Author Topic: Updated Ordnance System  (Read 3064 times)

Offline SmokinLoon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6168
Re: Updated Ordnance System
« Reply #30 on: October 10, 2012, 03:55:02 PM »
i'm pretty sure the eny system doesn't give a crap about the size of the bomb, but more to the point, isn't the performance penalty enough?  a pony hefting 2x1000 is a dog.

And yet it is the plane of choice for the horde monkeys.  Explain that.  :)
Proud grandson of the late Lt. Col. Darrell M. "Bud" Gray, USAF (ret.), B24D pilot, 5th BG/72nd BS. 28 combat missions within the "slot", PTO.

Offline Tank-Ace

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5298
Re: Updated Ordnance System
« Reply #31 on: October 10, 2012, 04:18:47 PM »
Also, the 2 1000lb bombs doesn't quite make you a dog. You don't wanna turn fight or anything, but when i flew the P-51, I never had a problem with BnZing, or making slash attacks.



And nice find Megalodon. Wish the Germans had been more trigger-happy with the cameras.


Anyway, that pretty much blows apart Butcher's assertation that no such load out was ever carried. Also proves for a fact that his list is incomplete.

I rest my case.
You started this thread and it was obviously about your want and desire in spite of your use of 'we' and Google.

"Once more unto the breach"

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: Updated Ordnance System
« Reply #32 on: October 10, 2012, 08:13:55 PM »
And nice find Megalodon.

And you ignore the 2 pics I posted before him showing both a 190G loaded with 3 bombs (wings and centerline) and the same loadout as he did, but with 2 planes?


Ooookay...   :bolt:

Offline Megalodon

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2272
Re: Updated Ordnance System
« Reply #33 on: October 11, 2012, 05:20:32 PM »

Anyway, that pretty much blows apart Butcher's assertation that no such load out was ever carried. Also proves for a fact that his list is incomplete.


This would have served the same purpose  :frown:

190F



« Last Edit: October 11, 2012, 05:27:58 PM by Megalodon »
Okay..Add 2 Country's at once, Australia and France next plane update Add ...CAC Boomerang and the Dewoitine D.520

Offline Tank-Ace

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5298
Re: Updated Ordnance System
« Reply #34 on: October 11, 2012, 05:58:10 PM »
And you ignore the 2 pics I posted before him showing both a 190G loaded with 3 bombs (wings and centerline) and the same loadout as he did, but with 2 planes?


Ooookay...   :bolt:

You said they were possibly F-8's, probably F-3's! If its not known what model of 190F it is, how can we say it for sure proves Butcher's list is incomplete?


*EDIT* Sorry, I missed your earlier picture. And that essentially shot Butcher's theory that 3 large bombs weren't carried on either the F-8/G simultaniously.

And as a plus, on your second picturem those appear to be SC 250's on the wings (~550lbs) and an SC 500 (~1100lbs) on the centerline!

2000lbs of Ordnance, and distributed into a better package than the P-51 can carry in bombs alone.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2012, 06:04:46 PM by Tank-Ace »
You started this thread and it was obviously about your want and desire in spite of your use of 'we' and Google.

"Once more unto the breach"

Offline Megalodon

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2272
Re: Updated Ordnance System
« Reply #35 on: October 11, 2012, 07:19:03 PM »
You said they were possibly F-8's, probably F-3's! If its not known what model of 190F it is, how can we say it for sure proves Butcher's list is incomplete?


*EDIT* Sorry, I missed your earlier picture. And that essentially shot Butcher's theory that 3 large bombs weren't carried on either the F-8/G simultaniously.

.

Look up a5u3 and a5u8  :cheers:
Okay..Add 2 Country's at once, Australia and France next plane update Add ...CAC Boomerang and the Dewoitine D.520

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: Updated Ordnance System
« Reply #36 on: October 11, 2012, 09:30:19 PM »
Model version doesn't matter. Anything the F-3 could carry, the F-8 could carry and more. It still proves him wrong several times over, along with Megalodon's pictures.

Offline Tank-Ace

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5298
Re: Updated Ordnance System
« Reply #37 on: October 12, 2012, 05:50:49 PM »
Model version doesn't matter. Anything the F-3 could carry, the F-8 could carry and more. It still proves him wrong several times over, along with Megalodon's pictures.

Well, I think its more of a question of did it rather than could it.

Also, does anyone know what (if any) the preformance differences between the F and G models were?
You started this thread and it was obviously about your want and desire in spite of your use of 'we' and Google.

"Once more unto the breach"

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: Updated Ordnance System
« Reply #38 on: October 12, 2012, 11:07:57 PM »
Weight and other small loadout differences.

The Gs stripped cowl guns, had no outboard, had less armor (I think) than the Fs, and the main difference was the piping to the wing mounts for DTs. However, the individual modifications were also available for the F line. By the time of the F-8, there wasn't really a 190G line anymore. The A and F lines were doing those same jobs.

Offline Butcher

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5323
Re: Updated Ordnance System
« Reply #39 on: October 13, 2012, 12:50:37 AM »

Anyway, that pretty much blows apart Butcher's assertation that no such load out was ever carried. Also proves for a fact that his list is incomplete.

I rest my case.

Actually I have sourced information, where you have absolutely no source period other then wikipedia mmmkay? I go by actual books with sourced information, you champ? Lets not discredit someone when you have absolutely no source to make a claim period.

Back to actual topic -
I think for historical reasons - if the C.205 cannot get a drop tank in Aces high even though it was available and simply not used, why should a 190F/G be allowed a larger load when the Field manual for a 190 has no mention period of a 3 bombload. It goes through 20 different setups and not once does it mention a 190F/G carrying 3 ords. Field manual shows the Mk103 setups, Mk-108s, 4x 20mm gun pods under the wings, bombloads etc, nothing mentions the 3 bombs.

And this is coming from the actual Fw 190 Technical Armaments Manual Focke - Wulf Flugzeugbau G.m.b.H. Bremen - which by the way lists the Mk103 gun package far more then a few times, which leads to believe it was more common.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2012, 02:18:55 AM by Butcher »
JG 52

Offline Butcher

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5323
Re: Updated Ordnance System
« Reply #40 on: October 13, 2012, 12:56:23 AM »
Many of you are forgetting that in the field, they often piled on ordnance beyond safe recommendations. Some of them even made their own release mechanisms or safeties to prevent the extra weight from damaging the aircraft itself.

I was under assumption field modifications were not allowed in Aces High. Which is why I am totally against non historical loadouts, maybe as a Perk option.... If someone wants to load down a B-17 with 8,000lbs then all for it if they want to pay the perks.
JG 52

Offline LCADolby

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7477
Re: Updated Ordnance System
« Reply #41 on: October 13, 2012, 08:08:32 AM »
I was under assumption field modifications were not allowed in Aces High.


Currently the only aircraft in AH with a field mod is the P51B's canopy.
JG5 "Eismeer"
YouTube+Twitch - 20Dolby10

MW148 LW301
"BE a man and shoot me in the back" - pez

Offline Tank-Ace

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5298
Re: Updated Ordnance System
« Reply #42 on: October 13, 2012, 12:35:13 PM »
Actually I have sourced information, where you have absolutely no source period other then wikipedia mmmkay? I go by actual books with sourced information, you champ? Lets not discredit someone when you have absolutely no source to make a claim period.

We have pictures there, junior. If I'm not mistaken, that counts as documentation.


You claimed no such loadout was carried by an F or G model 190. Pictures prove you are wrong on that account.


On the question of field mods, carrying 3 bombs is not a field mod. Think about it; the 190 was cleared for using both the ETC 500 centerline rack and ETC 250 wing racks. Therefore they are both historical loadouts. However, simply putting both on the aircraft does not constitue a field mod, as it is not changing the aircraft in an unofficial way. They simply overloaded the aircraft, although still not beyond its maximum take-off weight. They haven't put anything on the aircraft it wasn't cleared to use either.

Therefore 3 bombs is not a field mod.


You questioned wether or not bombs were carried on all 3 racks simultaneously, we've shown proof that they were.
You started this thread and it was obviously about your want and desire in spite of your use of 'we' and Google.

"Once more unto the breach"

Offline Butcher

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5323
Re: Updated Ordnance System
« Reply #43 on: October 13, 2012, 01:01:22 PM »
You questioned wether or not bombs were carried on all 3 racks simultaneously, we've shown proof that they were.

Field manual shows otherwise, just because you could load 3 bombs junior, doesn't mean it did carry the load. Why would the Focke-Wulf armaments Technical manual say otherwise? Or maybe they just decided to leave that part out - or simply because there's a good reason it didn't carry 3 bombs.
Just because you could doesn't mean they did.

Photo don't have any information on them, for all we know it was for testing or combat but again there's no proof... what information do we have other then a photo? No technical period information, the FW tech manual says otherwise. Unless there is proof it was in combat it could of simply been for testing. Big difference.
I can show proof 190F/G's flew with 8x 50kg bombs, I can show all specifications and details on a dozen different armament configurations, same with pair of 250kg's on the wings, or a 500kg under the centerline, but no book or manual I have will show any regards to a 190 carrying all 3 ords.

Show me technical proof it was a loadout option. Before you debunk a claim make sure you actually have a clue what you are talking about first, I scoured the manuals long enough to show otherwise, you can at least show me where they made it a standard option.

Oh and by your logic, 1 photo is absolutely proof to you? LOL.



Oh look, Luftwaffe markings, it must of served in the war and in combat!
« Last Edit: October 13, 2012, 01:05:26 PM by Butcher »
JG 52

Offline Tank-Ace

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5298
Re: Updated Ordnance System
« Reply #44 on: October 13, 2012, 01:22:26 PM »
The individual components are all cleared for use. No unauthorized modifications were nessecary to allow 3 bombs to be loaded.

Therefore, its not a field mod. Its just overloading the plane beyond typical combat weights, but not over maximum take-off weight.

We have photographic proof showing 3 bombs were carried.


As for technical data we have combat flaps restricted or allowed based on an ambiguous suggestion in a manual. The wording does not explicitly say whether or not it was possible, and barely even hints at whether or not it actually should not have been done. The wording essentially says "if you drop flaps at high speeds, you could potentially damage the flaps, or the aircraft, and that there is a possiblity of black-out due to the sudden increase in G's".

We don't have photographic evidence of the D model jugs carrying 2500lbs of bombs, and 10 HVAR rockets. But apparently a manual says it could therefore it did?


Now, which is it; do we need just technical data, do we need just photographs, or do we need both? IIRC, you've also objected to the C.205 having bombs and DT's based on a lack of photographic evidence.

And yes, 1 photo inarguably proves that what is shown in the photograph existed. Period. We have multiple photographs showing 3 bombs loaded on a 190, one picture showing 2 of them in flight.

Furthermore, I've stoped arguing for the 3x loadout if you'd pull your head out of your arse long enough to notice. I've done so due to a lack of evidence.



So, a friendly word of advice son, you might wanna get your story strait before your open your mouth.

You started this thread and it was obviously about your want and desire in spite of your use of 'we' and Google.

"Once more unto the breach"