctive 14 narrower combustion cans compared the wider 9 combustion cans of the RR Nene/J42 design.

[Avimimus]

1 hour ago, Turbo-Mouse said:

At 18:23 - 18:30, isn't the image shown for the "J42-P-8 Jet Engine" actually an Allison J33? It has the distinctive 14 narrower combustion cans compared the wider 9 combustion cans of the RR Nene/J42 design.

Could be the case. The video editors are not the same as the engineers (who clearly know the difference). Thank you for pointing it out though!

 

2 hours ago, Turbo-Mouse said:

I think the restrictions on the F-94 were lifted in late 1952/early 1953? Escorting B-29s due to the toll night time MiG-15 intercepts were having on them?

Ah, interesting! I also just learned that the F2H had superior performance to the F9F in a number of areas (including climb rate)! I'm learning a lot, and it is quite nice to.

[Duggy]

One aircraft not mentioned.

Photo taken off the Korean coast.

Edited December 2, 2025 by Duggy

[Nearlymen]

A-Ha ! the Short Sunderland, the RAF contribution for the Britsh as opposed to the more familiar FAA (Fleet Air Arm), it would be nice to see it. Escorting it with Sea Furys in and out of theatre with the threat of NK Yaks would be a fun scenario !

 

[Mysticpuma]

On 11/25/2025 at 11:32 AM, Avimimus said:

Skyraider:

- AD-1/AD-2: Less engine power and lower weight. It has only 2x20mm cannons and half the bombload of the AD-4. But the AD-2 can fly 74 km/h faster, climb 20% faster (competitive with all piston engine fighter other than the F4U-4 and Yak-9P), fly 3000 metres higher, and achieve a longer range.

- AD-4: Much higher weight and more engine power. A higher power to weight ratio. Twice the armament, but 74km/h slower, poor climb rate and ceiling, and reduced range.

This aircraft really should be essential.

[gecko]

To me it would make sense for the five aircraft to all be naval. We already know two of them are. But with five aircraft you can cover it quite well.

AD-4 (or one of the earlier variants)

F4U-4

F9F-2

Firefly Mk.IV

Sea Fury FB.11

That would represent naval aviation quite well and add a new nationality to the mix. You wouldn't be stuck with a half-formed element of the war that lacked enough aircraft to tell the story.

There would still need to be more to fill in the war - later F-86s, early MiG-15, B-26, Meteor, but one step at a time. Since we know it will be at least partly naval, I hope they will flesh that aspect out properly.

[Hoss]

6 hours ago, gecko said:

To me it would make sense for the five aircraft to all be naval. We already know two of them are. But with five aircraft you can cover it quite well.

AD-4 (or one of the earlier variants)

F4U-4

F9F-2

Firefly Mk.IV

Sea Fury FB.11

That would represent naval aviation quite well and add a new nationality to the mix. You wouldn't be stuck with a half-formed element of the war that lacked enough aircraft to tell the story.

There would still need to be more to fill in the war - later F-86s, early MiG-15, B-26, Meteor, but one step at a time. Since we know it will be at least partly naval, I hope they will flesh that aspect out properly.

We'll need an Essex Carrier, and an RN carrier. If we don't get any of those, at least the Marines flew Corsairs and Panthers from shore. 

The USS Essex and the HMS Ocean would be nice additions, because I'd love to fly the Skyraider and Sea Fury. 

[Stratos]

What I dont get is the pay a lot for five mistery planes that you may like or not. Is there any hint of those planes could be? Are carriers confirmed?

[CaptainFlemme]

On 12/5/2025 at 2:04 AM, Hoss said:

We'll need an Essex Carrier, and an RN carrier. If we don't get any of those, at least the Marines flew Corsairs and Panthers from shore. 

The USS Essex and the HMS Ocean would be nice additions, because I'd love to fly the Skyraider and Sea Fury. 

At least one of them seems to be in the work, a US carrier appears on a screenshot of DD47. It might be the Essex 🙂 : 

 

[Avimimus]

3 hours ago, Stratos said:

What I dont get is the pay a lot for five mistery planes that you may like or not. Is there any hint of those planes could be? Are carriers confirmed?

In some of the Briefing Room conversations they've said work is progressing on carriers and hinted at it. A carrier also appears in that screenshot. We've also had the F9F confirmed and seen screenshots of the F4U4.

But, no, nothing is really confirmed until there is an official announcement. I don't think anyone would consider it unreasonable to wait until then to make the purchase. Some of us are quite willing to show an unreasonable trust in the developers because they've genuinely produced excellent products in a very consistent way, but that is definitely our choice.

I'm pretty sure what two of the other aircraft are but a lot of that comes from guesswork and inferences based on a couple of comments by the devs and 'what would make sense'... so I won't share. 🙂

 

On 12/4/2025 at 6:58 PM, gecko said:

To me it would make sense for the five aircraft to all be naval. We already know two of them are. But with five aircraft you can cover it quite well.

AD-4 (or one of the earlier variants)

F4U-4

F9F-2

Firefly Mk.IV

Sea Fury FB.11

That would represent naval aviation quite well and add a new nationality to the mix. You wouldn't be stuck with a half-formed element of the war that lacked enough aircraft to tell the story.

There would still need to be more to fill in the war - later F-86s, early MiG-15, B-26, Meteor, but one step at a time. Since we know it will be at least partly naval, I hope they will flesh that aspect out properly.

 

I agree that is the perfect list for carriers. We could really do with the Firefly as at least a static object.

However, I have strong doubts about the Firefly. The developers have never expressed interest in flying the aircraft. It's performance falls somewhere between the lighter AD-1 and the overloaded AD-4... falling much closer to the AD-1, but still with slightly lower performance overall. So I think an F2H or Spitfire FB.47 (even though they only flew 115 ground attack sorties during the war) are more likely if we get another carrier aircraft.

An outside chance would be the F7F-3N... although that would require the SCR-720 radar (which is simple enough they could pull it off - also opening the way for an F-82G someday)... but that is probably even more unlikely!

It could well be that the fifth aircraft will be a land plane instead of the Firefly.

[LuftManu]

An F-82G would be a dream! Even more if it were a testbed for radar.

Kind regards!

[Avimimus]

2 hours ago, LuftManu said:

An F-82G would be a dream! Even more if it were a testbed for radar.

Kind regards!

When I originally pitch the F-82G - I pointed out that they often had their radars removed when used for ground attack - so there is a period of about five months where one wouldn't need to model the radar at all.

However, the radar is essentially identical to the F7F, P-61, and Mosquito... so one gets a lot of benefit from modelling it. It was very simple to operate - and if one only models the pilot cockpit it is even simpler: I think three range lights, and one scope showing azimuth and elevation... The F7F and P-82 also were designed with separate cockpits where the pilot couldn't see the radar operator - so it is possible to just model the pilot's scope.

Of course, knowing the devs, they might want to do a lot more work to get the physics right - but it definitely is surprisingly feasible overall.

[Dash,Polder]

I have doubts the five are going to be carrier specific or that being the focal point, simply no evidence they've gone into stage two with any sort of carrier addition.  They're still deep in stage one, an initial release that's already been pushed back.    

No reason to spotlight and speculate on Naval birds only. 

 

[Stratos]

Is curious that the Banshee is not high on those lists.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Join the F82 Cult! Enlist now!!

[Dash,Polder]

Wouldn't that rock, duel control for two in a two player slot.  Gimme the stick, I see something left, no I got something off the right I'm tracking.

Bet you can't grease this landing as good as I did as you silently slip the trim wheels slowly to the extremes.

[King_Arthur]

3 hours ago, Dash,Polder said:

I have doubts the five are going to be carrier specific or that being the focal point, simply no evidence they've gone into stage two with any sort of carrier addition.  They're still deep in stage one, an initial release that's already been pushed back.    

No reason to spotlight and speculate on Naval birds only. 

 

ALL the five maybe not, but LukeFF already hinted on one of the planes being from a country they’ve not reveiled yet (So that could only be Britain, no?) and a carrier WAS teased in a video quite recently

 

i’m speculating Seafire/Sea Fury 😎

Edited December 6, 2025 by King_Arthur

[Avimimus]

2 hours ago, King_Arthur said:

i’m speculating Seafire/Sea Fury 😎

In one of the Briefing Rooms the devs talked very highly about the Sea Fury. It also served multiple tours (whereas the Seafire Fr.47 served only one). So, my bet would be on the Sea Fury.