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

[Wmaker]

Hehe Moot, you beat me by two minutes.



EDIT/Quite big differences in our figues.../EDIT

[Krusty]

It wasn't a spreadsheet from when I last read it (some years back I think). It was simple text.

Thanks for taking the time to put that up, though! It really opened my eyes the first time I read it about the 410's potential.

[moot]

Yeah WM the above spreadsheet might be all wrong.   I'm working to redo it and everything else all over again right now.
Above:  Take off is full ammo and normal fuel. (e.g. 2x20+2x30 and 50% fuel on 110).  "Dogfight" is enough fuel for average dogfight to-and-back flight, and excess ammo thrown out (e.g. half the 20mm ammo on 110, but only ~25% of 20mm ammo removed on Ta 152)

I also didn't label measurement units.. It's a mess. I'm redoing everything.

[Wmaker]

Yeah WM the above spreadsheet might be all wrong.   I'm working to redo it and everything else all over again right now.
Above:  Take off is full ammo and normal fuel. (e.g. 2x20+2x30 and 50% fuel on 110).  "Dogfight" is enough fuel for average dogfight to-and-back flight, and excess ammo thrown out (e.g. half the 20mm ammo on 110, but only ~25% of 20mm ammo removed on Ta 152)

I also didn't label measurement units.. It's a mess. I'm redoing everything.

No worries about units, it was evident that it was lbs/sqft. Anyways, I used the 9,5 ton weight based on that speed chart. The additional pages of the report that speed chart was taken from led me to believe that 9,5 ton would be the "regular" armament and roughly half of the total fuel load. Otherwise, the figures should be rather accurate. Rest of the weights are taken straight from AH.

[moot]

Yes 9.5 figure is probably what makes such a big difference between our numbers. IIRC I'd done my comparisons with everything removed from the conventional luftwaffe configuration, except for what a player in Aces High would take to go dogfight.
I think I'd posted a break down of the 9.5 ton 410 from which to work your preferred loadout to compare with AH planes..  I'll have that and everything else up again today or tomorrow.

The mossie and 110 numbers match, so I don't think there's any else significantly different.

[dirt911]

P-38H for sure

+1, Would love to see a new 38 added.

[moot]

WMaker can you tell me your source for Mossie WEP? 

[Krusty]

If you're redoing it, please also include a 2x20mm only version for the 410 (the "light" stock setup), as this is what I would dogfight most in personally.

The rest I wouldn't concern myself with as much because if I do go super heavy I'll fly/fight accordingly. It's that baseline that is more important to me.

[Wmaker]

WMaker can you tell me your source for Mossie WEP?  

Here it is: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mosquito/merlin25-powercurve.jpg

Yes 9.5 figure is probably what makes such a big difference between our numbers. IIRC I'd done my comparisons with everything removed from the conventional luftwaffe configuration, except for what a player in Aces High would take to go dogfight.

Cc, currently that wing loading you list for dogfight is the same as empty and comes out at 6893kg which is quite a bit below the empty weight figures I've seen.

[moot]

ty

I'll have all the details + sources from A to Z incl how I get  'dogfight' weight

If you're redoing it, please also include a 2x20mm only version for the 410 (the "light" stock setup), as this is what I would dogfight most in personally.

The rest I wouldn't concern myself with as much because if I do go super heavy I'll fly/fight accordingly. It's that baseline that is more important to me.

Yep thats one of them: lightest cfg, max dogfight firepower cfg, max anti-bomber firepower, max total A2G destructive power.. IIRC the torpedo configurations were never used beyond prototype.

[moot]

double post

[KG45]

[Reschke]

Primary aircraft I would like to see.
Me-410
Hs-129 http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/hs129.html
Bristol Beaufighter
Tupolev Tu-2
Lavochkin LaGG-3
Mig-3
Kawasaki Ki43 Oscar
Mitsubishi J2M Raiden Jack
Nakajima Ki44 Tojo


Others in no order at all....well maybe some order.
A.W.41 Albemarle - Transport
Pe-2 or Pe-3 - level or dive bomber
Ju-52 - transport
He-111 - level bomber
Do-217 - level bomber
Kawasaki Ki100 - single fighter
Kawasaki Ki102 Randy - twin engine fighter
Westland Whirlwind - twin engine fighter

[Crosseyes]

F-86A 400p-pts Amirite   
P-80?
Meteor?

Plz?   

 

[PJ_Godzilla]

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.

Brass Tacks: Reference Area * Drag Coefficient... I ginned it up as a comparative metric .I'll take a look at the Maker's post. By going to curves I meant the speed/alt curves in AH. I see little need to do that, though, if we're just using the data comparatively. Let me see if I can find time over the next day or two to go through that exercise. Life's pretty busy these days, I have to warn, at the Best American Automaker. Worst case, I'll ty to fit it in over the weekend instead of at my desk at lunch.