Author Topic: Me 262 with out rockets?  (Read 5899 times)

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: Me 262 with out rockets?
« Reply #15 on: February 09, 2011, 09:44:31 PM »
The R4M rockets were air to air. They were so potent they were to be fitted to a number of 262s. They have been requested and IMO are quite a legitimate addition to our existing 262. They would be interesting, for sure.

Offline fullmetalbullet

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 834
Re: Me 262 with out rockets?
« Reply #16 on: February 09, 2011, 09:49:22 PM »
well this solves one problem if they do add them, lower the perk price for the ME-262 with the rockets and we wont have to perk the B-29 :x lol

+1 :aok
"Cry Havoc, And Let Slip The Dogs Of War" Julius Caesar


Offline Denholm

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9667
      • No. 603 Squadron
Re: Me 262 with out rockets?
« Reply #17 on: February 09, 2011, 09:55:43 PM »
+2

Anything to make them more vulnerable during takeoff. :D
Get your Daily Dose of Flame!
FlameThink.com
No. 603 Squadron... Visit us on the web, if you dare.

Drug addicts are always disappointed after eating Pot Pies.

Offline oakranger

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8380
      • http://www.slybirds.com/
Re: Me 262 with out rockets?
« Reply #18 on: February 09, 2011, 10:10:34 PM »
The R4M rockets were air to air. They were so potent they were to be fitted to a number of 262s. They have been requested and IMO are quite a legitimate addition to our existing 262. They would be interesting, for sure.

I was waiting for you to stop by with your knowledge of Lufftwaff ACs.  Thanks.   :salute  :cheers:
Oaktree

56th Fighter group

Offline lyric1

  • Skinner Team
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10683
Re: Me 262 with out rockets?
« Reply #19 on: February 09, 2011, 10:56:54 PM »
isent the fact that you have 30mm cannons,jet engines, and are the fastest fighter in the game good enough for you?

if we gave the me262 rockets, noone would ever shoot at buffs again. it would be a nonstop rocket barrage.imagine if you were in buffs, you see an me262 on your 6. your in your tailgun, he's 2k out, your training your sights. theeennnn.....-towered- by the rocket he fired at you while still outside your gun range.
That is the exact reason rockets were the number 1 weapon of choice on killing bombers. 30mm were second choice.







http://stormbirds.com/warbirds/tech_r4m_rocket.htm

This is an actual 262 rocket kill.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/21734563@N04/2113721262/in/pool-96389894@N00/



Offline Tyrannis

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3931
Re: Me 262 with out rockets?
« Reply #20 on: February 09, 2011, 11:15:30 PM »
That is the exact reason rockets were the number 1 weapon of choice on killing bombers. 30mm were second choice.

(Image removed from quote.)

(Image removed from quote.)

(Image removed from quote.)

http://stormbirds.com/warbirds/tech_r4m_rocket.htm

This is an actual 262 rocket kill.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/21734563@N04/2113721262/in/pool-96389894@N00/



yes i know. that was in the war tho, when life&death mattered.

this is a game tho, whats the fun of being a buff pilot if you allways get intercepted by an me262 that can kill you without even having to get within your gun range?

if they do put them in, i hope they give them a fair enough range atleast.

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: Me 262 with out rockets?
« Reply #21 on: February 09, 2011, 11:23:11 PM »
In this game, bombers fly faster and higher than they did in real life.


Note how it says "slow" bombers? Lumbering came to mind. They cruised during combat for maximum fuel conservation. They didn't firewall the engines with 25% gas at takeoff, make it to 35K inside 30 minutes, and the float above all opposition because they can't fly high enough to intercept.


They were low, slow, and targets. In this game they're almost god-like.

Offline lyric1

  • Skinner Team
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10683
Re: Me 262 with out rockets?
« Reply #22 on: February 09, 2011, 11:25:22 PM »
In this game, bombers fly faster and higher than they did in real life.


Note how it says "slow" bombers? Lumbering came to mind. They cruised during combat for maximum fuel conservation. They didn't firewall the engines with 25% gas at takeoff, make it to 35K inside 30 minutes, and the float above all opposition because they can't fly high enough to intercept.


They were low, slow, and targets. In this game they're almost god-like.
Yep.  :aok

Offline guncrasher

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17417
Re: Me 262 with out rockets?
« Reply #23 on: February 10, 2011, 12:34:58 AM »
In this game, bombers fly faster and higher than they did in real life.


Note how it says "slow" bombers? Lumbering came to mind. They cruised during combat for maximum fuel conservation. They didn't firewall the engines with 25% gas at takeoff, make it to 35K inside 30 minutes, and the float above all opposition because they can't fly high enough to intercept.


They were low, slow, and targets. In this game they're almost god-like.

probably because bombers in ww2 flew a million miles to get to their target, while we fly 1.

semp
you dont want me to ho, dont point your plane at me.

Offline beau32

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 615
Re: Me 262 with out rockets?
« Reply #24 on: February 10, 2011, 11:29:53 AM »
http://www.cockpitinstrumente.de/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/f/Flakraketen/R4M%20Orkan/R4M%20Orkan.html

Mostly in german, but deffently worth looking at. States in there a few times this was mounted on the Me-262 A-1, which we have in game.
"There is always a small microcosm of people who need to explain away their suckage."