109K-6, k-14

[oakranger]

I have a few stories about a possible 109K-6 or 14 was in development at the end of the war.  However, no documentation of such AC or photo.  Was there really a K-6 or K-14 in development?  One thing i did find interesting about this was that it was a four prop not three

[L0nGb0w]

deustchland uber alles

[Krusty]

They had tons in development. Had over 100 Ta-152C-0 airframes in production but none of them completed before the factory was over-run by ground forces.

So yes there was a K-6 and K-14 plan, but whether they actually ever got it out in those last days? Answer is no.

[MiloMorai]

From what I have read, it looks like the MK103 myth originated with the K-10.

[oakranger]

They had tons in development. Had over 100 Ta-152C-0 airframes in production but none of them completed before the factory was over-run by ground forces.

So yes there was a K-6 and K-14 plan, but whether they actually ever got it out in those last days? Answer is no.

Would be interesting to see some of these AC develop before the war ended.

[Krusty]

Many would be pure conjecture. These craft didn't get out of prototype stage, so any performance values assigned to them would be totally arbitrary and totally inaccurate for a war-time variant.

IMO there are plenty of real craft that we don't have to branch into what-ifs... At least only count the what-ifs that actually flew in some numbers and are reported to have seen combat (Ta-152C, Do-335, 190D-12s, etc...)



Or, just give us the jack of all trades, the Me410 





 

[oakranger]

Many would be pure conjecture. These craft didn't get out of prototype stage, so any performance values assigned to them would be totally arbitrary and totally inaccurate for a war-time variant.

IMO there are plenty of real craft that we don't have to branch into what-ifs... At least only count the what-ifs that actually flew in some numbers and are reported to have seen combat (Ta-152C, Do-335, 190D-12s, etc...)



Or, just give us the jack of all trades, the Me410 





 

D-12 saw action?  I thought there was only under 10 where build but never got up into the air. 

Me-410, yea after the He-111

[moot]

The 410 is no jack of the A2A trade, except for destroying slow targets.  It'll be less survivable than the 110.

[Krusty]

I disagree.

Look at a 190a8 compared to the charts of a 110G2.

They look rather similar, no? But the end results are quite different.

You look at them vs a P-38 and you'll also see some similarities, but again very different.

I think it'd be a big step up from the 110 in overal effectiveness, but I don't think it would be uber. More than capable of engaging cons just as a 190 would, a typhie would, a p-51d would.

[moot]

The P-38?  No contest and I frankly don't know how you can seriously argue that.  Look at the chart below, the 38 springs out of sight and never looks back.  I dunno why we're arguing this, the two are apples and oranges.

The A8's single engined.  
It's about 25mph faster at most altitudes, 33 on the deck.
It accelerates faster. 17 seconds less to 300 mph at SL; and then it keeps going to about 34 mph beyond what the 410 and 110 do.  
It's 30% wider in a flat turn with no flaps, 40% wider with full flaps.  That's the difference between being the worst turner in the game, and something that can usefully hang with spits for long enough to get a solution.
I don't think that's a good comparison for A2A proficiency.  Even for arguments sake, if we did take the A8 as analog:  the 410 has worse wingloading than even the A8.  Is slower than the A8.  And has less powerloading than the A8. And doesn't roll as fast as the A8. And has more target area, more than even the 38 which is big enough to have a "big target" reputation. So the analogy would be an A8 with those characteristics.  Really not a favorable comparison.

The 410 has 500 more HP but is slower than the 110 on the deck, and only catches up at ~7.5kft. Eventually 20mph faster, up in the 20s, and the difference is marginal till about 15k.

The data crunching that WMaker did in his recent thread shows there's something up with the 410 that keeps it slow..  So if it's going to be faster than the 110 in practice, it'll probably be when you lug that weight at the ground.

What would the step up in overall effectiveness be?  It would be about as fast, have identical or similar acceleration, and be less maneuverable than the 110.  The only clear step up is the MK103 and BK5 packages, and how would that work out?  Probably the same way it works out for the 110's monster gun package now: people just step out of the way till the 110 is out of maneuvering mojo.  And the 410's numbers say it'll run out even quicker.

More than capable of engaging cons just as a 190 would, a typhie would, a p-51d would

What do you base this on?  How would a 110 that has the same powerloading, weighs more and has less wing area be "more than capable" of A2A against most of the AH single engined planeset, and do this "just as" a 190/tiffie/P-51 would?  The 190 is the poster boy for BnZ, but the 410 wouldn't due to its heft and low top speed.  The Tiffie's one of the fastest and punchiest fighters, and the 410/110 doesn't compete there either; and even if it did, the Tiffie's limited agility makes it a pretty unpopular choice - despite being survivable thanks to its speed, it doesn't rack up the kills in A2A either.  I can kill tiffies pretty easily in a 152, never mind the most common fighters in the MA - Spits, 51s, F4Us, La7s, Ki84, etc.  The P-51's one of the sleekest, fastest, most flexible planes in the game - how exactly are you saying the 110 is comparatively "more than capable" of engaging cons "just as" the P-51 does?

By its numbers the only trade the 410 would be a jack of is A2G and pulverizing slow or non-maneuvering targets.  For A2G none of the 410's loadouts carry significantly more total building killing power than the 110.  That's the metric most players will end up settling on when picking between the two.  It's even less of a competition if the 410 is as much less-survivable as its weight and powerloading hint at, because that's definitely not the kind of tradeoff you want (same toolshedding power for less survivability IE less chance of doing as much toolshedding) for that objective.

[Krusty]

You're going way off tangent and totally taking things the wrong way.

The P-51, the Typhie, and the 190a8, are all very poor dogfighters. They are potent killers but their manuverability is sorely lacking with regards to turning circles, performance, and handling quirks. Yet they are still quite capable of engaging in dogfights every day in Aces High, often against more nimble foes.

I was saying that just because something doesn't have the best manuverability doesn't count it out. Hence that's how my comment tied to the 410 and its poor stats.


As for the numbers, my point was that among similar loadouts, similar weight ratios, hp ratios, you still get significantly different craft. The 410 and the P-38 are nearly identical in the stats, hp/weight, weight/area, etc. Therefore you're saying the P-38 is similar to a 110 (assuming your comment the 410 being the same loadings as the 110). You would hardly compare the 2 (38 v 110) as the 38 is clearly superior.

So my point remains: It's not just comparison to 110 stats. The handling, the BnZ, the internal weapons (no drag) the better rear guns (able to fire down, low, left and right) and the forward visibility -- the entire package would be more effective, given the same pilot skill, than a 110G.

[Ardy123]

The P-51, the Typhie, and the 190a8, are all very poor dogfighters. They are potent killers but their manuverability is sorely lacking with regards to turning circles, performance, and handling quirks. Yet they are still quite capable of engaging in dogfights every day in Aces High, often against more nimble foes.

Ahh, but the p-51, Typhie and 190A8 are all much faster planes... your not going to find too many successful 410 running like you do with the infamous 'runstangs'

[moot]

You're going way off tangent and totally taking things the wrong way.

No I'm carrying your argument to its end and that end ain't pretty for the 410.

The P-51, the Typhie, and the 190a8, are all very poor dogfighters.

Plain false. The 51's a great dogfighter.  Just give the exact benchmark and I'll get a 51 past it.

The Tiffie's poor, yep.  Said as much.  And the A8 too, so why are you picking these as positive analogy for the 410?  The 410 will not have the Tiffie's redeeming quality that enables it to be a passable dogfighter and good "killer": speed and acceleration.  The A8 has bad paper figures and in practice is the worst sustained turner in the whole game - you never see it sticking around in fights because it quickly gets clobbered, and the only exceptions to this in all of AH history can be counted on the fingers of one hand: Nath, KillnU (who admitted that there was no secret uber envelope, it (and Im paraphrasing now) is just him flying the living poop out of it), and... I can't think of anyone else.  And the 410 has worse numbers yet, so the only way this comparison pans out to the benefit of the 410 is if the 410 fortunately turns out to have some surprise characteristic like the 152's great E retention in initial cornering.  Even then it'll be an A8 that's slower, easier to hit, and less maneuverable.

They are potent killers but their manuverability is sorely lacking with regards to turning circles, performance, and handling quirks. Yet they are still quite capable of engaging in dogfights every day in Aces High, often against more nimble foes.

The 51 yes, as far as being lethal (disagree on those negatives).  But the 410 has no comparable performance figures.
The Tiffie to a lesser degree because it's a much worse turner and its major attribute is speed+acceleration for disengage faster than most other planes can do anything about.  The 410 does not have this attribute.
The A8 does have very similar stats to the 410 but the 410 would have one less thing which the A8 seriously relies on (roll) and have many other stats diminished (top speed, powerloading, wingloading).

I was saying that just because something doesn't have the best manuverability doesn't count it out. Hence that's how my comment tied to the 410 and its poor stats.

Those 3 planes can't be counted out because of their other qualities.  Qualities that the 410 doesn't have.  What qualities does the 410 have that would keep it competitive?  Like I said at the very beginning of these 410 discussions, the 410 is a 110 with same powerloading, more wingloading, same toolshedding potential, less survivability.  The only bonus is MK103 and BK5 guns and cockpit visibility with the lighter gun packages, and those qualities can't be taken in a vacuum.  They belong in the rest of the 410 context: a platform with worse paper figures than its predecessor the 110 and as bad or worse than the A8.  If anything, the way I see it the 410 will be the 190A8 of twin engined fighters. 

As for the numbers, my point was that among similar loadouts, similar weight ratios, hp ratios, you still get significantly different craft. The 410 and the P-38 are nearly identical in the stats, hp/weight, weight/area, etc. Therefore you're saying the P-38 is similar to a 110 (assuming your comment the 410 being the same loadings as the 110). You would hardly compare the 2 (38 v 110) as the 38 is clearly superior.

The 38 isn't similar on paper.  It's got much better powerloading, competitive with single engined fighters, and its wingloading as an agility metric is the only one of all twins with an asterix: fowler flaps.  So the two aren't similar on paper.  The 38 is a major handful with no flaps or just 1 notch of flaps, with a wingloading comparable to the 410 and A8, much higher than the 110's.
So, the comparison is much better to the next closest thing to a 410: the 110.

So my point remains: It's not just comparison to 110 stats. The handling, the BnZ, the internal weapons (no drag) the better rear guns (able to fire down, low, left and right) and the forward visibility -- the entire package would be more effective, given the same pilot skill, than a 110G.

Handling: the 410 has same powerloading and worse wingloading.
BnZ: Up to 15k the 410 has basically the same top speed as the 110, and that top speed isn't competitive with the planes.  Let's take the A8 for comparison, it has roughly similar performance specs:  the A8 can make just a few passes and then has to bug out.  The 410 would be the same only with worse top speed and roll rate.  The heavyweight bonus to zoom momentum would be offset by heavyweight malus to agility at the top of the zoom.  Any fighter in the area would quickly pavlov at the sight of a 410 on its props, the same way most probably do for an A20 in that position.  You have 500HP more for roughly the same top speed and the same powerloading, IOW the same BnZ performance as a 110 that weighs 2 tons more.  How many 110s do you see doing "killer" BnZ in the MA?  All the other twins are as good or much better than the 110 at this.
Rear guns..... You're arguing rear guns that'll trigger autopilot on a slow, big, unmaneuverable plane.  If you're in the rear guns you're probably about to die.  One 50cal isn't going to turn it into an A2A killer.
Visibility is better but that doesn't undo all the major (almost an understatement) handicaps.
 

[Krusty]

Your entire post is a 100% argumentative rebuttle without much real merit. "Show me a benchmark and I'll argue past it or spin it in my favor" is what you're saying.

In fact, it turns out I was only reiterating what you had said some time back:

Viking and Humble, what're you guys doing?

The 410 gets a vote just because it's so cool.
The 110 wasn't a great furball figter at all in WWII... and look at it in the MA.  In the MA, the 410 might just be a 110, but with the TnB/BnZ performance ratio inverted..  What's for sure is that it will get great guns, look beautiful, shoot deadly snapshots with those centralized guns and semi-glass cockpit, and with some luck will carry a BK5 and high velocity MK103s.. 
There's plenty of planes that aren't supposed to be any good at what they do great in the arenas.

[edit: emphasis on last line there]

So you're arguing with yourself.

[moot]

Cop out.  Of course I'm being argumentative.

argumentation - argument: a discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal; "the argument over foreign aid goes on and on"
argumentation - a course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating a truth or falsehood; the methodical process of logical reasoning; "I can't follow your line of reasoning"

What's the context to that quote you're reiterating?  It was in a pimp/vote thread when I knew nothing about the 410's specs.  Just shallow knowledge like glass cockpit and gun packages, and vague knowledge that it's supposedly "a faster 110".  Yes, faster only above 15k and no different below that.  And anchored down with 2 tons, on less wing area, with engines equating to identical powerloading.

The 110 wasn't a great furball figter at all in WWII... and look at it in the MA.  In the MA, the 410 might just be a 110, but with the TnB/BnZ performance ratio inverted.. 

One could have looked at the 110 paper figures and seen that it would have better wingloading than the mossie or any other twin (and it behaves like it in practice), had slightly better powerloading than the mossie and A20 but worse than the P38 IOW be on par with the former two but (combined with consideration for level speed chart) would generally be slower.  Overall it would be a pretty accurate prediction.  So why can't the same be done for the 410?  None of what I've said contradicts the above quote except for the furballing performance part.  Yes it's cool, has great guns and cockpit and looks great.  But that doesn't change the fact that the numbers add up to a slower, heavier, less survivable 110 with the same toolshedding power. 

The last line is incorrect in that a careful look at the 110's numbers would have shown it wouldn't be so bad that "it wouldn't be supposed to be any good".  It's also not contradictory to what I've been saying on the 410:  I said the 410 would not be good at furballing, other than single-hit and run at least as badly as the A8, but be great against slow or stationary targets.

"Show me a benchmark and I'll argue past it or spin it in my favor" is what you're saying.

Show me where I do this.
What merit can an argument have other than accurately addressing the points in contention?  Show me where I'm not doing that.

edit- key word in red.
edit 2 -Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are basically calling me a hypocrite or liar.