MY ME 410

[Wmaker]

Respectfully, I never knew the HS129 did anything with good success.

Well, now you do.

[Charge]

Thin wingprofile with small rudder and round rear fuselage and engine necelles giving added direction stability only in high speed I'd say Mossie is a potential flat spinner if the weight distribution happens to be to the rear. Could be a danger in bombload but in fighter configuration all the weight seems to be near CoL. I don't recall having too much trouble with directional stability or tail skidding in stall fight flying a Mossie. But in 110, well there are quite funky stalls that I have entered in a 110, although I don't really understand why 110 and Mossie would be much different in that sense.

Also consider the size of the tail in 410 for comparison (or A-20). 410 lacks the long engine nacelles of Mossie but I'd say that due to its larger tail the 410 could be more stable in stalling condition due to better stabilizing momentum of tail. Although I wonder what effect the long nacelles in Mossie give in directing the propeller thrust considering power on stalls?

-C+

[Wmaker]

Charge, have you seen this?

...accident at Barton aerodrome Manchester 21-7-96, this video was used at the inquest.
http://youtu.be/Ag5ut3tP3ZM

EDIT/Now, that I remember you've probably have and read the accident report as well. You mentioned it at some thread./EDIT

[Charge]

Yes, it recall the problem was possibly in the incorrectly serviced carburettor in the other engine causing it to briefly stall in critical maneuver phase.

Terrible loss.   

-C+

[Karnak]

Losing an engine on take off was often fatal for the Mossie.  I am not sure about the Me410, but it seems likely it would not handle such an event well either.

I am not sure what to expect performancewise for the Me410.  In many ways one might expect it to be similar to the Bf110, but the wing loading is so much higher on the Me410 it is hard to accept that they will be that similar.

I know the Me410 had changed wings to address the problem, but does anybody know what the Me210's handling problems were and if the Me410's changed wings completely fixed it?

[Wmaker]

Losing an engine on take off was often fatal for the Mossie.  I am not sure about the Me410, but it seems likely it would not handle such an event well either.

This is rather universal with all twins (with engines in the wings), twins have min single engine speeds specified because of this. But what was painfully clear looking that film that once you started having problems with directional control it really takes a while before the plane stabilizes.

[Charge]

"I know the Me410 had changed wings to address the problem, but does anybody know what the Me210's handling problems were and if the Me410's changed wings completely fixed it?"

Not much detailed info on that but from pictures it can be seen that the wing planform geometry changed pretty much and that cured the stability problem adequately along with lengthened fuselage. With the old wing and short fuselage the 210 was too unstable which was improved by lengthening the fuselage already in 210. But the final and adequate improvement was only done with the new wing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Me_210_w_trzech_rzutach.jpg

http://www.umt.fme.vutbr.cz/~ruja/modely/podklady/Messerschmitt/Me-410/Me-410.jpg

***

I recall that sometimes Mossie drivers switched off and feathered the other engine to save fuel while cruising if there was a doubt of the fuel to last to home base. Thus in cruising speeds there were no directional problems which could not be compensated by slight trim changes. Need to check this one though...

-C+

[chris3]

moin

the 410 is tha origine desinge of the 210, the 210 were made to save resorces so that cut a few things, and these causes all the problems the 210 did have. the 210 was alidelbit shorter as the 410 to save material. sonds funny but it happens.

after thay had notice all the bad problems of the 210 thay go back to the original desinge andt taht was called 410, after the remodeling i havend read anything about its bad behevior again.

cu christian

[Rich52]

Well, now you do.

I see words only on a web page only. Show me some facts about this slow, clumsy airplane being an accomplished tank killer.

[Denniss]

Mtt made the short-tail Me 210 to increase instability with the intention to increase maneuverability. Mvr was good but the instability was fatal and even experienced pilots had problems - image green newbies flying those unstable aircraft.
Reverting back to the initial length tail improved the situation somewhat but only after modifying the wing with additional slats etc the 210 got actually usable for the average pilot.

The Hs 129 was quite successful as tank killer especially after reducing/curing the engine problems they had with the french engines by installing improved dust filters. I'm not taling about the overloaded versions with BK7.5 cannon but of the standard version with MK 103.

[Wmaker]

I see words only on a web page only. Show me some facts about this slow, clumsy airplane being an accomplished tank killer.

It is just as slow and clumsy as il-2 which is widely celebrated for its achievements. The reason why HS129 isn't as celebrated is the fact that it had black crosses instead of red stars and as Soviet Union was able to build over 30000 il-2s, Germany managed to only built a bit over 1000 HS129s. I can give you plenty of examples of how successful it was when I have time.

The plane definitely had its faults, but no more than il-2 basically.

[W7LPNRICK]

Yes, I've flown it extensively, just stating my opinion, not empirical data, I no longer enjoy flying it due mostly to my personal experiences of being very easy to kill. IMO it's kind of a "One Hit Wonder", the plywood flies apart way to easily. I figured it's modeled realistically. 

[Karnak]

Yes, I've flown it extensively, just stating my opinion, not empirical data, I no longer enjoy flying it due mostly to my personal experiences of being very easy to kill. IMO it's kind of a "One Hit Wonder", the plywood flies apart way to easily. I figured it's modeled realistically. 

Erm, it is one of the toughest aircraft in the game.  It used to be rather fragile and burst into flame easily, but that has been fixed.  It now matches its historical toughness as plywood more damage resistant than aluminum.

Still, that doesn't match your prior claim that it was an easy mode aircraft flown by newbies like a Spitfire.  It clearly is not otherwise it would be far more common than it is.

[W7LPNRICK]

That's why I said IMO, ie: my experiences may not be your, but that's OK I don't need anyone to confirm how I feel about my past experience about it. If it has been remodeled, I'll take another look at it. 

[Rich52]

It is just as slow and clumsy as il-2 which is widely celebrated for its achievements. The reason why HS129 isn't as celebrated is the fact that it had black crosses instead of red stars and as Soviet Union was able to build over 30000 il-2s, Germany managed to only built a bit over 1000 HS129s. I can give you plenty of examples of how successful it was when I have time.

The plane definitely had its faults, but no more than il-2 basically.

Didnt have a bomb bay. Didnt have a rear gunner. Didnt have PTABs. I doubt it handled as well as the IL2 or was armored as well. The two engines were a hindrance compared to the one engine IL2. Its views sucked, especially without a rear gunner. Still the flaws in design, development, and production numbers of German tactical aircraft do reflect the impact the Brit and Yank bomber forces made.