Author Topic: New NEWS (Read 618 times)

milnko · « **Reply #15 on:** March 10, 2002, 04:18:20 PM »

Nice Job to the HTC gang!

Hey Pyro,
What are the chances of adding a tailhook to the 190E and making a 109T for CV use?

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #16 on:** March 10, 2002, 04:24:59 PM »

Pyro do the rocket tubes jettison after firing, and is this represented in the FM? AFAIK they did in RL but I have heard conflicting reports about this in AH from both players and HTC staff.

Wotan · « **Reply #17 on:** March 10, 2002, 04:51:25 PM »

Quote

AFAIK, the Schrage Musik installation was only used on the G-4.

it was but can ya blame for asking

S! looks great.........

Nath[BDP] · « **Reply #18 on:** March 10, 2002, 05:05:14 PM »

Don't think it was possible to jettison the rocket tubes. The WGr. 21 systems were very primative and very little effort was spent to perfect it.

Pyro · « **Reply #19 on:** March 10, 2002, 07:08:54 PM »

A reference to the use of explosive bolts for emergency jettisoning of the rocket tubes has circulated through a number of books. However, I've never found anything other than a vague statement about its existence. There is no concrete evidence on this that I have found or it would be easy, but here is the circumstantional evidence that I base my opinion on:

Was this just part of the plans for the weapon system that never actually found much use in the field, or was it actively used? It's fairly common for authors to find plans in their research that differs from what actually made it into use. Was it used in all aircraft that mounted the weapon system? If it was actively used to jettison tubes after firing, it would be counter to all anectdotal evidence on the matter that I've seen. Given that performance degradation is universally cited as a downside to this weapon system, isn't it odd that its never mentioned that the aircraft is completely free of this after the weapon is fired? 21cm rocket installation was not a factory mod, but rather a field mod. The installation of explosive bolts to jettison the tube might be a grand idea, but one that may be impractical due to problems in supply and maintenance.

The reference to such a system do cite it as being an emergency jettison, and if such a system was in place operationally, I do believe that is all it was used for. I would say that the emergency it was designed for was one of the nature of losing your engine on takeoff and needing to rid yourself of extra weight and explosive ordnance before you ditch rather than just cleaning up your airframe after you fire them off. The latter case is all it would be used for in AH and is why some people want it.

If the system was designed to be jettisoned after firing as a matter of procedure, why would explosive bolts be chosen as the means to accomplish that criteria? Can anybody name me another ordnance system that was designed to be dropped that used explosive bolts as the release mechanism? Does that really sound practical, especially in a situation where multiple sorties were flown daily and quick turnarounds were a necessity?

Swager · « **Reply #20 on:** March 10, 2002, 07:12:47 PM »

So the Hurri I, ME110, Me109E-4.

I wonder if we'll see slight modification to the Spit V for a Spit I/II?

BOB Planeset!!

funkedup · « **Reply #21 on:** March 10, 2002, 07:14:51 PM »

Those really look great. Bf 110G is a SICK furball plane if you have a good gunner and are crafty.

Swager - they announced Spit I and Hurri I will be coming out too. They are also redoing all the Spit graphics in conjunction with the addition of the Spit I.

Nath[BDP] · « **Reply #22 on:** March 10, 2002, 09:47:29 PM »

It's impossible to gun in a moving plane in AH because of the warps that attached (to the pilot's plane) see. But it's possible in Il-2.

Vulcan · « **Reply #23 on:** March 10, 2002, 11:23:45 PM »

Lemme get this right... 4 x 20mm? and 2 x 30mm?

SKurj · « **Reply #24 on:** March 11, 2002, 01:49:43 AM »

Sorry for my ignorance, but only 2 250's ?? nothing larger?

SKurj

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #25 on:** March 11, 2002, 01:55:05 AM »

It's impossible to gun in a moving plane in AH because of the warps that attached (to the pilot's plane) see.

Tell that to the buff gunners.

Hortlund · « **Reply #26 on:** March 11, 2002, 02:27:55 AM »

Well, I dont know about you guys, but I just fell in love with the Bf 110.

Kweassa · « **Reply #27 on:** March 11, 2002, 03:52:51 AM »

Okay.. a dweeby post here.

Geez, I don't want to be blamed for being a LuftWhiner for a plane that isn't even out (

).. but how will the 109E-4 perform?? (By the way.. I see HTC selected the E-4 instead of E-7..

heh.. fly to London in the Callais-Dover map and we have 20 minutes?? )

Here's a Little past thread on Aircraft & Vehicles Forum:

109E-4 performance?

I'm not sure, but if the general rule of aircraft evolution applies.. I think it's logical to assume a Spit MkI will turn better than a SpitV, and a SpitV turns better than a Spit9. (Hmm.. this brings up another question.. would SpitMkI be better than SpitV in sustained turns??) Currently, a 109F-4 can't keep up with a Spit9 in a sustained turn, in the long run. If a 109E turns better than a 109F, will it out-turn a Spit9? What about a SpitV? If a SpitMkIa turns better than a 109E-4, and it turns better than a SpitV.. what would it be like if its compared to a A6M5b ??

Open to suggestions and speculations.

MANDOBLE · « **Reply #28 on:** March 11, 2002, 04:03:15 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pyro
If the system was designed to be jettisoned after firing as a matter of procedure, why would explosive bolts be chosen as the means to accomplish that criteria? Can anybody name me another ordnance system that was designed to be dropped that used explosive bolts as the release mechanism? Does that really sound practical, especially in a situation where multiple sorties were flown daily and quick turnarounds were a necessity?

Well, IMO, explosive bolts are the cheapest and simplest way to jettison anything. It only needs the four bolts and a very simple electrical circuit. Ideal for a fied modification, instead of using a complex mechanical way via a factory mod. The bolts would be very "weak", just enough to force the jettison.

In the other hand, the tube itself is extremely simple, and much cheaper than the weapon it uses.

I agree with u that it was not desirable to jetisson the tubes cause it would increase the maintenance time once grounded, but when the plane integrity is in danger (need for speed), the value of these two tubes did mean nothing.

Looking for the safest procedure to get rid off the rockets, what is better, to fire the rockets of just to drop the tubes (rockets inside)? AFAIK, the rocket timers were armed just with the rocket ignition, so, once fired they were going to explode.

DarkglamJG52 · « **Reply #29 on:** March 11, 2002, 04:48:42 AM »

Vulcan Lemme get this right... 4 x 20mm? and 2 x 30mm?

Yes Vulcan. Me 110 G2/R3 had 2x30+2x20 on the nose+2x20 on the ventral tray(Waffenwanne), all forward-firing.

Detail's here