the next a/c for Asces High is ...

[Imowface]

I would like to see the Yak-1b and Yak-7b added when they re-do the Yakovlev series, they would be great for pre 1943 GPW events, give us the Pe-2 or Tu-2 soon 

[PJ_Godzilla]

I've whined and screamed about not having the 410.  The speed and higher ceiling only mean one thing to me, killing buffs.  In the majority of dogfights the 410, much like the 110, does not stand a chance against a smaller, single engine fighter.

Me too. I think it'd be great for scenarios like BoG. I fond Moot's commentary interesting on the matter of the nose. I suspect, given my experience in both 109 and 190, that doing lead shots will be significantly enabled by this. While the thnig will doubtless have a wingloading such that sustained turn is more or less crap, I suspec tit'll be a really sound picker/BnZ aircraft.

There are only two things I wonder about w/r the worthy 410...

1. what are the GIB's sights for the two remotely -controlled aft fuselage guns? Given their locations and degrees of freedom, it seems like they'd have to have independent sights.
2. What is the dive performance like? I've never encountered an LW aircraft that has dive performance that doesn't get a bit dodgy.

Otherwise, I think more is better. There are so many types we haven't got - especially from the Italian/French/Russian/Japanese sets. Further, I'd really love to see some EW flying coffins for the Allies. Early Pac War scenarios featuring Devastators, a USN version of the Buffalo (read, heavier), and P-36s would be hilarious. Or imagine BoFr with He-111s, Do-17s, Blenheims, Defiants, Battles, etc.

[moot]

I'm gonna have to make a new thread compiling all the old 410 threads.  IIRC the 410 had power/wing loadings comparable to the 110.  And the 110 has better sustained turn than 109 and 190.  Its top speed (a curiosity if you delve into details as e.g. WMaker has - it seems slower than it should be) doesn't seem like it'll be all that great for BnZ.

1. Pyro's comment IIRC is three sights, one middle, two each side.  Or two each side at least.
2. Don't recall..  Given that little quirk in the data mentioned above, it might be unexpected.

[Volron]

Here is what "I" want...

1) He-111 H-11
2) Do-17z
3) Updated Ju-87 with BK 37's added

Here is what would be better...

1) Italian Fighter
2) Italian Bomber
3) Russian Bomber

It's been generalized simply because any plane in those classes would have the +1 from me.   I still would like to see the Fiat CR.42 though.   The Italians really need more representation regardless.

[PJ_Godzilla]

I'm gonna have to make a new thread compiling all the old 410 threads.  IIRC the 410 had power/wing loadings comparable to the 110.  And the 110 has better sustained turn than 109 and 190.  Its top speed (a curiosity if you delve into details as e.g. WMaker has - it seems slower than it should be) doesn't seem like it'll be all that great for BnZ.

1. Pyro's comment IIRC is three sights, one middle, two each side.  Or two each side at least.
2. Don't recall..  Given that little quirk in the data mentioned above, it might be unexpected.

Actually,  a while back I set up some spreadsheets to back out SCd for various aircraft using Max Power= Drag*Top Speed. Both the 190D-9 and Me410 came back with large SCds (see here: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,275855.msg3462728.html#msg3462728 ), given how much power they were SUPPOSEDLY making (makes you wonder about fuel for testing versus in the field, imj). Of course, drag goes up like the cube of velocity so power requirements increase radically for thos elast few increments of speed. Of the sample set I did, those two and the Vultee Vengeance were outliers on the bad side.

As for the wingloading/sustained turn perf. if it's THAT good and the dive handling is decent, I think it WILL make a decent BnZ.

[Wmaker]

Three sight setup of the Me410's defensive guns:

[PJ_Godzilla]

Three sight setup of the Me410's defensive guns:
(Image removed from quote.)

Fabulous, Maker.

[gusman]

Seafire Mk L III

[moot]

Godzilla, I'm working on compiling all the 410 info we have into a single thread. 
What do those data mean in that table?  Can you point me to what Angelucci/matricardi refers to?  How does the data (source and calculated) match AH?
And most interesting, can you redo the same table comparing the 410 to 110G, P38J, Mossie, and A20?  If you wouldn't mind also putting the Ta 152H in there, I'd have a strong reference point to compare from.

[PJ_Godzilla]

Godzilla, I'm working on compiling all the 410 info we have into a single thread. 
What do those data mean in that table?  Can you point me to what Angelucci/matricardi refers to?  How does the data (source and calculated) match AH?
And most interesting, can you redo the same table comparing the 410 to 110G, P38J, Mossie, and A20?  If you wouldn't mind also putting the Ta 152H in there, I'd have a strong reference point to compare from.

All Id d was equate max power, as published in source books from Angelucci/Matricardi (some ref books) to Max speed*Drag = .5*rho*Vmax^3*SCd... then solve for S*Cd... note that VMax was also the published figure and I used the standard atmospheric table to get rho at the published alt at max speed. I was just trying to back out the drag coefficeint and area as a proxy of aero efficiency.

I could reshoot the table but would prefer to do it with some published data that accords with AH accepted data - I'm not sure A&M would be that data. I could go to the curves, if you like. I assume AH uses a standard atmospheric table, right?

[Tilt]

Yaks............. all of em. Plus a PO2 available from V Fields. At least all that WWI modeling can be used for something.

[moot]

Godzilla-
No idea on technical questions you ask
What's the brass tacks meaning of S*Cd?  It kinda sounds like you might want, if the 410 is one of or the focus point here, to look at a string of posts by WMaker a short while ago where he points out some apparent inconsistencies in 410 specs and actual performance.  I'll try and find it now...  Here it is:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,299977.0.html

I don't know what you mean by going to curves.  You mean putting that table data into curves?  Whatever's most accessible to a layman is good enough.  Don't work too hard on my account either.  I'm just looking for a good 'known' reference point to judge the 410's performance from.  The 152's what I know best and it's in AH and has fairly complete historical data available.

[W7LPNRICK]

410...

abaluley! 410 is needed. IMO it is a beautiful aircraft in it's own way. Some folks think It's ugly. I find that strange. It is definitely different. Kinda like a 110 on steroids. 

[Krusty]

Somebody did a side by side comparison of the P-38 and the Me-410. They are quite close in terms of weight (combat weight), horsepower, wing area, and top speeds. While that doesn't mean they will fly the same, it is an interesting indicator that they may still retain dogfighting ability even if not as fast as later US planes.

I wish I could find that post, but the search results are hosed on this forum sometimes.

[moot]

Sounds like my quick & dirty excel specs comparo

WIP