The elimination of the Heavy Fighter was a disservice.

[Androbey]

The consolidation of the Heavy fighter into the Medium Airframe may have reduced the coding of air combat, etc., in the front end.
But it IMO is seriously flawed. Most Heavy fighters were at most midway between the size of the Small Airframe of Fighters and the Medium Airframes of Tactical or Medium Bombers.
1) it also caused the elimination of some fighter modules used that were actually used, ex.: Drop Tanks & Armor plates.
Armor Plate on (Med) Airframe: -10% range, Air Def. +6, Weight +4.
Armor Plate on (Smi) Airframe : -10% range, Air Def. +4, Weight +2.
Extra fuel tanks (Med) Airframe: +15& range, Air Def -6, Weight +4
Extra fuel tanks (Sml) Airframe: +15% range, Air Def -2, Weight +1
Drop Tanks on (Sml) Airframe: +300 kM, Weight +2

Just being able to add Drop Tanks on a designed Heavy Fighter would be useful. You are already giving up +2 Air def & +2 weight.

Once you place Fighter weapons in the First slot you should have access to all fighter modules.

 

[goodcigar]

When you create a Heavy Fighter in the Plane Designer it doesn't even tell you. It just says "Fighter". "Heavy Fighter" is literally missing. It only shows you in the Production screen. The Plane Designer in general is a major disappointment. Needs a huge amount of work imo.

 

[FindFloppies]

You can still build long range 2-engine fighters on small airframes, using the extra weight allowance for more fuel tanks. You don't really need much more in the way of weapons, and a P-38 didn't take any more pilot armor than a Wildcat. That would give you drop tanks as well.

Just don't get stuck on the 'Heavy Fighter' name. You can name a plane anything you want. I'm likely to name planes <plane similar to what I'm building at that time> <month/year>

 

[Nephandus]

Fun part: most twin engine medium bombers were not or only slightly larger than twin engine multicrew heavy fighters. In fact some of them had heavy fighter/night fighter variants. And then you have the rare breed of single seat twin engine fighters like the P38 and the Whirlwind.

 

[Caeric]

Fun part: most twin engine medium bombers were not or only slightly larger than twin engine multicrew heavy fighters. In fact some of them had heavy fighter/night fighter variants. And then you have the rare breed of single seat twin engine fighters like the P38 and the Whirlwind.

I just realised there are only like a handful more single-seaters if you exclude early jets. Even ones without defensive armament having navigators or other secondary crewmen.

 

[FindFloppies]

I just realised there are only like a handful more single-seaters if you exclude early jets. Even ones without defensive armament having navigators or other secondary crewmen.

Yeah, most 'heavy fighters' were up-gunned medium bombers, from the Blenheim to the Mosquito, for example. The Beaufighter was nominally a fighter, but not in the way a P-38 was. A P-61 was a night fighter, but it was a bomber-killer, not a 'real fighter'. The Bf-110 had a rear gunner; we know what the Ju-88 and the Do-17 fighter variants were originally built as. The Japanese Ki-45 was a 2-seater, but didn't have the performance to do much more than kill bombers.

Of course, before the plane designer, the US 1940 'Heavy Fighter' was a single-engine plane: the P-47.

So, there's plenty of room to build examples of any kind of 'Heavy Fighter' you want, from the P-38G to the Beaufighter X with torp racks. They just won't necessarily have the 'Heavy Fighter' name.

Having said all that, it does annoy the hell out of me that I can't build a medium-airframe PBY w/o putting guns in the first slot, making it a 'Heavy Fighter'.

(Since it's the US, and I'll need the range later, anyway, I just build large-airframe MPs instead...)

 

[Caeric]

Yeah, most 'heavy fighters' were up-gunned medium bombers, from the Blenheim to the Mosquito, for example. The Beaufighter was nominally a fighter, but not in the way a P-38 was. A P-61 was a night fighter, but it was a bomber-killer, not a 'real fighter'. The Bf-110 had a rear gunner; we know what the Ju-88 and the Do-17 fighter variants were originally built as. The Japanese Ki-45 was a 2-seater, but didn't have the performance to do much more than kill bombers.

Of course, before the plane designer, the US 1940 'Heavy Fighter' was a single-engine plane: the P-47.

So, there's plenty of room to build examples of any kind of 'Heavy Fighter' you want, from the P-38G to the Beaufighter X with torp racks. They just won't necessarily have the 'Heavy Fighter' name.

Having said all that, it does annoy the hell out of me that I can't build a medium-airframe PBY w/o putting guns in the first slot, making it a 'Heavy Fighter'.

(Since it's the US, and I'll need the range later, anyway, I just build large-airframe MPs instead...)

It's interesting though that most major nations seem to have dabbled in the idea of a single-seat twin engine.

Germany had the Do 335 Pfeil. Italy the Ro.57.
Japan had one or two prototypes like the Ki-96.

Which makes sense for a dedicated interceptor/fighter to keep the weight at a minimum.