Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: JAWS2003 on March 30, 2007, 10:47:27 AM
-
This would be the most fun plane in MA. :D
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/%3cFA%3eJaws/me210.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/%3cFA%3eJaws/me410a.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/%3cFA%3eJaws/bk5.gif)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/%3cFA%3eJaws/bk5_me410.jpg)
-
Apparently they don't like hotlinking.
-
I'm afraid the axis flyers will split between He-111 and Me-410 and will send both home next round.:(
-
Any plane I see with a big gun in the nose makes me think one thing. Another opportunity for the HO.
-
With that thing you can ho from 2km.:lol
But i think would do ok against tanks too.
-
Hey look what I found:
SIX 20mm cannon !
(http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/fww2/me410/me410-7.jpg)
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/%3cFA%3eJaws/watermark2.jpg)
-
I would really love to see the two Mk-103 in the loadout.
-
Weapons:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/%3cFA%3eJaws/16G.jpg)
-
I will vote for the Me.410 going forward.
-
As the Pe-2/Tu-2 have been eliminated I will now back the Me410.
-
On that drawing the Mk103 cannon is misspelled Mk108. But those two are clearly 103s looking at the shape and lenght of the barell.
(http://library.thinkquest.org/C006001/armament/mk103.jpg)
(http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/AMgundrawJ.jpg)
(http://www.inert-ord.net/luft02h/rounds_cmpr5.jpg)
The Mk103 round is marked with H. Just check the size comparing it with the Mk108 (G). or the fifty cal (A1):lol
:lol
-
An MK103 would be reason enough to vote for the 410 all by itself...
We will not get a BK5 in the MA, though.
-
Wow, what a huge muzzle brake! That thing must have kicked like a mule.
-
Originally posted by moot
An MK103 would be reason enough to vote for the 410 all by itself...
We will not get a BK5 in the MA, though.
Besides Hitech's conserns about sniping bombers being "unfair", it would also be difficult to implement the telescopic sight that came with the gun.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Besides Hitech's conserns about sniping bombers being "unfair"
but bombers sniping fighters is? ;) :t
-
Originally posted by Viking
Besides Hitech's conserns about sniping bombers being "unfair", it would also be difficult to implement the telescopic sight that came with the gun.
Nothing is unfair in love and war.
And this is not about love.:t
-
No, this is a game. ;)
-
We won't get the BK5 on the Me410 just like we won't get the Mollins gun on the Mossie.
-
I was delighted to see the 410 has moved on to round 2 :)
We wont get that big cannon, but i hope we can get some of those other juicy gun packs if the 410 is voted in :)
-
People keep saying we can't get telescopic sights for remote guns, but what would the difference be with the F6 level bomb view?
All you need is to change the camera location to one aligned with the gun's aim, and place a sight in the way, as the cockpit and said F6 view already have.
I see how the 234 still not having one for its tailguns, but Pyro has refuted someone for saying it was not feasible.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Besides Hitech's conserns about sniping bombers being "unfair", it would also be difficult to implement the telescopic sight that came with the gun.
I found this in one of Pyro's posts:
"B-25 – Cool plane, one of my favorites as a kid and another sentimental favorite for various reasons. Good for several variants and who wouldn’t want to fly a plane that has a 75mm cannon and 14 .50s?"
So why would he consider the 50mm gun on the Me-410 "unfair" while he talks about the 75mm gun on the B-25.:huh
-
Of course it is feasible, but it will probably be difficult, or at least more difficult than it is worth. The F6 bomb view is the same on all bombers (I think) so it is probably a common module/sub-routine that all bombers call on, and not as easy as you think to turn into a level telescopic gun sight.
-
Viking perhaps I've got the wrong idea of how the BK5 sight worked? The way I picture it, you look into a periscope with its aperture near the BK5 barrel.
F6 view is just a relocation of the game camera to just a view set against an aiming gunsight. How would the AH BK5 periscope differ from this?
Jaws, the BK5 would be a lot more efficient, considering its platform and ballistics.. although I do sort of agree.
-
Originally posted by JAWS2003
I found this in one of Pyro's posts:
"B-25 – Cool plane, one of my favorites as a kid and another sentimental favorite for various reasons. Good for several variants and who wouldn’t want to fly a plane that has a 75mm cannon and 14 .50s?"
So why would he consider the 50mm gun on the Me-410 "unfair" while he talks about the 75mm gun on the B-25.:huh
Low velocity 75mm vs high velocity 50mm or 57mm.
-
It's not about the periscope or where your "eye" is. It's about programming and changing the code of an existing module (the bomb sight). It would probably be less problematic to just program a completely new function for the sight, say use a gunners station or a completely new key function. However, this is all academic as none of us know how the game code is organized.
-
By the way, those line drawings show the 410 with 8x 20mm cannon, NOT 6x!!!!
See the small holes are the MGs, then there's two sets right below them, each one for an MG151/20. Then theres the two sticking out of the bottom of the bomb bay, and then there's the two in the ventral gunpod!
I don't care HOW poor it flies with that much weight, I'd try it at least a few times!
-
Viking, as far as I can tell, it would function the same as moving to, say, a bomber gunner position, or the T34 top view.. the latter would only need a periscope sprite stuck in front of the camera's position to turn it into a gunsight for a gun that happened to be pointed that way.
In a plane such as a BK5-Me410, you'd just have to press that position's button/key to "look" into the BK5 aiming periscope.. or is there more functionality to the real BK5 sight?
-
Why all the discussion of the BK5? It won't be added. The man himself has said as much. It's the other gun packages that would be so much fun!
-
In another game i use a Me262 version with Bk-5 cannon.
Is really hard to use efficiently. While it has good balistics, it has low rate of fire and big recoil. So you have to fire single shots and aim again.
In the case of Me-410 I would take the 2x30mm Mk103+2x20mm Mg151/20 any day.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
By the way, those line drawings show the 410 with 8x 20mm cannon, NOT 6x!!!!
See the small holes are the MGs, then there's two sets right below them, each one for an MG151/20. Then theres the two sticking out of the bottom of the bomb bay, and then there's the two in the ventral gunpod!
I don't care HOW poor it flies with that much weight, I'd try it at least a few times!
I wouldn't completely trust that drawing if I were you. It has two errors that I can see: MK 108 instead of MK 103, and the B series had MG 131's in place of the A's MG 17's.
In any case I only see 6 cannons in that drawing. Two in the nose (standard armament), two in the bomb bay, and two in the gondola. Or four cannons in the bomb bay, but no gondola. I don't know if they could carry the gondola guns in addition to the four cannon bomb bay option.
-
OOps, you're right, I was getting the images mixed up.
However, if you look at the one that has 4x MG151's evenly spaced through the bomb bay doors, then you might still have the 2x MG151s up by the MGs.
That's 6, with the option of a ventral gunpack :t
Hell, with "only" 6 it would still be an awesome sight!
-
Yes it still has the two Mg 151/20 in the nose/fuselage by the two MG 17/131’s. Those guns were standard, so a “clean” Me 410 would still have two cannons. The way I see it the 410 in Zerstörer configuration carried 6 MG 151/20 and 2 MG 17/131 + 2MG 131 in the barbettes. It is conceivable that it could carry the gondola guns and the four cannon bomb bay package for a total of 8 MG 151/20.
-
I've got a comment in a book of mine that says something along the lines of "and some versions ever carried up to eight MG151/20 cannons". I think it's possible.
-
Still the 2x20mm+2x30mm (Mk103) would be the best gun package in the game.
Those 103's are devastating against anything in the air and you could also kill tanks with them.
:)
-
I'm not sure the day-fighters carried the MK 103's. I can only find references of them being used in the night fighter variant.
-
The night fighters didn't have radar, so there'd be little difference between the two.
P.S. I think I'd like the 2x30 and 2x20 setup, but IMO 8x20 would be far more consistent and have longer range than 2x30. I'd probably use both equally if we had 'em.
-
My mistake, I meant the anti-shipping version, not night-fighter. The one with the FuG 200 radar.
-
The 30mm MK 103 has far better ballistics and range than the MG 151/20. The MK 103 has equal or better ballistics than the US .50 cal. Slow rate of fire though.
-
Wow Viking, I thought you had said no fighters carried the 103 at all!
They definitely need to have the 410 carry a Mk103 ! :D
-
A more efficient way to kill laser guided bullet bombers.
Anything more effective to kill em, Im all for.
-
Originally posted by moot
Wow Viking, I thought you had said no fighters carried the 103 at all!
They definitely need to have the 410 carry a Mk103 ! :D
I don't think I've said that.
-
The 103's were used for ground attack as well as for night fighters.
The 103 was one of the best big guns in the war. Was heavy and big to be used on single seat fighters as a motor cannon. It was used on some 190's in gunpods (both against bombers and for ground attack) but the gunpods deteriorated the handling and performance of a single engine plane a lot.
The twin engine fighters and zerstorers could carry it. Was extensively used on the Hs-129 for ground attack because of high muzle velocity and good armor penetration. Was effective against all but the heavy tanks. Even some heavy tanks were not safe (KV1/2).
-
Originally posted by JAWS2003
It was used on some 190's in gunpods (both against bombers and for ground attack) but the gunpods deteriorated the handling and performance of a single engine plane a lot.
No.. not gunpods. They are in the wing and they dont deteriorate the preformance that much.
-
The MK 103 was not used on Fw190's. They tested them as Gondelwaffen, but the recoil was found to damage the wings.
-
huh? my bad. i thought it was the 30mm we have in the 190s. sorry
-
410 will be a total hanger queen. All it will be is a big slow target...its almost 24,000 lbs with a 390 sqf wing area....so its wingloading is on the order of 55 lbs/sqf (after taking off 2200 lbs for ords)......better put a red cross emblem on the side....you'll need it:D
-
Viking, I mean I understood it that way.
If the 410's flying is as bad as it was anecdoticaly, it really oughta get an MK103 loadout :D
If only there was a way to know if they'll model the AH 410 with it..
Humble - give it a MK103 and it will have earned the bullseye! :)
o/t - The LW really oughta had something like a 190D with just an MK103 in the nose.
-
Originally posted by humble
410 will be a total hanger queen. All it will be is a big slow target...its almost 24,000 lbs with a 390 sqf wing area....so its wingloading is on the order of 55 lbs/sqf (after taking off 2200 lbs for ords)......better put a red cross emblem on the side....you'll need it:D
Your information is of the … usual quality (a word I find difficult to use in this context). The Me 410 had an empty weight of 13,000 lbs (6100 kg) and a max take-off weight of 23,480 lbs. In comparison the P-38L had an empty weight of 12,780 lbs and a max. take-off weight of 21,600 lbs.
The Me 410 had a wing area of 390 sq. feet.
The P-38L had a wing area of 327.5 sq. feet.
The Me 410 has more power and lower wing loading than the P-38L.
[Edit: Spelling]
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Why all the discussion of the BK5? It won't be added. The man himself has said as much.
Who said that? Give me a link.
-
let me dig it up. From memory, it was Hitech, because he didn't want anybody to snipe bombers from outside their defensive gun range.
-
Originally posted by Pyro
Who said that? Give me a link.
I think it is an extrapolation of the idea that the 57mm Mollins gun isn't goin g to be added due to the sniping of bombers issue.
-
Originally posted by Pyro
Who said that? Give me a link.
There's hope :aok :aok
-
I found a few quotes in various threads.
Originally posted by Tails
HTC has already said they will not add Tse Tse (Big-gun Mozzie), due to the possibility that it could snipe bombers from outside their gunrange.
Originally posted by Karnak
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tails
Actually, I think the reason quoted why we will never see the Tse Tse Fly, or a 50mm gun option for the Me-410 for that matter, is because they dont want anti-buff snipers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both reasons in fact. Pyro said as much when I talked to him last month. The Tse Tse was something I was interested in.
So it wasn't Hitech, but Pyro, I guess.
EDIT: Link on the last one:
http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=163749&perpage=25&highlight=mollins&pagenumber=2
-
Strange then that he would be asking for clarification.
-
I was just thinking that myself. (*shrug*)
-
I found a Me-410 handbuch on this site site some time ago.
http://detailsite.tripod.com/410/410framespage.htm (http://detailsite.tripod.com/410/410framespage.htm)
It has really nice drawings of the weapons and systems in the plane.
things like this:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/%3cFA%3eJaws/a1mk103cutaway.jpg)
-
Perk the BK5 loadout!! :)
-
Originally posted by Viking
Your information is of the … usual quality (a word I find difficult to use in this context). The Me 410 had an empty weight of 13,000 lbs (6100 kg) and a max take-off weight of 23,480 lbs. In comparison the P-38L had an empty weight of 12,780 lbs and a max. take-off weight of 21,600 lbs.
The Me 410 had a wing area of 390 sq. feet.
The P-38L had a wing area of 327.5 sq. feet.
The Me 410 has more power and lower wing loading than the P-38L.
[Edit: Spelling]
And it only carries 2,200 lbs of ords and I have a max loading of 23,480...
so like I said once you get the ords off you have a wingloading of 55 lbs/sqf. All those 20mm shells I guess:)....as for the 38....well does the 410 have combat flaps?
your comparing an apple.....and a turnip. The 110 will fly circles around the 410...so will the mossie and the A-20. If the 38 didnt have combat flaps it would be a dog also....
-
The default two 20mm cannons have 350 rounds each.
That's a lot of ammo.:eek:
-
It could carry a lot more than 2,200 lbs of ordnance. The 2,200 lbs is for the bomb bay only. It could carry twice that number in bombs when using external shackles, and in addition two 300 litre drop tanks under the outer wing panels (just like on the 110G).So in just bombs and external fuel we’re looking at close to or more than 6000 lbs. Which would give a loaded weight with no ordnance or external fuel not much more than a normally loaded P-38L.
Edit: spelling
-
Unless of course you believe the P-38 flew around weighing 20,000 pounds clean after we subtract its 2000 lbs bomb load from its max. take-off weight?
Your logic is so simple it boggles the mind.
-
I only find one source that shows the 2nd 2200lbs. I have no reason to argue the possibilities. It certainly has the power to haul ords. It was however a total failure in its role as a hvy fighter. It's certainly possible that the base configuaration with DT's and light internal fuel will perform better then I think. however without combat flaps its not going to come close to the 38 IMO. If we use a combat weight of 17,000's its still got wingloading of 43 lbs+....so I'd put it in the A20 range handling wise at best. Certainly not bad....but clearly inferior to the 110 and cannon fodder in the MA in all but a few hands.
Given the 30mm/20mm "light" loadout in the 110(G2) with 25% and DT's I dont see any value in the 410 in a fighter role. If it does in fact haul 4500 lbs of ords and DT's then it certainly has potential as a JABO bird that can furball afterward (much like the A-20){obviously the 2x20mm far superior}....but how many guys fly the 110 or A-20 worth a darn?
I think its to big and to slow to survive well in the MA....just 1 guys opinion. Just like the A-20....other than cobia and a few others its just cannon fodder....the 110 however can be a tough nut to crack....especially if it has alt & E to play with...
-
Originally posted by Viking
Unless of course you believe the P-38 flew around weighing 20,000 pounds clean after we subtract its 2000 lbs bomb load from its max. take-off weight?
Your logic is so simple it boggles the mind.
My logic is fine. Your sitting here comparing one of the most versital fighters of WW2 to a "fighter" that was withdrawn from service in less then a year. It's bigger, slower, less manueverable and had no combat success to speak of....who's delusional? The plane was a total waste of resources....
-
First of all I did not say you were delusional, but now that you mention it ... you are.
Second, the Me 410 started production in January 1943 and saw a lot more than one year of service. It saw ~18 months of service in the heavy fighter role and served until the end of the war in other roles.
Third, the Me 410 was very successful against allied bombers and the ZG units amassed impressive kill tallies until they faced single engine allied escorts in superior numbers. The Me 410 was not withdrawn from service in the west until mid-1944 … when most of the Luftwaffe was destroyed in the west by allied numerical superiority.
Fourth, the P-38 is faster than the Me 410 at 25k because of the turbochargers. At lower altitudes I expect the Me 410 to be the faster plane. And of course in contrast to the real world it is low altitude performance that matters in this game.
Fifth, yes I am comparing the Me 410 to the P-38, and in fact the Me 410 enjoyed greater success in the European Theatre than the P-38 … which was plagued with difficulties and was almost completely withdrawn from the ETO in favor of single engine fighters by the time the Me 410 was withdrawn.
-
Hmmm production started in May of 1943....II/ZG 26 was mauled on May 13, 1944 {which is what led to the removal from frontline service}....so last time I saw...may to may....was a year.
I have no doubt the 410 is well suited to bomber interception. The 410 got mauled as soon as it ran into fighters. In the action above the 410's faced 20 P-51's....hardly "overwhelming numbers".
I doubt the 410 is faster then the P38L at any altitude...
The 410 got mauled and was withdrawn from its primary role. The 38 served with distinction in the ETO/MTO until the end of the war. Numerous expertain fell to the P-38 in combat actions over western europe in 1944.
-
Originally posted by humble
Hmmm production started in May of 1943....II/ZG 26 was mauled on May 13, 1944 {which is what led to the removal from frontline service}....so last time I saw...may to may....was a year.
You are correct, deliveries began in May 1943, my mistake. It was not withdrawn from frontline service however, only as a bomber destroyer. It continued to serve as a reconnaissance plane and fast bomber.
Originally posted by humble
I have no doubt the 410 is well suited to bomber interception. The 410 got mauled as soon as it ran into fighters. In the action above the 410's faced 20 P-51's....hardly "overwhelming numbers".
When 12 Me 410 get jumped by 20 mustangs I call that overwhelming numbers.
Originally posted by humble
The 410 got mauled and was withdrawn from its primary role.
The Me 410’s primary role was as a fast bomber and ground attack plane. Bomber destroying was just one of its many talents.
Originally posted by humble
The 38 served with distinction in the ETO/MTO until the end of the war.
With indignation you mean. It was hardly a popular plane with its crews or the leadership in the ETO. So unpopular was the P-38 that the Air Force stateside sent famous air racer Tony LeVier over to Britain to teach the pilots how to survive in a P-38. His “air shows” were indeed popular, but futile.
Early 1944, Tony LeVier was ordered to get to the ETO fast. The P-38 was awash in rumors or how deadly it can be to fly. Pilots not experienced with twin-engine flying were having many preventable accidents. Many of these pilots were killed not by the enemy, but a lack of knowledge on how to operate in case of an emergency. With the many engine problems, operating with one engine was a necessity. At some point in the war in the ETO, every pilot would probably be faced with a one-engine flying situation. LeVier was to get to Britain and demonstrate flying techniques to the pilots and would in the process hopefully dispel many rumors, which were unfounded.
LeVier believed too little testing at high altitudes was done before sending the P-38s to Britain. He also believed that too many experienced pilots were spread too thin in the pilot ranks, and that the cockpit heat was a serious problem. It was not just the comfort of the pilot, but when the pilots were cramped in a small cockpit under extreme cold situations, they were not in a good flying condition when encountering enemy aircraft. Also, the windows would fog up, and reduce visibility. He arrived at the 364th Fighter Group at Honington. LeVier was not spreading propaganda, and was honest with the pilots he met with. They were informed about all the known limitations of the aircraft, but he also spoke with them on all the positive aspects of the aircraft as well. Manu demonstrations were preformed, such as recovering from a dive.
LeVier continued his demonstration tour and arrived at Kingscliff, home of the 20th Fighter Group. The pilots of the 20th were not overly impressed with his lecture. LeVier proceeded to take up his P-38 (equipped with the new dive flaps). At 25,000 ft., LeVier dove straight down, and the pilots rushed out to see what they thought would be a crash. He easily pulled out without any problems, and for extra emphasis, he preformed several low level one-engine rolls. The current P-38s in the ETO were not equipped with this flap, but he was attempting to showcase the new features, which would be arriving soon. The pilots were shown that they would be able to pursue a German fighter diving out of trouble. The demonstration was indeed successful.
Goxhill was home to a commander who could easily be considered a P-40 man. He disliked the P-38, and the pilots under his command reflected that opinion. LeVier went "all out" in his demonstrations. He convinced them that the problem was inadequate training, not an inadequate aircraft. LeVier won over the opinions of the commander and the pilots. The next stop was in Andover, the headquarters of the 9th Fighter Command. These pilots originally came from a P-47 outfit in the States, and were having difficulty transitioning to the twin-engine P-38. LeVier demonstrated several dives, low-level upside-down passes on one engine, accelerated stalls, and circled the base upside-down several times. Virtually everyone on the base came out to watch the "air show".
LeVier's demonstration tour was an overwhelming success. During the four months he was in Britain, an estimated 2,000 engines were replaced on the P-38s. This staggering number was the main reason for the transfer of the P-38s out of the ETO. Levier was using his special P-38, which was equipped with the newly designed dive flaps. The problem was after he demonstrated the P-38s ability to recover from dives, the pilots had to go back to flying the older P-38s in their units. Lockheed quickly loaded up 400 sets of dive flaps for installation in the ETO. A C-54 cargo aircraft was loaded up and sent to Britain. The results from the installation of the flaps would be tremendous and many pilots and aircraft would be saved. However, during the flight, a British pilot mistook the aircraft for a German aircraft, and shot it down. The loss of the flaps was the final blow to the P-38 in the ETO. General Doolittle had previously started the transition to only P-51s and P-47s. Lockheed would never get a chance to reproduce the dive flaps, and none were installed on P-38s in the ETO.
Originally posted by humble
Numerous expertain fell to the P-38 in combat actions over western europe in 1944.
Name one. (Edit: I know of one, but do you?)
-
You are a bit pompous arent you.....Walter Oesau May 5, 1944....
I can name others with the required 20+ kills....your up....
-
If we get all of those cannon loadouts, including the BK5, you can count me in as well. :t
-
Originally posted by humble
You are a bit pompous arent you.....Walter Oesau May 5, 1944....
I can name others with the required 20+ kills....your up....
Yup, Oesau was the one I know too. Took five P-38's 20 minutes to finally kill him. Can you name enough to support your "numerous expertain" claim? (Assuming you meant "Experten".)
-
12 got shot down....
The plane was designed as a fighter...not a bomber...it blew chunks in that capacity. Now if you compare it to the A-26 which was an attack bomber OK. The planes have similiar wingloading and should be somewwhat similiar....but the iron dog isnt gonna be anything but a faster more heavily armed A-20. It is not and was not a "fighter".
As for the 38, the P-47 and P-51 were both more suited to the needs of the ETO. The P-51 was the premeir longe range escort in the war and the p-47 has the distinction of being the only plane in which every "double ace" survived the war.
The 410 was the continuation of a bad idea. If you want to see a "hvy fighter" done right look no further then the F7F...
-
Your up champ....you asked me if I knew 1....took me 30 seconds to answer you.
-
The Me 410 was primarily designed as a Schnellbomber (it had an internal bomb bay for cryingoutloud). The first unit to operate the Me 410 was KG 2 who used it to bomb England. The first casualty was also a Schnellbomber (over England). Only when the US daylight bombing raids became a big problem in late 1943 was the Me 410s converted (effortlessly due to the design) to the bomber destroyer role.
-
Originally posted by humble
Your up champ....you asked me if I knew 1....took me 30 seconds to answer you.
It was the one I knew. One does not support your "numerous" claim. Now enlighten me as to the vast number of Experten that fell to the P-38, or fess up that you exaggerated.
-
Originally posted by humble
Now if you compare it to the A-26 which was an attack bomber OK. The planes have similiar wingloading and should be somewwhat similiar....but the iron dog isnt gonna be anything but a faster more heavily armed A-20. It is not and was not a "fighter".
In the other thread you compared the A-20 to the Mosquito in terms of wing loading…
Originally posted by humble
the A-20 by comparision was just under 40 lbs/sqf {about same as Mosquito}. The 410 is a target drone. If they model it right it'll be a total flop in the MA......
And I answered:
Originally posted by Viking
So you’re now saying that a Me 410 has about the same wing loading of a Mosquito (as if you cant fly a Me 410 with less than 4-5,000 lbs of ammo and fuel). Ok I’ll accept that for now. The Mosquito is in fact a very maneuverable plane with a turning circle of just ~50 feet more than the Bf 110G at 679 feet. In comparison the P-38L has a turning circle of 817 feet, 596 feet with full flaps. If the Me 410 turns as well as the Mossie I’ll be very pleased.
-
The Me.410 is not uber.
What it is is versatile, mean looking, and potentially a VERY fun aircraft to fly.
Plus its DED sexay
(http://www.avionesclasicos.com/luftwaffe/me410.jpg)
-
Viking and Humble, what're you guys doing?
The 410 gets a vote just because it's so cool.
The 110 wasn't a great furball figter at all in WWII... and look at it in the MA. In the MA, the 410 might just be a 110, but with the TnB/BnZ performance ratio inverted.. What's for sure is that it will get great guns, look beautiful, shoot deadly snapshots with those centralized guns and semi-glass cockpit, and with some luck will carry a BK5 and high velocity MK103s..
There's plenty of planes that aren't supposed to be any good at what they do great in the arenas.
-
Originally posted by moot
Viking and Humble, what're you guys doing?
The 410 gets a vote just because it's so cool.
The 110 wasn't a great furball figter at all in WWII... and look at it in the MA. In the MA, the 410 might just be a 110, but with the TnB/BnZ performance ratio inverted.. What's for sure is that it will get great guns, look beautiful, shoot deadly snapshots with those centralized guns and semi-glass cockpit, and with some luck will carry a BK5 and high velocity MK103s..
There's plenty of planes that aren't supposed to be any good at what they do great in the arenas.
Indeed :)
-
The A-20 has a maximum takeoff weight of just over 20,000 lbs giving it max possible wingload of about 43 lbs/sqf. If you subtract just the ords you have a max wingloading of just over 39 lbs/sqf. Using the same "math" with the 410 your at roughly 54.5 lbs/sqf....not even close. I said about the same as the A-26.
As for the 38's record I could go dig the names up fairly easily but why? The germans lost alot of pilots who transfered from the east. Going of memory II/JG6 bounced about 12 lightings in mid 1944 (around D-day). The 40 or so 190's shot down half but then were bounced by other lightings. At the end JG6 lost 16 190's (to 7 38's) with many others badly shot up. The mauling was so bad that II/JG6 had to be withdrawn from service. I believe Otto Webling was killed in that engagement but I'm not certain (going from memory). Here are a few others....
Kurt Ebener
Reinhold Hoffmann
Wolfgang Neu
Anton Piffer
Gunther Seeger
38 victim (http://www.luftwaffe.cz/badum.html)
38 victim (http://www.luftwaffe.cz/clade.html)
38 victim (http://www.luftwaffe.cz/freytag.html)
38 victim (http://www.luftwaffe.cz/hahnf.html)
38 victim (http://www.luftwaffe.cz/rohwer.html)
38 victim (http://www.luftwaffe.cz/seifert.html)
38 victim (http://www.luftwaffe.cz/schiess.html) 38 victim (http://www.luftwaffe.cz/teumer.html)
38 victim (http://www.luftwaffe.cz/ubben.html)
This is certainly not guaranteed completely accurate as i'm not going to dig up all documentation. The p-38 continued to perform bomber escort missions well into late 1944...
-
Originally posted by quintv
The Me.410 is not uber.
What it is is versatile, mean looking, and potentially a VERY fun aircraft to fly.
Plus its DED sexay
(http://www.avionesclasicos.com/luftwaffe/me410.jpg)
Also, because of the layout of the glass on the canopy - there will be no finer aircraft for making high deflection shots.
(http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~pc6m-wkn/Cosford/Me410-02-1.JPG)
-
I'm not for or against the 410. Certainly it should be modeled at some point...just like the g.55 and the brewster. However I dont see the need to make it the #1 priority. I still view this as a "fighter" game and see the P-39 or yak 3 as a more favorable option. I think the 110 is actually an exceptionally flexible plane that see's wide use. To me the 410 is actually a step back in many ways. I think the comparisions to the 38 are fantasy...given we have a 2 x 30mm 4 x 20mm 110 option I dont see the 410 really providing anything truely different.
The Yak-9U we have is 20+ mph faster then the yak-3 and has almost identical wingloading...again basically just a wash. Neither option seems to make alot of sense to me....
-
We sertainly dont _need_ the 410, but I want it! It's an emotional thing. I think it looks awesome and has a few other bits that makes it interesting. The excellent forward view is something we dont really have in any other german "fighter planes"
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
We sertainly dont _need_ the 410, but I want it! It's an emotional thing.
I think that we owe it to Nilsen to add the Me-410 to the game.
God bless you Nilsen.
-
Now that my pick is out , seems the 410 to me would be a nice addition to AH so it gets my votes going forward .
:aok
-
Not to pick and choose favorites, but there was a time when the 110 didn't see nearly as much usage in the MAs as it does now. It also used to be a hangar queen of sorts, and seemed to come into its own as a toolshedding monster. The 410 may not perform as well as the 110, but would surely find some use in the MAs. Getting to be a broken record about this, but how well a plane performed in the war can be a far cry from how competitive or useful (or fun, even) it might be in the MAs.
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
The 410 may not perform as well as the 110, but would surely find some use in the MAs.
Agree, it would be a wonderful attacking plane. It can carry torpedoes, too. :)
Getting to be a broken record about this, but how well a plane performed in the war can be a far cry from how competitive or useful (or fun, even) it might be in the MAs.
SSSSHHHHHHHHHHHT! Don't even say that! I tried to explain that to people, regarding the G.55... and look what happened! :t
-
Vote 410! No more frigging useless, cannon fodder American bombers!
VOTE 410!
-
:noid
-
Originally posted by humble
The A-20 has a maximum takeoff weight of just over 20,000 lbs giving it max possible wingload of about 43 lbs/sqf. If you subtract just the ords you have a max wingloading of just over 39 lbs/sqf. Using the same "math" with the 410 your at roughly 54.5 lbs/sqf....not even close. I said about the same as the A-26.
Again with the intentionally wrong “math”. We agreed earlier that a normally loaded Me 410 without bombs or external fuel weighed around 16,000-17,000 lbs which gives it a wing loading of 41-43,5 lbs/sq.f.
But, go ahead; continue your trolling. It’s the only thing you’re good at.
Originally posted by humble
Kurt Ebener
Was not killed by a P-38. Ebener died on the Eastern Front fighting in the German army.
Originally posted by humble
Reinhold Hoffmann
Was not killed by a P-38. Died in landing accident following combat with US bombers.
Originally posted by humble
Wolfgang Neu
At the time Neu was killed only the 20th, 55th and 479th FG were still flying P-38s in the ETO. More likely killed by P-47 or P-51. Unless you can substantiate your claim.
Originally posted by humble
Anton Piffer
At the time Piffer was killed only the 20th, 55th, 364th and 479th FG were still flying P-38s in the ETO. More likely killed by P-47 or P-51. Unless you can substantiate your claim.
Originally posted by humble
Gunther Seeger
This is the funny one. Gunter Seeger retired a lieutenant colonel in the bundesluftwaffe in 1974. :lol
Originally posted by humble
38 victim (http://www.luftwaffe.cz/badum.html)
Shot down and killed in Tunisia on 12 January 1943. Not over western Europe in 1944 as you claim:
Originally posted by humble
Numerous expertain fell to the P-38 in combat actions over western europe in 1944.
Originally posted by humble
38 victim (http://www.luftwaffe.cz/clade.html)
Clade survived the war (with three P-38 pelts I might add).
Originally posted by humble
38 victim (http://www.luftwaffe.cz/freytag.html)
Died in the French Foreign Legion retirement home on 1 June 2003. :lol
Originally posted by humble
38 victim (http://www.luftwaffe.cz/hahnf.html)
Shot down over Italy, not in the ETO.
Originally posted by humble
38 victim (http://www.luftwaffe.cz/rohwer.html)
A P-38 did indeed kill Rohwer. He was strafed on the ground. I don’t think vulching counts. :lol
Originally posted by humble
38 victim (http://www.luftwaffe.cz/seifert.html)
Mid-air collision with a P-38 did Seifert in, so I’ll give you that one; killed by P-38 all right. :lol
Originally posted by humble
38 victim (http://www.luftwaffe.cz/schiess.html)
Again, shot down over Italy not ETO.
Originally posted by humble
38 victim (http://www.luftwaffe.cz/teumer.html)
Killed in landing accident with a 262.
Originally posted by humble
38 victim (http://www.luftwaffe.cz/ubben.html)
At the time Ubben was killed only the 20th, 55th, 364th and 479th FG were still flying P-38s in the ETO. More likely killed by P-47 or P-51. Unless you can substantiate your claim. Ubben killed seven P-38s so I guess they owed him one.
Originally posted by humble
This is certainly not guaranteed completely accurate as i'm not going to dig up all documentation.
Nice cover in case your blatant lying is found out. Like I said, continue your trolling.
-
Ouch.:lol
-
Hell, the one guy killed 17 38's before he got ganged! hee hee He also killed 7 38's in 11 days, according to the data.:t
-
I will keep voting Me410 for as long as it's on the list. As mentioned, it's one helluva sexy bird :D
And, was I on some kind of narcotic, or did I actually see someone quote me outside of the original thread :huh
-
On 23 August 1944, Ebener was shot down in aerial combat with USAAF fighters southeast of Paris in Bf 109 G-14 (W.Nr. 780 667) “Black 2”. Ebener baled out badly wounded
Your simply one of those folks who is incapable of any reasonable or straight forward debate.
The plane was in frontline service for a year....period (1 for me)...
I gave you a "best case weight of 16-17,000"....not a combat load. Again the planes wingloading is comparable to the A-26 not the 110,mossie or A-20 (two for me).
I didnt specify that all names were correct or that they died. Simply that they were shot down by P-38s. I have no intention of arguing with anyone incapable of legitimate interaction. Ebener (to the best of my knowledge) was shot down in combat with P-38's near Paris.
Gunter Seeger
He was shot down in aerial combat with USAAF fighters on 13 May. He belly landed his Bf 109 G-6 “White 13” east of Neumünster and was fortunate to escape injury. Seeger was shot down again on 24 May. Again he was the victim of USAAF fighters and made a belly landing near Pritzerbe in Bf 109 G-6 “White 1”. One of those was vs P-38's, forget which one....
Mid-air collision with a P-38 did Seifert in, so I’ll give you that one; killed by P-38 all right.
This is typical of your comments....
Siefert attacked the tail end plane in a formation of 38's in a climbing attack from below. The pilot of the 38 was Lt Manuel Aldecoa. He saw Seifert and turned into the attack. Peter Crump was leading the 2nd element, he observed both planes score hits and they collided front Qtr to Front Qtr. Aldecoa bailed out but his chute streamed...Siefert was either injured or unable to bail and rode his plane in. This is typical of your superficial knowledge of both aircraft and historical events. (I lost count of how many for me by now).
Reinhold Hoffman was hit by the escorting fighters (P-38's)...
On 24 May 1944, Hoffmann attempted an emergency landing at Friesack following aerial combat. His Fw 190 A-8 (W.Nr. 680 184) “Yellow 3” crashed killing the pilot.
I dont need to "substantiate" anything. 1st you asked me for 1, then you accused me of fabrication. As I said this list is not anything more then an overview. Wolfgang Neu shot down a 38 of 20th group shortly before his death. Third Gruppe claimed 1 B-17, 1 P-47 and 1 P-38 in ther action imediately preceeding Nue's death. second group claimed 2 B-24's as well as two P-47's from the escort. Nue was free lancing and not killed in the main action. Other pilots in the gruppe reported a flight of P-38s in the area and there is a coresponding claim....again this is not a sure thing....simply my recollection from a couple of different histories of JG26.
Anton Piffner
On 8 April, he was wounded over Salzwedel in aerial combat. He successfully baled out of Fw 190 A-8 (W.Nr. 170 044) “Black 3”. Again at this time most escorts were #8's (not all). you'll note multiple 38 claims among his buff kills....he was encountering 38's regularly. Again this is from varied reading....
I will leave you wallowing in your ignorance with this one....
Josef-Emil Clade
His last aerial combat took place on 25 February, when he engaged and shot down an USAAF P-38 twin-engine fighter. However, his aircraft had also received damage in the encounter and he was forced to bale out. He later met his opponent and exchanged souvenirs over a meal.
So in Feb or 1945 P-38's were actually still flying over Germany. And as often happened both planes took enough damage to be unflyable.
As far as I can see your not capable of actually engaging in any form of real debate or discourse. As a final side note on the combat action that cost Siefert and Acosta their lives the 55th FG went on to engage both the 190's of JG3 and 109's of JG2 shooting down 2 190's and 2 109's respectively with no further losses.
Here is the summary for the 55th FG for November 1943...
03rd - Maj. Milton Joel (38th FS) (.5)FW-190 destroyed (air) Westerholt-Wittmund
03rd - Maj. Milton Joel (38th FS) (2)FW-190 damaged (air) N/Wilhelmshaven
03rd - 2/Lt. Willard L. Kreft (38th FS) (.5)FW-190 destroyed (air) Westerholt-Wittmund
03rd - 2/Lt. Harold M. Bauer (343rd FS) FW-190 probable (air) South Wilhelmshaven (No Claim credited)
03rd - 2/Lt. Robert L. Buttke (343rd FS) (2)Me-109 destroyed (air) E/Wilhelmshaven
03rd - 1/Lt. Paul E. Hoeper (343rd FS) FW-190 probable (air) Wilhelmshaven (No Claim credited)
03rd - LtCol. Jack S. Jenkins (343rd FS) FW-190 probable (air) Wilhelmshaven
03rd - LtCol. Jack S. Jenkins (343rd FS) Me-109 destroyed (air) Spiekeroog Isle
03rd - Capt. Roland M. Malmstedt (343rd FS) Me-109 damaged (air) Wilhelmshaven
03rd - 2/Lt. Claire D. Porter (343rd FS) No Claim credited (Engagement Report)
03rd - 1/Lt. Eugene R. Ryan (343rd FS) Me-109 damaged (air) Wilhelmshaven
03rd - 1/Lt. Kenneth J. Sorace (343rd FS) FW-190 probable (air) Wilhelmshaven (No Claim credited)
03rd - 2/Lt. Raymond L. Sumpter (343rd FS) No Claim made (just Engagement report)
05th - F/O David D. Fisher (38th FS) No Claim made (just Engagement report)
05th - 2/Lt. Richard W. Forsblad (38th FS) FW-190 damaged (air) E/Rotterdam
05th - Maj. Milton Joel (38th FS) Me-109 destroyed (air) W/Arnhem
05th - 1/Lt. Gerald F. Leinweber (38th FS) Me-109 destroyed (air) Rotterdam
05th - Capt. Joseph Myers (38th FS) Me-109 destroyed (air) Arnhem
05th - Capt. Mark K. Shipman (38th FS) No Claim made (just Engagement report)
05th - 2/Lt. Delorn L. Steiner (38th FS) Do-217 damaged (air) Munster
05th - 1/Lt. Wilton E. Wyche (38th FS) No Claim made (Combat report supporting Lt. Leinweber's claim)
07th - Capt. Roland M. Malmstedt (343rd FS) No Claim credited (Engagement Report)
13th - Capt. Thomas E. Beaird Jr. (38th FS) FW-190 damaged (air) W/Bremen
13th - 2/Lt. Gerald Brown (38th FS) Me-109 damaged (air) Bremen
13th - 2/Lt. Paul Fisher Jr. (38th FS) No Claim made (just Engagement report)
13th - Capt. James H. Hancock (38th FS) No Claim made (just Engagement report)
13th - Maj. Milton Joel (38th FS) Ju-88 destroyed (air) Bremen
13th - Maj. Milton Joel (38th FS) Ju-88 probable (air) Bremen
13th - Maj. Milton Joel (38th FS) Me-109 probable (air) Bremen
13th - Maj. Milton Joel (38th FS) Me-109 damaged (air) Bremen
13th - 1/Lt. Gerald F. Leinweber (38th FS) No Claim made (Report on 1/Lt. Beall's combat 338th FS)
13th - 2/Lt. Robert F. Maloney (38th FS) FW-190 destroyed (air) Bremen
13th - 2/Lt. Robert F. Maloney (38th FS) FW-190 damaged (air) Bremen
13th - Capt. Joseph Myers (38th FS) Me-109 destroyed (air) Bremen
13th - Capt. Joseph Myers (38th FS) Ju-88 damaged (air) Bremen
13th - 1/Lt. Wilton E. Wyche (38th FS) No Claim made (just Engagement report)
13th - Maj. Richard W. Busching (338th FS) No Claim made (just Engagement report)
13th - 2/Lt. Karl H. Garlock (338th FS) Me-210 damaged (air) Hagen
13th - 2/Lt. Ernest W. George (338th FS) No Claim made (just Engagement report)
13th - Capt. Charles O. Jones (338th FS) No Claim made (just Engagement report)
13th - Capt. Joseph P. Marsiglia (338th FS) Me-210 probable (air) Hagen
13th - 2/Lt. Fleming W. Suiter (338th FS) No Claim made (just Encounter report)
13th - Capt. Edward B. Giller (343rd FS) Ju-88 destroyed (air) W/Bremen
13th - Capt. Eugene R. Ryan (343rd FS) Me-109 destroyed (air) W/Bremen
13th - Capt. Eugene R. Ryan (343rd FS) FW-190 probable (air) W/Bremen
13th - 2/Lt. Richard C. Stanton (343rd FS) No Claim made (confirmation of Ryan's Me109 claim)
13th - 2/Lt. Richard C. Stanton (343rd FS) No Claim made (confirmation of Ryan's FW-190 claim)
25th - 2/Lt. William K. Birch (38th FS) No Claim made (just Engagement report)
25th - 2/Lt. Robert F. Maloney (38th FS) Me-109 destroyed (air) Lille
25th - 2/Lt. Robert F. Maloney (38th FS) Me-109 probable (air) Hazebrouck
25th - Capt. Joseph Myers (38th FS) No Claim made (just Engagement report)
25th - Capt. Chet A. Patterson (338th FS) FW-190 destroyed (air) Lens
25th - 2/Lt. John R. Pruitt (338th FS) No Claim credited (Combat report)
25th - LtCol. Jack S. Jenkins (343rd FS) FW-190 destroyed (air) La Bassee
25th - Capt. Roland M. Malmstedt (343rd FS) Me-109 probable (air) Lille
25th - Capt. Eugene R. Ryan (343rd FS) (2)Me-109 damaged (air) Lille
26th - 2/Lt. Robert E. Erickson (38th FS) FW-190 damaged (air) W/Bremen
26th - Capt. Roland M. Malmstedt (343rd FS) Me-109 probable (air) Lille
26th - Maj. Dallas W. Webb (343rd FS) Me-210 destroyed (air) NE Bremen
29th - Capt. Thomas E. Beaird Jr. (HdQtrs) Me-109 probable (air) W/Bremen
29th - Capt. Jerry H. Ayers (38th FS) Me-109 destroyed (air) W/Bremen
29th - 2/Lt. Robert E. Erickson (38th FS) Me-109 damaged (air) W/Bremen
29th - Capt. Joseph P. Marsiglia (338th FS) Me-109 damaged (air) E/Emmen
29th - Capt. Chet A. Patterson (338th FS) Me-109 destroyed (air) N/Emmen
Anyone with any reasonable knowledge of history and/or any desire to understand true events will have np problem researching historical fact.
As I said the P-38 served with distinction in both the ETO and MTO. It was the 1st true long range bomber escort and did an admirable job. While it certainly wasnt the premier fighter in the european theater it continued to see action thru the end of the war. Many reasonably accurate histories exist that attempt to match up the various claims and but faces behind the victims on both sides. No claims history is truely accurate and I see no reason to wade thru and match up various names and places. The 55th alone recorded over 100 air to air kills in 38's (they flew 51's later in the war). While some of these were obviously baby seals many german pilots transfered from the east fell in combat between mid 1943 and mid 1944...a time period where the P-38 played a prominant role.
-
Nice cover in case your blatant lying is found out. Like I said, continue your trolling.
You asked a question and I gave you a forthright and reasonable attempt at an answer. I also made it clear that it was a quickly compiled answer. What I see from people like you is pure garbage. Show me when, where, how the 410 even gets close to the performance of the 38. It was basically a piece of junk....
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
Hell, the one guy killed 17 38's before he got ganged! hee hee He also killed 7 38's in 11 days, according to the data.:t
Siefert knocked down 32 spits....no question many of these guys were exceptionally good. most of them dies primarily to wrong place wrong time....but many were also shot down repeatedly as well.
-
Originally posted by humble
Numerous expertain fell to the P-38 in combat actions over western europe in 1944.
"Fell" is usually interpreted as "killed" when used in the context of combat. You have failed (miserably I might add) to substantiate your "numerous" claim. (All for me.)
The rest of your post is just your usual rubbish and is inconsequential. Now if you want to continue your P-38 masturbation start your own thread.
-
Jeeze, all the arguing and controversy...
This plane is SURE to be voted in!!! :aok
EDIT: And if it is, I'll have to change the block of ENIGMA in my sig.
-
Originally posted by Viking
"Fell" is usually interpreted as "killed" when used in the context of combat. You have failed (miserably I might add) to substantiate your "numerous" claim. (All for me.)
The rest of your post is just your usual rubbish and is inconsequential. Now if you want to continue your P-38 masturbation start your own thread.
"Fell" means shot down....always has and always will.
What you have substanciated is your a classless toad with zero understanding of reality. you asked for one... I gave it to you.... and I told you there were more. you called me a liar. I gave you more. Instead of manning up and admitting your mistake you continued and made it a personal attack. The only thing here that is "inconsequential" is you.
-
Ouch! *Theatrically reaches for my heart and gasps for air* :rofl
-
Originally posted by humble
Me410:
ubersexy,
twin-engined, good for 388mph,
dive brakes,
glass cockpit (http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s58/tapakeg/closerlook5ss.jpg),
all guns centralized: 50mm BK5, 30mm high velocity, stiff-trajectoried MK103's, as many as 8 MG151/20 20mm's (http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s58/tapakeg/me410b245wz0.jpg), aka You find the Mosquito punchy? :eek:
2000kg / 4000lbs of bombs, 6 21cm rockets...
You know you want it!
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
Hell, the one guy killed 17 38's before he got ganged! hee hee He also killed 7 38's in 11 days, according to the data.:t
Watch "Pips" Priller tally, SR: 68 Spitfire. And he survived the war. One of the best pilot and Geshwader Kommodore of the LW. ;)
Originally posted by Tails
EDIT: And if it is, I'll have to change the block of ENIGMA in my sig.
:eek: Wow, go, 410, go! I'd really like to know what's written there!
Moot, in the second picture you posted, the plane is a B2/U2/R5, it has 4 7.9 MGs and 6 cannons, the slots under the wing are ejecting ports.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/853_1175421143_me410.jpg)
AFAIK, 1 only had 8 MG151, the one of Lt. Rudi Dassow, of ZG. 26, holder of the Knight cross.
Regarding max ordnance, honestly, I didn't find many sources claiming it could carry 2000 kg as ordinary loadout (EDIT: to be honest, the only one is the Luftwaffe resource group, on the net), it was more likely limited to 1200 like the 110G2. There were experimental installations, like with the anti ship 410B5, of more heavy loadouts, but I think they never seen combat. However, I may be wrong, after all, I just can trust a couple of books I have. :)
-
Originally posted by Gianlupo
Watch "Pips" Priller tally, SR: 68 Spitfire. And he survived the war. One of the best pilot and Geshwader Kommodore of the LW. ;)
Off topic:
I often wonder about these "Spitfire kills" the Germans claimed. I would suspect that sometimes any RAF aircraft was claimed as a Spitfire. I read a report where an RAF Hurricane pilot met the 109 pilot he had shot down that day while he was being detained. The German pilot was at first horrified, then refused to believe that he had been shot down by a Hurricane and not a Spitfire.
-
Yep, Furby, I know that, but, as you say, German pilots invariably said they were shot down by a Spitfire, not to have shot down a Spit.
AFAIK, the German scoring system was one of the most inflexible: only with camera footage or report of some witness a kill would have been confirmed. I guess that most of them are right, even because the tallies of German pilots were so impressive that they've been researched extensively and thoroughly by a lot of historians.
So, even though some errors may persist, I think that list is quite accurate.
-
Originally posted by Gianlupo
Regarding max ordnance, honestly, I didn't find many sources claiming it could carry 2000 kg as ordinary loadout (EDIT: to be honest, the only one is the Luftwaffe resource group, on the net), it was more likely limited to 1200 like the 110G2. There were experimental installations, like with the anti ship 410B5, of more heavy loadouts, but I think they never seen combat. However, I may be wrong, after all, I just can trust a couple of books I have. :)
From the Me 210 and 410 entry in the book “Hitler’s Luftwaffe” by Tony Wood and Bill Gunston:
“Armament: Varied, but basic aircraft invariably defended by two remotely-controlled powered barbettes on sides of fuselage each housing one 13mm MG 131 and, if bomber version, provided with internal weapons bay housing two 1,102lb (500kg) bombs; external racks on nearly all 210 and 410 for two 1,102lb stores (exceptionally, two 2,204lb). Normal fixed forward-firing armament of two 20mm MG 151/20 and two 7.92mm MG 17. Me 410 versions had many kinds of bomber-destroyer armament, as described in the text.”
So in “exceptional” cases it could even carry two 1000 kg bombs on external racks. That ups the total bomb load to an amazing 6612 lbs.
-
Thanks Viking.
But... that entry is a bit unclear. In fact, it doesn't necessarly mean the 410 was able to carry up to 3000 kg of bombs. In fact the external racks for 500/1000 kg may have been added to make up for the loss of room in the bomb bay, taken by additional guns.
And, again, if they had "external racks on nearly 210 and 410" for 500/1000 kg loads, I wonder why I couldn't find such a statement in my sources. I mean, if that was so common, I'd have found it.
What you quoted still leaves me with doubts... anyway, I'm sure HTC can find the sources they need to model the plane: what really matters now is to support this plane, we'll have to worry about the loadout only when it'll win the vote! ;)
-
I'm not concerned. If we don't get the biggest bombs or guns the 410 will still be a fun plane. :)
-
Well said! :aok
-
Wow this plan looks like fun !
-
Originally posted by Gianlupo
So, even though some errors may persist, I think that list is quite accurate.
German pilots were awarded three times as many kills as they actually got during the Battle of Britain.
The only reason it was accurate later was because the fighting was over German occupied territory so they could go confirm the wreck usually.
In the first month of the Battle of Britain the RAF actually claimed less than they got, but then they ballooned to something like 1.5-2 times what they got in the following two months.
The Finns claimed less than they got the entire war.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Ouch! *Theatrically reaches for my heart and gasps for air* :rofl
If you're talking about Mark Hanna … he died in a Buchon (Spanish 109) when its Merlin engine caught fire in flight. He crash landed the burning plane at an airfield and died later in hospital from being severely burned. The Buchon was burned beyond repair.
Remember this comment you dweeb. This is another example of your garbage. Even after the NTSB equivent was posted (along with the account in his obit) you never did step up and admit your error. Same thing here....you simply dont have the self esteem to deal with anything straight up do you. I kind of hope you do get your 410 just so I can hunt your bellybutton down in a 38 all day:)
-
The best 411 I can find is actually in Mike Spick's book. He as a rate of climb of 2,800 ft/min for a 410-a2 with the 2 x 30mm gun package added. He also shows a wing loading of 60 lbs/sqf and aloaded weight of 23,483.
The same diagram shows loaded weight for the 190A-8 at 9,750 and 109G6 with a loaded weight of 6,945...both of which seem to agree with historical numbers. These are different then the max weights. The same source has the P-38L with a climb rate of 3,800 ft/min and a loaded weight of 17,500 (max take off weight is 20,600)...
The 410 might well be good Jabo/buff hunter but IMO any thoughts that its going to compete with the 110/A-20/Mossie as a pure dogfighter is a stretch....comparing it to the 38 is a pipe dream IMO.
-
Originally posted by Gianlupo
I'd really like to know what's written there!
Something about wanting an Me410, P-61, and sharks with laser beams in their heads. Thats going by memory, as I lost the M3 Naval ENIGMA settings I need to decode it :(
-
Originally posted by Karnak
German pilots were awarded three times as many kills as they actually got during the Battle of Britain.
The only reason it was accurate later was because the fighting was over German occupied territory so they could go confirm the wreck usually.
In the first month of the Battle of Britain the RAF actually claimed less than they got, but then they ballooned to something like 1.5-2 times what they got in the following two months.
The Finns claimed less than they got the entire war.
Karnak, I'm aware that overclaim is a problem of every war. What I meant is that those lists of claims were investegated by the Allies and by many historians after the war. So, now, after 60 years, I can assume that list is more or less correct.
Btw, you can easily see (http://www.luftwaffe.cz/priller.html) that most of Priller's Spitfire claims were after the BoB, over German occupied territory. So, you surely agree that the list is accurate in that part (59 out of 68 spitfire).
-
You know what Humble? I'll take you up on that.
Provided we get it with MK103s, your 38 won't get more than 49% victories against my 410 :)
-
I dont remember where I read this but wasnt the germanmethod of scoring/claiming a kill more restrictive than the allied way?
Glenn
-
Originally posted by Karnak
German pilots were awarded three times as many kills as they actually got during the Battle of Britain.
And RAF overclaimed some 3 times too much when they started their incursions to France. Very typical ratio when fighting over enemy territory.
-
Originally posted by humble
If you're talking about Mark Hanna … he died in a Buchon (Spanish 109) when its Merlin engine caught fire in flight. He crash landed the burning plane at an airfield and died later in hospital from being severely burned. The Buchon was burned beyond repair.
Remember this comment you dweeb. This is another example of your garbage. Even after the NTSB equivent was posted (along with the account in his obit) you never did step up and admit your error. Same thing here....you simply dont have the self esteem to deal with anything straight up do you. I kind of hope you do get your 410 just so I can hunt your bellybutton down in a 38 all day:)
Oh, nice lawyer move Mr. “The Hs 129 was only real attack aircraft and it was romanian...not german. 853 HS129s were built all all were in romanian service...none with the Luftwaffe.” :rofl If you can’t attack my arguments, attack my credibility.
The difference between you and me is I admit it when I’m wrong and give credit where it’s due. Like I did earlier in this very thread:
Originally posted by Viking
You are correct, deliveries began in May 1943, my mistake.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Besides Hitech's conserns about sniping bombers being "unfair", it would also be difficult to implement the telescopic sight that came with the gun.
"Sniping" is already possible with a 9T, it's perhaps easier to get in position with the 410.
-
sniping is also possible the Chog. set the cannon out to D650m and you kill them with ease at twice that distance. the hsso are rediculous.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Oh, nice lawyer move Mr. “The Hs 129 was only real attack aircraft and it was romanian...not german. 853 HS129s were built all all were in romanian service...none with the Luftwaffe.” :rofl If you can’t attack my arguments, attack my credibility.
The difference between you and me is I admit it when I’m wrong and give credit where it’s due. Like I did earlier in this very thread:
your the one "Attacking" your own credibility. I've NEVER seen you man up and "give credit". Please show me where you corrected your comment regarding Mark Hanna...you "called me out" and you were wrong.
Here you've "called me out" twice...possibly three times. I've responded in topic on all three.
1) The P-38 is a historically recognized fighter with a quality record....I see know data that supports your contention that the 410 can compete with the 38....either IRL or AH in a fighter role (the 110 cant even do that). I also see no data that supports a "loaded weight" less then the P-38. Both of these are simply wishful thinking on your part.
2) You originally asked me to name one "experten" shot down by a 38....I gave you one in a few minutes and told you there are more ...
3) you called me a liar so I showed you (again quickly) multiple cases of 38s downing german fighter pilots....I also posted the record of a single squad for a single month that shows typical activity and supports my comment above regarding the action between siefert and acosta that 4 other germans fell to the 38's on that day.
As is typical you hide behind nit picking and posturing instead of just manning up and saying you were mistaken. The 38 inflicted significant casualties on the luftwaffe and absorbed staggering losses in return. Only 3 of the original cadre from the 55th FG survived the 300 hr tour of duty. someone like you who only looks to find what you want will say thats due to the planes inferiority....as is normally the case the realities are more complicated. The FG's flying the 38 actually did the bulk of deep escort until the operational arrival of the P-51 in 1944. Often they had only 5 minutes of "combat power" for the entire flight. Many planes were lost due to fuel starvation and the 38's inability to fly a loose escort. On those occasions the 38 met the luftwaffe "fighter sweep to fighter sweep" the 38 held its own very well....especially considering that in 1943 and early 1944 the overall quality of the luftwaffe was at its highest point in the west. No shortcuts in training were taken and most units in the west were predominanty manned by seasoned vets. The 55th G alone claimed roughly 150 kills on 109's and 190's (air to air) with numerous other "damage/probable's" even if only 10% of those kills were "aces" that would be roughly 15 that fell to just 1 group. You simply have no statistical arquement that supports your position.
As for the 410, I am unaware of any data that shows "fighter like" performance. The plane is heavier then the 38, bigger then the 38, slower then the 38 and has heavier wingloading and a slower rate of climb then the 38.....it just isnt going to fly like a 38.
-
"The Me.410 is not uber."
Prolly not.
I'd expect it to fly like a Mossie if it did not have the near useless dead weight in form of tail gunner. :p But it has the wing slats and I think that helps it quite much in retaining control in turns. The wing planform looks similar to Mossie.
However, it's my main candidate after the Brewy was dropped.
***
"The Finns claimed less than they got the entire war."
I'm not sure about this but I heard that they are going to open the records in Russia so we will get confirmation of what the actual figure is. There were a few pilots who were awarded a few more kills after the war after investigations.
-C+
-
"time to help the Me 410"....
Too late, it's already gone from the competition.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by moot
You know what Humble? I'll take you up on that.
Provided we get it with MK103s, your 38 won't get more than 49% victories against my 410 :)
The gun package wont matter...nothing is gonna out laser the IL-2. The 410 doesnt have the armor or nimbleness of the IL-2 (wingloading 31 lbs/sqf) to really effectively work the reverses. It's not very easy to kill a 38 (even as badly as I fly it) in an A-20, 110 or mossie unless you have alt & E at the beginning. I dont see the 410 being a match for the mossie let alone the 38......but when we get it (now or later) look me up....be fun to find out how it does.
The leading Zerstörer pilot of the war was Tratt. He has 5 38 kills (along with 3 hurricanes){38 total}. In the context of a bomber intercept I can see the 410 being effective against the 38. No detail online I can see but he got 3 in 20 minutes on 2/11/44 so he was mixing it up with a bunch of em. This fits pretty well with the comments from one of the guys from the 20th FG (79thFS). No question the 38's were pushed to the limit trying to fly long range escort for the buff's.
"Angrily, we were told that the 79th. had lost half the squadron the day before, including the Deputy Grp. CO, Lt. Col. Montgomery; that he had been on the phone since the mission return, all night and all morning trying to answer the questions of everyone from 8th. AF Headquarters to the lowest Wing weenie; and that the 20th. had been "stood down" from combat indefinitely, for reorganization."
""We were deeply jolted by being told not to expect to survive this thing, but if we did survive the first three to five missions there might be a slight hope for us. We were also told that, if we felt we couldn't fly formation and/or were afraid to die.....just quit now. Leaving formation would not be tolerated, and Jackson would personally shoot us down if we went off chasing some German by ourselves. "
{link to full article below}
This is pretty typical of the flawed "close escort" tactics used at the time....however in a purely fighter on fighter encounter I think the 410 would have very little chance....
Tratt (http://www.luftwaffe.cz/tratt.html)
79th SQ/20thFG "history" (http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/quarters/6940/jbradshaw.html)
-
Originally posted by humble
I've NEVER seen you man up and "give credit".
It’s not my fault that you refuse to acknowledge it. Nor is it my fault that you are incapable of accepting that people have different opinions than yours.
Originally posted by Viking
You are correct, deliveries began in May 1943, my mistake.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
"time to help the Me 410"....
Too late, it's already gone from the competition.
My regards,
Widewing
Too bad. Maybe next time. :)
-
When is the funeral? I need to give my hopes and dreams a proper burial. :cry
-
Most unique and interesting aircraft of the vote is now a thing of the past.
Oh joy.
-
Originally posted by Joachim
Most unique and interesting aircraft of the vote is now a thing of the past.
Oh joy.
Well, the Me 410 had a lot of support in the forums. However, the rank and file players (not especially knowledgeable of WWII aircraft) will vote for the more familiar aircraft. Inasmuch as the majority of players are Americans, that means the P-39, B-25 and A-26 are going to generate a lot of votes.
I suspect that this will come down to the P-39 and B-25 in the final vote.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Viking
It’s not my fault that you refuse to acknowledge it. Nor is it my fault that you are incapable of accepting that people have different opinions than yours.
hehe I guess I have to give you that one:)
-
(http://www.thesmilies.com/smilies/sick0004.gif) (http://www.thesmilies.com)
-
:cry
-
I am now voting for the B-25 for Toad's dad and so that there is an early war Allied bomber that the early war Axis fighters can actually catch.
-
I won't even vote for the B25 when hell freezes over! :furious
Yak 3 got my vote now. it will be eliminated in this round though. After that the A26 has my vote.
-
Humble, the 410 is out, but just for the sake of discussion:
The numbers don't matter so much.. look at the 152. Its only chance in pretty much any fight is to exploit its clean airframe and land snapshots.. Saddling up in a 152 at anything but high speed is a point of no return.
I can handle a 38 in the mossie pretty much everytime.
I do think the MK103 will be comparable to the 23mm's.. the latter's higher ROF is only good if you count on having to shoot much.
As for anecdotes of the 410's furballing ineptitude, have you seen some for the 110 as well? It would contradict the 110 doing as well as it does in AH.
-
Originally posted by Treize69
When is the funeral? I need to give my hopes and dreams a proper burial. :cry
Here's a time and labor saving device for you.
(http://www.vintagetub.com/images/medium/m_K-3386-0.jpg)
-
Originally posted by moot
Humble, the 410 is out, but just for the sake of discussion:
The numbers don't matter so much.. look at the 152. Its only chance in pretty much any fight is to exploit its clean airframe and land snapshots.. Saddling up in a 152 at anything but high speed is a point of no return.
I can handle a 38 in the mossie pretty much everytime.
I do think the MK103 will be comparable to the 23mm's.. the latter's higher ROF is only good if you count on having to shoot much.
As for anecdotes of the 410's furballing ineptitude, have you seen some for the 110 as well? It would contradict the 110 doing as well as it does in AH.
Pilot skill will always be the biggest single factor in any fight. Obviously a plane like a 152 or 262 is pretty much gonna have to E fight unless pilot skill is very different. I think the 410 will be a fun bird in some respects when we do get it....but thoughts of using it in the A-20,mossie,110 manner are a bit far fetched...I'd say its more like "dogfighting" a B-26 (I think A-26 will be similiar as well).
I'm not a real good 38 (or mossie) driver...I never have any problem in a 38 with mossies that arent driven by the few "mossie aces"...same with the 110...most of them are connon fodder.
Again pilot skill is the variable....can you beat any of the recognized 38 drivers in a mossie...would love to see the film (not as "proof" but as a learning tool)...
If we go back to my "arguement" with Viking most of the 38's doing escort duty were actually H models (thats what Acosta was flying). No question that the 38's (including the early J's) had alot of issues and were poorly suited to the mission they drew. I linked part 2 of a good 3 part article on the 38. It explains alot of the problems and lack of proper training/experience....
Happy to fly a few mossie/38 runs anytime you want....certainly a match up I could use work on....
-
P38vsMossie - Definitely ask anytime we're online :)..
I just doubt the 410 will be as far below the 110/A20/Mossie's furballing as you seem to be saying...
Looking at the empty weight and power/weight ratio of both the 38 and 410, there's not much difference between the two, nor with the Mossie. Considering that, and considering a pair of MK103s, then the only unknown left is the 410's FM.
Like I said, the 110 was a "dog" in reality, by all acounts.. and yet look at how that changes in a furballing environment. I suspect that the 410 in fighting trim would furball at least as well as the Mossie and 110.
Especially if Pyro accepts to model the field mod of removing the rear gunner and his equipment.
The planes will be much more in their element in CT, of that I have no doubt.
I'm arguing things in the MA: before the 152 got its AH2 FM, it was agile enough to equal a SpitfireIX or N1K for two or three rotations - and you didnt need to be Drex to do that. That was enough for a killshot, which will be enough for the 410 from anywhere inside 1K, if it has MK103s.
After those first few rotations, is another story :)
-
The 110G rocks. I'm 41 kills to one death in it so far this tour ... this DAY as a matter of fact. And the one death was to a lucky Lanc gunner. Love that plane.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Well, the Me 410 had a lot of support in the forums. However, the rank and file players (not especially knowledgeable of WWII aircraft) will vote for the more familiar aircraft. Inasmuch as the majority of players are Americans, that means the P-39, B-25 and A-26 are going to generate a lot of votes.
I suspect that this will come down to the P-39 and B-25 in the final vote.
My regards,
Widewing
I never thought about it! :rolleyes: :p YAAP incoming! :D
-
Originally posted by moot
P38vsMossie - Definitely ask anytime we're online :)..
I just doubt the 410 will be as far below the 110/A20/Mossie's furballing as you seem to be saying...
Looking at the empty weight and power/weight ratio of both the 38 and 410, there's not much difference between the two, nor with the Mossie. Considering that, and considering a pair of MK103s, then the only unknown left is the 410's FM.
Like I said, the 110 was a "dog" in reality, by all acounts.. and yet look at how that changes in a furballing environment. I suspect that the 410 in fighting trim would furball at least as well as the Mossie and 110.
Especially if Pyro accepts to model the field mod of removing the rear gunner and his equipment.
The planes will be much more in their element in CT, of that I have no doubt.
I'm arguing things in the MA: before the 152 got its AH2 FM, it was agile enough to equal a SpitfireIX or N1K for two or three rotations - and you didnt need to be Drex to do that. That was enough for a killshot, which will be enough for the 410 from anywhere inside 1K, if it has MK103s.
After those first few rotations, is another story :)
The 110's always been a decent furballer...
The minimum weight the 410 can have is 43lbs/sqf....compared to a "combat weight of about 28 for the 110. The 110 actually out turns an awful lot of birds in AH. The mossie is 39 "loaded"....again much less in AH combat config...even in AH settings with minimum guns and 50% fuel I dont think the 410 can get under 46-47 lbs/sqf
The Ju-88 has similiar wingloading to the 410...I'd ay the 410 will turn about the same as a Ju-88 but obviously have better acceleration and performance in the vertical...
-
Again with the wrong numbers Humble. I just tested the 110G offline: with no ordnance or extra guns the 110G in AH2 weights 17,500 lbs with 100% fuel. A wing area of 415 feet gives it a wing loading of 40.9 lb/ft. With 25% fuel it weighs 16,000 lbs and has a wing loading of 38.5 lb/ft.
And the Ju88 is very maneuverable in AH if lightly loaded, and several fighter versions of the 88 was used during the war. Mostly night fighters and bomber destroyers.
-
The Ju 88A-4 as modeled in AH2 weighs 21000 lbs with no bombs and 25% fuel. With a wing area of 515 feet that gives it a wing loading of 40.7 lb/ft.
-
The Mosquito FB.VI as modeled in AH2 weighs 21,000 lbs with no bombs, 100% fuel and the light ammo load. With a wing area of 454 feet it has a wing loading of 46.2 lb/ft. With 25% fuel it weighs 17,700 lbs and a wing loading of 38,9 lb/ft.
The P-38J/L as modeled in AH2 weighs 17,700 lbs with no ordnance and 100% fuel. With a wing area of 327,5 feet it has a wing loading of 54 lb/ft. With 25% fuel the wing loading is 48,4 lb/ft. The P-38G being the lightest 38 in AH2 as a wing loading of 44,1 lb/ft with 25% fuel and no ord.
As is clearly evident, The Bf 110G, Mosquito, Ju 88A-4, and very likely the Me 410 all have lower wing loading than the lightest possible P-38 in the game.
-
Well, it's a sad day indeed,the Me410 is out,too bad. As to it's performance,it was never a fighter,nor designed to be one.A heavy fighter ,well maybe but it's many role is attack.Much like the 110 is was suppose to replace,it found many roles it could play. Myself I would have liked to have had it added to the game,I'd have loved to used the 103 30 mm against buffs.
Hopefully after CT is released Pyro will get around to making,IMHO 1 of the "SEXIEST" twins produced.
:aok
-
Originally posted by Viking
As is clearly evident, The Bf 110G, Mosquito, Ju 88A-4, and very likely the Me 410 all have lower wing loading than the lightest possible P-38 in the game.
They all have a lower wing loading than the P-38s, and all turn smaller circles than the P-38s down low. Nonetheless, properly flown, the P-38 (any model) will make short work of any of those listed. Especially up high.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Up high the P-38 gains a considerable advantage. Down low a P-38 only has the vertical to work with, which is difficult to master and dangerous with gunships like the Mossie and 110 gunning for you. Never the less the P-38L has both speed and climb over the 110 and Mossie. Also the P-38 is more forgiving to mistakes. A novice in the 110 or Mossie are more likely to kill themselves rather than an enemy with the flat-spins and abrupt stalling. All things considered the P-38 is the superior fighter, especially in dueling situations where the P-38 is alone with its prey and has time to build up an energy advantage, but it is down to pilot skill and the usual dose of luck. In the hands of a skilled pilot the Mossie and 110G are awesome killing machines in the Arenas. P-38 not so much ... but I am wary of P-38's up in the Ack-Ackosphere.
So far since I returned to the skies of AH2 (two tours ... including the current one) I have yet to become the victim of a P-38, but many have fallen victim to my guns.
-
Interesting statistics, the Mossie had a 131 to 86 kill/loss ratio over the P-38L last tour. The 110G fared a little worse with 211 kills vs. 240 losses to the P-38L, probably because the 110 is a popular JaBo ride.
-
That and it's really easy to kill yourself in a 110.
-
Yup.
-
Is there a way to check how many kills you've got on a certain plane, in a specific plane?
-
Yes, click on "scores" under the "community" tab, then click on "View Kill Stats in an expanded format (IE only)".
Edit: On second thought, no. Only total kills in a plane/of a plane.
-
Dang.. because I might've skewed that mossie stat :D
I'm pretty sure I've shot about 15-20 P38Ls in the mossie, last tour.
-
lol :aok
-
Here's one.. I set up two or three killshots, and hesitate to pull the trigger when it's time to, or miscorrect where the nose is pointing.
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/773_1175601274_film468_38l-moss.zip
-
Nice moves ... but crappy shooting. ;)
-
I first started flying the 110G when I flew with the JBs back in 2003. We used it mostly for JaBo work, but being more interested in the air war part of AH I started flying it as a pure fighter. This was a time when very few people flew it at all, let alone as a fighter. Made a few "commemorative" screenshots back then:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/1022_1175610479_gsspitkill01_800x600.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/1022_1175610446_gssaves42baltic01_800x600.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/1022_1175610494_gsdefender01_800x600.jpg)
And of course the 109F :)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/1022_1175611006_gskilldrex01_800x600.jpg)
-
Lol at the captions!
-
Originally posted by moot
Here's one.. I set up two or three killshots, and hesitate to pull the trigger when it's time to, or miscorrect where the nose is pointing.
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/773_1175601274_film468_38l-moss.zip
Here's a good one from today. Had this great 5 minute knife-fight with a 109F-4 ... that guy was no rookie. When you see me go to tail guns He had gotten one of my elevators, but to my surprise the 110G can still pull stall-turns at low speeds with only one elevator ... to his surprise too. :)
My gunnery suxorz today though. Should have had him at least two times early in the fight.
110G vs 109F (http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/1022_1175630424_110gvs108f.zip)
-
Originally posted by Viking
Here's a good one from today. Had this great 5 minute knife-fight with a 109F-4 ... that guy was no rookie. When you see me go to tail guns He had gotten one of my elevators, but to my surprise the 110G can still pull stall-turns at low speeds with only one elevator ... to his surprise too. :)
My gunnery suxorz today though. Should have had him at least two times early in the fight.
110G vs 109F (http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/1022_1175630424_110gvs108f.zip)
I watched the film. You did alright, managing to avoid the dreaded departure that plagues the 110s when pushed hard. However, winzig had a miserable time. Especially when you went into the right-hand lufbery. Flown well, the 109F-4 will turn much smaller circles than the 110G-2 (especially one missing an elevator). Also, all he had to do was yo-yo and drop in behind. In a right-hand turn, the 109s require some skill to hold the tightest turn. Mr. winzig repeatedly suffered from accelerated stalls throughout the fight, including the one that caused him to eat the trees. He should head to the TA and practice dueling with the Trainers. 1v1 combat requires somewhat different skills than the usual MA mob brawls.
I have several good 109F films, duels with Nomak, Dmonslyr, Sonic23 and several others. All will demonstrate what the 109F is capable of with practice and a gentle hand on the controls. 109s don't like to be horsed around or they will dump a wing and get feisty in a heartbeat, as winzig learned.
My regards,
Widewing
-
I'm an old 109F driver myself so I was very surprised that I could hold the turn with him. However I deliberately turned to the right knowing that his single prop would give him more trouble than my twin in right-hand turns. In fact the 110G only has a 34 foot larger turning circle than the 109F with flaps, and I had very little fuel left. The little things must have added up and saved my butt.
I really should have killed him earlier though, my gunnery suxed bad, and I shouldn’t have let him force the overshoot, that nearly killed me. I also managed to get picked off by a Lala ( Gator!) today RTB’ing with two ailerons missing. Not my day :(
-
to be honest Viking that fight should have been over at the 2:30 mark. He nailed you twice in the scissors....however he went flat afterward instead of taking the fight in the vertical....you were totally flat vs his scissors so he could have topped you out easily but didnt recognize it...you had a 5k alt advantage and didnt get a shot in....not a very good set up on your part...u ended up neg E and dependent on the other guys skill level.
As WW said if the other guy had a bit more knowledge to work with he'd have countered your right hander with minimal difficulty....
BTW....no clue where I got the 28lb wingloading from...either a typo (ment 38?) or I was delusional {or looking at something else [maybe IL-2?]}...anyway no way the wingloading would be that low. As for the 38, since the fowler flaps work differently I dont know that an "apples to apples" comparision makes any sense.
-
Fowler flaps indeed ..
-
Originally posted by moot
Fowler flaps indeed ..
sorry if I have them misnamed....however I believe the point is valid.
-
Originally posted by humble
to be honest Viking that fight should have been over at the 2:30 mark. He nailed you twice in the scissors....however he went flat afterward instead of taking the fight in the vertical....you were totally flat vs his scissors so he could have topped you out easily but didnt recognize it...you had a 5k alt advantage and didnt get a shot in....not a very good set up on your part...u ended up neg E and dependent on the other guys skill level.
Indeed, I completely blew my E advantage. Like I said earlier I should have killed him twice before the overshoot.
-
I'm guessing the spelling too. I mean to say, fowler flaps are what made the 38, in AH.
The 84 has them too, and it is great too.. I wonder what some planes like the 190D would be like with fowlers instead.. and why fowlers weren't more common.
If I understand right, their advantage is that they extend the wing area, in addition to increasing the AoA on a portion of the wing. If that's the case, I don't understand why they weren't a no brainer for at least a few of the LW planes...
-
Fowler flaps are more mechanically complex than plain or split flaps. So much so that it would increase cost and impedes production. Most planes don't need them in normal operation, so most planes don't have them. Even most carrier planes don’t have them.
-
Originally posted by moot
I'm guessing the spelling too. I mean to say, fowler flaps are what made the 38, in AH.
The 84 has them too, and it is great too.. I wonder what some planes like the 190D would be like with fowlers instead.. and why fowlers weren't more common.
If I understand right, their advantage is that they extend the wing area, in addition to increasing the AoA on a portion of the wing. If that's the case, I don't understand why they weren't a no brainer for at least a few of the LW planes...
My understanding is that they extend the natural curvature of the wing...in effect adding wing area as needed. I dont understand why the 38 can deploy them at high speed and the ki-84 only at lower speed. So when we talk about wingloading for 38 what is it really?
-
Originally posted by Viking
Indeed, I completely blew my E advantage. Like I said earlier I should have killed him twice before the overshoot.
cc I saw you had some shots...but they seemed awful tough ones to hit. 110 bulds up a big head of steam, not an easy plane to control speed on when you've got that type of alt to bleed.
-
Originally posted by humble
My understanding is that they extend the natural curvature of the wing...in effect adding wing area as needed. I dont understand why the 38 can deploy them at high speed and the ki-84 only at lower speed. So when we talk about wingloading for 38 what is it really?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/bd/Flaps.png/180px-Flaps.png)