Author Topic: german bomber (Read 912 times)

Staga · « **Reply #30 on:** February 16, 2002, 10:07:22 AM »

Single MG131? Forget it.
If HTC is going to model another Ju-88 variant I hope it's G.

hazed- · « **Reply #31 on:** February 16, 2002, 11:13:46 AM »

I think the he177 would be a good addition but i think it should have its biggest handicap modeled also.
On the He-177 there were actually 4 engines but 2 were mounted in each wing nacelle to produce over 2500 HP each(each nacelle).A novel feature to get around Germanies lack of a 2000hp engine which it was designed for.
Anyway they were very prone to fires and really they should have that effect modeled i think.perhaps over running the engines should cause random fire chances?

He177 were used against England. Early 1944 they took part in operation 'steinbock' against british targets.They were used extensively on the eastern front also.
The production of fighters and the critical fuel supply and operations meant it was virtually withdrawn from service by the end of 1944.

but its agreat looking plane i think.

the ju188 has too small a payload for the high alt bomber role.
true it could reach 435mph at 37,730 feet!!!! but to get to this alt it could only carry 1,764lb (800kg) of bombs.
Hardly worth the time to get that high.
ju188 has better armement than the ju88 we have but its no ground hitter like a mossie or 190f8 so its jabo role would also be risky. at 20k its max speed is 311mph which isnt great

Karnak · « **Reply #32 on:** February 16, 2002, 07:09:23 PM »

Hazed,

I don't know what Ju188 you're refering to, but the Ju188A-1 carried 3,000kg (6,614lbs) of bombs That's more than the AH B-17G.

I agree that the He177 is a far better bomber "on paper", however in the actual event that was WWII I believe that the Ju188 was a far, far better machine.

In AH the He177 would surely become the most common bomber. It can carry 13,000lbs of bombs (only 1,000lbs less than the poorly defended Lancaster and the same if the Lanc wants the 4,000lb egg) and has defensive firepower not too far behind the B-17G which can only carry 6,000lbs. Above and beyond that the He177 will carry the load at 295mph against the B-17G's 285mph and the Lanc's 275mph.

Because AH deals with "on paper" performance (except for the Japanese fuel) the He177 would be used far more often than the successful heavies we already have.

Not that that is a huge problem really, the MA is fantasy land.

In the CT it would simply be wrong however.

Staga · « **Reply #33 on:** February 16, 2002, 07:31:06 PM »

Well Karnak after that post your sig looks... well... nevermind.

Karnak · « **Reply #34 on:** February 16, 2002, 07:52:52 PM »

Staga,

The B-29 would be, unlike the He177, a perk bomber. Being a perk bomber means that it would be rare, unlike, once again, the He177.

I just think it would be neat to fly from the B-29's "fishbowl". Sitting back there looking out over the bombardier's position.

I have no problem with the He177 being added to AH (I would obviously preffer the Ju188, but that's just personal interest), I was simply pointing out the likely consquences of the He177 being added. As I said, in the MA the whole think is moot (unless you're an anti-buff whiner, in which case the He177 is your worst nightmare). However in the CT it would completely reverse the historical situation if left uncontrolled. Now this too is not an issue as it can easily be perked or unperked as the scenario requires, thus easily controling it in the CT.

Wilbus · « **Reply #35 on:** February 16, 2002, 08:34:30 PM »

Me410 was used as a fast light bomber over England. I wouldn't think it did much dammage at all though, but it WAS a fast bober, aswell as an attack plane and heavy fighter. Sure, Ju88 would be able to carry more

Karnak, He177 would have better defenive armement then B17 I think, not from straight bellow but all other places.

1x 7.9mm in glazed nose.
1x20mm MG151 in front ventral gondola.
2x13mm in dorsal barbete.
1x13mm in dorsal turret.
1x20mm Mg151 in Extreme tail.

On the paper less guns, but 2x20mm makes it VERY dangerous to attack from behind or HO. + good all around fire from the 2 turrets.

Well, ok, bout the same as the B17, depending on from wich direction you hit.

Shouldn't have engine fires modelled unless every other plane in the game gets its "speciality" though.

Staga · « **Reply #36 on:** February 16, 2002, 08:48:12 PM »

Karnak as far as I remember scenarios in AH have often been "What if" type of scenarios.

btw also He-177 is having a "FishBowl-cockpit" so you might actually like it

Not sure how correct this M$ FS AddOn He-177 cockpit is...

Staga · « **Reply #37 on:** February 16, 2002, 08:53:30 PM »

Oh and guess it could be perked in CT thus limiting its use to more historically correct level.

HoHun · « **Reply #38 on:** February 16, 2002, 09:06:40 PM »

Hi Karnak,

>I have no problem with the He177 being added to AH (I would obviously preffer the Ju188, but that's just personal interest), I was simply pointing out the likely consquences of the He177 being added.

An interesting difference between the Boeing B-17 and the Heinkel He 177 is that the former has turbo-supercharged engines while the latter has not. This results in superior altitude performance for the B-17, of course.

Heinkel lists the He 177A-5/R7 as having a 6800 m (22300 ft) ceiling fully loaded. I don't have the exact value for the B-17 in similar load condition, but I'd expect it to be considerably higher.

I'd think the different capabilities of both bomber would mean they'd both get used in the arena, and I don't think the He 177 would be necessarily the more popular one of the two.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Vermillion · « **Reply #39 on:** February 16, 2002, 09:24:17 PM »

Don't bet on it HoHun

Service Ceiling on a Lancaster is around 24k, how many Lancasters have you seen above 24k in AH? Plenty.

Service Ceiling on a B26 is around 21k, how many Marauders have you seen above 21k in AH? Even more.

It has too do with the fact that engines in AH can run full power forever, where as in real life you would rapidly have problems.

HoHun · « **Reply #40 on:** February 16, 2002, 09:29:24 PM »

Hi Staga,

>Single MG131? Forget it.
If HTC is going to model another Ju-88 variant I hope it's G.

A single MG131 is one machine gun more than the Mosquito bomber had :-) It's part of the "fast bomber" concept to avoid interceptors, not to fight them.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Karnak · « **Reply #41 on:** February 16, 2002, 10:04:58 PM »

HoHun, Vermillion,

Keep in mind that service ceilings aren't hard ceilings.

The example that Verm mentioned, the Lanc, perfectly illistrates this. The RAF considered an aircraft's operational ceiling to be the point were its rate of climb dropped below 500ft per minute. The aircraft could climb higher, it just took an inordanant amount of time.

There are examples of RAF aircraft exceeding their operational ceilings during WWII and in AH there is nothing stopping anybody from accepting the Lanc's climb rate of less tha 500ft per minute and taking it higher. Indeed that is what has happened everytime you see a Lanc above 20 odd thousand feet.

I would not be at all surprised if the USAAF and Luftwaffe viewed operational ceilings in a similar manner to the RAF.

If that were the case, and I think it likely, the He177 would hardly be limited to low alt operations.

A second point is that while "strato buffs" are a popular whine topic, they actually account for a rather small percentage of buff flights in AH. The vast majority of buffs (B-17s, Lancs, Ju88s and B-26s) that I have seen have been 25,000ft or lower.

Staga,

The He177 is much, much smaller than the B-29 and, if that image is at all accurate, the pilot is sitting much closer to the windscreen than in the B-29. The B-29 I imagine is more of a control deck out of some 30s fantasy aircraft.

Besides, don't you want the challenge of flying a prop plane that has a wing loading of 80lbs per square foot? We're talking about an aircraft with a take off weight of 124,000lbs. The Lancaster and He177 had a take off weight of 68,000lbs, the B-24 a take off weight of 60,000lbs.

Each of the B-29's engine nacelles was the size of a P-47. The sheer size of the B-29 would be impressive.

The B-29 was also produced in the thousands and saw heavy combat. The B-29 is in all ways a valid addition, I just cringe at how much work that Superfly and/or Natedog would have on their plate if HTC does the B-29.

Staga · « **Reply #42 on:** February 16, 2002, 11:32:53 PM »

Karnak you gonna ask HT if he wants to build few 8000ft runways for B-29's ?

Heh B-29's suffered same problems as He-177 did; Both were having lots of eng.fires etc. Funniest thing I did read was that fire control blisters sometimes popped out when plane was pressurized in higher alts and because that gunners had to wear a safety wire

hmm back to topic; Bring He-177 to AH. btw it would propably carry smaller load than 13000lbs, kinda like the B-17 in AH. Also 50mm or 75mm tank-killer would be nice to have thought couple Hispano cannons would propably do same job easier.