Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: TwinBoom on July 22, 2007, 10:52:01 AM
-
(http://www.altromusical.com/model1/aero/re4616.jpg)
this 1 was captured
(http://www.airpages.ru/img/he177a5_2.jpg)
Specifications (He 177 A-5)
General characteristics
Crew: 5
Length: 22 m (72 ft 2 in)
Wingspan: 31,44 m (103 ft 1 in)
Height: 6,7 m (21 ft)
Wing area: 101.5 m² (1,092 ft²)
Empty weight: 16,800 kg (37,000 lb)
Loaded weight: 31,000 kg (68,340 lb)
Powerplant: 2× Daimler-Benz DB 610 (twin DB 605) 24-cylinder liquid-cooled inline engines, 2,950 hp (2,170 kW) each
Performance
Maximum speed: 565 km/h at 6,100 m (350 mph at 21,000 ft)
Combat radius: 1.540 km (960 mi)
Ferry range: 5,600 km (3,200 mi)
Service ceiling: 9,400 m (30,800 ft)
Wing loading: 319.9 kg/m² (65.6 lb/ft²)
Power/mass: 110 W/kg (0.067 hp/lb)
Armament
2 x 20 mm MG 151 cannon
3 x MG 131 machine gun
3 x MG 81 machine gun
up to 7,200 kg of bombs or two guided missiles Henschel Hs 293 or Fritz X
-
hate to say this but we have the B25 on the way
-
Originally posted by Bosco123
hate to say this but we have the B25 on the way
I hate to say we have the B-25, of all things that we could have gotten, on the way as well.
He-177 would be a nice pick. German heavy bomber. Faster than a Lanc. Carries more ord than a Lanc (depending on load outs chosen, we would not be getting guided munitions like the Fritz-X with it). Might need a small perk cost to keep it's use reasonable and from sending the Lanc to the back of the hangar. Buff drivers need a perk point sink other than the Arado anyways.
Besides, the He-177 was designed to dive bomb as well as level bomb.....(part of the reason it has so many design problems)..... give "dive buffers" a good platform to use in game.
-
Heinkel should have done what Avro and Handley-Page did, switch from the two "massive engines that are each actually two smaller engines fused together" to four engines.
Like the Avro Manchester (Avro actually tried to make it work too, Handley-Page switched to four engines before the Halifax ever flew) the He177 was a disaster.
The Ju188A or Do217E would be much more appropriate additions as they were both capable aircraft that, well, worked.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Heinkel should have done what Avro and Handley-Page did, switch from the two "massive engines that are each actually two smaller engines fused together" to four engines.
Heinkel actually tried.
Even back in November 1938 Heinkel made a proposal to build a few prototypes with four seperate engines (Jumo 211). This request was denied, as a four engined version would have been incapable of divebombing.
(Interestingly the 177 was not really used for divebombing operationally at all)
Heinkel pursued this project privately (He 177B). In 1943 he was allowed to continue work on a four-engied version, resulting in the He 277 which did fly in late 43.
To my knowledge, 8 He 277 were build in 1944
Another evolution of the 177 was the He 274, a high altitude bomber with a service ceiling around 45000 feet.The prototype was built by Famran in Suresnes but only completed after the war (then named AAS 01A)
(A small note: ALL 177 were actually four engied. The DB 610 of the seemingly twin engined versions was actually two DB 605 coupled at the propeller shaft, but basically still independent engines)
-
Originally posted by Bosco123
hate to say this but we have the B25 on the way
b25 is a light american bomber....your point?
-
Rather ugly plane...:huh
-
Originally posted by TwinBoom
b25 is a light american bomber....your point?
Apparently it is an uber-plane.... and Ben flew it. All we need to know.
-
That sucker's mean lookin'. I like!:aok
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
:cry :cry :cry :cry
Bronk
-
Looks like a gimped AR-234...
And Bronk, do you ever get tired of posting that over and over?
-
Weird looking plane....:confused:
-
Originally posted by OOZ662
Looks like a gimped AR-234...
And Bronk, do you ever get tired of posting that over and over?
I was thinking the same thing about ted.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Bronk
I have to go with Bronk on this one..every single stinking time the
B-25 gets mentioned he starts the waterworks. Give it a rest already!
-
I'm being stalked in the forums.
-
Don't have to stalk you. Your the most predictable whiner yet. Go to any bomber thread and there you are with the :cry :cry about how we are all stupid for not voting in the A-26(The plane that single handedly won the war:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: ) .
Get the F over it already.
Ohh and I think the He 177 would be a fine addition. Since HT don't model malfunctioning engines.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Don't have to stalk you. Your the most predictable whiner yet. Go to any bomber thread and there you are with the :cry :cry about how we are all stupid for not voting in the A-26(The plane that single handedly won the war:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: ) .
Get the F over it already.
Bronk
I argued for the 'Vader sure, but I'd have been just as happy with the G.55, P-39 (as a Lend Lease in Russian plane set), Ki-44, J2M, Pe-2,maybe the Yak-3 if in game performance numbers were different enough from current Yaks, and possibly the Me-410 (depending on the variant) from the list. I'd also would love to see the German 88mm FlaK36 and the He-177. Even a G conversion to the Stuka.
Any would be different from the norm and a fun change of pace.
Another medium American bomber? Ho hum. And from what I've seen in the arena text and posted in these boards, I still believe most online players voted for it due to name recognition above all else, and many players have some weird ideas of what kind of plane and capabilities they will be getting in the end.
So, I continue to make digs on the plane. The first two months after 2.11 release ought to be fun.
-
And given the choice between just the A-26 vs B-25 . I'd have voted for the B-25.
Not because of what you call name recognition. But for the simple fact this AC flew in practically all theaters of operation. Can your better than sliced bread A-26 make the same claim?
The scenario opportunities in which to use the 25 are staggering.
I can't wait for my work to slow down so I can once again fly FSO. Hopefully the B-25 will be added by then.
So I will continue to call you a whiner/sore loser.
Good day
Bronk
-
Originally posted by TwinBoom
(http://www.altromusical.com/model1/aero/re4616.jpg)
this 1 was captured
(http://www.airpages.ru/img/he177a5_2.jpg)
Specifications (He 177 A-5)
General characteristics
Crew: 5
Length: 22 m (72 ft 2 in)
Wingspan: 31,44 m (103 ft 1 in)
Height: 6,7 m (21 ft)
Wing area: 101.5 m² (1,092 ft²)
Empty weight: 16,800 kg (37,000 lb)
Loaded weight: 31,000 kg (68,340 lb)
Powerplant: 2× Daimler-Benz DB 610 (twin DB 605) 24-cylinder liquid-cooled inline engines, 2,950 hp (2,170 kW) each
Performance
Maximum speed: 565 km/h at 6,100 m (350 mph at 21,000 ft)
Combat radius: 1.540 km (960 mi)
Ferry range: 5,600 km (3,200 mi)
Service ceiling: 9,400 m (30,800 ft)
Wing loading: 319.9 kg/m² (65.6 lb/ft²)
Power/mass: 110 W/kg (0.067 hp/lb)
Armament
2 x 20 mm MG 151 cannon
3 x MG 131 machine gun
3 x MG 81 machine gun
up to 7,200 kg of bombs or two guided missiles Henschel Hs 293 or Fritz X
Why do ppl go to wikipedia time and again!!! going there is pretty retarded:rofl :rofl :rofl unreliable source too
-
Originally posted by Movie
Why do ppl go to wikipedia time and again!!! going there is pretty retarded:rofl :rofl :rofl unreliable source too
this is a paid members forum ur negative comments are over looked
playing h2h...free
playing main ...14.95
having a subscription and a voice....pricless
-
:huh Nowhere (except from the "Paying Members FTW!!11!!1!!" crowd) have I heard a statement like that.
-
Originally posted by Bronk
And given the choice between just the A-26 vs B-25 . I'd have voted for the B-25. Not because of what you call name recognition. But for the simple fact this AC flew in practically all theaters of operation. Can your better than sliced bread A-26 make the same claim?
The scenario opportunities in which to use the 25 are staggering.
I can't wait for my work to slow down so I can once again fly FSO. Hopefully the B-25 will be added by then.
So I will continue to call you a whiner/sore loser.
Good day
Bronk
My "better than sliced bread" A26 flew in WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Bay of Pigs, Indonesia, Africa, and El Salvador, among other war zones. It replaced the A-20, B-25, and B26. I didn't argue for it for it's widespread or early use in WWII, but as a second perk-worthy high performance medium bomber/attack bomber/fighter bomber to add to the game besides the Arado for buff drivers to spend their perks on.
The He-177 would also be an acceptable perk sink in the game, in addition to adding to the much smaller Axis plane set, and a second heavy buff to the Axis set.
The "scenario opportunities" argument is growing weak. At the current rate, the vast Allied plane selection will have few opponents in the Axis to pit against them in those supposed scenarios.
Outside of the Spit/109 lineup revision in 11/2005 ver 2.06 (added G-14, changed G-10 to K4), the Axis haven't had a brand new addition to the game since the Ki-84 in 11/2004 ver 2.01. The last three add on's, as well as the next one, are all American rides. Prior to the Spit/109 revision, 4 of 6 additions were American.
The Allies have 5, and soon 6, land based medium bombers and attack planes to the Axis 4 plus a jet that rarely sees scenario use if ever.
The Allies have 3 heavy bombers to the Axis 1.
The Allies have 10 Carrier based planes to the Axis 4.
The Allies will have 46 aircraft and 9 vehicles to the Axis 28 aircraft and 3 vehicles.
So the "scenario opportunities" tends to be very one sided, and very much limited to the American fronts only.
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
My "better than sliced bread" A26 flew in WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Bay of Pigs, Indonesia, Africa, and El Salvador, among other war zones. It replaced the A-20, B-25, and B26. I didn't argue for it for it's widespread or early use in WWII, but as a second perk-worthy high performance medium bomber/attack bomber/fighter bomber to add to the game besides the Arado for buff drivers to spend their perks on.
The He-177 would also be an acceptable perk sink in the game, in addition to adding to the much smaller Axis plane set, and a second heavy buff to the Axis set.
The "scenario opportunities" argument is growing weak. At the current rate, the vast Allied plane selection will have few opponents in the Axis to pit against them in those supposed scenarios.
Outside of the Spit/109 lineup revision in 11/2005 ver 2.06 (added G-14, changed G-10 to K4), the Axis haven't had a brand new addition to the game since the Ki-84 in 11/2004 ver 2.01. The last three add on's, as well as the next one, are all American rides. Prior to the Spit/109 revision, 4 of 6 additions were American.
The Allies have 5, and soon 6, land based medium bombers and attack planes to the Axis 4 plus a jet that rarely sees scenario use if ever.
The Allies have 3 heavy bombers to the Axis 1.
The Allies have 10 Carrier based planes to the Axis 4.
The Allies will have 46 aircraft and 9 vehicles to the Axis 28 aircraft and 3 vehicles.
So the "scenario opportunities" tends to be very one sided, and very much limited to the American fronts only.
Fist since this is a WWII based game every thing after that is irrelevant. Say good bye to that strawman.
Next, what it adds to scenarios is a more balance in the fact that it's easier to catch than the 26 which is the usual sub. Ever try to run down a 26 in say a zeke?
Rationalize it any way you want. The community is getting exactly what it wanted.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Bronk
The community is getting exactly what it wanted.
Right. A CV-spawnable, medium bomber that can smite tanks and level towns with one shot of it's mighty 75mm.
The members in the forum are, in general, well above average in their knowledge of WWII history and aircraft. The online player base... not quite as much, especially among the more casual and newer players. Just the way group dynamics work, especially in online gaming. Also how name recognition works, and the B-25 had that going for it more than the rest.
If you polled the online player community about what it thought it was "getting" in the B-25, you'd get a lot of different answers.
-
Since only a small % post on the bbs and most are knowledgeable. I'd say that same ratio would carry over to the game. Just because people don't post doesn't make them uniformed. Hell, most of my squad doesn't post, and we have an exnavy pilot. Is he uninformed ?
This is a niche game, most who play it are ww2 AC enthusiast (to some degree). So your uninformed bs doesn't fly with me.
Ohh still don't change the fact that ....
A. You are a bad loser.
B. You whine more than a 4 year when they don't get their way.
Bronk
-
sweet plane tho
-
Originally posted by Bronk
quote: Originally posted by tedrbr :cry :cry :cry
....I was thinking the same thing about ted.......
....Don't have to stalk you. Your the most predictable whiner yet. Go to any bomber thread and there you are with the about how we are all stupid for not voting in the A-26(The plane that single handedly won the war ) .
Get the F over it already.....
.....So I will continue to call you a whiner/sore loser.
Good day........
.....Rationalize it any way you want. The community is getting exactly what it wanted....
.....Ohh still don't change the fact that ....
A. You are a bad loser.
B. You whine more than a 4 year when they don't get their way.....
Bronk
Well, thanks for your well thought out and eloquently presented adult argument during this thread hijack. You show great insight and present excellent points. You are an incredibly sensitive man, who inspires joy-joy feelings in all those around you.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled He-177 thread.
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
Apparently it is an uber-plane.... and Ben flew it. All we need to know.
Umm who started what thread hijack?
Bronk
Edit: Its real hard to look back at the relevant point I put up. So just keep editing out the stuff you don't like, Mr strawman.
-
how about this Tupolev Tu-4....
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Tu4.jpg)
Soviet B-29 wanna be
-
TU-4 never say service in ww2........I think
-
Originally posted by RAIDER14
TU-4 never say service in ww2........I think
I think Russians got in operational in 1947, IIRC.
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
I think Russians got in operational in 1947, IIRC.
Yes.
And movie, those facts are right. Checked myself, all 3 books I have those stats listed in. Of all people, I trust TwinBoom to do his research.
-
Originally posted by RAIDER14
TU-4 never saw service in ww2........I think
edited:D
-
Would love to see the He-177 since engine fires due to oil lnes bursting into flame from poor placement in the BD610s. BUT I would like to see the He-111 first.
:aok
-
Originally posted by DaddyAck
BUT I would like to see the He-111 first.
:aok
Nice save ;)
(http://a990.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/110/l_74a1ba7030be0cc93bfbb77545e73edd.jpg)
-
:confused: Soooooooo...Thats why spitfire pilots were able to land alotta kills..? :noid
-
Originally posted by Serenity
Nice save ;)
(http://a990.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/110/l_74a1ba7030be0cc93bfbb77545e73edd.jpg)
I like it, unfourtunately that picture/campeighn Ad is too late :D
I did vote for the He-111 as long as I could, and wish it were the next plane. It would give the LW bomber pilots an alternative to the 88 and 87 and would fill gaps in the FSO/Senario plane sets. IMHO would have made for a great help in future BoB events.
-
Originally posted by Lusche
Heinkel actually tried.
Even back in November 1938 Heinkel made a proposal to build a few prototypes with four seperate engines (Jumo 211). This request was denied, as a four engined version would have been incapable of divebombing.
(Interestingly the 177 was not really used for divebombing operationally at all)
Yeah, but due to an asenine order stemming from the late 30's, bomber desighns of the time had to be capable of dive bombing as well.
Heinkel pursued this project privately (He 177B). In 1943 he was allowed to continue work on a four-engied version , resulting in the He 277 which did fly in late 43.
To my knowledge, 8 He 277 were build in 1944
Another evolution of the 177 was the He 274, a high altitude bomber with a service ceiling around 45000 feet.The prototype was built by Famran in Suresnes but only completed after the war (then named AAS 01A)
(A small note: ALL 177 were actually four engied. The DB 610 of the seemingly twin engined versions was actually two DB 605 coupled at the propeller shaft, but basically still independent engines)
The DB10 was considered one engine, though made of 2 coupled 605s they turned the same crank shaft in an inline manner in the nacelle. This engine desighn was really prone to engine fires because of the close proximities between fuel/oil lines and exaust ports. Though considered one engine, the plumbing and exaust was never really dealt with as one engine, but plummed as two.
Not trying to correct anything cause what you said was correct, just adding my 2cents to it
:D
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
I think Russians got in operational in 1947, IIRC.
does HTC add planes between 1939-1945 and/or the combat it saw?
-
Originally posted by Movie
does HTC add planes between 1939-1945 and/or the combat it saw?
It HAD to see combat between the declaration of war, and the final surrender. So, the Tu-4 is out.
-
Originally posted by DaddyAck
I like it, unfourtunately that picture/campeighn Ad is too late :D
Yeah. My computer was broken during voting, so I missed the whole thing. Didnt even get to place a single vote :(
-
yeah you did miss it, the he-111 made it a few rounds then *poof* gone :cry It's ok though, we have the B-25 coming (ironic part is that it is the older model D or G that had no tail gun and is not the J or H people though it would be, and was it not everyones agument against the he-111 that it was older and under armed. Go figure that one) according to the development screenies.
:noid
-
just add this plane and i rather be a sitting duck
(http://www.sxf-spotterlempio.de/top_shouts/XFW/Mexicana.jpg)
brand new too rolling off the factory of Airbus
-
i bet they'll fit 800 mexicans and 3 dozen chickens on that thing!
-
Originally posted by DaddyAck
....It's ok though, we have the B-25 coming (ironic part is that it is the older model D or G that had no tail gun and is not the J or H people though it would be, and was it not everyones augment against the he-111 that it was older and under armed. Go figure that one) according to the development screenies.
Watch it there DaddyAck! You don't want to draw the ire of Rino and Bronk now, do you? You are risking charges of treason, sacrilege, blasphemy, and excommunication in questioning the will of da people or the HTC Gawds. You've been warned.
(btw, it could be even worse, we can't see in those pics if the B-25 has the ventral turret or not.....)
-
Yeah I know, I tried asking HT if they have the ventral retractable turret or not and got no answer.
-
*Wonders how many people caught the joke that was actually behind asking for the Tu-4...*
-
Yeah I gots it, it was a red copy of impounded b-29s. the very plane HT refuses to give us even with conventional ordinance.
-
Originally posted by DaddyAck
Yeah I gots it, it was a red copy of impounded b-29s. the very plane HT refuses to give us even with conventional ordinance.
I've never seen any evidence of that. People made the same claim about HiTech hating the B-25 so we'd never get it and it was BS, yet many believed it and perpetuated it.
The only think HTC has said about B-29s is to use it as an example of a perk unit on their perk system description and to say we won't get the nuke.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
I've never seen any evidence of that. People made the same claim about HiTech hating the B-25 so we'd never get it and it was BS, yet many believed it and perpetuated it.
The only think HTC has said about B-29s is to use it as an example of a perk unit on their perk system description and to say we won't get the nuke.
Good googeley moogely, do people around here have to over scrutinize EVERYTHING I say? He asked If I got the joke that was implied, I said yes I got it. I am not proliferating nor denounceing any b-29 rumors, propaganda, or here say.
:lol
-
Originally posted by Bosco123
hate to say this but we have the B25 on the way
yup
it looks good too:D
VFp51s:aok
-
this would be a nice bomber its big, it carries a big payload and we also need another german bomber too. nice choice :aok
-
some recon planes would be nice
-
quote: Originally posted by DaddyAck
Yeah I gots it, it was a red copy of impounded b-29s. the very plane HT refuses to give us even with conventional ordinance.
Originally posted by Karnak
I've never seen any evidence of that. People made the same claim about HiTech hating the B-25 so we'd never get it and it was BS, yet many believed it and perpetuated it.
The only think HTC has said about B-29s is to use it as an example of a perk unit on their perk system description and to say we won't get the nuke.
I never saw anything that hitech hated the B-25. IIRC, Mitchell was in both AirWarrior and Warbirds, so they chose to do the B-26 instead. That's been it pretty much.
As to inclusion of the B-29 and He-177, from a game design point:
Runway:How much runway did a B-29 at up to 141,000 lbs need to get off the ground, and how much do we have to work with in game now without changing the base tiles? How much did the up to 69,000 lbs He-177 need? The Lancs in game are listed at 68,000 lbs and need a lot of runway. This issue could keep both the B-29 and He-177 out of contention.
Ordnance load and Performance: IIRC, after intro of the 110's, the size of the towns had to be enlarged for gameplay? Lifting formations:- B-29's ----- 20,000 lbs (9,000 kg) x 3 planes typical load. Often flew with smaller loads in PTO. (Maximum internal short-range, low-altitude bomb load was 20,000 pounds. A load of 5000 pounds of bombs could be carried over a 1600-mile radius at high altitude. A load of 12,000 pounds of bombs could be carried over a 1600-mile radius at medium altitude) As range is not an issue on game maps, running with large ord loads would be typical.
- He-177's --15,873 lbs (7,200 kg) typical x 3 planes (up to 13,200 pounds internally by some accounts, and also had wing mounts, unsure of maximum bombload of A5 with internal and wing mounts).
- Lancaster - 14,000 lbs (6,350 kg) x 3 planes
Could also create a game play balance issue in regards to dropping towns. Less an issue with He-177 than B-29.
Speed and Altitude
Lancaster can run up to about 290mph around 14K and 19K feet with ceiling of around 23,500 feet.
The He-177 can run up to 350mph at around 21,000 feet with a ceiling of over 30,000 feet.
The B-29 can run up to 358 mph at around 30,000 feet with a ceiling of around 33,600 feet.
The B-29 and He-177 may just run too fast, too high for game balance in AHII.
Other Issues Against He-177 and B-29:
B-29 was equipped with either the AN/APQ-13 radar bombing/navigational aid set and later the AN/APQ-7 Eagle radar unit... hard to model in current game code.
He-177 could carry guided ordnance like the Henschel Hs 293 or Fritz X which falls outside the existing game ord. And of course the B-29 carried two "nooks" in WWII or could also carry two 22,000lb (10,000kg) T-14 'Earthquake' bombs (reportedly, 4,000 lbs will be the largest single bomb in AHII carried by a bomber, why no Tallboys or Grandslams for Lanc).
Discrepencies He-177 was poorly designed for it's requirement to be able to dive bomb, and not made in sufficient numbers before priority was given to fighters to counter Allies bombers. The He-177, especially early versions, were prone to engine fire. What many forget is that the B-29 was also a mechanical nightmare to it's crews and also prone to engine problems including fires. Why there was a priority on capturing emergency fields between major bases and Japan for B-29's to divert to.
As engine fires and mechanical failures are not modeled in the game, these points are minor considerations.
You have to consider additions in context of the game, playability, and balance.
Personally, I'd still like to see the He-177 added with a small perk price for it and it's drones to give the Axis a heavy bomber ability for SEA as well as a perk point sink for buff pilots. It's a similar argument I give for A-26B and C Invader... Arado just doesn't work well as a perk point sink, so little reason for buff drivers not to "dive buff" or "bomb and bail".... just don't need the perks. Only other perkable buff that could be added to the game, other than the He-177, B-29, and A-26, is one of the Mossies versions with bombsite and drones enabled.... and only the B-29 would command a high perk cost.
B-29's capabilities are probably too far outside the range for addition to the game without screwing up play balance. Too much, too far, too high, too fast. The He-177 OTOH carries a bit more, a bit higher, a bit faster and not quite as far as the existing Lanc, with a little more protection... and is good enough for a small perk price.
Also, in the case of the He-177, how difficult will it be to get accurate performance data on the plane for use in game's flight model?
-
Runway:How much runway did a B-29 at up to 141,000 lbs need to get off the ground, and how much do we have to work with in game now without changing the base tiles? How much did the up to 69,000 lbs He-177 need? The Lancs in game are listed at 68,000 lbs and need a lot of runway. This issue could keep both the B-29 and He-177 out of contention.
You wouldn,t have to set up a whole map to accomodate the 29s runway needs.
Just set it up so only a few bases on the map could handle the 29 or 177.
As it is now there are only a few bases that will allow the 163.
I know that the 163 is only allowed at few for different reasons, but hey its worth a try.
I know nothing about map making , its just a thought.
Probably a stupid one.
Boner
-
1Boner
Not sure how difficult it would be to add a airbase tile with longer runways to accommodate the B-29 or He-117, if they indeed needed longer runways that what are in the game now.
The 163 is a different matter. You can enable or disable anything at any base for an arena. You can go to your offline arena and enable the bombers and jets on the carriers to play with, for example. You can enable the 163 at any base you want. This will be how some SEA event will recreate the Doolittle Raid with the new B-25. It won't spawn from CV's in the war arenas, but you can set it up to do so for an SEA event.
It's how the RV8 shows up enabled accidentally at some fields in the online arenas. Now if we could only get the one RV8 with miniguns........
-
ted: I think he's saying that may be a solution for keeping the B-29 from unbalancing play. So like the 163, the B-29 can only launch for specific bases in the rear (although can anyone else see B-29 raids being launched solely to close the B-29 base of the other country? lol!). That way, anyone who wants to take a B-29 up is going to be in for a long flight. When combined with a sufficient perk tag it may help prevent a lot of the BUFF dweebery from occurring with the 29 as well.
-
I think it would be wrong to include the 177 in AH for the simple reason that the 177's engines were so prone to bursting into flames and killing their crews, that an AH super reliable version would have no basis in historical reality.
Of course the same might be said about early German jets - 262 - but at least its engines were sound enough to last an entire mission!
Grief was a highly ironic name for this aircraft, at least for English speakers.
-
Originally posted by KD303
I think it would be wrong to include the 177 in AH for the simple reason that the 177's engines were so prone to bursting into flames and killing their crews, that an AH super reliable version would have no basis in historical reality.
Of course the same might be said about early German jets - 262 - but at least its engines were sound enough to last an entire mission!
Grief was a highly ironic name for this aircraft, at least for English speakers.
The name was Greif, not Grief ;)
To say that the the 262's engines "at least (...) were sound enough to last an entire mission" implies that the 177's never did that - which is not true.
The 177 had huge problems, especially in the early versions. Many of them were redeemed in the later versions, though the 177 was still far from being called a very reliable plane.
In 1944, most problems of 177 equipped units resulted from a serious lack of special tools & spare parts, as well as quite inexperienced crews (the 177 was a much more difficult plane to fly and to maintain, unlike the Lancaster or B17).
But if every sortie was to end with an engine fire, the plane could hardly have been used operationally.
But after all, we might better include the Do 217 instead, which was considered to be a kind of "heavy" by the Luftwaffe at that time. Much more reliable and was used from 1941 on, so it would much better fill the Axis bomber gap ;)
-
We NEED the B-29 here...but it DEFINITELY needs to be perked...
68ROX
-
Originally posted by KD303
I think it would be wrong to include the 177 in AH for the simple reason that the 177's engines were so prone to bursting into flames and killing their crews, that an AH super reliable version would have no basis in historical reality.
Of course the same might be said about early German jets - 262 - but at least its engines were sound enough to last an entire mission!
Grief was a highly ironic name for this aircraft, at least for English speakers.
Greif as in Griffin, mythological bird, body of a lion and the head and wings of an eagle.
And by that argument about engine reliability, the B29 should not be in contention (they didn't burn and explode as often, but the B-29 was not a reliable ride either, hence the need to take Iwo Jima as a emergency field for them) and the Me 163 should be removed from game use altogether. They tended to explode before even getting into the air or on touching down again.
The He-177's problems were an insistence on a dive bombing ability, and getting tricky with a 2 into 1 engine design for each nacelle. By the time most of the problems were worked out, resources were diverted to fighter production. By MW in cases and LW across the board, Germany wasn't able to keep up with Allies production numbers in any area.
And in relation to game play, at least the He-177 Greif adds a lightly perked bomber which is faster than a Lanc, carries more than a Lanc, higher than a Lanc, and with better defensive guns than a Lanc but does not so go over the top in abilities the way the Superfortress would in relation to other bombers.
One or two flights of B-29's could take out a town, strat factory, or HQ in one sortie --- that totally throws off the game balance (remember the part where this is a game?). So: you will never see the B-29 added to the game on that basis alone. The Greif's speed, ceiling, and bombload may toss it out of contention as well, but it's far more reasonable than the B-29.
-
Originally posted by Lusche
But after all, we might better include the Do 217 instead, which was considered to be a kind of "heavy" by the Luftwaffe at that time. Much more reliable and was used from 1941 on, so it would much better fill the Axis bomber gap
Do217 would probably be an easier sell than the He-177, but the more I look at it's performance numbers: 2,000 lbs more than a Ju-88, 40-50 mph faster, 7,000 foot lower ceiling, about the same combat radius, maybe a little better in defensive guns. Similar capabilities, nothing really distinctive.
I'd rather see the Ju-88P built on a JU-88A conversion option or JU-88S or even Ju-188 added along side the addition of a He-177 instead. The He-177 is just different enough from Ju-88/Ju-188/Do17/Do217 line to be more interesting and diverse.
-
Originally posted by 68ROX
We NEED the B-29 here...but it DEFINITELY needs to be perked...
68ROX
omg YES:aok
-
Originally posted by Movie
just add this plane and i rather be a sitting duck
(http://www.sxf-spotterlempio.de/top_shouts/XFW/Mexicana.jpg)
brand new too rolling off the factory of Airbus
how can you be a sitting duck in that??? It can basically outrun everything we have in AH! :rofl
and i would like to see an axis "heavy" bomber :aok
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
Do217 would probably be an easier sell than the He-177, but the more I look at it's performance numbers: 2,000 lbs more than a Ju-88, 40-50 mph faster, 7,000 foot lower ceiling, about the same combat radius, maybe a little better in defensive guns. Similar capabilities, nothing really distinctive.
A medium bomber with 50(!) mph more speed while carrying 2000 lbs more (with much better defensive guns) is not what I would exactly call "Similar capabilities, nothing really distinctive." :huh
-
Originally posted by Lusche
A medium bomber with 50(!) mph more speed while carrying 2000 lbs more (with much better defensive guns) is not what I would exactly call "Similar capabilities, nothing really distinctive."
All things being relative. The He-177 heavy bomber (which Axis totally lacks in game for Germans, Italians, and...well...the Japanese never did have) speeds were similar to Do217, could carry another 5,000 to 7,000 lbs of bombs than the Do217 could (7 to 9K more than the JU-88), a much higher ceiling, but a little less of a combat radius.
I'd like the He-177, Do-217, Ju-88P, and maybe the Ju-88S or JU-188...... but we'll never see that lineup in this game.
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
but we'll never see that lineup in this game.
Just like we'd never see a 75mm cannoned B-25?
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Lusche
The name was Greif, not Grief ;)
To say that the the 262's engines "at least (...) were sound enough to last an entire mission" implies that the 177's never did that - which is not true.
The 177 had huge problems, especially in the early versions. Many of them were redeemed in the later versions, though the 177 was still far from being called a very reliable plane.
In 1944, most problems of 177 equipped units resulted from a serious lack of special tools & spare parts, as well as quite inexperienced crews (the 177 was a much more difficult plane to fly and to maintain, unlike the Lancaster or B17).
But if every sortie was to end with an engine fire, the plane could hardly have been used operationally.
But after all, we might better include the Do 217 instead, which was considered to be a kind of "heavy" by the Luftwaffe at that time. Much more reliable and was used from 1941 on, so it would much better fill the Axis bomber gap ;)
Typo!
I wasn't meaning to imply that they could never survive a mission, I was suggesting (perhaps a little heavy handedly, for the more pedantic) that they were not reliable enough to be fairly represented by a 100% reliable AH model. Of course, no aircraft was really 100% reliable but the He177 would be pushing it too far. My comparison with 262s referred more to the fact that a pilot could expect his 262 to last a mission whereas a 177 crew could not.
-
Originally posted by Wes14
how can you be a sitting duck in that??? It can basically outrun everything we have in AH! :rofl
and i would like to see an axis "heavy" bomber :aok
hmm prolly would be good fight for a jet
-
Originally posted by Mr No Name
i bet they'll fit 800 mexicans and 3 dozen chickens on that thing!
it fits like about 150-200 people
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Just like we'd never see a 75mm cannoned B-25?
Bronk
First, I don't ever remember making the claim that we would not get a 75mm armed B-25. I half expected that since there have been many calls for tater gun armed birds for American, Russian, and German planes for a long time. What I did often state was that many members over estimate the abilities of a 75mm tossing HE rounds with only with a historic rate of fire of 4 to 5 rounds per minute, a 21 round ammo rack, and from a fairly large plane doing, at most, 220 to 250mph on the deck.
Second, the little snipes and snide remarks from you and Rino are wasted on me. I grew up on unmoderated Usenet boards famous for flame wars, like "reeky.moto" (rec.motorcycles) and among the other members of the Dietizens of Doom, and from Compuserve and Prodigy boards before even that. You're posts are generally quaint and sophomoric, especially those when you accuse others of childishness. They are also uninspired and rather dull, but at least they are always very short.
A quick search for your postings also shows me something else: you never (or at least nearly never) post anything qualitative, quantitative, or of any true substance in the forums. You simple vent your spleen and denigrate others when you see a chance. The only thing that can be considered a "positive" in any of your posts is the way you genuflect toward anything from HTC as if supplicating yourself to them will curry favor with the HTC Gawds. I've never really understood that attitude in a game forum.
If you feel you must continue on this course, feel free. Maybe anger management didn't take or the medicine cabinet is understocked. I don't know and frankly could care less. I generally don't reply to these kinds of remarks, since they just don't get past my own long ago developed personal filters from much more open venues than this one, but it's starting to border on an unhealthy obsessiveness. Someone should be worried about you..... just not me.
-
For someone who doesn't care, why the need to search my posts?
Ohh and just so ya know. I've done more to explain how the collision model works than you begging for the A-26.
Not to mention taking people to the da so they can film and see for themselves.
Thats just one of the things I've done. So your chastising is waisted on me.
Try again.
Bronk
-
the fact remains we need heavy axis bombers... or add the Piaggio P108
(http://www.afrika-korps.de/forum/files/piaggio_p108_02_117.jpg)
Model Piaggio P 108
Engine Piaggio P.IIX RC 35
Total HP hp. 1350 x 4
Wing Span m. 32.00
Length m. 22.92
Height m. 7.70
Wing area m2. 135.34
Weight kg. 17,320
Max Weight kg. 29,885
Speed km/h 420 a 3,900 m
Range km. 3,520
Max Elevation m 8,050
Armament 6 x 12,7 mm + 1 x 12,7 mm + 2 x 7.7 mm
Crew 6
Payload Kg. 3,500
-
Number in service? I'm guessing single digits...
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Number in service? I'm guessing single digits...
Data on the Piaggio P108 is hard to come by. Some accounts have it faster with more ord than comparable B-17 (EW/MW) and very low production numbers = 163 built, for all three B series (not including a few A and C models), by one account in another online forum on a Piaggio P108 discussion at ww2aircraft.net.
ipmsstockholm.org has similar figures.
A search on the Piaggio P108 comes up with more on plastic models of it than the aircraft itself. The remote nacelle turrets were probably not that effective.