Author Topic: new cargo plane (Read 646 times)

meerlin · « **on:** January 09, 2007, 01:42:01 PM »

the ju 352 was a better cargo plane than the c-47 at least when some cherry pickers come to attack it it could fight back with its tail gun
accual ww2 specs ar below

Year deployed -1943
Wing span, m 34.2
Lenght, m 24.6
Height, m 5.75
Wings area, m2 128.30
Weight, kg
- empty aircraft 13500
- maximum take-off 19600
Engine 3pe bmw bramo 323r -2
Power, hp 3 y 1200
Maximum speed, km/h 370
Cruising speed, km/h 300
Range, km 3000
Combat range, km 1800
Rate of climb, m/min 315
Service ceiling, m 6000
Crew 4-5 (5 rear gunner)
Useful load: 4300kg freight
Armament: - 1 cannon MG-151/20 in HD-151/2

http://www.airwar.ru/enc_e/cww2/ju352.html

Yoshimbo · « **Reply #1 on:** January 09, 2007, 01:49:28 PM »

Junkers Ju 352 Herkules

Ugly-As-Sin

damn:

atleast it can defend itself though!!!

I say yes, it wold be a fun alternative to the C47:aok

EDIT: i've found other sources that say it was not only armed with the tail gun metioned above, but also two MG 131s mounted in beam windows.

meerlin · « **Reply #2 on:** January 10, 2007, 12:21:38 AM »

there r also the earlier versions that had guns as well ..1933 and 1942 versions those planes not quit as ugly as this one heheh but this one had the better guns to def with:lol

..but like would make for interesting bit of action attack it

Spikes · « **Reply #3 on:** January 10, 2007, 04:30:45 PM »

if we get that, maybe when you come within 6K, it could say, "Cargo"

then maybe within 2.5k, it says the actual plane type, that way, say a spit 1 woul;d go for a c47, but maybe not a junkers cause of the tail gun

my opinion

Wes14 · « **Reply #4 on:** January 10, 2007, 04:45:32 PM »

that plane looks like crap,but the guns will help..but heres my lil tactic in a c-47
(NOT RECOMENDED)
-If a enemy plane is on ur butt and ur going slow slam the flaps down/anything else that will slow u down and let them crash into u:D most of the time with my luck i take a lil damage (or explode/die)

Spikes · « **Reply #5 on:** January 10, 2007, 04:59:18 PM »

ur crazy wes, we need a very early verson if a AC-47, but cram all those guns in t3h back, i'd be klike a 130mm gun, lol

Wes14 · « **Reply #6 on:** January 10, 2007, 05:29:28 PM »

130mm..on the tail...dam the M1Abrams tank doesn't have a 130mm on it

what u wanna use a 130mm to rocket into a tree on take off?

and the weight on the tail would make it a pain in the butt to fly(not to mention evasion maeuvering:huh

Spikes · « **Reply #7 on:** January 10, 2007, 08:31:36 PM »

OOZ662 · « **Reply #8 on:** January 10, 2007, 09:58:32 PM »

Balance is an issue in the cases of "better" planes. Any cargo plane that gets added will carry exactly what the C-47 does to keep the current troop/supply balance in check.

RAIDER14 · « **Reply #9 on:** January 10, 2007, 10:23:30 PM »

troop transport facts

OOZ662 · « **Reply #10 on:** January 10, 2007, 11:14:44 PM »

No, that's a retarded Quizno's commercial from forever ago.

Spikes · « **Reply #11 on:** January 11, 2007, 06:16:04 AM »

it would carry the same, but maybe junkers could be a bit slow, but have a tail gun, would that even it out?