Author Topic: Dornier Do-17  (Read 574 times)

Offline iron650

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 662
Dornier Do-17
« on: June 11, 2011, 07:11:20 PM »
A German bomber that was replaced by the Ju88s. They were in the Battle of Britain, Fall of France (2 alliterations in a row!  :x), the Balkan Campaigns, Invasion of Poland and the Eastern Front.

Do-17 E-1 Specs:

Crew: 4
Length: 53 ft 3¾ in.
Wingspan: 59 ft 0¾ in.
Height: 14 ft 2 in. (4.56 m)
Wing area: 592 ft² (54.99 m²)
Empty weight: 9,920 lb
Loaded weight: 14,991 lb
Max takeoff weight: 15,520 lb
Powerplant: 2× BMW VI 7.3 12-cylinder liquid cooled in-line engines, 750 hp each
Maximum speed: 236 mph at sea level
Range: 990 mi with 1,760 lb bomb load
Service ceiling: 18,050 ft
Maximum diving speed: 342 mph
Armament
Guns: three 7.92 mm MG 15 machine guns (some were fitted with up to five in 1939–1940)
Bombs: 2,205 lb of bombs





Although I'd like the He111 and the Do217 should come first it would be a nice addition. We do have a lack of bombers in AH. The bomber was a level bomber.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2011, 07:35:42 PM by iron650 »

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Re: Dornier Do-17
« Reply #1 on: June 11, 2011, 07:29:34 PM »
He111 and Ju188 would be far preferable.

If the Do17 were to be added it should be the Do17Z from the Battle of Britain.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline EagleDNY

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1514
Re: Dornier Do-17
« Reply #2 on: June 11, 2011, 08:31:19 PM »
It would be nice, but it would only be useful in scenarios. 

HTC needs to be making new rides that will get action and generate excitement in the MA - that is their 'bread and butter'.


Offline iron650

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 662
Re: Dornier Do-17
« Reply #3 on: June 11, 2011, 08:32:47 PM »
He111 or the Do217 could help.

Offline Debrody

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4487
Re: Dornier Do-17
« Reply #4 on: June 12, 2011, 05:56:27 AM »
ehm...  the ju88 is badly misused (hangar queen) and totally inpotent in the LW MA.
Add the one what was clearly inferior to it  :aok     .....          :bhead
(ju-188)
AoM
City of ice

Offline STEELE

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 541
Re: Dornier Do-17
« Reply #5 on: June 12, 2011, 06:20:00 AM »
ehm...  the ju88 is badly misused (hangar queen) and totally inpotent in the LW MA.
Add the one what was clearly inferior to it  :aok     .....          :bhead
(ju-188)
it wouldn't be a hangar queen any more if they added the heavy fighter cannon pack for a hangar option (much like the B25C strafer gunpack)
The Kanonenvogel had 6 rounds per pod, this is not even close to being open for debate.

Offline Volron

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5805
Re: Dornier Do-17
« Reply #6 on: June 12, 2011, 06:33:59 AM »
ehm...  the ju88 is badly misused (hangar queen) and totally inpotent in the LW MA.
Add the one what was clearly inferior to it  :aok     .....          :bhead
(ju-188)

To say it's impotent is wrong.  She is capable of inflicting serious damage and you would be surprised how many people line up from the 5-7 positions against her.  I've shot down a 262, a couple of Tempests and a few F4U-1C's and -4's with the defensive guns because of this, AND I RTBed.  Makes for some good perks. :D  Of course there were times I didn't make it home (because the pilot knew how and had the patient to attack the 88's), but more often than not, the person who intercepts me just makes it too easy to rack up perks. :devil

To say she's a hanger queen, you won't get an argument from me.  I very rarely see anyone else flying her.  I see the G4M1 and Ki-67 more than the Ju-88. :cry

As for the OP, +1 for the Do-17, but make it the z variant.  The Do-17z was the primary Do-17 used in BoB.  Regardless, +1 for a Do-17. :aok
Quote from: hitech
Wow I find it hard to believe it has been almost 38 days since our last path. We should have release another 38 versions by now  :bhead
HiTech
Quote from: Pyro
Quote from: Jolly
What on Earth makes you think that i said that sir?!
My guess would be scotch.

Offline olds442

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2239
Re: Dornier Do-17
« Reply #7 on: June 12, 2011, 08:39:38 AM »
WHAT IS THIS HE177 WANNA BE!!!
only a moron would use Dolby positioning in a game.
IGN: cutlass "shovels and rakes and implements of destruction"

Offline Debrody

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4487
Re: Dornier Do-17
« Reply #8 on: June 12, 2011, 09:27:58 AM »
olds:  wtf?
Volron: well, poor hymi couldnt outturn my ju88 in his spit16 about a month ago, he had to play the ho and run. Does it mean that the ju88 isnt inpotent? Nope, its still, slow as hell, cant climb, weak firepower with very limited firing directions. Its an early war bomber, capable against early war fighters but totally inpotent against the late war cannon monsters. <S> and respect your kills in it.
Shemp: yup, that would be GREAT. This models screaming for an update, i hope we can get a better armed variant.
AoM
City of ice

Offline iron650

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 662
Re: Dornier Do-17
« Reply #9 on: June 12, 2011, 11:12:51 AM »
Let have the Z model then. The Ju88 isn't inferior. A B5N took a F4U out of the sky,  Vals can shoot down a corsair, so then why can't a Ju88 defend itself with its more firepower? The Ju88 is a bomber that's just misused, not inferior.

Offline Slade

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1848
Re: Dornier Do-17
« Reply #10 on: June 12, 2011, 06:20:54 PM »
Do-17 +1
-- Flying as X15 --

Offline W7LPNRICK

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2050
      • Ham Radio Antenna Experiments
Re: Dornier Do-17
« Reply #11 on: June 12, 2011, 07:58:42 PM »
Ugly thing, ain't it?  :D
WildWzl
Ft Bragg Jump School-USAF Kunsan AB, Korea- Clark AB P.I.- Korat, Thailand-Tinker AFB Ok.- Mtn Home AFB Idaho
F-86's, F-4D, F-4G, F-5E Tiger II, C-130, UH-1N (Twin Engine Hueys) O-2's. E3A awacs, F-111, FB-111, EF-111,

Offline iron650

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 662
Re: Dornier Do-17
« Reply #12 on: June 12, 2011, 08:01:02 PM »
Ugly thing, ain't it?  :D

Though it looked nice.  :rolleyes: