Pyro: add armor to A8?

[Fishu]

 

Originally posted by Sorrow[S=A]:
A8 was very popular over A5 as it was faster and had less chance of small arms fire killing the pilot.

I must disagree with the speed, because in all sources that I've read, A-5 is listed to be faster than A-8.
10 to 25mph.. depending alot on source, but matter here is not speed, but that which one is faster.

you forgot to mention that A-8 was more popular for its 4 MG151/20 also which A-5 does not have.


Funked, well, is all US planes made by your charts then?
I doubt not... (lets talk about that E retention side and we find a problem)
190 is fighter, not a bomber.

[Fishu]

..and more problem with B-17s is caused by unlimited use of 100% throttle, when in real life you would find your engines on fire after few minutes at that rate.
Unbelievable that even games from since year 1991 has had overheating caused by full throttle, but not Aces High at time of the high end computers at year 2000.

[This message has been edited by Fishu (edited 08-30-2000).]

[funked]

What are these "sources you've read" Fishu?  Can you state one reason why the A-5 would be faster than the A-8?

[funked]

Jig:  Normal fuel load for a B-17G was 2520 lbs.  2520 * 6 / 100 = 151.2 lb/percent.

[funked]

Santa yes I agree it is a silly situation.  It would probably be worthwhile to force all aircraft to carry maximum internal fuel loads, as was almost always done in the war.  

But bombers in this game are about playability, not about absolute realism.  Think of their defensive gun abilities (Phalanx CIWS) and their bomb aiming capability (B-2 with JDAM).  These two areas make the FM look pretty good by comparison.

[Fishu]

 

Originally posted by funked:
What are these "sources you've read" Fishu?  Can you state one reason why the A-5 would be faster than the A-8?

They seem to have same sources in HTC as well... if I am not completely mistaken that A-5 somehow rides faster than A-8 in AH.
Well, maybe your kind of genie can point out *why* A-8 should be faster? (greater number in version eh?)

[Vermillion]

Funked, its a lost cause. No matter how much factual & historic data you provide, they won't believe you.

How many times have I posted de-classified wartime Focke-Wulf factory test data on the 190D12/D13 that shows its performance is inferior to the D9 in the conditions it would be used in the arena, but they still scream over and over for the D12?

How many times have you posted the RLM documents that show the A8 performance is correct?

How many times have we posted that the 109K4 is statistically identical to the performance we get out of our 109G10, but we still keep seeing "I want a K4" post.

*sigh* its a lost cause  

StSanta, you wrote:

 

I just find it a little amusing, almost laughable, that a standard loaded B17 can outclimb an anti buff fighter from 12k and above, assuming dt on the a8

I need to go back and look at my 190 history (so I could admittedly be wrong), but was the 190 designed as a "anti buff fighter"??

My impression was more that it was a air superiority fighter, principally designed to take on other fighters, and it came about during the earlier period of the war, before the fight went into the stratosphere (ie before the large scale use of the B17).  Hell, the Lancaster (obviously the best of the British bombers) had a service ceiling below 25,000ft.

Now the 190A series did do very well when pressed into service against the daylight bombing campaigns, I won't argue that. But even the Germans realized that it had very poor power above 20k. It was the whole reason for the D9.

Enough from me though, its not worth contributing to my carpal tunnel to go thru this one more time.

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure

[Fishu]

 

Originally posted by Vermillion:
Now the 190A series did do very well when pressed into service against the daylight bombing campaigns, I won't argue that. But even the Germans realized that it had very poor power above 20k. It was the whole reason for the D9.

So, this means that germans must have D9 in order to keep balance with the allies..

[Vermillion]

I have always supported the introduction of the 190D9 at the first opportunity Fishu, no arguements there.

However:

 

this means that germans must have D9 in order to keep balance with the allies

Is not exactly true, what about the 109G10 ? It is very much on a par with a P51 in performance, and exceeds it in some category's. These two aircraft are very balanced againts one another, especially since the G10 is much easier to fly and control now.

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure

[Fishu]

 

Originally posted by Vermillion:
However:

 Is not exactly true, what about the 109G10 ? It is very much on a par with a P51 in performance, and exceeds it in some category's. These two aircraft are very balanced againts one another, especially since the G10 is much easier to fly and control now.

But G10 still performs poorly at high altitudes and its armament surely lacks against buffs... limited fuel also.
and if you grab pods, it will make higher altitudes even harder.

But compared to P-51, it is the plane that I hate to see personally when I am flying P-51.
What goes for P-51 more, is diving capability, fuel and ammo count.
More likely you get 6 kills in P-51 than in 109.
With 109 you more likely run out of ammo or fuel and diving capability sucks if you like high speed BnZ.

Though, 109G10 is very nice plane as long as you have ammunition and fuel. (but I think it has lowest fuel count of any planes, not sure of La-5..)

109s tends to have very stable nose for good shots also, though, not sure whether this is just harder trying and getting closer in or for the stability of pitch. (in 109 I go very close up before I shoot)

[funked]

"But G10 still performs poorly at high altitudes"

I see crack cocaine is a problem in countries other than the USA.    

I agree with you on the fuel problem.  Because of the multiplier, planes with big fuel tanks get an altitude advantage.  This wasn't really the case in WW2.  Climbing to 25,000 feet didn't use a significant amount of fuel.

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 08-31-2000).]

[Duckwing6]

Funny thing that folks still believe that ARMOR on one of these planes is like

"Shields up Mr. Scott we have Klingons incoming..."

The armor in baically all fighters (with a few exemptions like the HS129) was just a few armor plates to protect the vitals like Pilot nad some (just SOME) of the equipment ...

Generaly speaking those planes wer not made to be shot at AND hit .. they survived by NOT getting hit mostly.

Sure there are examples of aircraft coming back with incredible combat damage .. but how many untold examples of the golden BB are there too ?

DW6

[funked]

Not a single piece of armor on the Fw 190A that could stop a .50 cal round at close range.  Pray that it hits the engine block.

[StSanta]

 

These two aircraft are very balanced againts one another, especially since the G10 is much easier to fly and control now.

Odd, I've found it harder to fly since "prop drag" was modelled. The slip to the left after vertical input combined with less vertical stability at low speed firing solutions has made it more challenging to me.

But we're seeing more G10's lately, so you might be right. Might be me.



------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime

[fats]

--- Funked: ---
These two areas make the FM look pretty good by comparison
--- end ---

Kill of HTC awarded to Funked.


//fats