Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Tyrannis on January 28, 2011, 09:40:59 PM
-
does the periscope ontop of the ar234 cause any drag upon the aircraft?
and if so, can it be taken off if we choose to not go with the 20mm tail guns options?
<S>
-
if you take into account the Ar234s ability to maintain speed like no other aircraft in the game, and the parascope being aerodynamic it does not add enough drag to need to be removed and as far as i know the periscope was not removable on the 234b which is what we have in-game
-
i dont think the scope in the game even works...does it?
-
i dont think the scope in the game even works...does it?
You are right.
-
i dont think the scope in the game even works...does it?
it doesnt, but speed in the ar234 is life,and if theres anyway to shed some weight or drag to increase speed the better.
and i thought "if we dont take 20mm cannons, why do we still need the periscope up there?
-
as I said before, you would barely gain speed by removing the parascope
-
I just keep my RATO's. If I need to leave in a hurry, there is no question of whether i can or not :aok
-
The Arado has all the defense you could ever need. The 20mm cannon can be practiced with to make sure every shot you fire from the tail hits an enemy on your six. Up with RATO units and use them only when the crap starts hitting the fan for an extra "umph."
I like dogfighting in them, I've won more than I've lost. The aircraft has no issues in the speed department whatsoever. You will have a problem with 262s and Jugs from 5k+ diving down on you, but what plane doesn't?
End result: keep the periscope, no adjustment to speed necessary.
-
and if so, can it be taken off if we choose to not go with the 20mm tail guns options?
The periscope was not tied to the installation of the 20mm rear guns. It was carried even when there were no rear guns mounted at all, because it had more functions than just aiming the guns. It was used for checking the six as well as a (shallow) dive bombing bombsight.
-
You will have a problem with 262s and Jugs from 5k+ diving down on you, but what plane doesn't?
They have problems with me.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s162/spikesx/Aces%20High%20II/ddddddd.png?t=1296407856)
-
They have problems with me.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s162/spikesx/Aces%20High%20II/ddddddd.png?t=1296407856)
Nice :aok
I don't think I've been killed in an Arado in the past 4 months. Although 262s always rain down 30mms on me. :cry
-
(http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/hs885.ash1/179361_10150089279532949_700532948_6319266_4535303_n.jpg)
Or busting up Lancs when you are RTBing..... :rock
-
They have problems with me.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s162/spikesx/Aces%20High%20II/ddddddd.png?t=1296407856)
I have book about operation Lusty & Watsons Whizzers & they mention that the AR-234's two 20MM guns were rear facing & also facing down. I don't think that is the case in AHII as far as downward facing. So is the book wrong or are the guns modeled wrong in game? Also as Lusche described the periscope had a multiple functions. To help with rear gun firing (they removed the 20mm's from almost all 234's because they were useless) also to help with aiming on dive bombing. If this aircraft was to be remodeled I would like to see the dive bomb periscope in play. :aok
-
This is the article that I referenced in the prior post about the downwards facing guns & it also describes the periscope & it's uses.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/AR234.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/AR2341.jpg)
(I don't profess that I have done this test right so if I have not let me know).
I also tried the target out off line to see the results of the rear guns of the AR 234 here are the results. Plane was at 5500 feet over the water & 400 MPH & fired off the entire clip of 20mm rounds.
200 Yards.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/200yardar234.jpg)
500 Yards.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/500yardsar234.jpg)
1000 Yards.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/1000yardar234.jpg)
1400 Yards.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/1400yardsar234.jpg)
1500 Yards.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/1500yardsar234.jpg)
As you can see all the hits are above center line. At 1000 yards most of the rounds shoot over the target completely. At about 1300-1400 yards the shells start to fall earth ward & start hitting targets again. At 1500 yards only one round hit the target so i would assume that is as far as they can reach.
Based off my test results the rounds are all shooting backwards & up not down not level.
So far I have only found a little bit of info on the guns of this aircraft & I have a few more books on the way that may shed some light as to actually how these guns fired.
Last picture is all I found on line that references what direction they may fire. I have yet to find anything that says these guns fired upwards at all.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234info3.jpg)
So if any one has some info as to how these guns fired I would like to see it. At least something saying they fired upwards?
-
These are the Watson Wizard Ar 234s
202 - Ar234B-2 - 140148 or 140343 - n/a - Jane I - 11 - 121445
303 - Ar234B-2 - 140148 or 140343 - n/a - Snafu I - 13 - 121446
404 - Ar234B-2 - 140311 - USA 40 - n/a - 28 - FE-1011
505 - Ar234B-2 - 140312 - USA 50 - n/a - 27 - FE-1010
505 is the restored Blitz and it has no guns.
202 and 303 went to the US Navy at Pax River
Photographs of the a/c shown no external gun packs either.
-
These are the Watson Wizard Ar 234s
202 - Ar234B-2 - 140148 or 140343 - n/a - Jane I - 11 - 121445
303 - Ar234B-2 - 140148 or 140343 - n/a - Snafu I - 13 - 121446
404 - Ar234B-2 - 140311 - USA 40 - n/a - 28 - FE-1011
505 - Ar234B-2 - 140312 - USA 50 - n/a - 27 - FE-1010
505 is the restored Blitz and it has no guns.
202 and 303 went to the US Navy at Pax River
Photographs of the a/c shown no external gun packs either.
Correct but they did have the data from the RAF & it's AR-234's or from captured German documents.
-
Close up picture of the periscope.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234periscope.jpg)
A page of the operators manual & how to shallow dive bomb highlighted.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234periscope1-1.jpg)
-
Correct but they did have the data from the RAF & it's AR-234's or from captured German documents.
This is what the British found.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234info.jpg)
-
Now that one of the books arrived today I have a few pictures to share. I don't have conclusive proof as to what way the guns pointed yet for combat aircraft.
How ever I think these pictures are very interesting.
These three are shots of the rear guns on a service platform of some type?
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234GUNS4.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234GUNS6.jpg)
Take particular notice of this last one as it is the most clear. Notice any thing strange about what way the guns are pointing?
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234GUNS5.jpg)
Rather strange don't you think that they would have a jig made so that the guns are pointing down?
Now here is a picture looking in the gun bay of a AR-234 with the access hatch removed & the guns are not mounted.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234GUNS3.jpg)
Notice the same mounting bracket that the guns are clamped in on the first three photos?
Now look at the mounting holes that the each gun slides in to. Notice what way they are pointing?
Clearly they are pointing down also.
As I said not proof positive as these pictures are from a prototype,however I am leaning heavily towards the guns in AHII on our AR-234 may be pointed the wrong way. Flame on. :bolt:
-
If you look at a side view drawing you will notice the underside of the fuselage sloops upward. The guns are horizontal when fitted in the a/c.
The last photo is of the V21 (as noted in the bottom right corner), a prototype for the Ar 234 C. The same photo is in the Smith/Creek Ar 234 book. They also state that this was only fitted in the V21.
-
If you look at a side view drawing you will notice the underside of the fuselage sloops upward. The guns are horizontal when fitted in the a/c.
The last photo is of the V21 (as noted in the bottom right corner), a prototype for the Ar 234 C. The same photo is in the Smith/Creek Ar 234 book. They also state that this was only fitted in the V21.
Yes as I said a prototype. The rear of the plane may swoop upwards & backwards how ever even using your logic that it shoots straight backwards it still is not correct in game the rounds shoot upwards. Also in regards to the V21 aircraft it was a C3 model the only one fitted with guns in the C classification it mentions nothing about it being in the B model. So what was in the B model? We know it had rear facing guns right? The rear of all the built AR-234's look to be about the same so would they make a radical change from the B model to the C in regards to the rear facing guns? I am not so sure about that.
The drawing of the rear guns off the C3 model I will concede they do look straight.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234info1.jpg)
The more detailed drawing that is drawn by Arado at an angle has more detail & because of that angle it is hard to determine exactly where they are pointed? However they still look to be pointing down to me at least on the C & D model. Unless we can find a drawing with actual dimensions on it & showing what angle they mounted them. I have yet to see anything that for a fact says it pointed up or back.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234info2.jpg)
We do have some info from people who had flown & tested & researched the AR-234B & since these guys were flight engineers & aviation experts of the day could they be so far off with regards to what direction the guns are facing? The photos as I said are not proof positive but they all seem to show a gun mounting system with a downward trajectory. Guess I will dig around some more. :aok
EDIT: After looking at the first three pictures of the guns removed they are not mounted on a fixture but just sitting on a simple stool.
The first picture shows the guns sitting up one way & the last two the guns have been flipped over 180 degrees. So angle theory can't be based off of those first three pictures. The flange mounting in aircraft though I still think is downwards.
EDIT: This drawing may help it has a center line on it. Take a straight edge & see if the guns match it. They don't :aok slightly downward.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234info3-1.jpg)
-
Yes as I said a prototype. The rear of the plane may swoop upwards & backwards how ever even using your logic that it shoots straight backwards it still is not correct in game the rounds shoot upwards. Also in regards to the V21 aircraft it was a C3 model the only one fitted with guns in the C classification it mentions nothing about it being in the B model. So what was in the B model? We know it had rear facing guns right? The rear of all the built AR-234's look to be about the same so would they make a radical change from the B model to the C in regards to the rear facing guns? I am not so sure about that.
What does the text say in the 2cd image?
What was in the B model?
A per the Pilot's Note, Operation of Equipment, Section 4, Armament and Armour, A. No guns or gun mountings are fitted to this aircraft
As for the angle of the guns, you are not taking into account the flight attitude of the a/c.
-
Yes he is and the point he is making is that the guns are aimed upward in AH (probably to make up for ballistic drop) which could very well be incorrect. He has done his homework on this one. Well done lyric.
-
What does the text say in the 2cd image?
What was in the B model?
A per the Pilot's Note, Operation of Equipment, Section 4, Armament and Armour, A. No guns or gun mountings are fitted to this aircraft
As for the angle of the guns, you are not taking into account the flight attitude of the a/c.
Sorry for the long delay on answering you. I was waiting for a second book to confirm what I have read in the first book.
Forget gun angles & what way they were mounted. Per two new books that I have they both say the B model series production units did not have any guns mounted at all none.
If correct a lot of AR-234 guys are about to be very unhappy with me. :bolt:
-
Sorry for the long delay on answering you. I was waiting for a second book to confirm what I have read in the first book.
Forget gun angles & what way they were mounted. Per two new books that I have they both say the B model series production units did not have any guns mounted at all none.
If correct a lot of AR-234 guys are about to be very unhappy with me. :bolt:
Even as an after-production field mod/kit?
:headscratch:
If you're right, either a lot of 234 drivers are gonna be hunting your scalp, or possibley a nation of AH "luftvhiners" are about to embrace you as their post-production kit/field-mod god. ( :pray )
-
Even as an after-production field mod/kit?
:headscratch:
If you're right, either a lot of 234 drivers are gonna be hunting your scalp, or possibley a nation of AH "luftvhiners" are about to embrace you as their post-production kit/field-mod god. ( :pray )
The b-1 & b-2 in some cases had the pieces in place to install the guns they just didn't on any of the B production series.(AT LEAST PER TWO NEW BOOKS I HAVE).
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234info7-1-1.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234info6-1-1.jpg)
From the pilots hand book of an AR-234-B.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234periscope1-2.jpg)
RAF had a captured plane fittings in place no guns though.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234info.jpg)
-
I only ask because you probabley already know it or have a positive (better than the intardnets) answer at hand: what was the serial/production number of the captured RAF 234 (I'm thinking it might of been a very early one (maybe even one of the first) because it had the mounts but no guns. If it's a mid or late production run though... well, lets get to that bridge first.).
Edit: Also, in your second quoted article in your most recent post, am I to understand the 234b could or commonly carried a single 1,000kg centerline bomb (or two 500kg) in addition to taking drop tanks under its engines? If so, then our current 234 with drop tanks option sounds to be about 500kg shy of ordnance.
-
I only ask because you probabley already know it or have a positive (better than the intardnets) answer at hand: what was the serial/production number of the captured RAF 234 (I'm thinking it might of been a very early one (maybe even one of the first) because it had the mounts but no guns. If it's a mid or late production run though... well, lets get to that bridge first.).
Edit: Also, in your second quoted article in your most recent post, am I to understand the 234b could or commonly carried a single 1,000kg centerline bomb (or two 500kg) in addition to taking drop tanks under its engines? If so, then our current 234 with drop tanks option sounds to be about 500kg shy of ordnance.
Here you go.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234info8.jpg)
-
The British captured 9 Ar 234s.
WNr 140113
WNr 140141
WNr 140173
WNr 140356
WNr 140466
WNr 140491
WNr 140493
WNr 140581
WNr 140596
The last Ar 234 delivered from Block WNr 140101 - 120 was on Sept 14 1944.
Block WNr 140141 - 180 began deliveries from early/mid Sept 1944.
Block WNr 140301 - 360 began deliveries from Nov 3 1944.
Block WNr 140451 - 500 began deliveries from Jan 3 1945.
Block WNr 140571 - 620 began deliveries from Jan 21 1945.
-
Looks like it's safe to say that the first 60 had at least the mounts ("provisions") installed then...
The British captured 9 Ar 234s.
WNr 140113
WNr 140141
WNr 140173
WNr 140356
WNr 140466
WNr 140491
WNr 140493
WNr 140581
WNr 140596
Is the information out there on which one of those that were captured had mounts or even the rear 20mms installed?
-
Looks like it's safe to say that the first 60 had at least the mounts ("provisions") installed then...
Is the information out there on which one of those that were captured had mounts or even the rear 20mms installed?
Yes on the mounts. See previous posts.
F1+MT / 140173.
I can't even find anything yet at all in regards to a B model found with any guns mounted. Only the captured C3 model.
-
Third book arrived today no mention of guns on B model however on the C model.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234info9-1.jpg)
Looks like they abandoned putting guns on this model after the prototype.
-
Well then they shouldn't be on the in-game model, either.
-
Well then they shouldn't be on the in-game model, either.
Well not so fast. Books some times do get things wrong & maybe there is info that says otherwise. In light of the fact the C3 model a had new periscope system & they then dumped the rear guns on all C models to be built in my mind makes me think that the B didn't have them either.
I have been looking at photos of the b-1 & b-2 to see if I can find the tell tale mark of a possible rear gun mounted as in this photo of C3.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234info10-1.jpg)
You can see the shell ejection slots as well as the gun opening. These are near impossible to find on any B model photos I have seen to date. Quality of the photos prevent seeing this or there simply not there.
Also it is possible but I think unlikely that the skin on some of these planes may have the holes but never fitted the actual guns?
I have a few more books on the way maybe they have more info.
I would like to buy this one http://www.amazon.com/Strahlflugzeug-Arado-Ar-234-Blitz/dp/3613022877/ref=sr_1_23?ie=UTF8&qid=1297301283&sr=8-23 I have his Luftwaffe Profile series #15 it makes no mention either way on guns on the b model. It is only a brief overview though. I would buy that book but I think it is only available in German. Not much point paying that much for something I can't read.
Any of our German speaking BBS guys have this one?
-
Ejection chutes don't mean much. The main difference on the Me262-A2 was that 2x 30mm were removed to lighten the nose (because the bomb racks went there). Unless you can see the gun barrels themselves (they would stick out aft of the chutes, and you would see them) I'd say there's no real evidence they were used.
They didn't bother patching up the ports or anything. Doesn't mean the guns were present.
Let's look at the precedent of the 109F4 and the gondola capable wings... The few that were capable almost never carried them. Hence, no gondolas on the F4 (and IMO that's the way it ought to be)
Nice find!
EDIT: Note the guns were angled down. Those grooves angle up. They're just the fairing for gun barrels. If they were there you'd see them angled away just so slightly. To my untrained eye looks like that picture has no guns onboard.
-
Ejection chutes don't mean much. The main difference on the Me262-A2 was that 2x 30mm were removed to lighten the nose (because the bomb racks went there). Unless you can see the gun barrels themselves (they would stick out aft of the chutes, and you would see them) I'd say there's no real evidence they were used.
They didn't bother patching up the ports or anything. Doesn't mean the guns were present.
Let's look at the precedent of the 109F4 and the gondola capable wings... The few that were capable almost never carried them. Hence, no gondolas on the F4 (and IMO that's the way it ought to be)
Nice find!
EDIT: Note the guns were angled down. Those grooves angle up. They're just the fairing for gun barrels. If they were there you'd see them angled away just so slightly. To my untrained eye looks like that picture has no guns onboard.
On this particular aircraft they did start with them in. If you go back in the thread the actual pictures I posted of the guns were from this very aircraft. The deleted comment would also prove your point as that was for this aircraft as well. The only C model that had them.
-
Perhaps that's a photo without them. I'm thinking you'd see the barrels sticking out. Got any with the visible barrels for comparison?
-
Perhaps that's a photo without them. I'm thinking you'd see the barrels sticking out. Got any with the visible barrels for comparison?
Not in the plane no. Pictures of the actual guns from this plane yes.
-
Well... imo... it's telling that the photo of the actual plane used to test the guns doesn't even have 'em installed when the photo was taken.
I know, I know.. That's not concrete evidence given the dynamic nature of prototypes/testbeds, but still! It's IMO a sign!
-
Well... imo... it's telling that the photo of the actual plane used to test the guns doesn't even have 'em installed when the photo was taken.
I know, I know.. That's not concrete evidence given the dynamic nature of prototypes/testbeds, but still! It's IMO a sign!
Here one more pic for you. I don't see any guns in the fairing?
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/262rockets3.jpg)
Also have other C3 pictures & those planes have no rear gun portals at all.
The picture back in the thread showing the brackets mounted in an ar 234 with no guns are also from this same aircraft.
-
I don't either.
As shown earlier in the thread:
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234info1.jpg)
and:
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234info2.jpg)
You can clearly see that WHEN the guns are installed they have visible barrles protruding from the "trough" or "channel" there, and angled down (separate from the channel's curve along the fuselage)
That alone shows that when the guns are present they are easy to spot. If you can't find any evidence they were present -- well from this entire thread I'm gathering they weren't used. It's perfectly logical and you've got a lot of evidence to support it.
-
I'm interested in trying to trace this now from a different direction. Other than the one assembley in the photos that we know existed (and likely for the prototypes), are there any documents to verify the rear gun assemblies were ever produced or available on a scale viable for more than just the prototypes?
-
Yes on the mounts. See previous posts.
F1+MT / 140173.
I can't even find anything yet at all in regards to a B model found with any guns mounted. Only the captured C3 model.
After looking around some more this is what I have come up with on the F1+MT/140173 the first captured AR234..
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234info-1.jpg)
The question I ask is what were the provisions for the guns?
Are they the holes in the rear of the aircraft for the cannons & shell ejection system?
Like the C3 model shown here?
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/262rockets3.jpg)
Based off these photos I would say no.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234b22.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234b10.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234b7.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234b9.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234b11-1.jpg)
The British did detail drawings of a couple of aircraft one being the aircraft in question. Also based off the photo recon drawing clearly these aircraft could not fit in the rear any gun system. I could not fit this on my scanner so it is in two parts.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234b20.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234b21.jpg)
So what are the provisions for guns? Clearly nothing external as far as gun related portals at the rear of the plane. Maybe the periscope?
Or maybe the gun mounting fixture like in this photo as previously posted in this thread of the C3 model?
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234GUNS3.jpg)
What ever was there was clearly internal & it did not seem to warrant any detail of it as they did not show it on the blue print.
-
Meaning they have bolt points for the guns.
Only the recon versions would have giant cameras in the back like those drawings have. The regular models would have plenty of room there.
Also, here:
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234b9.jpg)
Look closely at the bottom one. I think it's a trick of the light fooling your eyes. I can make out what looks like the "grooves" just inside the shadow on the ventral tail, right where the gun barrels would stick out.
-
Also, here:
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234b9.jpg)
Look closely at the bottom one. I think it's a trick of the light fooling your eyes. I can make out what looks like the "grooves" just inside the shadow on the ventral tail, right where the gun barrels would stick out.
I got caught on this as well.
It is not a light issue but in fact an access panel removed that gives that appearance. You can see it better in these shots.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234b7.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234b7-1.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234b13.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234b13-1.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234b20-1.jpg)
-
Good catch.
Regardless, I think you're just re-proving your own point.
I think you've given more than enough info to suggest none had the guns, so what's the question, now?
-
Good catch.
Regardless, I think you're just re-proving your own point.
I think you've given more than enough info to suggest none had the guns, so what's the question, now?
Aaahh?? :headscratch:. Making sure I guess? I am still not done though :D
-
Fair 'nuff... Rather than look for those without, might I suggest looking for those WITH? :x
It'll be the shorter search, apparently
:bolt:
-
Fair 'nuff... Rather than look for those without, might I suggest looking for those WITH? :x
It'll be the shorter search, apparently
:bolt:
Yes & in process. :D
-
I'm interested in trying to trace this now from a different direction. Other than the one assembley in the photos that we know existed (and likely for the prototypes), are there any documents to verify the rear gun assemblies were ever produced or available on a scale viable for more than just the prototypes?
I think I can answer that.
First off in light of all that I have dug up of late I wanted to find drawings,photos,documents showing the B model with rear mounted guns. Not as easy as I thought. Most every book I have has a lot of info on the prototypes & the C model & they kind of skip around actual combat B models in particular the bomber version.
From the drawings I have found they clearly wanted to mount rear guns.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234b8.jpg)
Also in these next two the drawings look to be identical to the detailed drawing of the C model gun assembly that I posted before.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234b2.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234b6.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234b23.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234b.jpg)
So finding drawings done it was time to find documentation or photos. Here is a small bit off info from one book.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234b1.jpg)
OK V9 was the first B model built a prototype. Now for pictures of this plane & there is a lot of them I will just post a few.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234b17.jpg)
Now the one thing that stands out on the V9 is that there is no periscope & no holes for rearward guns. Yet the document says it was sent to have them installed. Is the book wrong? You must have the periscope to shoot with right & to be used for dive bombing? In no pictures can I find a periscope or rear guns on the V9 & as I said there is a bunch of pictures of this plane. So the book is wrong in regards to what was loaded on V9.
Now take note of the shaded part on the top of the next page.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234b18.jpg)
Interesting no mention of a periscope or rear guns to be added with these optional extras in this pack of four options & no where in this particular book is it mentioned that an option pack existed for the rear guns for the B model. The periscope was added for the V10 though the next prototype.
So what next? Lets try & find a photo of an actual B model with the tell tale slots & holes for the rear guns.
TAH-DAH,BINGO,EUREKA. :rock :x :banana:
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234b3.jpg)
At last pay dirt right.:aok :headscratch: Wrong.:(
V19 was the first prototype C model as can been seen by the next picture.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234b4.jpg)
So what is up with this I can't find a picture any place that shows a B model with actual guns.
Now we get to this documentation.
(Cant fit this all on my scanner it's in two parts first left page second right).
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234b14.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234b16.jpg)
So it looks as if only the C model was fitted with rear guns only not the B at all not even the prototypes.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234b19.jpg)
So that's it I am done on rear facing guns on AR-234'S I say no B models had them not even the prototypes. I can't find any info that says they did & can confirm it based off the eight books I currently have. Is there info that says's there is ? Maybe I would love to see it & if any one can prove my theory wrong please do I have no problem being wrong.
So as far as AHII is concerned we have an aircraft with rear facing guns that should not be FACING that way. As a foot note we have rear facing guns that shoot back & up. All evidence on hand says they should shoot back & down & should only be on the C model that never was used in combat & we don't have in AHII.
So is that it am I done is there any more to add?
Well yes this is where the AR-234-B takes an interesting twist.
Two books I bought had a strange bit of info that I could not quite figure out at first.
This one comment was printed in a book that was done in the 60's some time.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234b-1-1.jpg)
OK so guns facing back in a pod mounted under plane. Based off the age of the book at the time with what knowledge they had & there is blue prints with such mountings I guess I can see how they arrived at that idea.
Later books show that no such rear facing pods were ever made. So so much for that book.
Then I found this bit in a book done in 2000.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234b1-1.jpg)
Surely this can't be right? Well yes it is there was some night fighters done that fit this description. Three were made & they did do operational sorties with no luck though. Now per AHII they meet the requirements. :aok
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234b-1.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234b5-1.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234b3-1.jpg)
Not done yet though.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234b1-2.jpg)
This aircraft flew day missions as well with the forward gun.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234b2-1.jpg)
So that is it as I said I may be wrong on all of this I look forward to someone showing me otherwise.
Question is what should be done about our AHII ar-234? I say nothing for now. When an update is due & if my info/theory is correct. I would say get the periscope to work as in real life & let the aircraft shallow dive bomb as they really did. Because with the on board computer sight it was accurate from what I have read.
Since no rear guns existed under my theory & not to disappoint the guys who really like dog fighting with them. I say get the forward gun pod option included. It did see combat at least in four instances (maybe more) & that is four more than we have with rear guns in AHII now.
-
Bravo Lyric! :rock
-
Bravo Lyric! :rock
Thank you and a little more info on the T9 EH aircraft that I missed.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234b-2.jpg)
-
Just making sure I got this horse down. :aok
From another source I now have.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/arado234.jpg)
-
Now I feel like a noob all over again. Does the AR-234 have a periscope? Just curious. I have also heard that the F6F-5 has a periscope. Is this true, or should I hit -alt- f4 and get my answer. Sheesh!
Boo
-
Now I feel like a noob all over again. Does the AR-234 have a periscope? Just curious. I have also heard that the F6F-5 has a periscope. Is this true, or should I hit -alt- f4 and get my answer. Sheesh!
Boo
Yes to periscope for looking backwards & using for dive bombing with the computer.
-
So how do you use the periscope? Is that also a yes for the F6F Hellcat?
Boo
-
I say pull the tail guns. But I also say do NOT add a frivolous "experimental" gunpod that was only used 4 times the entire war. Hell the Mk103 gunpods on the Fw190 were used more than that, and they never got clearance for general use!
-
So how do you use the periscope? Is that also a yes for the F6F Hellcat?
Boo
No idea on f6f. I think how to use scope is listed back in the thread on user manual.
-
After looking around some more this is what I have come up with on the F1+MT/140173 the first captured AR234..
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234info-1.jpg)
The question I ask is what were the provisions for the guns?
Are they the holes in the rear of the aircraft for the cannons & shell ejection system?
Like the C3 model shown here?
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/262rockets3.jpg)
Based off these photos I would say no.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234b22.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234b10.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234b7.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234b9.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234b11-1.jpg)
The British did detail drawings of a couple of aircraft one being the aircraft in question. Also based off the photo recon drawing clearly these aircraft could not fit in the rear any gun system. I could not fit this on my scanner so it is in two parts.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234b20.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234b21.jpg)
So what are the provisions for guns? Clearly nothing external as far as gun related portals at the rear of the plane. Maybe the periscope?
Or maybe the gun mounting fixture like in this photo as previously posted in this thread of the C3 model?
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234GUNS3.jpg)
What ever was there was clearly internal & it did not seem to warrant any detail of it as they did not show it on the blue print.
Very curious, and I'd be surprised if I'm the first to notice this, but for suposedly being the first Ar234 captured and examined by the allies those detailed drawings have on them quite a bit of equipment listed on them that was in no-way possibley present/loaded/equiped on the captured Ar234 (but similar to the rearward firing guns, obvious provisions for them were found). In particular, and as evidenced by the recovery photos, the detailed drawings have in detail on them (but missing on the recovered 234) the 500-liter drop tanks (ok, so this was probabley common German GI), every single bomb it was capable of carrying, and (in quite detail) the RATOs...
I think it's a compilation of the detailed analysis of the captured aircraft and captured/leaked production/design documents they may of already had or just recieved, which could explain much of this rear-gun-provisioned-but-lacking confusion.
-
I think its much more likely that the artists that did the 3D sketches of these planes after the war included the guns and therefore began the confusion.
-
I think its much more likely that the artists that did the 3D sketches of these planes after the war included the guns and therefore began the confusion.
In part. Some of those drawings are Arado factory drawings. It seems that they wanted to do it & just could not get the periscope figured out in time for the B model.
Think about it :headscratch: you have a rearward & downward firing fixed guns that are mounted on the bottom of the aircraft. Then you mount a periscope on top of the aircraft that only looks directly backwards in terms of checking your six. The periscope had a dual function look back & to be used with the on board computer for dive bombing when turned forward.
So how do you manage to position your aircraft even to get an accurate shot at an attacking enemy from any angle he approaches with the periscope? Line of site almost seems impossible to me to achieve.
The B model was at best a transition aircraft 210 were made & Arado had stopped making the B model in 1944 some time. The C model was where they were looking & that was the only model that had rear guns fitted at all & yet they did not work & were also removed.
They were going to come back to it as most of the C models were to have the pods fitted with various packages. They simply ran out of time to get it all figured out.
-
Some Pictures & some info of interest.
Top of periscope.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/arado234-1.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234peri3.jpg)
Sighting mechanism for rear view & for dive bombing.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234peri.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234peri4.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234peri2.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234peri1.jpg)
This is from an old book from the 60's info is not correct for the most part. It at least gives an idea what the view may have been like through the sight.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/arado234-2.jpg)
External view of the horizontal bomb sight.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234peri7.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234peri5.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234peri6.jpg)
The German engineers were disappointed when AR-234 pilots would not use the horizontal bombing computer & preferred dive bombing instead. Read this & I think you can see why.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/arado2343.jpg)
A few drawings of the night fighter version.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/arado2341-1.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/arado2341.jpg)
Just to beat the horse some more lets do it in a second language.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/arado2342.jpg)
-
Well let's see if the German museum has what I am looking for.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234periscopeinfo.jpg)
-
Well let's see if the German museum has what I am looking for.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234periscopeinfo.jpg)
No luck with them. Imperial war museum next.
Arado Ar 234Tuesday, March 15, 2011 8:19 AM
From: "Hans Holzer" <h.holzer@deutsches-museum.de>Add sender to ContactsTo:Dear Mr.
Sorry,but we have no photographs of
periscope view on the AradoAr 234 jet bomber.
Sorry!
Regards
------------------------------------------------------------
Hans Holzer
curator of aeronautics
Deutsches Museum
80306 Muenchen
Germany
Tel:+49-89-2179-258
Fax:+49-89-2179-514
E-Mail: H.Holzer@deutsches-museum.de
http://www.deutsches-museum.de
------------------------------------------------------------
-
No luck with them. Imperial war museum next.
Arado Ar 234Tuesday, March 15, 2011 8:19 AM
From: "Hans Holzer" <h.holzer@deutsches-museum.de>Add sender to ContactsTo:Dear Mr.
Sorry,but we have no photographs of
periscope view on the AradoAr 234 jet bomber.
Sorry!
Regards
------------------------------------------------------------
Hans Holzer
curator of aeronautics
Deutsches Museum
80306 Muenchen
Germany
Tel:+49-89-2179-258
Fax:+49-89-2179-514
E-Mail: H.Holzer@deutsches-museum.de
http://www.deutsches-museum.de
------------------------------------------------------------
:bhead
Wednesday, March 30, 2011 6:19 AM
From: "Ian Carter" <icarter@IWM.ORG.UK>Add sender to ContactsTo: Dear Mr
Thanks for your enquiry.
I regret we do not have any photos relevant to your enquiry.
I am sorry we cannot help you on this occasion.
Sincerely
Ian Carter
Curator
Photograph Archive
Imperial War Museum
020 7416 5326
>>> PhotoAdmin 03/18/11 10:46 AM >>>
Photograph Administration
photos@IWM.org.uk.
This is a general office e-mail account
accessible by more than one member
of IWM Photograph admin staff.
>>> <iwm@reference-service.info> 17/03/2011 12:36 >>>
Imperial War Museum
Collections Enquiry Service
Re our question #: IWM156055
The following question has been redirected to you from our request
management service.
All information known about this request has been listed below,
including the client's direct contact details.
Can you please provide an answer directly to the client.
The enquiry was received on: 17/03/11 02:07 am
Our question number: IWM156055
The question:
Do you have any photos on file views that would be seen through the
perisope of the German jet bomber the Arado-234? I am looking for the
rearward & forward views for some research I am doing on this aircraft.
A number were captured & were evaluated during & at wars end in the UK.
Regards:
Request type: General Enquiry
Client contact details:
Client location: IWM London
Thank you for your assistance.
Collections Enquiry Service
Imperial War Museum
_____________________________ _____________________________ ____________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
_____________________________ _____________________________ ____________
-
I found a drawing from a German book I have. That shows an AR-234 that was a concept aircraft that shows some forward gun pod packages that looks very similar to a picture Krusty had posted on another thread. Looks like they were thinking day light fighter with this one to tackle allied fighters.
Kusty's picture.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/gunpod.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/aradogunpod.jpg)
-
Few more pages from the same book. It had several references to the periscope views & something to do with a FW-190 in a test from my very rough translation.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234notes.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234notes1.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234notes2.jpg)
So I asked Lusche to give me a rough translation this just a partial as he has not finished translating it all yet. Thank you very much Snailman. :rock
In short: this is the report of a series of test flights simulating fake attacks runs on several ground and air (!) targets. The intention was to test the usability of the periscope as a sight as well as checking the general inflight behaviour during those runs. It's noted that several different pilots did install the periscopes independently from each other to verify the routine being practical in the field (It was).
The ground attacks were started from 1000-1500m altitude at 450-500 km/h, the dive inclination was 15-30 degrees (any steeper would mean too much acceleration) and the pull-out altitude was given as 50-100m (yes, really that low, makes me wonder) with a final airspeed of 600-790 km/h
Criticism on the periscope: Angle of view too broad, thus unable to spot target from long distances. Distance to target as well as altitude estimation very difficult, a Stuvi (dive bombing bombsight) would serve much better.
There is a long, very technical passage about pendular movements, yaw moments and so on during the high speed dives, which I can't translate right now due to lack of time, however there is nothing of critical importance in there in regard to your basic questions.
The last passage is about fake attacks on a FW 190, but there is no indication about what armament would be like in such a situation. Not surprisingly, the report states the strengths of the Arado being it's very high speed and recommends utilizing shallow climbs and wide turns, as the FW is superior in a dogfight. The Arado should always use it's high speed for surprise attacks.
That's it for now. I can take another look at it after the weekend, I'm gone 'till monday
-
1) Even if the guns are angled slightly downward while the plane is at rest, it flew with a nose-down attitude (think p51 and fw190) so the guns would be pointed either level or slightly up when flying at speed.
Surely they fired where the periscope looked, otherwise it would make no sense at all to have a periscope (rear facing)
2) If we get too many complaints about the guns option, fine, we'll take the C3 with C3/N 30mil gunpod option (of course it will only carry 1 bomb when gunpods arre carried) to be added instead of updating the AR234
that we have now.
Problem solved! :aok
-
2) If we get too many complaints about the guns option, fine, we'll take the C3 with C3/N 30mil gunpod option (of course it will only carry 1 bomb when gunpods arre carried) to be added instead of updating the AR234
that we have now.
^^ that
Btw, awsome info, Lyric
-
1) Even if the guns are angled slightly downward while the plane is at rest, it flew with a nose-down attitude (think p51 and fw190) so the guns would be pointed either level or slightly up when flying at speed.
Surely they fired where the periscope looked, otherwise it would make no sense at all to have a periscope (rear facing)
2) If we get too many complaints about the guns option, fine, we'll take the C3 with C3/N 30mil gunpod option (of course it will only carry 1 bomb when gunpods arre carried) to be added instead of updating the AR234
that we have now.
Problem solved! :aok
You must not have read all of the posts I have placed on this thread.
The AR-234-B Never not one time none at all did not happen ever ever ever have rear ward facing guns. :aok My first posts were under the assumption that AHII guns were pointed the wrong way they should face down not up. After further research is when I found that only a handful of C models ever had the rear gun option & that to was dropped because they could not make it work.
In other words our AR-234-B is a fantasy aircraft in it's current configuration.
-
^^ that
Btw, awsome info, Lyric
Thank you. How ever Mr Steele has not got all the facts straight that I have posted. So ^^ that wont work sorry. :D
-
In other words our AR-234-B is a fantasy aircraft in it's current configuration.
Only for people who know how to use it.
-
Only for people who know how to use it.
So you want an aircraft that did not exist in game? Or do you want the real thing?
-
To date I have not found what the view through the periscope actually looks like on an AR-234. How ever I did find some pictures of a 110 that was fitted with a rear view periscope. May be the best clue as to what it could have looked like?
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ziel2.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ziel1.jpg)
-
To date I have not found what the view through the periscope actually looks like on an AR-234. How ever I did find some pictures of a 110 that was fitted with a rear view periscope. May be the best clue as to what it could have looked like?
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ziel2.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ziel1.jpg)
After looking at some additional pictures more closely & reading up some more about how the periscope was used. I think that the forward & rear views most likely are just like the above picture of the 110. At least the cross hairs not sure of the square & circle at this point.
First off some info on the types of periscopes the 234 carried.
They carried two types the RF2B was mostly on recon aircraft & only had the rear view & the other was the RF2C as described in the below picture was used for dive bombing so it had a forward & rear view. The rear view was meant to have two functions look for enemy's behind you & when an auto controlled aiming rearward gun was developed this to would be controlled by the pilot via the periscope.
As mentioned in this thread previously no auto gun was developed & only a couple of C model's were fitted with a fixed rearward & downward facing pair of guns.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234periscope-1.jpg)
Now as far as I can best ascertain the rear view portion would be just like looking through a telescope or a camera lens & with the aid of mirrors & or a lens it would flip the view so the pilot would see exactly what was behind him. This part of the periscope on both types was not electrically powered at all to the best of my knowledge.
Now when you compare the 2B along side the 2C there are some differences that stand out. Number one being the computer controlled dive bombing sight. This has electrical switches as well as a mechanical lever/switch.
This picture is of the 2B it is rather clean looking compared to the 2C. Just a side note it also appears the the periscope could pivot out of the way of the pilot. I assume when it was not needed & most likely when getting in & out of the aircraft so it would not be bumped.
2B
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234periscope3.jpg)
The pilot must not have thought the periscope was enough as he has two mirrors fitted either side of his seat in this 2B sight picture.
2B
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ReportonExperienceswiththeAr234B20-1.jpg)
2C
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234peri2.jpg)
2C
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234peri4.jpg)
Now I have a translation from the pilots manual as to how to use the bomb sites on the AR-234 as shown below.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234periscope1-3.jpg)
What is interesting just like with level bombing the yoke was swung out of the way & the computers auto pilot & sight must have had control of the aircraft? Now with the AR-234 at the Smithsonian this particular aircraft was handed over to the British when the squadron surrendered & at the time was a dedicated photo recon bird. So with the photos I have I can not see where the cord that attached the periscope to the bomb site computer.
Have to assume because it was a recon bird no need for bombing & hence no need for cords to attach the periscope to the computer? Or the parts just came up missing for it's restoration?
You can see where it is attached due to the electrical prongs & I would say where the periscope got it's power from. I can not see the attachment point on the bomb sight though.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234peri1.jpg)
The above picture that has some writing on the scope that has <-HAND BZA-> BZA was the computer/sighting method used for dive bombing I believe this is the lever/mechanical device that would flip the view from the front to the rear. Here is a few pictures that show a round bit of metal attached that I would say the pilot would grab to pivot it forward & back.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234info6-2.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234peri4-1.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234peri2-1.jpg)
There is two electrical switches on the left side of the periscope & I would guess one is for turning on the forward periscope & a switch for the computer? Can't find anything yet that shows exactly what switch did what so if any one can offer a better answer I would like to hear your thoughts.
So enough education on the periscope :aok & now too why I believe this photo is most likely what the view through both sights most likely looked like.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ziel1.jpg)
On the 2B sight we have what looks like two knobs mounted on the eye piece. What are those for I wondered?
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234periscope-1-1.jpg)
Has the 2C eye piece have the same two Knobs? Well no in fact it has four? Why four?
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234peri2-2.jpg)
Then it became clear to me what those knobs are for. Take just about any scope from a gun today & they have the same type of set up. They are used for sighting in a gun. One knob for adjusting the vertical line & one for the horizontal. These knobs are for calibrating the cross hairs for bombing & if they ever did have rear guns fitted it would be used for shooting on the AR-234.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/bushnellscope1.jpg)
So the reason there is four knobs or adjustment points is because we have two separate sights mounted in a single unit on the 2C & each would need two cross hairs for an aiming point.
I think my logic is sound on this topic even though I still don't have all the facts yet. Any one who can come up with alternatives would love to hear from you.
A few more documents I found that ties in with bombing on the AR-234.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Page20fromAradoAr234Manual.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Page21fromAradoAr234Manual.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Page19fromAradoAr234Manual.jpg)
-
Side view of a Lotfe 7K bomb sight like the one used on the AR-234.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/DCP_0115.jpg)
-
Side view of a Lotfe 7K bomb sight like the one used on the AR-234.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/DCP_0115.jpg)
Well this is about as good as it gets found a link with pictures in the crates of a Lotfe bomb sight & the BZA dive computer. Now just to figure out where on the aircraft the BZA fitted. Inside the periscope fin maybe? :headscratch:
http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4077832
A link to a hand book portion on the 234.
http://books.google.com/books?id=bb1ywW6WjIkC&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&dq=bza+bomb+sight&source=bl&ots=tyW0wtL85q&sig=oY0j9Rb79tb5wpk5TF_ZbRBm8Jg&hl=en&ei=x0L9TfGcH4LY0QHuneXQAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=bza%20bomb%20sight&f=false
-
Looking at all the pictures I would say the Lotfe 7k sits on top of a housing specific for the AR-234 like the second picture listed below. This housing is clearly for a different type of aircraft & then the BZA is stored in side of that housing.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/DCP_0115.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/bza2-1.jpg)
Some of the photos I have clearly show a similar housing on the Smithsonian AR-234 like the one above. You can see the top of the housing I marked in red.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234peri4-2.jpg)
Any one know how the BZA dive bomb sight actually works?
-
OK - this thread has convinced me that we need to lose the 2x20mms option on the 234. I would like to see some kind of bombsite modification that allowed us to try dive bombing in it though.
-
OK - this thread has convinced me that we need to lose the 2x20mms option on the 234. I would like to see some kind of bombsite modification that allowed us to try dive bombing in it though.
Well at least the rear ward guns. I would like to see the forward gun package added under perk for ords. Big yes on the dive bombing ability. :aok
-
The above picture that has some writing on the scope that has <-HAND BZA-> BZA was the computer/sighting method used for dive bombing I believe this is the lever/mechanical device that would flip the view from the front to the rear. Here is a few pictures that show a round bit of metal attached that I would say the pilot would grab to pivot it forward & back.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234info6-2.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234peri4-1.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234peri2-1.jpg)
There is two electrical switches on the left side of the periscope & I would guess one is for turning on the forward periscope & a switch for the computer? Can't find anything yet that shows exactly what switch did what so if any one can offer a better answer I would like to hear your thoughts.
Well after some review I believe I am wrong about the handle being used to flip the view back & forth from front to rear on the AR-234 periscope. As you can see with the Stuvi dive bomb sight it to has a switch for HAND & BZA also. Since the stuvi was not used in a periscope configuration to change views to the best of my knowledge it seems logical on the AR-234 the same would apply.
Stuvi sight & HAND/BZA switch.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/stuvi-1.jpg)
AR-234 HAND/BZA switch.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234peri2-3.jpg)
So if the BZA divebombing sight has two options HAND & BZA & the BZA is for the computer to control in a shallow dive & keep in mind to control the aircraft while in the dive as the pilot had to disengage the yoke.
Would it mean that the HAND option is for dive bombing to be done in manual mode so the pilot & not the computer has complete control? If so this would solve a number of issues if we get a remodel by HTC as they would only need to have the forward facing periscope programmed instead of some kind of calibration type mode with the BZA sight.
Now the two switches on the left side of the periscope one must be an on/off switch & I am going to guess the smaller of the two. The larger switch should be for switching the periscope view back & forth? Or possibly the other way around.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234peri2-3-1.jpg)
BZA test results by Arado.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234periscope-2.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234periscope1-4.jpg)
If any of our German friends care to make sense of the above documents for the rest of us that would be nice. :rock
-
Just wanted to add this link to help round out some things with the periscope.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,325508.0.html
-
If you can read German you will like this.
http://www.4shared.com/office/yJjgC6-w/ARADO_AR_234_DER_ERSTE_STRAHLB.html
-
If you can read German you will like this.
http://www.4shared.com/office/yJjgC6-w/ARADO_AR_234_DER_ERSTE_STRAHLB.html
:aok
-
This is really cool to see, thanks lyric!
-
This is really cool to see, thanks lyric!
My pleasure.
Hopefully some of our German speaking clientele can help with some of the information in that book to help with a future remodel of the AR-234-B.
The dive bombing computer & how the periscope worked together with that computer & things of that nature. Plus other information that would make the AR-234-B a much more interesting aircraft to fly in AHII.
-
:aok
-
The 234 is one of the truly great aircraft of AH. Pity we dont have more interested in mission flying in it.
-
AFAIK there was no system which had the complete control of a/c for sighting purposes. The BZA was merely a computer which made calculations according to inputs and it was pilot's job to keep the pipper on top of target during the dive. Even the pull-up automation merely controlled only the trim input upon pull-up so that the plane had a tendency to pull-up whether or not the pilot pulled the yoke.
What I'm interested in is whether there was a possibility to enter all the parameters by hand when at target area since I understand that some of the parameters were set prior to take-off according to conditions of target area such as barometric data.
-C+
-
The 234 is one of the truly great aircraft of AH. Pity we dont have more interested in mission flying in it.
I chased one down from 25,000 feet in 5 sectors using a yak9.
-
AFAIK there was no system which had the complete control of a/c for sighting purposes. The BZA was merely a computer which made calculations according to inputs and it was pilot's job to keep the pipper on top of target during the dive. Even the pull-up automation merely controlled only the trim input upon pull-up so that the plane had a tendency to pull-up whether or not the pilot pulled the yoke.
What I'm interested in is whether there was a possibility to enter all the parameters by hand when at target area since I understand that some of the parameters were set prior to take-off according to conditions of target area such as barometric data.
-C+
Is that information from that German book I posted on the BZA? The last part I don't know. Maybe that is in the book to as I know they do talk about the BZA on some of the pages. Sadly I don't speak or read German to know for sure what is said.
-
There is a Finnish version of this chart but I don't recall where it is in bigger format:
(http://personal.eunet.fi/pp/bucket/Sturzflug01.JPG)
I'll try to dig it up.
-C+
Ed. One more: http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/2918/clipboard01hg5.jpg
-
Excellent information :aok I had seen a thumb nail of this before but could not make out what it was about due to size & language.
-
I can't quite tell from the chart, but does the bomb site control the dive, or just the pull out? If just the pull out, why was it necessary? In case the pilot blacked out?
-
I recall that the plane is trimmed for dive and pushed down to dive by the pilot and after release the automatic trims the plane to climb because the pilot cannot do it by himself due to heaviness of controls.
I understand that BZA works so that the target is kept at the reticle during the dive so the BZA can calculate the estimated impact point which is the pipper. After the BZA had done the calculations (or reached the programmed height depending of bomb type) the buzzer sounds and the plane is pulled slightly so that the pipper in on top of target and the bombs are released by the pilot. As the BZA is indicated that bombs are released the BZA trims the plane for pull-up.
I'm not completely sure this is how its supposed to work but this is my recollection.
-C+
-
I recall that the plane is trimmed for dive and pushed down to dive by the pilot and after release the automatic trims the plane to climb because the pilot cannot do it by himself due to heaviness of controls.
I understand that BZA works so that the target is kept at the reticle during the dive so the BZA can calculate the estimated impact point which is the pipper. After the BZA had done the calculations (or reached the programmed height depending of bomb type) the buzzer sounds and the plane is pulled slightly so that the pipper in on top of target and the bombs are released by the pilot. As the BZA is indicated that bombs are released the BZA trims the plane for pull-up.
I'm not completely sure this is how its supposed to work but this is my recollection.
-C+
Best & only answer I have heard & found to date. :aok
-
A quick English read this time.
This magazine has not got all it's facts right how ever based off what was known in 1972 about the Ar-234 it holds it's own.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/79624309/PROFILE-215-ARADO-Ar-234-BLITZ
-
For those who don't want to download the German book here it is in two parts had to do that as the file was to big.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/81314642/Arado-Ar-234-Der-Erste-Strahlbomber-Der-Welt-Luftfahrt-Dokumente-Ld21-001-Part-1
http://www.scribd.com/doc/81315016/Arado-Ar-234-Der-Erste-Strahlbomber-Der-Welt-Luftfahrt-Dokumente-Ld21-001-Part-2
-
I have a huge quantity of German PDF files on the AR-234-B. Here are a few that pertains to this thread. Most interesting looks to be some info on the bombing computers. All in German of course. If any one wants additional information on other areas of the AR-234-B I most likely have some sort of file let me know & I will post it.
(http://dc371.4shared.com/img/7sW1y36K/0.05819207517714098/Ar_234_B-2_HB_08B_Abwurfwaffen.pdf) (http://www.4shared.com/office/7sW1y36K/Ar_234_B-2_HB_08B_Abwurfwaffen.html?refurl=d1forum)
(http://dc371.4shared.com/img/SEph3lVS/Ar_234_B-2_HB_08F_Ruestsaetze.pdf) (http://www.4shared.com/office/SEph3lVS/Ar_234_B-2_HB_08F_Ruestsaetze.html?refurl=d1forum)
(http://dc371.4shared.com/img/42p-x7SK/Lotfe_7C_Beschreibung_D_Luft_T.pdf) (http://www.4shared.com/office/42p-x7SK/Lotfe_7C_Beschreibung_D_Luft_T.html?refurl=d1forum)
-
I think the ar234 should of had more guns not just rear guns did it?????
-
I think the ar234 should of had more guns not just rear guns did it?????
The AR-234-B as we have in game now the only time it had guns was when a small night fighter squadron was formed & those were converted with radar & had another model designation that I can't think of at the moment. They added a forward firing gun pod under the belly.
And one fellow listed back in this thread borrowed the forward firing gun pod from the night fighter squadron & was zipping around over Italy taking shots at allied pilots in his AR-234-B.
No planes were ever shot down with these forward firing gun pods though.
No AR-234-B ever had rearward firing guns.
-
The AR-234-B as we have in game now the only time it had guns was when a small night fighter squadron was formed & those were converted with radar & had another model designation that I can't think of at the moment. They added a forward firing gun pod under the belly.
And one fellow listed back in this thread borrowed the forward firing gun pod from the night fighter squadron & was zipping around over Italy taking shots at allied pilots in his AR-234-B.
No planes were ever shot down with these forward firing gun pods though.
No AR-234-B ever had rearward firing guns.
+10 for all of your work Lyric. You should get a job at an Aerospace Museum and get paid for all of your research.
I say leave the rear facing guns and add the forward firing gun pod under the belly. :rock
-
I say leave the rear facing guns
Apparently you haven't been reading any of the good work that Lyric has been doing.... :rolleyes:
-
I say leave the rear facing guns and add the forward firing gun pod under the belly. :rock
The rear facing guns are pure fantasy. In fact the Arado of AH is the only plane that is pure fantasy and should be removed or modified for that reason. The guns should go.
-
The 425 rpg on all the P-47s is also pure fantasy, I might add.... So it's not the "only" one... but it's still a bad thing.
-
The 425 rpg on all the P-47s is also pure fantasy, I might add.... So it's not the "only" one... but it's still a bad thing.
I dont mean to hijack, but why was the 425rpg available but not usually taken?
-
<TANGENT>
It was never taken. It was never a loadout option. The vast VAST majority flew with 8 guns and 267 rpg. However, keep in mind the physical space was larger. The oft-cited "500" (or in our case they got 425 somehow) is theoretical based on space. Even in the earliest state-side testing on B and C models it states "this was ballasted with 300 rpg but we report this will not be the load, and the combat load will be 267 rpg with 6 or 8 guns" -- its on almost every test report that cites 300 rpg or more. Nowhere, ever, has it EVER carried the "500" that is touted on wiki and other sources.
267 was the order of the day. The math on after-combat reports shows some varried in the range of 280-to-310 rounds per gun range, but these were less common. You would find 300-ish RPG on planes loaded with only 6 .50cal guns, as well. Outside of those, 267 was what it took. It's even painted on the gun loading doors on many models (as a text stencil) saying the max load is 267 rpg.
When the focus started shifting from pure fighter to attacker as well, the weapons were prohibited from having more than 267rpg (which was the standard anyways) if ANYTHING was on the underwing racks. When anything was on these racks, acrobatics and hard manuevers were prohibited as well. You could fly level and make dives to release your ord. Strong as it was, that's a lot of force and could seriously damage the wing.
Then in the Pacific you had the P-47N. This plane was tasked with a lot of fighting. Not only was the range used for bomber escorting, but it was loaded out with bombs and rockets to attack ground targets. When this happened, the plane was SERIOUSLY overloaded and could barely get off of island runways. Even when the runays were prepared. It then had to clear trees at the end! Many P-47s flew with even less ammo and guns, 4x .50cal and 200 rpg have been mentioned, but specifically many flew with only 2x .50cal and around 200 rpg to save critical weight. Even so, some fighters killed a good number of Japanese planes after dropping their bombs on target. The guns were strong enough.
P-47Ms were stripped down speed demons. To get the most out of them I've read in more than a few sources over the years that they only had 6x .50cal guns and reduced ammo. They were more than enough to kill with and the performance gains are noticable. From the lightest gun load to the heaviest in AH, the weight difference is nearly 1000lbs. Food for thought.
What we have in-game is a gross mis-use of historic loadouts on the P-47s.
</TANGENT>
-
Keeping on topic with the entirety of this thread, like I'm sure most here are....
WOW Lyric! What a job.
I'll be darned, but I guess we have the gun option on the 234 facing the wrong way, if it should even be there at all.
-
Keeping on topic with the entirety of this thread, like I'm sure most here are....
WOW Lyric! What a job.
I'll be darned, but I guess we have the gun option on the 234 facing the wrong way, if it should even be there at all.
Based off all the info I could find it seems rear facing never happened. If & when this aircraft is updated it could be a very different airframe with options that would be interesting.
-
Just read this whole thread from beginning to end.
Found it to be an absorbing read. Not just with the history of the plane but also with the determination and
tenacity of lyric, to dig up and gut his way through an enormous amount of information.
What ever the outcome of changes that surely must take place to the AH version of the ar234
respect is due to lyric for the time spent and impartial presentation of the available facts.
I might just read it all again to make sure you didn't leave anything out :D
<S>
-
Excuse me for replying to this thread several months after the last post has been entered and at length. This is not a post as to whether or not the in-game Ar-234 should or should not have the rear firing guns that it was designed to carry. It's not about my research vs another's as references can be found to support both opinions. This post was sparked by lyric1 stating to me in the MA (after my taking out his Mustang with my Ar-234's rear 20mm guns) that the 20mm's will be removed from the Ar-234 in the next update, "What are you going to do when those guns are gone?" Later followed by an email (via AH) directing me to this and other threads regarding his post of AH's modeling of the Ar-234B, in particular his contributions no doubt.
Having used the Ar-234 in the game since 2006, and introducing it into my Bmr Sqd almost exclusively since 2007, I'd say it's safe to say that I'm pretty well versed in the use or non use of the Ar-234's rear mounted 20mm guns. It matters not to me how the Ar-234 can be loaded out. If AH has the guns removed or not makes little difference in my deciding to fly the 234 or not. If they do remove the guns, I would hate to be lifting an eyebrow to their reason(s) for it. Although it would seem to me that AH, having multiple models of many aircraft types and their loadouts, then lacking additional available models of other aircraft types like the Ar-234, they may be trying to be somewhat generic in their modeling and/or loadout of the Ar-234. I'll may them. As for lyric1, I respect his playing ability, knowledge of the game and his sense of game community as shown in his sharing in the forums! So please remember that I was asked to come here by lyric1.
looking to the extent and ends lyric1 has gone to eradicate the Ar-234's rear firing guns, it would seem that there is something more going on rather than just modeling accuracy? While having responsibilities outside the game I haven't had to time to peruse every post of lyric1's regarding aircraft/vehicle/boat modeling inaccuracies, but I believe that I have looked enough to see no other effort of lyric1's would near the energy he put into the topic of the rear firing 20mm's in the Ar-234. Is there something personal that would spawn such a crusade? I have noticed no other such efforts of his towards a modeling subject. Maybe he can point one out half it's equal for me?
I only ask why? Why such an effort for this one particular loadout? Many know how low an occurrence of pilots seeing an Ar-234's icon in ratio to other aircraft icons, let alone find themselves anywhere close to a firing position on one. Is it that a higher success rate against the Ar-234 is sought by pulling their teeth? How often have so many pilots, in on an Ar-234 (although a non-perked aircraft has nothing to loose), have pulled away as 20mm's from the Ar-234 came their way and start to ping them, especially if they're in a costly Me-262. Without the 20mms in the Ar-234 would the Me-262 pilots then purposely lift looking for a defenseless Ar-234? Heck, the Ar-234 & Me-262 wouldn't be matched against each other in the first place! Nevertheless, is it likely that a higher success rate against the Ar-234 is be being sought? Or could it be one person seeking the success of singlehandedly changing an aspect of the game?
:airplane: Good Hunting :airplane:
-
Excuse me for replying to this thread several months after the last post has been entered and at length. This is not a post as to whether or not the in-game Ar-234 should or should not have the rear firing guns that it was designed to carry It's not about my research vs another's as references can be found to support both opinions. This post was sparked by lyric1 stating to me in the MA (after my taking out his Mustang with my Ar-234's rear 20mm guns) that the 20mm's will be removed from the Ar-234 in the next update, I said the next AR-234B update not the next update. "What are you going to do when those guns are gone?" Later followed by an email (via AH) directing me to this and other threads regarding his post of AH's modeling of the Ar-234B, in particular his contributions no doubt. I also sent you a PM that I was going to send the info for you to read you did not reply so I have to assume you were AFK at the time.
Having used the Ar-234 in the game since 2006, and introducing it into my Bmr Sqd almost exclusively since 2007, I'd say it's safe to say that I'm pretty well versed in the use or non use of the Ar-234's rear mounted 20mm guns. It matters not to me how the Ar-234 can be loaded out. If AH has the guns removed or not makes little difference in my deciding to fly the 234 or not. If they do remove the guns, I would hate to be lifting an eyebrow to their reason(s) for it. Although it would seem to me that AH, having multiple models of many aircraft types and their loadouts, then lacking additional available models of other aircraft types like the Ar-234, they may be trying to be somewhat generic in their modeling and/or loadout of the Ar-234. I'll may them. As for lyric1, I respect his playing ability, knowledge of the game and his sense of game community as shown in his sharing in the forums! So please remember that I was asked to come here by lyric1.
looking to the extent and ends lyric1 has gone to eradicate the Ar-234's rear firing guns, it would seem that there is something more going on rather than just modeling accuracy? While having responsibilities outside the game I haven't had to time to peruse every post of lyric1's regarding aircraft/vehicle/boat modeling inaccuracies, but I believe that I have looked enough to see no other effort of lyric1's would near the energy he put into the topic of the rear firing 20mm's in the Ar-234. Is there something personal that would spawn such a crusade? I have noticed no other such efforts of his towards a modeling subject. Maybe he can point one out half it's equal for me?
I only ask why? Why such an effort for this one particular loadout? Many know how low an occurrence of pilots seeing an Ar-234's icon in ratio to other aircraft icons, let alone find themselves anywhere close to a firing position on one. Is it that a higher success rate against the Ar-234 is sought by pulling their teeth? How often have so many pilots, in on an Ar-234 (although a non-perked aircraft has nothing to loose), have pulled away as 20mm's from the Ar-234 came their way and start to ping them, especially if they're in a costly Me-262. Without the 20mms in the Ar-234 would the Me-262 pilots then purposely lift looking for a defenseless Ar-234? Heck, the Ar-234 & Me-262 wouldn't be matched against each other in the first place! Nevertheless, is it likely that a higher success rate against the Ar-234 is be being sought? Or could it be one person seeking the success of singlehandedly changing an aspect of the game?
:airplane: Good Hunting :airplane:
Well I have to assume you did not read every post in the two links I provided. So your answer is in this post as to why.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/forglasher.jpg)
My quest was originally to prove that the guns never pointed up & rearwards as we have in the game that in fact should be pointing down & rearwards as photographic evidence & blueprints & American researchers had found out at the end of WWII. Plus those photos I posted are infact off of the AR-234-C model.
To my surprise after digging about no AR-234-B model ever was fitted with rear guns. Yes they had the ability to as my thread pointed out but they never did.
If you have any photographic evidence of an AR-234-B model with rear facing guns I would very much like to see them. Even the ARADO AR-234 book I provided you makes no mention of actually fitting the guns on the B model they wanted to planed to but never did. I don't think there is any more conclusive evidence than actual factory documents.
Yes it is my pet peeve & yes I believe the guns should not be there.
If there is proof otherwise I would very much like to see it.
Regards: Rodney.
-
Based off of the information that I've read to date on this issue (I have read it before when it was 1st going up, but opted to wait to see if more would come forth...then I forgot about it, so I didn't post until now. :o) provided by lyric, I would have to say that the guns on the 234 should go. There has been very little information stating that they were used, only information about mountings created for them. The only guns used were on a gunpod mounted underneath which were facing forward and only used 4-5 times.
I rather have historical accuracy than fantasy. Very nice work lyric. :aok :salute
Now get back to making sure we get a ventral gun on the Boston please! :x
-
Based off of the information that I've read to date on this issue (I have read it before when it was 1st going up, but opted to wait to see if more would come forth...then I forgot about it, so I didn't post until now. :o) provided by lyric, I would have to say that the guns on the 234 should go. There has been very little information stating that they were used, only information about mountings created for them. The only guns used were on a gunpod mounted underneath which were facing forward and only used 4-5 times.
I rather have historical accuracy than fantasy. Very nice work lyric. :aok :salute
Now get back to making sure we get a ventral gun on the Boston please! :x
Gotta back this up, with as much research as lyric has put into this... I think the AR-234 is now guilty until proven innocent...
Of course, with 0 defensive armament, we have to be looking at a reduction in perk costs right? :x
-
Of course, with 0 defensive armament, we have to be looking at a reduction in perk costs right? :x
Nope. They didn't increase it when the guns were added. It spent its first year or two here unarmed.
-
P-51D never carried bombs and rockets at the same time and do in Aces High.
Dont see them being removed any time soon.
-
I'd be very disappointed if this was removed seeing as there are more historical inaccuracies than I can count on 2 hands in this game.
-
Nope. They didn't increase it when the guns were added. It spent its first year or two here unarmed.
Damnit Karnak... why do you have to already know everything?!
-
It's funny to see the same guys who won't land gear down or fly with realism arguing about airplane realism in the sim.
-
It's funny to see the same guys who won't land gear down or fly with realism arguing about airplane realism in the sim.
Won't land gear down?
-
It's funny to see the same guys who won't land gear down or fly with realism arguing about airplane realism in the sim.
There is a fine line between landing a video game airplane on a runway with gears up, then trying to model that airplane unrealistically.
You should be able to figure that out on your own.
-
I see you guys fly and I see you post.
-
P-51D never carried bombs and rockets at the same time and do in Aces High.
Dont see them being removed any time soon.
I believe they did, just not 1000lbers + Rockets, but I also believe they did carry DTs and rockets ...
-
I believe they did, just not 1000lbers + Rockets, but I also believe they did carry DTs and rockets ...
Big difference between DT's and rockets and 1,000lb bombs and rockets.
Loadout should allow DT's and Rockets, or Bombs only and no rockets.
-
Big difference between DT's and rockets and 1,000lb bombs and rockets.
Loadout should allow DT's and Rockets, or Bombs only and no rockets.
Well, again there is some detective work needed here before such hasty decisions/conclusions. In AH our P51s only have 75gal DTs I believe, for a combined total of 150gal. Just like 500lb bombs + rocket loadouts, these seem realistic. However, P51s in WWII also used 150gal DTs, for a total of 300gal. If these larger DTs were used with rockets, it would still not justify a fictional loadout of 1000lb bombs + rockets, but it wouldn't work against the arguement like you (and many others) feel the 75gal DTs do (that "they're a big difference").
-
Some weights:
75gal combat tanks installed and serviced - 1040lb
150gal combat tanks installed and serviced - 2060lb
110gal combat tanks installed and serviced - 1460lb
165gal combat tanks installed and serviced - 2246lb
Does anyone have a load plan for the P-51D/K?
-
"I believe they did, just not 1000lbers + Rockets, but I also believe they did carry DTs and rockets ..."
Anybody have a pic of P-51 with rockets and DTs?
-C+
-
(http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj241/jaepton/P-51D78thFS.jpg)
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-Dfvzu4X8pbY/TfjxnNoMOkI/AAAAAAAAJlM/FYKnH4NSQbQ/SAAF%252520F-51D%252520Mustang%252520in%252520Korea.jpg)
(http://www.aviation-history.com/north-american/p51-5a.jpg)
(http://www.mustang.gaetanmarie.com/photo%20gallery/foreign%20mustangs/Guatemala/997.jpg)
-
P-51 #24 is from WW2. I suspect the others are post WW2 and Korea.
-
The last picture with the pilot leaning against the wing, the unit insignia pretty much describes Runstang pilots. :devil
ack-ack
-
The last picture with the pilot leaning against the wing, the unit insignia pretty much describes Runstang pilots. :devil
ack-ack
:rofl
Oh that's so inappropriate, lol
-
The last picture with the pilot leaning against the wing, the unit insignia pretty much describes Runstang pilots. :devil
ack-ack
Guatemalan Air Force which is a post WW2 photo.
-
P-51Ds could carry either 10 rockets, or 6 rockets + bombs.
Sorry guys =(
-
Alright back on subject.
I found this video on the AR-234B. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9O_jcI4fQVw Around the 29 minute mark of the film a pilot by the name of Erich K Sommer talks about the periscope on the AR-234. This pilot flew what was the first ever jet recon missions in combat. He did them over Normandy on D-Day. He also has in his hands what I believe is the RF2B rearward looking periscope & he explains the views as to what he could see behind him. He also was the man who came up with the idea of putting the periscope on the AR-234.
It would have looked like this on his aircraft.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ReportonExperienceswiththeAr234B19-1.jpg)
His description of his view behind him was just like this ME-110 periscope view he makes no mention of the reticule lines though . I established earlier in this thread the reticule lines would have been there though just like on the 110 photo.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ziel1.jpg)
His aircraft only had cameras & never was meant for anything other than photo recon work. If his plane was used for dive bombing he would have had the PVB1 periscope like this one below that worked with the BZA bombing computer.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234periscope.jpg)
Just as a side note Erich K Sommers is the same pilot that strapped a forward facing gun pod on his AR-234B & used it as a day fighter. His exploits are also listed earlier in this thread in regards to the forward facing guns.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234b1-2.jpg)
Now the Smithsonian AR-234B is fitted with the PVB1 periscope this is the one that could be flipped to a forward view for dive bombing & rearward for looking behind. I don't have a description yet that is 100% as to what that those views are like.
Now I found this article about the rear guns supposedly on the B model & of course I say it is wrong it should be in regards to the C model. However it is the first article I have found that confirms what I believed was the method the C model would have used to shoot with the rear guns. As described in this thread.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,325508.30.html
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/periscope.jpg)
Since I have photos of both C models with the rear facing guns & since only two C models were made with rear facing guns & no other model. Question arises what periscope did they use :headscratch:
The above article said the PV1B was used for rear firing on the supposed B model then why do the C models that have rear guns have what appears to be neither?
What is listed for the periscope in the second photo I think is wrong. It looks like it is a base of a PV1B with no forward or rearward ability? Very hard to shoot backwards at something that has no rear view at all.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234b3.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234b4.jpg)
This photo has no periscope at all? Even harder to shoot back at some one behind you.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/img006-1-1.jpg)
So what gives? If the B model had a proven system for firing rearwards as some would argue,why would the only AR-234'S that have photographic evidence of any model with rear guns have no periscopes at all?
This little blip on line b) about the C model static gun test's may be the answer.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234info9-1.jpg)
Looks to me they gave up because they could not come up with a viable system with the periscope.
-
No production series Ar234 had rearward firing guns I thought was concluded already in this thread....
The last picture with the pilot leaning against the wing, the unit insignia pretty much describes Runstang pilots. :devil
ack-ack
Nobody has ever said the Guatemalans don't have a good sence of humor. :aok
Guatemalan Air Force which is a post WW2 photo.
Someone caught it.
Morai, are these similar to what you're looking for? I'll need to dig for a specific Load or Loading Plan. Apologies for duplicate or irrelevant stuff.
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p_51_flightopschart_199.jpg)
(http://zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-51/P-51FOIC.gif)
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51-tactical-chart.jpg)
(http://zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-51/P-51MAXH.gif)
(http://www.avsim.com/pages/0410/Flight1/B6.JPG)
These last two I believe are a very broad compilations from multiple sources of data
(http://www.avsim.com/pages/0410/Flight1/Manual_Performancedata1.JPG)
(http://www.avsim.com/pages/0410/Flight1/Manual_Range.JPG)
-
All very interesting Bab, thanks, but they are not the load plan.
-
If there was any doubt I think the question of rear facing guns is put to bed with this interview with Willi Kreissmann.
His job was to ferry the Ar-234 from the factory to the sub contractors who installed optical equipment, bombing equipment, etc.
He flew the AR-234 that is at the Smithsonian.
http://www.evanflys.com/willi_kriessmann
-
All very interesting Bab, thanks, but they are not the load plan.
Still I can't find anything, and I spent another hour last night, you'd think this information would be more available. Were they called something else maybe back then?
-
Some info the Smithsonian had on file in regards to bombing.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/img018.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/img019.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/img020.jpg)
Interesting that the control yoke is disconnected on dive bombing as well as horizontal.
Have to wonder why? :headscratch:
-
Didn't it have an automatic pull out feature?
-
Didn't it have an automatic pull out feature?
Yes.
-
Nice info Lyric. According to Jeff Ethel and Alfred Price's book German Jets in Combat none of the reconnaissance a/c and most of the bombers did not have the rear cannon mounted. Some later production models, which is what we have in AH, did have the 20mm cannon and they were mounted to fire out 12 degrees in line with the flight path which when you think about it is the most sensible vertical angle for a fixed gun. They appear to be mounted down because the fuselage is angled up at that point. The night fighters were ad hoc but not considered experimental they just didn't build many, the firepower was considered too weak to make it feasible. The high alt level bombing was the most interesting bombing technique due to the bomb sight controlled auto pilot but the shallow dive bomb run was used most often.
-
Nice info Lyric. According to Jeff Ethel and Alfred Price's book German Jets in Combat none of the reconnaissance a/c and most of the bombers did not have the rear cannon mounted. Some later production models, which is what we have in AH, did have the 20mm cannon and they were mounted to fire out 12 degrees in line with the flight path which when you think about it is the most sensible vertical angle for a fixed gun. They appear to be mounted down because the fuselage is angled up at that point. The night fighters were ad hoc but not considered experimental they just didn't build many, the firepower was considered too weak to make it feasible. The high alt level bombing was the most interesting bombing technique due to the bomb sight controlled auto pilot but the shallow dive bomb run was used most often.
Never seen that book before I just ordered it. :aok
Since it was published back in 1979 I tend to think like most of the books from that era it may be dated information compared to the information the newer publishers have since found out.
I think the later model they are talking about is the C model not the B.
-
Never seen that book before I just ordered it. :aok
Since it was published back in 1979 I tend to think like most of the books from that era it may be dated information compared to the information the newer publishers have since found out.
I think the later model they are talking about is the C model not the B.
Your google book link states that the second production B model had the rear guns. Alfred Price was an RAF officer who's job was to interrogate German pilots after the war about German aircraft. He probably had pretty good information. Jeff Ethel was a friend of my dad's so I'm lucky to have an autographed copy of that book as well as his Me263 book which is signed by Jeff and Rudi Opitz, another of my dad's friends.
-
Your google book link states that the second production B model had the rear guns. Alfred Price was an RAF officer who's job was to interrogate German pilots after the war about German aircraft. He probably had pretty good information. Jeff Ethel was a friend of my dad's so I'm lucky to have an autographed copy of that book as well as his Me263 book which is signed by Jeff and Rudi Opitz, another of my dad's friends.
The reason I posted that book link was to talk about the bomb sites & how they may have worked.
That book was a paper back published first in 1988.
So the information is still dated compared to newer books that contradict it.
Here is a link from a pilot who flew many of the bomber versions of the AR-234B the only model that would have had space for the rear guns.
http://www.evanflys.com/willi_kriessmann
He says no weapons.
-
He's just saying the a/c he flew had no rear guns which was true for most of them.
We have a well respected WW2 aircraft historian Alfred Price, your google book Blitz, I assume also Pyro, and the Arado factory saying they did have them.
I think the confusion stems from the fact that most of the 234B bombers did not have them.
-
He's just saying the a/c he flew had no rear guns which was true for most of them.
We have a well respected WW2 aircraft historian Alfred Price, your google book Blitz, I assume also Pyro, and the Arado factory saying they did have them.
I think the confusion stems from the fact that most of the 234B bombers did not have them.
The Authors on that book are very well respected historians on aviation no question. Based off of the information they had in hand at the time they would have come to that conclusion.
Things have changed since 1979 in regards to what is known now.
As far as Arado's take on it you can read the documents I posted from Arado in this thread.
http://www.4shared.com/office/yJjgC6-w/ARADO_AR_234_DER_ERSTE_STRAHLB.html
As far as Pyro & AHII are concerned only time will tell on that point.
We will have to agree to disagree. :aok
-
You say 1979 but Price's job in 1945 was getting this information. I think he had better access to more people and information than is available now.
If you have evidence and you say it must be wrong because it doesn't fit the theory then your theory may be wrong. It also makes sense that some B models would have the guns prior to the decision that all the C models would have them.
We can at least agree that most of the 234s did not have the guns. :lol
-
Do you have hard data that some B models had rear firing guns FLS?
-
We can at least agree that most of the 234s did not have the guns. :lol
We don't agree at all.
You are drawing information from one source.
I on the other hand am drawing from 13 books & A German CD & a number of other sources.
Tell you what since I am waiting for the book to arrive that you have now so I can compare it to all the others I have.
Get your self this book.
http://www.amazon.com/Monogram-Monarch-Arado-234-Blitz/dp/0914144510
Then do a side by side comparison of the book you have in hand.
Read the section about the first bomber units & what they did & did not have on their planes.
Read the pilots statements about missions they flew in that first bomber squadron as well as the subsequent bomber squadrons. Read what they did & did not have on their aircraft.
When your done reading & comparing see what you think then.
When I started on this thread that I have hijacked I had no doubt that rear guns were on the the Arado's.
Based off the preponderance of the evidence I had to change my mind.
Only an OJ Simpson jury would not.
-
You say 1979 but Price's job in 1945 was getting this information. I think he had better access to more people and information than is available now.
If you have evidence and you say it must be wrong because it doesn't fit the theory then your theory may be wrong. It also makes sense that some B models would have the guns prior to the decision that all the C models would have them.
We can at least agree that most of the 234s did not have the guns. :lol
Well since we want to talk about Price here is one of his books.
http://nazi.org.uk/military%20pdfs7/TheLastYearOfTheLuftwaffe-May1944-May1945.pdf
Go to page 34.
Here is the heading on that page.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/LATEWAR.jpg)
You know what I agree 100% with Price's book & the above statement. :aok
However this is how the confusion on rear guns continues.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/LATEWARa.jpg)
He never states what actual model has rear guns. This book was published in 2001 over the years from book to book for what ever reason he seems to get vague on model specifics.
My thread clearly shows the only late model 234's with rear guns are the C model.
Photos show this on the C model.
Don't you think the first AR-234b model with rear facing guns would have been photographed at some point just like they did on the C model?
-
Don't know if this has been referred to elsewhere in the thread, but FWIW Eric Brown's "Wings of the Luftwaffe" has this cutaway:
(http://i937.photobucket.com/albums/ad212/mhuxt/ARADOAR234B1.jpg)
(http://i937.photobucket.com/albums/ad212/mhuxt/ARADOAR234B2.jpg)
-
Lyric you do realize that the info you just posted is headed 234B? It describes a jet with 2 engines rather than the 4 on the C model? He doesn't say some late production models had 4 engines? That various pics you posted in the thread state plainly that "not all the 234b's had the rear guns" which means that some of them did and they also state plainly that the 234b had rear guns mounted? One book you listed (and recommended I read) states plainly that the second production 234B had rear guns?
(http://www.mediafire.com/conv/ac864715b8c2dab8078e8b0c100508e43f9ba97e88649a0b912b662dbed7886d4g.jpg) (http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?thumb=5&quickkey=rzu6asyyy6mrbbk)
If you can find one statement I made in my first post to this thread that isn't correct I'd like to see it.
As far as pictures, I'm sure there were many that didn't survive the war and there may be many that simply aren't online or in books. Lack of proof is not proof of anything. Nothing you've posted proves that no 234b's had the rear guns. I can see why people who thought all the 235b's had rear guns may have had their world rocked a little but there is no reason to pull the guns off of the AH 234b. Since most B models did not have the guns you can justify removing them but there is nothing that requires it. It would make sense to offer no guns as a loadout option.
Scherf that same cutaway is in Ethel and Price's book. Krusty told me that Erik Brown is not a reliable source but he still hasn't furnished the proof he said he had somewhere. :lol
-
Lyric you do realize that the info you just posted is headed 234B? It describes a jet with 2 engines rather than the 4 on the C model? He doesn't say some late production models had 4 engines? That various pics you posted in the thread state plainly that "not all the 234b's had the rear guns" which means that some of them did and they also state plainly that the 234b had rear guns mounted? One book you listed (and recommended I read) states plainly that the second production 234B had rear guns?
(http://www.mediafire.com/conv/ac864715b8c2dab8078e8b0c100508e43f9ba97e88649a0b912b662dbed7886d4g.jpg) (http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?thumb=5&quickkey=rzu6asyyy6mrbbk)
If you can find one statement I made in my first post to this thread that isn't correct I'd like to see it.
As far as pictures, I'm sure there were many that didn't survive the war and there may be many that simply aren't online or in books. Lack of proof is not proof of anything. Nothing you've posted proves that no 234b's had the rear guns. I can see why people who thought all the 235b's had rear guns may have had their world rocked a little but there is no reason to pull the guns off of the AH 234b. Since most B models did not have the guns you can justify removing them but there is nothing that requires it. It would make sense to offer no guns as a loadout option.
Scherf that same cutaway is in Ethel and Price's book. Krusty told me that Erik Brown is not a reliable source but he still hasn't furnished the proof he said he had somewhere. :lol
OK you want to use that book again as the source as I said in this thread some of the older books are not correct I think the one your quoting is one of them.
Lets look at this page of the book shall we it is a page before your post.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/sourcebook.jpg)
How many of these B-1'were made?
Answer? Zero,none never happened.
Here are the facts.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/img021.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/sorceb.jpg)
Who is right?
Some one has written info in a book that is not correct.
Again we can go round robin all day with the dated single source.
As I said I have purchased the book you have & should be here in a few days.
I will read it & compare it to my sources.
Are you willing to purchase the book I recommended & at least consider other options?
If not as I said before we shall agree to disagree.
-
What about the 234B info you just posted that you think refers to the 4 engine C model? It clearly states
that some were armed and obviously refers to the B model. You proved yourself wrong and you're still
arguing with me. :D
-
What about the 234B info you just posted that you think refers to the 4 engine C model? It clearly states
that some were armed and obviously refers to the B model. You proved yourself wrong and you're still
arguing with me. :D
Already answered that before.
So I take it your not going to buy the book I recommended?
-
Don't know if this has been referred to elsewhere in the thread, but FWIW Eric Brown's "Wings of the Luftwaffe" has this cutaway:
(http://i937.photobucket.com/albums/ad212/mhuxt/ARADOAR234B1.jpg)
(http://i937.photobucket.com/albums/ad212/mhuxt/ARADOAR234B2.jpg)
That is an Arado drawing.
Part of the problem why people are convinced they had the guns.
-
I have to say I truly doubt that comes from Arado. Otherwise, don't have a dog in this fight.
-
I have to say I truly doubt that comes from Arado. Otherwise, don't have a dog in this fight.
It is based off of an Arado drawing.
I have seen the German original I just can't find it.
I do have a single page English version not as detailed.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234b2.jpg)
-
Already answered that before.
So I take it your not going to buy the book I recommended?
Your answer that it refers to the C model is unsupportable.
The books that support your theory are correct and the books that don't are wrong. I get that. :D
-
Your answer that it refers to the C model is unsupportable.
The books that support your theory are correct and the books that don't are wrong. I get that. :D
C model is supported by other posts in this thread/photos/Arado documents/AR-234 pilots & their statements/books.
I bought your book I am willing to read it & draw conclusions based off what I find & will compare to other sources.
Are you willing to buy & look at other books & do the same?
If not we have no more to say to each other on this matter.
-
I agree with you that the C model had the rear guns.
You didn't buy my book. You bought a book you were interested in. I have no interest in the book you mentioned.
You posted information on the 234B, labeled as such, which shows your theory of no rear guns on any 234B is incorrect.
You posted good info but your conclusion needs work. I believe you'll come around. :cheers:
-
Lyric showed his source and information, I see no other information that says otherwise (with source), I went through countless books on the Ar-234, I see nothing that shows proof the 234 carried rear guns.
Frankly I was kind of shocked I didn't notice this first, however since it was added in Aces High I never really looked into it, Lyric brought the proof to the table and information.
I see no proof otherwise. I proved this in the OTHER ar-234 thread, the P51-D mustang I was told countless times it did carry both 1,000lbs and rockets, why would it carry this setup, however in Korea (how many years after WW2?) was it carrying such a reduced load?
I showed my source and information, people will continue to deny it without showing proof otherwise.
-
I agree with you that the C model had the rear guns.
You didn't buy my book. You bought a book you were interested in. I have no interest in the book you mentioned.
You posted information on the 234B, labeled as such, which shows your theory of no rear guns on any 234B is incorrect.
You posted good info but your conclusion needs work. I believe you'll come around. :cheers:
If I find evidence that says otherwise that I can verify I would come around.
Ultimately HTC will have the final say if & when this aircraft is up for a remodel & what is done with it.
It maybe years before we find out for sure as to what they do.
Shame you won't look at another book to at least explore other options.
-
I'll be happy to look at the book. I have no interest in buying it.
I quoted and read the part available on google. It was enough.
Then you said it wasn't reliable because it proved you wrong.
Didn't you notice it was the same book? :lol
Now that you've moved on to personal insults you've basically conceded the argument.
We're done.
-
I'll be happy to look at the book. I have no interest in buying it.
I quoted and read the part available on google. It was enough.
Then you said it wasn't reliable because it proved you wrong.
Didn't you notice it was the same book? :lol
Now that you've moved on to personal insults you've basically conceded the argument.
We're done.
Yes I did notice it was the same book & the same authors. They did a 180 degree turn around from that google link & then did an updated version of the same book.
I guess I did not explain myself clearly enough that is on me then.
Personal insult removed & an apology is owed to you by me.
Google link of the old book.
http://books.google.com/books?id=bb1ywW6WjIkC&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&dq=bza+bomb+sight&source=bl&ots=tyW0wtL85q&sig=oY0j9Rb79tb5wpk5TF_ZbRBm8Jg&hl=en&ei=x0L9TfGcH4LY0QHuneXQAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=bza%20bomb%20sight&f=false
Link to the new version of the same book.
http://www.amazon.com/Monogram-Monarch-Arado-234-Blitz/dp/0914144510
A large number of posts in this thread are from the later book.
Like this post from the later.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/ar234info6.jpg)
Why did they change so much from one version to the next?
They found new information that contradict their earlier edition.
-
The drawing is Brown's book is full of errors:
Designation mention as Ar 234B-2/lr - lr are Rüstsatz designations and not part of the model number (l = LOTFE = bomb aiming device, r = two 300l drop tanks).
20mm guns - neither the 6/44 nor the 12/44 manual have those as standard fitting nor even list them as optional Rüstsatz.
According to several books the rear guns were to be factory-installed in the C-series. They were originally planned for the B-series as an external under-fuselage pod but dropped in autumn 1944 because they preferred to load bombs up to 1000kg there. The fuselage-mounted MG 151/20 were then planned as option but obviously never used. With ammo they weighted more than 200kg and would cause CoG issues to be offset with balance weight in front. Sounds like one of the reasons for the forward fuselage extension of the C-series which was to have this installation as standard.
-
A page from a book published by the Smithsonian institute in 2010 with a brief overview based off of their research on the AR-234B.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/img024.jpg)
-
lyric, that recon flight reminded me of a post on another board.
"This area looked like one big airfield. It was unbelievable how many aircraft they had amassed there."
But having faced no aerial opposition, Sommer continued to fly over London, where he continued to take photographs. He would face potential court-martial for this addition to the mission. His 'unofficial' photos showed that Germany's V-weapons had not had the impact that Nazi officials were informing Hitler.
Sommer met the mosquito on his return journey. I don't have a location, but probably over the channel. The pilots courteously waved at each-other and continued their flights.
-
A page from a book published by the Smithsonian institute in 2010 with a brief overview based off of their research on the AR-234B.
It's not clear if they're referring to guns on all the Arado's or just this particular one. It does suggest the possibility that NASM might respond to a request for information. Curiously the current web page description of the aircraft says nothing at all about gun mountings. Maybe after they printed the book they received new information. :devil
http://airandspace.si.edu/collections/artifact.cfm?id=A19600312000
-
It's not clear if they're referring to guns on all the Arado's or just this particular one. It does suggest the possibility that NASM might respond to a request for information. Curiously the current web page description of the aircraft says nothing at all about gun mountings. Maybe after they printed the book they received new information. :devil
http://airandspace.si.edu/collections/artifact.cfm?id=A19600312000
Why don't you contact them as I have before on this very matter. :D
http://airandspace.si.edu/research/arch/emailform.cfm
-
Why don't you contact them as I have before on this very matter. :D
http://airandspace.si.edu/research/arch/emailform.cfm
Fair enough.
Did you note the 20 aircraft built after 12/44 mentioned in the web text? That sounds a lot like "late production models".
The drawing is Brown's book is full of errors:
Designation mention as Ar 234B-2/lr - lr are Rüstsatz designations and not part of the model number (l = LOTFE = bomb aiming device, r = two 300l drop tanks).
20mm guns - neither the 6/44 nor the 12/44 manual have those as standard fitting nor even list them as optional Rüstsatz.
According to several books the rear guns were to be factory-installed in the C-series. They were originally planned for the B-series as an external under-fuselage pod but dropped in autumn 1944 because they preferred to load bombs up to 1000kg there. The fuselage-mounted MG 151/20 were then planned as option but obviously never used. With ammo they weighted more than 200kg and would cause CoG issues to be offset with balance weight in front. Sounds like one of the reasons for the forward fuselage extension of the C-series which was to have this installation as standard.
Doesn't the drawing in Brown's book show the drop tanks and bomb sight? Wouldn't that make the designation correct?
If the guns were only fitted on the aircraft made after 12/44 they wouldn't be mentioned in the earlier manuals. The bomb sight had a separate manual, maybe the periscope and guns had a separate manual too.
The C/G question makes me wonder how much the 2 cameras weighed.
-
Fair enough.
Did you note the 20 aircraft built after 12/44 mentioned in the web text? That sounds a lot like "late production models".
If you would type out your question to them here in this thread as it will not show up in the reply from the Smithsonian.
Just so there is no confusion. :aok
-
I'll just say I was right and you were wrong. That should be clear enough. :lol
-
Doesn't the drawing in Brown's book show the drop tanks and bomb sight? Wouldn't that make the designation correct?
If the guns were only fitted on the aircraft made after 12/44 they wouldn't be mentioned in the earlier manuals. The bomb sight had a separate manual, maybe the periscope and guns had a separate manual too.
The C/G question makes me wonder how much the 2 cameras weighed.
Those answers I seem to recall can be found here on the CD's for Arado.
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.luftfahrt-archiv-hafner.de%2F
-
The drawings you posted show the RB30 series cameras which weigh 160 lbs each with film so two of them is close enough to the cannon and ammo weight.
-
Don't know if this has been referred to elsewhere in the thread, but FWIW Eric Brown's "Wings of the Luftwaffe" has this cutaway:
I have a few of Browns books or books about his cutaways. It declares right at the beginning that the drawings are not based on detailed facts but on assumption and conjecture.
-
I'll just say I was right and you were wrong. That should be clear enough. :lol
You misunderstand why I put the :D face on the prior post.
For example I asked them if they could power up the periscope some how on their AR-234 so they could take pictures through it so I can have exactly what the view would be like.
They sent me this.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/img018.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/img019.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/img020.jpg)
So I was left wondering what question did I ask these guys then?
I kind of took it as a no on powering up the periscope. :lol
Take a note of your actual question because the reply may leave you :headscratch: as to what you asked in the first place.
-
I got that. I was making a joke.
The archivists cannot play with the aircraft, they can only look up and copy documents and pictures.
-
Nice info Lyric. According to Jeff Ethel and Alfred Price's book German Jets in Combat none of the reconnaissance a/c and most of the bombers did not have the rear cannon mounted. Some later production models, which is what we have in AH, did have the 20mm cannon and they were mounted to fire out 12 degrees in line with the flight path which when you think about it is the most sensible vertical angle for a fixed gun. They appear to be mounted down because the fuselage is angled up at that point. The night fighters were ad hoc but not considered experimental they just didn't build many, the firepower was considered too weak to make it feasible. The high alt level bombing was the most interesting bombing technique due to the bomb sight controlled auto pilot but the shallow dive bomb run was used most often.
Just got done reading Ethell & Price's book.
The only text in this book in regards to rear guns is the 3D cutaway drawing on pages 88 & 89 that is already shown in this thread & the paragraph you quote from on page 91 that is shown below.
Only a few of the listed pilots mentioned in the preface flew the bomber version & no where in this book is there any mention of any AR-234 pilot referring to rear guns at all.
You also misunderstood the paragraph with the 12 degree firing pattern of rear guns.
They are talking about cameras not guns.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/img025.jpg)
Reading the Preface it was interesting to see a couple of names who helped on this book.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/img026.jpg)
That's right the very same two guys who wrote this book back in the day & were writing in lockstep with all the other early books on the AR-234. As can be seen on the image below.
http://books.google.com/books?id=bb1ywW6WjIkC&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&dq=bza+bomb+sight&source=bl&ots=tyW0wtL85q&sig=oY0j9Rb79tb5wpk5TF_ZbRBm8Jg&hl=en&ei=x0L9TfGcH4LY0QHuneXQAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=bza%20bomb%20sight&f=false
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/creek.jpg)
Then later they had a complete change of heart on the same titled book.
Where they repeatedly state no rear guns on any B model as shown from one of those pages below.
http://www.amazon.com/Monogram-Monarch-Arado-234-Blitz/dp/0914144510
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/ar234info6.jpg)
It seems as I stated before Richard Smith & Eddie Creek found out later that their early book was wrong & they completely changed their minds.
These guys I think have the smoking gun & my next task will be to find them & ask what it is. :aok
-
You're correct it states the 12 degrees is the camera offset from straight down. The drawing shows the guns pointing straight back. It also says a few late production aircraft had the guns illustrated in the drawing. You believe the camera info but not the gun info. The book is correct except where it disagrees with your theory. :D
-
The drawing shows the guns pointing straight back. It also says a few late production aircraft had the guns illustrated in the drawing. You believe the camera info but not the gun info. The book is correct except where it disagrees with your theory. :D
First off you can't determine any angle the guns pointed at based off that drawing there is no actual call out off of a centerline blueprint.
I will stand by the US personal who captured the C model & their statements as to what direction C model guns pointed.
Again i think the book in question in regards to late model aircraft with guns are the C models.
They did not know that at the time though that no B model was fitted with rear guns when that book was printed.
I will find Creek & Smith & see what they have to say & show me the facts that they have.
-
According to Smith/Creek, pg 87 in their book, the rear firing 20mm cannons were only fitted to the V21 prototype.
-
FLS it is impossible to determine with any accuracy the precise angle at which the guns were to be mounted. However... even given the coarsest look at the thickness of the line and allowing every bias on the side of angled upward... they are still pointed downward. That is according to comparisons with center datum line.
EDIT: If you have a drawing that you are using other than the ones Lyric has then post them and I will show you precisely what the evidence indicates.
-
@Lyric: Just noted that your image of pg 91 is exactly where FLS said he got the info about the guns. Oddly it is not there in your picture. hmm... :headscratch:
-
@Lyric: Just noted that your image of pg 91 is exactly where FLS said he got the info about the guns. Oddly it is not there in your picture. hmm... :headscratch:
You'd have to read the image Lyric posted to see the gun reference.
-
First off you can't determine any angle the guns pointed at based off that drawing there is no actual call out off of a centerline blueprint.
I will stand by the US personal who captured the C model & their statements as to what direction C model guns pointed.
Again i think the book in question in regards to late model aircraft with guns are the C models.
They did not know that at the time though that no B model was fitted with rear guns when that book was printed.
I will find Creek & Smith & see what they have to say & show me the facts that they have.
How exactly do you know what they knew when that book was printed? I think you mean to say that it's your guess that
anything anyone printed that contradicts your theory is wrong.
-
How exactly do you know what they knew when that book was printed? I think you mean to say that it's your guess that
anything anyone printed that contradicts your theory is wrong.
As I have said I have bought many books & have done a lot of research based off all of the information when you put it all together?? Well you know the rest.
Your holding on to two brief lines of information from one source & won't even consider buying anything else to review.
So you want to keep rear guns on the 234 great.
Take your information & submit it to Hitech creations & they can compare it to the information I have submitted to them.
Then we will let them decide if & when there is an update as to what will or won't be done.
:aok
-
Actually I don't care if our Arado 234B has guns or not. I'm guessing that HTC will continue with their current loadout options. I don't feel compelled to email them about it or to buy books that make statements they can't document. How many pilots, manufacturers, designers, and engineers did Smith interview? He started his research 30 years after the war? Price started during the war and had access to everyone available in 1945. I posted that you yourself posted 7 different sources stating that some 234B's had guns but you misrepresent that as if there was only one source. Why do you care if AH has the loadout option of guns that are mentioned in more than the 7 sources you posted? There is a lot of evidence that most 234Bs did not have the guns. There are many references to some of them having guns. Nobody has shown any evidence that none of them had guns, we just have conflicting statements from reputable sources.
I thought we already agreed to disagree. :lol
-
Actually I don't care if our Arado 234B has guns or not. I'm guessing that HTC will continue with their current loadout options. I don't feel compelled to email them about it or to buy books that make statements they can't document. How many pilots, manufacturers, designers, and engineers did Smith interview? He started his research 30 years after the war? Price started during the war and had access to everyone available in 1945. I posted that you yourself posted 7 different sources stating that some 234B's had guns but you misrepresent that as if there was only one source. Why do you care if AH has the loadout option of guns that are mentioned in more than the 7 sources you posted? There is a lot of evidence that most 234Bs did not have the guns. There are many references to some of them having guns. Nobody has shown any evidence that none of them had guns, we just have conflicting statements from reputable sources.
I thought we already agreed to disagree. :lol
I have misrepresented nothing.
-
lyric1, just remember that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink the water.
-
You'd have to read the image Lyric posted to see the gun reference.
I did. I have also seen plans that you have not looked at given the tone of your posts. Plans that lyric has posted. The 234s gun package in AH are a fantasy pure and simple.
-
At long last I have found a photo of the actual rear view as seen through the AR-234B periscope (minus the actual aircraft).
Most likely the forward view as well with the PV1B head?
Good luck finding anything at all behind you with this view.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/Aradorearviewperiscope1.gif)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/Aradorearviewperiscope.gif)
-
Intersting. I was expecting it to have a collimator appearance to it but this type would be absolutely useless even if it made it onto an aircraft!
Nice work Lyric. :salute
-
Found a lot of information on the BZA dive bombing computer & how it all works.
I think I have enough information to come up with that there was 3 types of periscopes over the life of the AR-234B.
First off this one the RF2B periscope.
This only had a rear view & most likely looked like the 2ND picture below when viewed.
Was only used on recon aircraft early on.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ReportonExperienceswiththeAr234B19-1.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/Aradorearviewperiscope.gif)
The second type was this one the RF2C periscope.
Notice the ball shaped protrusion on the top of the periscope? I have several photos of this type & could not figure it out until now.
This type was a transition periscope for a rear view as well as a forward view.
It would have had the same view forward & aft as the above 2ND picture.
I think this may have only been used on recon aircraft also?
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/ar234periscope-1-2-1.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/rearperi.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/reara.gif)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/forwperi.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/forwb.gif)
The third type is what we have in the game now the RF2C periscope with the PV1B head. This was designed with the forward view & was working with the BZA dive bomb computer.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/ar234info6-1.jpg)
Then the aft view that was designed for rear guns & had all the inverted views as mentioned in this thread prior.
Here is a sketch from the pilots perspective on the forward view through the periscope as he is in a dive using the BZA computer.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/peripvb1.jpg)
Question is now what was the PVB1 rear view like since it was designed to shoot with?
Sadly none of the documents state that.
Few more documents as well.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/peripvb1c.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/peripvb1a.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/peripvb1b.jpg)
-
I guess I would be motivated if I had lost a Chog, F4U4, and a P51 to the ar234s guns.
-
Since it has been proven that none of the 234s actually saw combat with the rear guns mounted it is a feature that is pure fantasy. Its the exact same thing as taking any 'planned' luftwaffe weapon and adding it whether it was ever constructed or not.
-
Since it has been proven that none of the 234s actually saw combat with the rear guns mounted it is a feature that is pure fantasy...
Could you quote that proof for me, I can't seem to find it.
Thanks in advance.
-
Could you prove a production Ar 234 flew with these guns? We only have some vague claims with some self-made graphics in a book but multiple other books denying this, even KG 76 books (unit flying Ar 234 in operational missions) state none ever flew with these guns.
-
Could you prove a production Ar 234 flew with these guns? We only have some vague claims with some self-made graphics in a book but multiple other books denying this, even KG 76 books (unit flying Ar 234 in operational missions) state none ever flew with these guns.
I'm not claiming they had guns. I'm pointing out that nobody has proved that none of them had guns.
You should read up on Eric Brown. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Brown_(pilot)
His vague claims are good enough for me. So far we've only seen that most Arados did not have the guns mounted.
-
Could you prove a production Ar 234 flew with these guns? We only have some vague claims with some self-made graphics in a book but multiple other books denying this, even KG 76 books (unit flying Ar 234 in operational missions) state none ever flew with these guns.
Denniss what are the KG 76 books please?
-
Books devoted to the unit history of KG 76. There should be at least one not very old but can't find name/ISBN at the moment.
-
I'm not claiming they had guns. I'm pointing out that nobody has proved that none of them had guns.
You should read up on Eric Brown. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Brown_(pilot)
His vague claims are good enough for me. So far we've only seen that most Arados did not have the guns mounted.
Are vague claims of UFOs and little green men good enough for you?
-
Are vague claims of UFOs and little green men good enough for you?
Is it Neil Armstrong making the claims?
-
I think it should be proven that they do exist. It is impossible to prove 100% that they didn't exist. Even so a single shred of verifiable evidence showing they flew with guns in combat would be good for inclusion. It looks as if there is no shred. I think the guns should be removed. I believe that the evidence presented gives an answer so close to 100% they they never flew them in combat as for it to be silly to have them in game.
MFW people argue for them to be included.
(http://i.imgur.com/wkqzb.gif)
Laughable.
$.02
-
I think it should be proven that they do exist. It is impossible to prove 100% that they didn't exist. Even so a single shred of verifiable evidence showing they flew with guns in combat would be good for inclusion. It looks as if there is no shred. I think the guns should be removed. I believe that the evidence presented gives an answer so close to 100% they they never flew them in combat as for it to be silly to have them in game.
MFW people argue for them to be included.
Laughable.
$.02
There are a several published sources stating some had guns, Lyric linked to many of them, but you are certainly entitled to your opinion for what it's worth.
-
I haven't seen any sourced info they flew with guns, fitted maybe but nothing proves they flew with rear guns.
-
I got a response from a reference services archivist at NASM today. She states that their Arado never had guns, which is not in dispute, and then she quotes Smith and Creek's book that Lyric has already quoted. I assume we'll continue to agreeably disagree. ;)
-
I got a response from a reference services archivist at NASM today. She states that their Arado never had guns, which is not in dispute, and then she quotes Smith and Creek's book that Lyric has already quoted. I assume we'll continue to agreeably disagree. ;)
Your letter only differs to mine then on one point. They said on mine that the AR 234 V21 was the only AR 234 a prototype to have rear guns.
That of course was a C model.
If nothing else they are consistant with regards to rear guns.
Moving on I have a Japanese magazine on the AR 234 & of course I have no idea what any of it says. I do like this magazine though as they always seem to have something in it that no other publisher seems to have.
They have the drawings below on the forward facing gun pod for the night fighter version. It has some details on the fairings that surround the gun pod & the drawings give a better idea of the size & shape specifics that I have not seen before.
So if they do decide to turn the guns to the correct direction on the AR 234B :D for AHII maybe they can use the drawings below.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/img043.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/img041.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/img042.jpg)
-
Its forward gun pod could tilt its guns at a slightly downward angle?
-
Its forward gun pod could tilt its guns at a slightly downward angle?
Can't read Japanese?
-
An AR-234 B2 handbook I found on line all German of course.
Dated December 1944.
If our German readers could tell us if there is any good information on the periscope & it's views or how to use it BZA & so forth?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/99837642/Arado-Ar-234-B-2-Flugzeug-Handbuch-Teil-0-10-Ausgabe-Dezember-1944
-
First look:
There is no mention about any rear firing MG 151/20. It could have been in part 8A (8B is about ordnance), but that part has been omitted and labeled as "not applicable)
The other interesting thing I noted was in the chapter about the Ruestsaetze - the Lotfe was only meant for Führungsflugzeuge, formation leaders.
-
First look:
There is no mention about any rear firing MG 151/20. It could have been in part 8A (8B is about ordnance), but that part has been omitted and labeled as "not applicable) I am shocked. :devil
The other interesting thing I noted was in the chapter about the Ruestsaetze - the Lotfe was only meant for Führungsflugzeuge, formation leaders. Now that is interesting as a number of captured aircraft when reviewed & photographed made mention that no Lotfe was install on the bomber versions & I always was wondering why.
Thank you Lusche.
-
May as well show all the other German documents I found on line as well.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/99822250/Arado-Ar-234-B-2-Bedienungsvorschrift-Werkschrift-2234-B-2-Stand-Juli-1944
http://www.scribd.com/doc/99823056/Arado-Ar-234-B-2-D-Luft-T-2234-B-2-Fl-Bedienungs-Karte-Oktober-1944
http://www.scribd.com/doc/99839246/Arado-Ar-234-mit-R-Antrieb-1944
http://www.scribd.com/doc/99840008/Arado-Ar-234-V4-Flugbericht-des-Testpiloten-Kroger-vom-23-02-1944
-
I have the solution.
Rename the aircraft AR-234-C2.
Done.
-
While we are on actual equipment that was on AR 234's. Here is the stall horn that Chalenge made a sound file for. A friend of his who has something to do with archiving something or other for some agency or museum?
Sorry I forget where.
Anyways an actual Ar 234 stall horn & this is what it sounds like. :aok
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=momLpeBwy3Q
-
Its forward gun pod could tilt its guns at a slightly downward angle?
I've seen similar setups for ground strafing. I think it was probably over-engineering on the Germans' part. Use the same pod in different configurations depending on which job needed doing. Planning for multiple roles for the same pod, but may never have been used that way.
-
Was the four engined 234s used in the war? or were they testbed/prototypes?
-
Was the four engined 234s used in the war? or were they testbed/prototypes?
The first two with four engines were prototypes with the model A designation that was V6 & V8 they also had the dolly & skid undercarriage. Then came V13 on the B model. When the C model came into production all of that designation had four engines.
A number of these C models were also V types or prototypes.
Arado did have the C model up & running & a number were delivered to bases & were preparing to form squadrons when the war ended.
Long story short no four engine production AR 234 was ever was used in combat that is known.
-
Off topic a little but it is interesting what you can find on EBAY.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/230902084759?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649
http://www.ebay.com/itm/390529906574?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649
http://www.ebay.com/itm/250888201921?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649
http://www.ebay.com/itm/WW2-German-Luftwaffe-Jumo-004-Turbo-Jet-Fan-Blade-2-Me262-Ar234-/390590897769?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item5af1081e69
http://www.ebay.com/itm/WW2-German-Vorratsanzeiger-Fuel-Fl-20723-Ar234-RARE-/251026635872?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3a725a7c60
-
Only a few more parts needed and you could build a new one :banana:
-
Can I ask a quick question regarding these German jets? Were their engine reliability issues due more to design issues of early model jets or were they more due to the problem the Germans were having getting the proper metallurgy imported and produced? I know both were issues but which caused more problems?
-
Can I ask a quick question regarding these German jets? Were their engine reliability issues due more to design issues of early model jets or were they more due to the problem the Germans were having getting the proper metallurgy imported and produced? I know both were issues but which caused more problems?
Both were causing issues. Ability to properly forge - ability to source quality raw materials - consistently damaged facilities - hidden factories built into mountains without sufficient lighting and manufacturing controls and processes and the list goes on and on...and they were truly the first engines and were VERY complicated and they were working out consistent assembly and fine tuning manufacturing processes. Throw in end-of-war and loosing badly stress, you have wobbly-made planes.
So to answer your question, neither were singly responsible more so than the other. Throw in poor quality fuel - and you have yourself engine problem at the end of WWII for the luftwobbles.
-
Lets not forget the sabotage that was happening!
I was reading up on the 163 and they had a unit delivered that they found had sand in the rocket engine!
Cables were cut,bolts not tightened suficiently and numerous other things all added into the problems of lack of materials and or proper facilities.
:salute
-
While working on this topic I had a chance to communicate with MR Wilhelm Ludwig Kriessmann an AR-234 Ferrier pilot.
http://www.aviationartstore.com/pilot_Wilhelm%20Ludwig%20Krissemann.htm
He helped me with some questions I had & I gave him a copy of the PDF book I posted on this thread. I just found out sadly he passed away last year. :salute
http://carolynyeager.net/remembering-willi-kriessmann
-
While working on this topic I had a chance to communicate with MR Wilhelm Ludwig Kriessmann an AR-234 Ferrier pilot.
http://www.aviationartstore.com/pilot_Wilhelm%20Ludwig%20Krissemann.htm
He helped me with some questions I had & I gave him a copy of the PDF book I posted on this thread. I just found out sadly he passed away last year. :salute
http://carolynyeager.net/remembering-willi-kriessmann
Holy cow, did you check out the kind of person that carolyn yeager chick is and the point of her site and her efforts? :confused:
Sad. :noid
-
Holy cow, did you check out the kind of person that carolyn yeager chick is and the point of her site and her efforts? :confused:
Sad. :noid
Ahh no I didn't I just happened to do a search for Wilhelm Ludwig Kriessmann & noticed that he had passed & posted from the first link I noticed. No idea who she was or what she was about till now.
-
According to Smith/Creek, pg 87 in their book, the rear firing 20mm cannons were only fitted to the V21 prototype.
As well as V-19 a four engine B model that was designated the first C model prototype :aok
For a very long time now I have been trying to get a copy of this book.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/67119_0_zpsl2qe6uwv.jpg) (http://s1002.photobucket.com/user/barneybolac/media/Arado%20AR-234/67119_0_zpsl2qe6uwv.jpg.html)
It is a rare book & copies are hard to find. At last I have got one for my self. :banana:
All the aircraft that were captured & were able to be flown by the allies came out of Norway.
This book also supports the no rear guns except for the prototypes. As I listed before in this thread only the C model was ever fitted with rear guns. It lists each aircraft that was there in Norway & lists those that was deemed possible to fly for the Allies.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/5_zpsicqy45km.jpg) (http://s1002.photobucket.com/user/barneybolac/media/Arado%20AR-234/5_zpsicqy45km.jpg.html)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/5a_zps5k60czjq.jpg) (http://s1002.photobucket.com/user/barneybolac/media/Arado%20AR-234/5a_zps5k60czjq.jpg.html)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/werk_zpsgrg7wg5s.jpg) (http://s1002.photobucket.com/user/barneybolac/media/Arado%20AR-234/werk_zpsgrg7wg5s.jpg.html)
It also breaks down who flew what aircraft back to their respective sides for example Eric Brown.
He only flew two.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/brown_zps8ua9eaph.jpg) (http://s1002.photobucket.com/user/barneybolac/media/Arado%20AR-234/brown_zps8ua9eaph.jpg.html)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/brown%20a_zpsueyyh3qs.jpg) (http://s1002.photobucket.com/user/barneybolac/media/Arado%20AR-234/brown%20a_zpsueyyh3qs.jpg.html)
Now just to refresh the memories of some,this is what the firing ports & ejection shell chutes would have looked like if they had of put rear guns on the B model.
These images are all C models.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/ca90efb6-ecee-4680-93b4-bc31f72287ea_zpsuvcfbbmp.jpg) (http://s1002.photobucket.com/user/barneybolac/media/Arado%20AR-234/ca90efb6-ecee-4680-93b4-bc31f72287ea_zpsuvcfbbmp.jpg.html)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/ar234%20b3_zpshmq678gt.jpg) (http://s1002.photobucket.com/user/barneybolac/media/Arado%20AR-234/ar234%20b3_zpshmq678gt.jpg.html)
So lets look at the two Brown flew.
#140581 This was a reconnaissance aircraft it flew with 1.(F)/33 a recon squadron it had cameras & those are located in the compartment the rear guns would have been if installed.
Photo of that plane.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/brown%20b_zpsxwyzxlq3.jpg) (http://s1002.photobucket.com/user/barneybolac/media/Arado%20AR-234/brown%20b_zpsxwyzxlq3.jpg.html)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/brown%20d_zpsxx6hcggg.jpg) (http://s1002.photobucket.com/user/barneybolac/media/Arado%20AR-234/brown%20d_zpsxx6hcggg.jpg.html)
#140356 This aircraft was in II./KG 76.
This was a bomb squadron no cameras here so the rear area for guns is empty & has a possibility to be a rear gunned AR-234B?
No there is no gun ports on it.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/brown%20c_zpsnj8ikksa.jpg) (http://s1002.photobucket.com/user/barneybolac/media/Arado%20AR-234/brown%20c_zpsnj8ikksa.jpg.html)
-
Bustr bought up a site on the TA-152 thread I started. At one point in time you had to pay to be a member to access the information. Not any more. :banana:
Plus they have found more stuff about the AR-234B2 Periscope since I subscribed.
http://www.deutscheluftwaffe.de/instrumente/katalog/revi/revi.htm
Translated it to English it explains how the PV 1B site & the dive computer worked for dive bombing plus drawings of what the forward & rear views would have looked like through the periscope.
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.deutscheluftwaffe.de%2Farchiv%2FDokumente%2FABC%2Fr%2FReflexvisiere%2FBZA_1%2FBZA%25201.html&edit-text=&act=url
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/ar234info6-1.jpg) (http://s1002.photobucket.com/user/barneybolac/media/Arado%20AR-234/ar234info6-1.jpg.html)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/ar%20234%20peri3_zps0wpcdr6s.jpg) (http://s1002.photobucket.com/user/barneybolac/media/Arado%20AR-234/ar%20234%20peri3_zps0wpcdr6s.jpg.html)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/arado%20234%202_zpsqtv7ozgk.jpg) (http://s1002.photobucket.com/user/barneybolac/media/Arado%20AR-234/arado%20234%202_zpsqtv7ozgk.jpg.html)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/ar%20234%20periscope_zpsokbbty7l.jpg) (http://s1002.photobucket.com/user/barneybolac/media/Arado%20AR-234/ar%20234%20periscope_zpsokbbty7l.jpg.html)
So this would be the view forward for bombing inside the circle.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/02_zpsghy5nzyb.jpg) (http://s1002.photobucket.com/user/barneybolac/media/Arado%20AR-234/02_zpsghy5nzyb.jpg.html)
This shows forward & back view I believe.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/PV1B_Blatt_zpsfkfkghob.jpg) (http://s1002.photobucket.com/user/barneybolac/media/Arado%20AR-234/PV1B_Blatt_zpsfkfkghob.jpg.html)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/PV1B_Blatt_2_zpsxrqrsllj.jpg) (http://s1002.photobucket.com/user/barneybolac/media/Arado%20AR-234/PV1B_Blatt_2_zpsxrqrsllj.jpg.html)
This periscope is for purpose built AR-234B recon aircraft no need for a forward view so no PV 1B sight.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/RF2B_zpslrq4qldz.jpg) (http://s1002.photobucket.com/user/barneybolac/media/Arado%20AR-234/RF2B_zpslrq4qldz.jpg.html)
-
Found a couple of new books that were published last year. They just reinforce what I have been saying for a while.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/img299_zpsweqrr9n5.jpg) (http://s1002.photobucket.com/user/barneybolac/media/Arado%20AR-234/img299_zpsweqrr9n5.jpg.html)
Also the 3D drawings in them are amazing here is a sample.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/img300_zpskfqrsrh4.jpg) (http://s1002.photobucket.com/user/barneybolac/media/Arado%20AR-234/img300_zpskfqrsrh4.jpg.html)
-
Lyric,
Great work.
I hope you are not going the route I've gone with the motor cannons azimuth settings in fighters, I16 flaps, A20-G optical gunsight, and P47-D11 front view through the armored glass. Galland would have loved cannons that could shoot up through the engine.
-
Since Photbucket killed this thread and with the eventual update of the AR-234B plus with a new book I just found.
Just a little reminder. :devil
(http://i68.tinypic.com/dc9bmq.jpg)
(http://i64.tinypic.com/w9hfua.jpg)
-
Ratos should shed automatically at 250 to 300 mph. It is a joke to see a fantasy minded player keep them on and use them like a cartoon roadrunner on Saturday morning to run from a bounce. Also it seems from the Discovery Channel program "Wings of the Luftwaffe that AR234s had a periscope whether it had guns or not.
-
Compromise: Ar234 with front AND rear guns! Har har
-
Compromise: Ar234 with front AND rear guns! Har har
AR-234B had in instances forward facing guns.
-
The proposed night fighter version was to be armed with forward and/or SM guns, all others not
-
AR-234B had in instances forward facing guns.
Where did he say Ar234B? :)
-
Where did he say Ar234B? :)
Its back in this thread.
Here is a profile of one.
(https://i.imgur.com/o7L8eLS.jpg)
(http://i64.tinypic.com/x3a6gg.jpg)
The others were the night fighter versions.
(http://i63.tinypic.com/213ez3o.jpg)
(http://i63.tinypic.com/mu7vcz.jpg)
(http://i64.tinypic.com/25zmqg7.jpg)