Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Caldwell on May 13, 2009, 04:59:33 AM
-
As an Australian I think it'd be cool to take a CA15 "Kangaroo" up for a spin. The project was postponed during WW2 when we decided to build P51s instead, but after the war it was completed and it turned out to be faster than a lot of first generation jet fighters. That would have been nice to take into combat I think. :O
There's a whole heap of aircraft I bet that were planned and never finished by the time WW2 ended and never ended up seeing the light of day in combat but would be nice to take for a spin and see what was planned if the war had gone on longer.
-
Sorry to break it to you mate, but it won't happen.
One of the requirements for addition to Aces High is that the aircraft saw action in at least squadron strength during WWII.
-
Sorry to break it to you mate, but it won't happen.
One of the requirements for addition to Aces High is that the aircraft saw action in at least squadron strength during WWII.
Well I DEMAND that they change that rule :rock
-
Stick around for another 5+ years then start demanding things, naturaly don't count on anyone listening longer then is needed to get a :lol from you.
-
Stick around for another 5+ years then start demanding things, naturaly don't count on anyone listening longer then is needed to get a :lol from you.
I was of course being as serious as cancer with the demand. :angel:
-
No
-
As an Australian I think it'd be cool to take a CA15 "Kangaroo" up for a spin. The project was postponed during WW2 when we decided to build P51s instead, but after the war it was completed and it turned out to be faster than a lot of first generation jet fighters. That would have been nice to take into combat I think. :O
There's a whole heap of aircraft I bet that were planned and never finished by the time WW2 ended and never ended up seeing the light of day in combat but would be nice to take for a spin and see what was planned if the war had gone on longer.
Sorry cobber this is as close as your going to get.
(http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/ba89c435cc.jpg) (http://www.freeimagehosting.net/)
-
Slightly related to subject matter...
...I dont think I would mind the introduction of some *reasonable* A/C additions to the plane set which just missed combat (F8F for example) if a hefty (as in makes a 262 look cheap) perk penalty was applied.
-
The planes that fall into the real grey area are allied. The F7F and P-63 were operational and combat ready in 1944, politics are circumstance kept these planes out of the fight (P-63 actually saw extensive action in 1945 over Poland/Germany). The Meteor was also clearly operationally deployable as well. Since this is not a reenactment but a simulation based on WW2 combat era aircraft I've never understood why planes that were deployed at the squadron level and capable of combat operation aren't "eligible"....this can be extrapolated to loadouts like the 2 x 20mm gun package on the F6F-5 IMO.
A grayer area is the case of planes like the Do-335. This plane was ordered into production and its factory bombed to a point production was impossible. Politics allowed Heinkel to ignore the order to convert one of its factories long enough to keep the D0-335 out of mass production till the very end of the war. It did see combat but never formally at the squadron level.
I'd love to see these planes available (maybe on titanic Tuesdays only) on an occasional basis.
-
I don't see the harm within reason...just perk them all to hell and/or relegate them to a single MA.
Heaven forbid that we remember that this is entertainment, not a history lesson. :D
Also as humble said, the P-63 absolutely DID see combat with a squadron level deployment, albeit secretly...not sure why it is still not in the game. I agree with everything else he said as well regarding combat ready aircraft that simply didn't find combat. The Titanic Tuesday limitation is a fantastic proposal.
I'm pretty sure C205s never fought Nikis, and I'm pretty sure carrier groups didn't cruise at interstate speeds, but no one seems to have a problem with that stuff...
-
and I'm pretty sure carrier groups didn't cruise at interstate speeds, but no one seems to have a problem with that stuff...
Must suck to drive a car in a country where you can only make 35mph on an interstate... ;)
-
The Meteor was also clearly operationally deployable as well.
It was deployed to a squadron, and it saw combat as well. Shot down a bunch of V1 rockets.
-Squadron deployed? Check
-Took off and blew up a bunch of enemy assets during WW2? Check
-
Must suck to drive a car in a country where you can only make 35mph on an interstate... ;)
I was being hyperbolic, but is that really as fast as the CVs go in game? I feel like they're doing closer to 40 or 45. Maybe they just seem fast as hell to me when I'm landing my deadsticked smoking brick of charcoal that was originally an F6 when I took off. :D
Anyway you get the idea...there are already a few liberties taken with reality in the game, so what's the harm in adding a couple of other "what-ifs"?
-
I'd like to see the P61C ... no logical or historical reason follows... I think they were cool planes.
-
I'd like to see the P61C ... no logical or historical reason follows... I think they were cool planes.
P-61C is post war. The P-61A or P-61B might happen though.
-
I thought the Meteor was only allowed to operate over the UK and so did see "action" against V1s?
-
There are so many aircraft that actually saw service in WWII that are not in the game, that I don't really understand why you would want post-war aircraft or those that never even flew at all.
-
I'd much rather see some of the earlier war plane set fleshed out. As popular as FSO is, with 500ish regular participants, I think HTC would do well to flesh out some of the gaps in the plane set for early/mid war scenarios.
-
I thought the Meteor was only allowed to operate over the UK and so did see "action" against V1s?
Meteor Mk I only operated against V1s over the Uk. Meteor Mk IIIs were deployed at squadron strength to the continent in early 1945 and performed offensive sorties against German positions.
-
P-61C is post war. The P-61A or P-61B might happen though.
well this is a "what if" geez.
-
What we need is the A-26 :D :D :D
-
Okay, what if* HTC add's a plane(s) that fills a early gap.
yay, i did it! :rock
-
Okay, what if* HTC add's a plane(s) that fills a early gap.
:aok
-
i have no problem with that either the IRC-80? (think I got it right) would be a wonderful addition, so would the hawk 75 or Brewster...
-
There are so many aircraft that actually saw service in WWII that are not in the game, that I don't really understand why you would want post-war aircraft or those that never even flew at all.
Well, I think planes like the CA15 mentioned in the OP would be interesting simply because as far as I know, it's never been modeled in a combat sim before. None that I know of at least. It's still a WW2 era plane. It's not like we're saying throw in a freakin A-4 or something.
It would be interesting and fun. Isn't that the point?
-
It would be interesting and fun. Isn't that the point?
I disagree, it would be neither interesting nor fun to see how some post-war superplane could dominate WWII aircraft.
It sounds more like a method of getting more US fighters into the game because you are running out of actual WWII US fighters to demand in preference over other nation's fighters that actually fought in WWII.
-
adding "what if" planes is a down hill process. More uber planes mean more hangar queens on the other side of the scale. The only way to solve this is to really separate early war from late war, which finally stretch HTC resources to pratically developing two parallel games. They might as well do a WWII and Vietnam aces high. One well done and complete set is better than two incomplete ones. HTC had to define a limit. Their's is a good a criterion as any as long as you stick by it.
-
I disagree, it would be neither interesting nor fun to see how some post-war superplane could dominate WWII aircraft.
It sounds more like a method of getting more US fighters into the game because you are running out of actual WWII US fighters to demand in preference over other nation's fighters that actually fought in WWII.
Um, the CA15 was Australian.
-
We already have enough 'what-if' planes thanks anyway.
-
We already have enough 'what-if' planes thanks anyway.
Which ones are what if?
-
Which ones are what if?
Well we have the B-29 for instance :aok
-
Theres plent of "not what ifs" that would make a good impact should they be included. And they should! If I ran the show the axis would be better repped, there'd be another perk bomber, another Brit CV plane, the Beufighter.........I can think of about 10 off the bat that had a huge presence in the war and need to be here with us.
But no harm in wishing.
-
If we are asking, I want the J8A...
-
It sounds more like a method of getting more US fighters into the game because you are running out of actual WWII US fighters to demand in preference over other nation's fighters that actually fought in WWII.
Karnak has somebody put a star and striped painted burr under your saddle? You always jump on the anti US aircraft wagon.
The guy was asking for the CA-15 not a US plane where did you get. " It sounds more like a method of getting more US fighters into the game because you are running out of actual WWII US fighters to demand in preference over other nation's fighters that actually fought in WWII." Your arguement sounds like a broken record and this time it's not even on the same planet.. I agree more aircraft are needed from other countries, but sheesh quit with the chip on your shoulder over the American fighters. The German and British fighter stable is nearly as full.
-
So, as a sum-up, WHAT particular aircraft do we not have that meet HTC's requirements and would live in the MA?
P63
B29
Black Widow
Whirlwind
Beaufighter
Oscar
Il-10
Pe-2 (There is another one similar, always forget the name)
Me210/410
D510
Cant
oops, that's 10+ and lots to go...
-
Most of the missing Japanese planes could easily live in the MA. I don't know the performance figures, but I reckon most of the mid and early Russian planes could too. I'm going out on a limb, but I presume the I-16 could survive in many furballs the same way the FM2 does.
Karnak has somebody put a star and striped painted burr under your saddle? You always jump on the anti US aircraft wagon.
The guy was asking for the CA-15 not a US plane where did you get. " It sounds more like a method of getting more US fighters into the game because you are running out of actual WWII US fighters to demand in preference over other nation's fighters that actually fought in WWII." Your arguement sounds like a broken record and this time it's not even on the same planet.. I agree more aircraft are needed from other countries, but sheesh quit with the chip on your shoulder over the American fighters. The German and British fighter stable is nearly as full.
The Japanese and Russian planesets are very lacking. That's why it makes little sense to ask for more US planes. The only good reason is if some US planes somehow take less time/effort to add than JP/RU planes.
-
Most of the missing Japanese planes could easily live in the MA. I don't know the performance figures, but I reckon most of the mid and early Russian planes could too. I'm going out on a limb, but I presume the I-16 could survive in many furballs the same way the FM2 does. The Japanese and Russian planesets are very lacking. That's why it makes little sense to ask for more US planes. The only good reason is if some US planes somehow take less time/effort to add than JP/RU planes.
The CA-15 is NOT American.
-
You're right. I thought the CA15 was an Australian licensed P51. It doesn't seem to have seen combat, though. One prototype flew post-war. This is probably why Karnak would oppose adding it in spite of the JP/RU/IT plane set's huge holes. A post-war prototype that saw no action even then, from a minor actor in the WWII air war, isn't attractive right now.
-
You're right. I thought the CA15 was an Australian licensed P51. It doesn't seem to have seen combat, though. One prototype flew post-war. This is probably why Karnak would oppose adding it in spite of the JP/RU/IT plane set's huge holes. A post-war prototype that saw no action even then, from a minor actor in the WWII air war, isn't attractive right now.
Hey, we ended the war with the 4th largest air force, so, um, there!
-
Does anyone here remember "Aces of the Pacific", and then "Aces of Europe"?
Spen quite some time on those. There was an expansion to aces of the Pacific, which was "What if" 1946.
It was actually cool to play.
AH basically has the tool to do this, but it does not seem to be on the plan. Neither are the bipes and WWI, although HT did once work with or write "Dawn of Aces" as a side to Warbirds. (I think).
WW2 it is. I forgot the I-16.
-
You're right. I thought the CA15 was an Australian licensed P51. It doesn't seem to have seen combat, though. One prototype flew post-war. This is probably why Karnak would oppose adding it in spite of the JP/RU/IT plane set's huge holes. A post-war prototype that saw no action even then, from a minor actor in the WWII air war, isn't attractive right now.
Minor?
-
Yes, minor. As in anything else than Germany, the USA, Russia, and Japan. There's only so much room in HTC's schedule and you have to prioritize. That means at least two categories: major and minor.
-
Yes, minor. As in anything else than Germany, the USA, Russia, and Japan. There's only so much room in HTC's schedule and you have to prioritize. That means at least two categories: major and minor.
I'd include the UK in the "major" category.
-
Does anyone here remember "Aces of the Pacific", and then "Aces of Europe"?
Spen quite some time on those. There was an expansion to aces of the Pacific, which was "What if" 1946.
I loved the Ki-83 :)
(http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/ArmyJB&W2/Ki-83-8.jpg)
(http://modelingmadness.com/scotts/axis/j/ki83o.jpg)
-
From the UK, still some material. I didn't even mention the Meteor, nor the Stirling (who in AH might have quite a life due to it's loadout and bombing alt), or the Firefly? Hmmm, what did I forget...
-
I loved the Ki-83 :)
(http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/ArmyJB&W2/Ki-83-8.jpg)
(http://modelingmadness.com/scotts/axis/j/ki83o.jpg)
There was a jet too ;) And one odd prop plane.
-
And one odd prop plane.
Kyūshū J7W1 Shinden
-
I'd include the UK in the "major" category.
Yeah I meant to have them in there.
-
Yes, minor. As in anything else than Germany, the USA, Russia, and Japan. There's only so much room in HTC's schedule and you have to prioritize. That means at least two categories: major and minor.
So, such a developmental plane from one of those 4 would be more appropriate? According to whom? Does HTC really have such a major/minor prioritization policy, or are you simply presenting your own wishes as such policy? Because I for one would love to have more "minor" countries represented, and I'm sure others would as well. I'm not opposed to more US/Japan/German/Brit stuff either, but I'm certainly no more interested in more of them vs. a so called "minor country's" as just about all the classic "major country" aircraft have been accounted for by now. I doubt anyone really cares if they add the Spitfire MkCCXVIII at this point.
I don't understand this "they shouldn't add this because I won't fly it" mentality every time someone proposes a plane they DO want. Why would you actively discourage additions (assuming that uberness/historical inaccuracy were offset by relegation to specific arenas/special events)?
-
No one thinks that they shouldn't add planes, period; the simple fact of the matter is that HTC is an extremely small company and we don't get new aircraft very often. So when they model a new plane its important that it's one that saw a lot of combat and was historically significant. That's what people argue about, priorities.
Not that it necessarily matters what our arguments are :)
-
Well, it doesn't have to have seen a lot of combat. It just has to have been a WWII plane. AH is a WWII game. Otherwise you've set a precedent that immediately opens the door for way too many more planes to consider.
That Australia was a minor actor isn't a snub, and admittedly the Major/Minor thing isn't how it works - it's like I said a quick and dirty way to categorize things. Australia's no less an authentic piece of the WWII air war than Italy and Finland. But when you have a plane that never made it to production, never mind put into action within WWII, and that's from a minor actor in the overall perspective of the war, and when on top of that the plane set is pretty lacking (lots of models that saw action from early to late war, many of them with production in the thousands) for two of the major actors in the war, it's just not an attractive choice for addition. That's just the reality of the situation, given HTC's resources. It's not about what I would or wouldn't fly. In fact the more planes added that anyone doesn't fly, the more rich the choice in targets to shoot down, the richer the environment to fly in.
And no, such a prototype from the major actors wouldn't be appropriate either, not right now (or ever, depending on who you ask).. Yes, lots of people would like a richer plane set.. No, the classic "major country" aircraft haven't nearly all been accounted for by now; that list of missing models is BIG.. And lots of people do care about one more Spitfire Mk.STXTIR. Lots.
All that aside though, you're right, there's no reason not to have that plane. I'm just telling you why it's going to be a long wait.
-
If any Australian entry would see the chance, it would be the Boomerang.
-
I don't understand this "they shouldn't add this because I won't fly it" mentality every time someone proposes a plane they DO want. Why would you actively discourage additions (assuming that uberness/historical inaccuracy were offset by relegation to specific arenas/special events)?
I advocate for the addition of many aircraft I wouldn't fly, but they are major combants or interesting WWII aircraft, not post war prototypes.
-
More early planes are needed of all types and nations.
1:More early planes give more reason to perk older more ubber birds.
2:With more ubber rides perked, the perk system would have more meaning.
3:More early planes makes other early arenas taste better.
4:Most nations in wwII didnt last past 43, hence no italian,french and other A/C even being represented. -shame-
5:Maps, more maps can be represented in early arenas based on time 40' 43' /location france/italy/africa. -and not just sinario maps-
We simply need more early war A/c to give more MEANING to all the truely late war rides populating AHII.
Most* of our birds are 43-45.
This need to be changed, and quickly.
-
This "minor" country won the Allies some of their very first victories. Not bad I'd say.
-
If any Australian entry would see the chance, it would be the Boomerang.
I'd settle for that :)
-
This "minor" country won the Allies some of their very first victories. Not bad I'd say.
Does it really even count as a country? The BRITISH Empire, King, Rule Britannia and whatnot?
:D :noid :rofl
wrongway
-
If any Australian entry would see the chance, it would be the Boomerang.
I don't agree I would say it would be the DAP MK-21 Beaufighter first as I would think the Beaufighter will see the light of day sooner or later. Granted it is not a true 100% Australian design but if the English versions are to be added it would only make sense to add the most powerful variant to the stable of Beaufighters.
After that the Boomerang & Wirraway would be the only Australian designs that were used in combat to the best of my Knowledge.
-
Does it really even count as a country? The BRITISH Empire, King, Rule Britannia and whatnot?
:D :noid :rofl
wrongway
^^^^^^ Add icon here for shooting Wrongway.
-
i think as some people have already stated the best thing for AHII is the additionn of more Early War Planes.
i.e LaGG-33 Yak-1/3 I-16 Pe-3 Tu-2 for russian aircraft
Boulton Paul Defiant Bristol Blenhiem Vickers Wellington Handley Page Hampden for the RAF Aircraft and aircraft such as these .
-
Boulton Paul Defiant :rofl :aok
The Yak 3 and the Tu 2 are late war aircraft by the way.
-
I don't agree I would say it would be the DAP MK-21 Beaufighter first as I would think the Beaufighter will see the light of day sooner or later. Granted it is not a true 100% Australian design but if the English versions are to be added it would only make sense to add the most powerful variant to the stable of Beaufighters.
After that the Boomerang & Wirraway would be the only Australian designs that were used in combat to the best of my Knowledge.
Last time I checked the Beufighter was a British aircraft. An Australian produced variant, - fine. But it is no more Australian than the Lancaster and even the Hurricane is Canadian...
-
Last time I checked the Beufighter was a British aircraft. An Australian produced variant, - fine. But it is no more Australian than the Lancaster and even the Hurricane is Canadian...
OK an Australian designed variant then to be more specific as there were things on the DAP MK-21 Beau that never were designed nor added by the British to their fleet.
-
OK an Australian designed variant then to be more specific as there were things on the DAP MK-21 Beau that never were designed nor added by the British to their fleet.
Lyric, I think what we're after is something conceived and designed and built in the country of origin. No matter how you look at it, the beaufighter, even a variant for SWP conditions is still essentially a British aeroplane. And the Beau X is pretty "similar" to the 21, to be sure there are differences, but none that the average player would notice.
So, like the IAR-80, I think the Boomerang, would be more likely to fit this bill.
-
Lyric, I think what we're after is something conceived and designed and built in the country of origin. No matter how you look at it, the beaufighter, even a variant for SWP conditions is still essentially a British aeroplane. And the Beau X is pretty "similar" to the 21, to be sure there are differences, but none that the average player would notice.
So, like the IAR-80, I think the Boomerang, would be more likely to fit this bill.
Well if we are going with a 100% design & build then the Boomerang would be the obvious choice.
-
Well if we are going with a 100% design & build then the Boomerang would be the obvious choice.
That thing would be lunchmeat in the MA for all but the best sticks (far beyond me), but I'd fly it once in a while for the novelty alone. Plus it just looks cool. Has it ever been modeled in any sim?
-
That thing would be lunchmeat in the MA for all but the best sticks (far beyond me), but I'd fly it once in a while for the novelty alone. Plus it just looks cool. Has it ever been modeled in any sim?
Very few aircraft left ot be added would not be at a significant disadvantage in the MA, thus that criteria is obsolete.
-
Very few aircraft left ot be added would not be at a significant disadvantage in the MA, thus that criteria is obsolete.
Makes sense. I guess the P-39 addition sort of illustrated that.
-
Very few aircraft left ot be added would not be at a significant disadvantage in the MA, thus that criteria is obsolete.
Oh, there are still a lot. Do 217, Ju 188, He 177 (German Iron fans still have only a slow vulnerable EW bomber for LW MA action), Beaufighter, Aichi B7A, Whirlwind, Yak-3, Re 2005...
-
Oh, there are still a lot. Do 217, Ju 188, He 177 (German Iron fans still have only a slow vulnerable EW bomber for LW MA action), Beaufighter, Aichi B7A, Whirlwind, Yak-3, Re 2005...
Here's one a list...not accounting variants of existing planes.
A-26
B-29A
Beaufighter Mk.X
B7A2
Firefly Mk.1
G.55
H8K2
He-162A
He-177A
J2M3
Ju-188A-5
Ki-102b
Me410B
Meteor III
PB2Y-5
P-61A
P-63
Re.2005
Tu-2
Yak-3
...I I'd rather see some more common aircraft first however. :)
-
Wmaker,
I'd add the Ki-44-IIb to that list as well.
-
And...
Ki-100
Pe-2
He 219
Ju 388 (it's a stretch, but it would be very cool)
-
That thing would be lunchmeat in the MA for all but the best sticks (far beyond me), but I'd fly it once in a while for the novelty alone. Plus it just looks cool. Has it ever been modeled in any sim?
Even the Aussies wouldnt fly it. Just like they wouldnt have in real life had they something better. Didnt they replace them with P-40s or wildcats ?
Now the Beaufighter? I think that would be competative as a strike air craft. Plus its so cool looking.
-
Wmaker,
I'd add the Ki-44-IIb to that list as well.
Agreed,
I did think about it, left it out for some reason. But yes, that fits in there.
And...
Ki-100
Pe-2
He 219
Ju 388 (it's a stretch, but it would be very cool)
- Ki-100 would be very similar in performance compared to the KI-61 that we have, and is essentially a variant of the Ki-61.
- Pe-2 is a very important bomber for special events, but I doubt it would be seen much more in the MAs than Boston III because of it's relatively small bombload and poor defensive armament. The only thing it does that the Boston doesn't do very well is dive bomb which can (some what unfortunately) be done better in many fighters carrying 2000lbs of bombs.
- He-219 could see some use but as it probably won't be very maneuverable (rather high wing loading) and doesn't have any air to ground ordinance like the Bf 110, I doubt it could approach the usage of the Bf 110 after the novelty wears off.
- Ju-388 flew reconnaissance missions over England in the last months of the war but AFAIK didn't drop any bombs in anger. Not much is known of the couple night fighter versions that were given for operational trials. Like you said, a bit of a strech. Very cool looking aircraft at any rate.
-
And...
Ki-100
Pe-2
He 219
Ju 388 (it's a stretch, but it would be very cool)
Why would you want a night fighter?
-
Why would you want a night fighter?
We were listing planes left that, if added, could be reasonably popular in the main arenas. Whether it's a night fighter or not doesn't nessesarily affect to this distinction at all. For example P-61A could be quite popular "jabo".
-
- Ki-100 would be very similar in performance compared to the KI-61 that we have, and is essentially a variant of the Ki-61.
Yes, and that makes it easy to add to the game (when they get around to remodeling the Ki-61). The Ki-100 is very cool and might get some love from the turn and burn crowd.
- Pe-2 is a very important bomber for special events, but I doubt it would be seen much more in the MAs than Boston III because of it's relatively small bombload and poor defensive armament. The only thing it does that the Boston doesn't do very well is dive bomb which can (some what unfortunately) be done better in many fighters carrying 2000lbs of bombs.
There were many versions of the Pe-2, some more MA friendly than others. I'd like the Pe-2FT and Pe-2I. The FT was the mass produced light-bomber version. I think there is a place in the MA for a 360 mph at 13,000 feet light bomber with 3,527 lb bomb load. The I was a late-war fighter-bomber, based on the Pe-2F, and powered by VK-107A engines. It could carry a bigger bomb load because of the mid-wing configuration, and was configured as a two-seater with a remote controlled .50 cal in the tail. A max level speed of 407 mph at altitude and 343 mph at sea level. It could climb to 16,400 ft (5.000 m) in 7 min 6 sec, and had a range of 1,317 miles.
Often nicknamed the Soviet Mosquito. I think there is room for a 407 mph fighter-bomber twin in the MA.
In any case, there is no excuse for not having such an important, 11,000+ produced combat aircraft in AH.
- He-219 could see some use but as it probably won't be very maneuverable (rather high wing loading) and doesn't have any air to ground ordinance like the Bf 110, I doubt it could approach the usage of the Bf 110 after the novelty wears off.
The wing loading is a bit high when it is carrying extra guns and with full fuel. With a light loadout (in AH you don't have to fly around for hours looking for bombers) the Uhu's wing loading isn't much worse than a P-38L's. It wouldn't match the 110 in usage, no. However that's a hard plane to beat, and I'm sure the 219 would find its use as a 400 mph bomber hunter or B&Z fighter. Its immense coolness factor will attract players as well. I'd like the last production model, the A-7; also the most produced variant (even if we're only talking about 150 planes or so).
-
Why would you want a night fighter?
Why not? The radar will just be one more instrument/equipment not modeled in AH, like the P-38's tail-radar.
-
I think in the thread comparing the Uhu with the Me-410 the general consensus was that the Me-410 would be a better fighter.
-
I think in the thread comparing the Uhu with the Me-410 the general consensus was that the Me-410 would be a better fighter.
Point being?
-
that it would make more sense to have a day fighter with better capabilities to be used during the day than a night fighter, in a setting that is supposed to be semi-historical.
-
I don't see why we can't have both. After all in desperation the Germans sometimes flew night-fighters as daytime bomber-destroyers, and as you said... AH is semi-historical.
-
No use for a 219 when we could have a 410. The 410 is already slightly redundant with the 110. The 219 would be even more so. It would only come after the 410, and as such would only come after many other planes. I reckon that it's really far down the list.
-
There are many planes already in the game that are "redundant"... Yet they are there.
-
I don't see it happening. Not when the 410 is better in pretty much every way, and like I said, when you add the fact that the 410 is ahead of it and itself probably behind a good number of those JP/RU/IT models, of which there's a lot to add yet.
-
I don't think I've said it should be modeled first...
-
My argument is that the 219 isn't going to be in for a long while, if ever, because it's too redundant, pretty crappy, and has a long line of other more interesting models ahead of it.
-
I don't think so.
-
Because?
-
I have already explained why. I don't want to repeat myself.
-
| | | He219 | Me410 | Mossie | P38 |
| wingload |
| | empty | 38 | 33 | 31 | 39 |
| | t/o | 54 | 63 | 40 | 53 |
| Powerload (hp / klbs) |
| | empty | 190 | 270 | 230 | 273 |
| | t/o | 135 | 166 | 178 | 200 |
| Weight(k lbs) |
| | empty | 18.4 | 13 | 14.3 | 12.8 |
| | t/o | 26 | 21 | 18.5 | 17.5 |
| Area | | 479 | 390 | 454 | 327 |
| Power | 2x | 1750 | 1750 | 1645 | 1750 |
The P38's wing loading isn't an accurate indicator of maneuverability on its own. The 38 actually has one of the worst maneuverabilities of all fighters, if you ignore its flaps. Take that same 38, increase weight by 30% (for about 66% of the 38's power/weight ratio), surface area to a bit bigger than the Mossie, replace the left engine with a right one, replace the fowler flaps with plain ones, remove boosted ailerons, don't add leading edge slats nor dive brakes, and you have more or less the real context to that "wingloading comparable to the 38's". Its armament is pretty much the same or worse than the 410 (exception being the Shragemuzic 2x108s) and it's a huge target (1.5x as large as the "huge" P38's target area). It would be dogmeat.. Except for the 2x108 shragemuzic guns, redundant dogmeat.
-
Even the Aussies wouldnt fly it. Just like they wouldnt have in real life had they something better. Didnt they replace them with P-40s or wildcats ?
Now the Beaufighter? I think that would be competative as a strike air craft. Plus its so cool looking.
I believe the Boomerang was quite popular in the ground attack role.
-
I believe the Boomerang was quite popular in the ground attack role.
Yep I would agree most every picture I have of Boomerangs are embedded in the ground literally. :)
-
| | | He219 | Me410 | Mossie | P38 |
| wingload |
| | empty | 38 | 33 | 31 | 39 |
| | t/o | 54 | 63 | 40 | 53 |
| Powerload (hp / klbs) |
| | empty | 190 | 270 | 230 | 273 |
| | t/o | 135 | 166 | 178 | 200 |
| Weight(k lbs) |
| | empty | 18.4 | 13 | 14.3 | 12.8 |
| | t/o | 26 | 21 | 18.5 | 17.5 |
| Area | | 479 | 390 | 454 | 327 |
| Power | 2x | 1750 | 1750 | 1645 | 1750 |
What you have proved with that nicely formated table of yours is that you can't do math. ;)
Here, let me fix it for you:
| | | He219 | Me410 | Mossie | P38 |
| wingload |
| | empty | 38 | 33 | 31 | 39 |
| | t/o | 54 | 53 | 40 | 53 |
| Powerload (hp / klbs) |
| | empty | 190 | 270 | 230 | 273 |
| | t/o | 135 | 166 | 178 | 200 |
| Weight(k lbs) |
| | empty | 18.4 | 13 | 14.3 | 12.8 |
| | t/o | 26 | 21 | 18.5 | 17.5 |
| Area | | 479 | 390 | 454 | 327 |
| Power | 2x | 1750 | 1750 | 1645 | 1750 |
Now, there are a few more things that needs correcting. The internal fuel load of the four aircraft are vastly different:
He 219: 713 gal
Me 410: 638 gal
Moss: 543 gal
P-38: 410 gal
So for a more MA consistent comparison lets reduce all fuel loads to 100 gallons per engine.
| | | He219 | Me410 | Mossie | P38 |
| wingload |
| | empty | 38 | 33 | 31 | 39 |
| | MA | 47 | 47 | 36 | 50 |
| Powerload (hp / klbs) |
| | empty | 190 | 270 | 230 | 273 |
| | MA | 160 | 198 | 199 | 212 |
| Weight(k lbs) |
| | empty | 18.4 | 13 | 14.3 | 12.8 |
| | MA | 22.5 | 18.5 | 16.5 | 16.5 |
| Area | | 479 | 390 | 454 | 327 |
| Power | 2x | 1800 | 1750 | 1645 | 1750 |
And let's add something rather important:
| | | He219 | Me410 | Mossie | P38 |
| Max speed |
| mph | | 407 | 385 | 378 | 420 |
It is pretty clear that the P-38 is the fastest and the best energy fighter of the lot. The Mosquito is clearly the best turner, but it is a bit slow. The 410 is probably the best ground attacker of the lot and has very good power loading, equal to the Moss and P-38. The He 219 is the second fastest of the lot, but turns better than the P-38 (same wing loading as the 410) and has vastly superior firepower. The P-38's Fowler flaps won't add that much area; at best they will equalize the wing loading advantage of the 219/410.
As for armament:
He 219A-7/R1
Two 30mm Mk 108 Cannon in wing roots. Two 20mm MG 151/20 Cannon in belly tray. Two 30mm Mk 103 Cannon in belly tray. Two 30mm Mk 108 cannon in Shrage Musik mount.
He 219A-7/R2
Two 30mm Mk 108 Cannon in wing roots. Two 20mm MG 151/20 Cannon in belly tray. Two 30mm Mk 108 Cannon in belly tray. Two 30mm Mk 108 cannon in Shrage Musik mount.
Like I said earlier, I think there is room for a 400+ mph 6 cannon armed (8 with the Shrage Musik) twin in the MA. Especially one that looks so awesomely incredibly cool.
(http://www.geocities.com/lastdingo/aviation/he219-5.jpg)
-
Cant do math - more like I fudged combining three different charts from different figures late at night, so you'd bite the bullet and reply in substance.
The 219 isn't going to be a good turner. Never with neither leading edge slats, nor that power loading, nor plain flaps. It'll have lots of lift to play with, but that's about it. It'll be sluggish. That it's a good BNZer is no sure thing since other than a good top speed hinting at good aerodynamics (how much speed does the 410 lose to those barbettes?), it's just a big anchor. It'll have good momentum once it gets going, but it'll be a big fat target otherwise. 4x108 + 2x 20mm is interesting, but not enough to outweigh the negatives. Especially not when the 410 has such a better powerloading and weapon loadouts. Pretty much every gun would be available: MG17, 131, 151/20, 108, 103, and BK5. The only thing the 410 loses out to the 219 is the comparatively light weight 4x108 loadout (nullified by the 219's total heft) and shragemuzic. In comparison, the 410 covers a way larger spectrum of gun configurations and ordnance. Everything from light weight to extra heavy (e,g, BK5+2x103, 6x151, 2x103+2x151).
Like I said earlier, I think there is room for a 400+ mph 6 cannon armed (8 with the Shrage Musik) twin in the MA. Especially one that looks so awesomely incredibly cool.
That sounds like the 410, IOW redundant. The 410 looks just as cool, has a glass cockpit, better gun options, can serve as ground attacker, will probably handle dogfighting better overall (slats, smaller target, and more excess thrust) although be a sharper more nervous thing.. All things considered, it's not surprising that HTC never mentionned the 219, but did have the 410 in the last poll and that it was mentionned by Pyro a number of times.
The 219 just isn't going to happen any time soon. Two 400mph six-cannon german twins aren't going to be added anytime near each other when there's so many other planes to add, when there's already one in the game, and when one of the two's both redundant and so much less attractive other than visually (and even then, the 410 is just as pleasing and has its own trump card - glass cockpit). Other than 4x108 and shragemuzic, the 219 has no functional advantage. It would be dogmeat while the 410 would be both more nimble (slats, dive brakes, lighter), punchier thrust-wise, and have the best guns in the whole game (on introduction and arguably forever after). A pair of 103s will trash pretty much everything they touch, and they'll touch pretty much everything thanks to ballistics like 50 cals. The 219 in comparison is just dogmeat.
-
The He 219 [...] has vastly superior firepower.
No. It has one loadout that edges out the 410 in terms of lethality, but with crappy ballistics. The 6x20 and 2x103 loadout on the 410 are more useable against fighters and bombers, and the BK5 even more so on large/slow targets.
The He 219 [...] turns better than the P-38 (same wing loading as the 410)[...]. The P-38's Fowler flaps won't add that much area; at best they will equalize the wing loading advantage of the 219/410.
What game are you playing, where the 38's fowlers "don't add that much area" and "at best" equalize the wingloading "advantage" of the 219 and 410? Not only are fowler flaps an order of magnitude better than the 219 and 410's plain flaps, but the 38 and 410's power loading leave the 219 in the dust, the 410 has slats, and the 38's torquelessness multiplies the fowler advantage even more. The 219 isn't contending in any category but how well it glides.
It's going to be dogmeat. The 38 is already a big target.. It would be dogmeat too if it weren't for torquelessness, fowlers, and its powerloading to push it out of its own way. You're saying that without all those assets and with an even larger target area, it'd be competitive.. Not a chance.
-
The fastest your He219A-7 could do was 580kph(360mph) @ 6Km and 460kph(285mph) @ 0Km.
-
Hey Milo, can you give your refs for that?
The 38 is already a big target.. It would be dogmeat too if it weren't for torquelessness, fowlers, and its powerloading to push it out of its own way.
A side by side comparison of the 219 and 410's target areas:
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3562/3548354349_acf27834c6_o.png)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3551/3548407127_d2e5123c58_o.png)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3609/3549216652_2cc803ca75_o.png)
-
moot, it is from Roland Remp's book on the He219.
A data sheet
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/He219data.jpg)
-
Great, thanks :)
-
4x108 + 2x 20mm is interesting, but not enough to outweigh the negatives.
I'd prefer the 2x103 + 2x108 + 2x151, or did you not notice that one?
Especially not when the 410 has such a better powerloading and weapon loadouts. Pretty much every gun etc. etc. ad nauseam.
Hey, why are you trying to make this a 219 vs 410 thread? The 410 was already listed, I added the 219. What's your problem with that?
The 219 just isn't going to happen any time soon. Two 400mph six-cannon german twins aren't going to be added...
The 410 isn't a 400 mph aircraft. The fastest the A- and B-reihe got was in the high 380's. Only the stripped down (pilot only, no rear guns, no armor, 4x151) high altitude version with GM-1 ever flew faster than 400 mph.
No. It has one loadout that edges out the 410 in terms of lethality, but with crappy ballistics. The 6x20 and 2x103 loadout on the 410 are more useable against fighters and bombers...
Try to keep up with the discussion please; I was comparing the 219 to the P-38, not the 410. However, I will note again that you missed the 219's 2x103 loudout which is in fact also adds a couple of 108's in comparison to the 410's 2x103 + 2x151 package.
410: 2x103 + 2x151 +2x131
219: 2x108 + 2x103 + 2x151 (+ 2x108 in Shrage Musik)
Difficult to beat that combo in lethality.
-
moot, it is from Roland Remp's book on the He219.
A data sheet
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/He219data.jpg)
So it did 360 mph at Kampfleistung. The chart don't tell us the speed at Notleistung. At Kampfleistung the DB 603E only developed 1575 PS, not the 1800 it got at Notleistung.
-
(http://home.comcast.net/~bormesport/Jumo213E1-performance_chart.png)
(http://home.comcast.net/~bormesport/Jumo213E_performance_data.png)
-
Milo, why are you posting charts of the Jumo 213?
-
Because that is what powered the He217A-7.
-
No, the He 219 was powered by the DB 603. The A-0 and A-2 had 603A's the A-5 and A-7 had 603E's. Jezus, just look at the first chart you posted where it says "A-5: 603E". :huh
-
Because that is what powered the He217A-7.
He 217 ? :huh
-
Maybe you should do some better research into what engines powered the He219.
The production A-7s had the DB603Gs replaced by Jumos 213Es. :D
-
He 217 ? :huh
So I made a typo. Big F'in deal. :rolleyes:
-
No, the He 219A-7 had Daimler-Benz DB 603E's just like the A-5. Six He 219A-7/R5 aircraft were powered by 1,900 PS Junkers Jumo 213E engines. A single He 219A-7/R6 was produced, equipped with 2,500 PS Junkers Jumo 222A/B engines, as was a single three-crew He 219B-1 which was to use the same powerplant but instead used DB 603Aa engines. The rest of the A-7-reihe had DB 603E's.
-
I'd prefer the 2x103 + 2x108 + 2x151, or did you not notice that one?
I noticed it, but in the context of..
Hey, why are you trying to make this a 219 vs 410 thread? The 410 was already listed, I added the 219. What's your problem with that?
My argument is that the 219 isn't going to be in for a long while, if ever, because it's too redundant, pretty crappy, and has a long line of other more interesting models ahead of it.
I don't think so.
etc. The 219 is absolutely in competition with the 410 for inclusion as a
Like I said earlier, I think there is room for a 400+ mph 6 cannon armed (8 with the Shrage Musik) twin in the MA. Especially one that looks so awesomely incredibly cool.
Which leads to the 219 being mostly redundant and certainly uncompetitive as a "maneuverable" fighter compared to the (your choice of comparison) P38, mossie, and Me410.
The 410 isn't a 400 mph aircraft. The fastest the A- and B-reihe got was in the high 380's. Only the stripped down (pilot only, no rear guns, no armor, 4x151) high altitude version with GM-1 ever flew faster than 400 mph.
High 380s are close enough to 400 in this context: "A 400mph 6-cannon german twin". The 219 itself is "400" on paper only. That's barely 400 ("405"), and with most likely a sluggish acceleration to get there. That's the context.
Try to keep up with the discussion please; I was comparing the 219 to the P-38, not the 410. However, I will note again that you missed the 219's 2x103 loudout which is in fact also adds a couple of 108's in comparison to the 410's 2x103 + 2x151 package.
Context again. 2x108s, or a pair of 108s, 103s, and 151s are still on a heavy, slow, and huge airframe. That's not competitive as a ground attacker. The 410 pretty much matches the 219's lethality, and offers more options on top of that.
410: 2x103 + 2x151 +2x131
219: 2x108 + 2x103 + 2x151 (+ 2x108 in Shrage Musik)
Difficult to beat that combo in lethality.
Nope.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3306/3436356482_6a2636882c.jpg)
On a better airframe, offensively and defensively.
-
I noticed it, but in the context of..etc. The 219 is absolutely in competition with the 410 for inclusion...
In competition? This is not a contest, this is a "wish list" of aircraft thread.
...compared to the (your choice of comparison) P38, mossie, and Me410.
You chose to compare the 219 to the Me 410, Mosquito and P-38. You posted that table. I just corrected your rather misleading table to something more representable of MA performance.
High 380s are close enough to 400 in this context: "A 400mph 6-cannon german twin".
No it isn't.
The 219 itself is "400" on paper only.
No it wasn't.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3306/3436356482_6a2636882c.jpg)
Which one of those combos do you think beats the 2x103, 2(4)x108, 2x151 package on the He 219A-7/R1?
-
Moot, those 410 weapon packages don't look right to me. I'll have to dig up some of my books.
-
In competition? This is not a contest, this is a "wish list" of aircraft thread.
You chose to compare the 219 to the Me 410, Mosquito and P-38.
The wing loading is a bit high when it is carrying extra guns and with full fuel. With a light loadout (in AH you don't have to fly around for hours looking for bombers) the Uhu's wing loading isn't much worse than a P-38L's. It wouldn't match the 110 in usage, no. However that's a hard plane to beat, and I'm sure the 219 would find its use as a 400 mph bomber hunter or B&Z fighter. Its immense coolness factor will attract players as well. I'd like the last production model, the A-7; also the most produced variant (even if we're only talking about 150 planes or so).
Misleadingly out of context.
You posted that table. I just corrected your rather misleading table to something more representable of MA performance.
It's not misleading at all.. I'll redo it in a bit, with proper weights breakdown. The 219 uses the SAME engines, weighs as much empty as the 410 weighs loaded, has plain flaps and no leading edge slats to help combat handling, and you're pretending that it's comparable to the 38. That's misleading.
The 410 and 219 are in competition because (something like 3d time repeating this) of the context of the plane set right now. Huge gaps in major actors' (Russia, Japan) plane sets, and a redundancy with the 410 that the 219 can't come out on top of. Hence, the consequent argument that the 410 isn't an urgently needed addition, and that once it's added it will make the 219 even less attractive since it's negatively redundant; except for the novelty of shrage muzic (which Ju88s and 110s could add themselves) and appealing esthetics. The 410 has more novelty, it matches esthetics, has more and more varied loadouts, is a better dogfighter (incl airbrakes, leading edge slats, and glass cockpit for lead shots), has more functionality (air, ground, BK5 sniping), and is more survivable.
I don't know how many times these things need to be said for you to concede that the 219 isn't going to show up anytime soon. It was hashed out here (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,257559.0.html) and here (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,261828.0.html).
Which one of those combos do you think beats the 2x103, 2(4)x108, 2x151 package on the He 219A-7/R1?
Not 4x108. The two shrage cannons don't fire forward. Forward and canted guns are never fired at the same time.
The BK5 gun on its own is as powerful as 2x108 and 2x103.
-
The 219 uses the SAME engines...
No it didn't. Will you please get at least one fact straight? The He 219A-5 onwards used DB 603E engines which are slightly more powerful than the DB 603A's used by the Me 410A/B.
...has plain flaps and no leading edge slats to help combat handling...
The 410 has plain flaps, and the He 219 didn't need slats; it was stable at low speeds without them (the 410 wasn't).
The 410 and 219 are in competition because...
I don't care about silly forum politics or which plane gets modeled next. I just added the He 219 to a wish list. Ultimately Hitech Creations decides which aircraft gets added and which don't. I'm really not interested in your opinion on how they think.
Not 4x108. The two shrage cannons don't fire forward. Forward and canted guns are never fired at the same time.
That's why I put the 4 in parenthesis with a 2 in front of it. I was hoping you'd understand that, but alas.
The BK5 gun on its own is as powerful as 2x108 and 2x103.
No it wasn't. The BK 5 KWK 5 had a rate of fire of only one shot per second. In one second 2x103 and 2x108 fires a total of 34 30mm shells.
-
Misleadingly out of context.
No. It is completely true. With the same fuel load (I chose 200 gallons), the He 219 actually had a lower wing loading than the P-38L.
-
No it didn't. Will you please get at least one fact straight? The He 219A-5 onwards used DB 603E engines which are slightly more powerful than the DB 603A's used by the Me 410A/B.
:huh You mean a 50HP difference is a significant difference?
The 410 has plain flaps, and the He 219 didn't need slats; it was stable at low speeds without them (the 410 wasn't).
The 219 was underpowered. Stable or not it's going to be dogmeat in a knife fight. P38s and Mossies are already lumbering targets compared to the rest of the plane set.. And you say the 219 could compete... Not a chance. The 219 doesn't have saving graces like the 38 and Mossie.
I don't care about silly forum politics or which plane gets modeled next. I just added the He 219 to a wish list.
You didn't "just" add the 219 to the wishlist. You argue that it's comparable to the 38 in maneuverability (what happens to a 38 with torque, plain flaps, and 5,500 extra lbs?), that it has more firepower than the 410 (arguable in practice), that it's 400mph-class while the 410 isn't (arguable again, only a dozen MPH difference and huge heft), etc, and that given these facts, isn't "way down on the list".
Ultimately Hitech Creations decides which aircraft gets added and which don't. I'm really not interested in your opinion on how they think.
My opinion is accurate. Pyro mentionned the 410 a couple of times.. The 410 made the public vote.. The 219 didn't. It's way down on the list for reasons I've repeated 3-4 times.
That's why I put the 4 in parenthesis with a 2 in front of it. I was hoping you'd understand that, but alas.
I understood it fine and you know it. SM guns don't mean any more for combat than rear guns on the Me110 do. Unless you can fire em from the cockpit and not from a gunner position (auto-pilot automatically toggles); maybe have them fire when looking fwd+up. Even then, it's a practical firepower of only 2x108.
No it wasn't. The BK 5 KWK 5 had a rate of fire of only one shot per second. In one second 2x103 and 2x108 fires a total of 34 30mm shells.
Again paper figures. Practical context? What do you do with 103s and 108s that can't be done with 6x20mm or 2x103, or BK5 plus a couple more cannons? Shoot bombers? The 410 does that just as well (as many 103s as the 219) from afar, or better (BK5, less target area, better power loading), and from up close it's really a dodgy factor since the 219 is big and slow, and the BK5 loadouts will get the job done just as well (overkill.). Against fighters? What's the significance of 4x108 when you're bigger and slower than a mossie? The 110 demonstrates this easily.. 4x20 and 2x30, and how many of them do you see in AH dogfights? 103s are meaningful, but again the context is compared to the 410 - there's no net advantage for the 219. Anything the 219 does, the 410 can do as well or better.No. It is completely true. With the same fuel load (I chose 200 gallons), the He 219 actually had a lower wing loading than the P-38L.
No? There's no contradiction in it being factual and out of context. The 219 having lower wing loading than the 38 is cherry picking. The big picture is that the 219 is dogmeat.
-
Ok, here are the forward firing gun packages that actually saw service with the Me 410:
A-reihe
2x17 + 2x151 internal.
A-1/U2
2x151 mounted in a Waffen Behälter 151A in the bomb bay.
A-1/U4
1xBK 5 in the bomb bay (MG17's removed in later versions).
A-2
2x103 in the bomb bay (MG17's removed).
A-2/U4
Similar to A-1/U4.
B-reihe
2x131 + 2x151 internal.
B-1/U2
2x151 mounted in a Waffen Behälter 151A in the bomb bay.
B-1/U4
Internal guns were all replaced by a BK 5 cannon + two 20 mm MG 151 cannon mounted in Waffen Behälter 151A in the bomb bay.
B-2/U-1
2x151 in ventral gondola.
B-2/U-2/R-2
2x108 in bomb bay (MG131's removed).
B-2/U-2/R-3:
2x103 in bomb bay (MG131's removed).
B-2/U-3/R-5:
4x151 in bomb bay (MG131's removed).
A singular Me 410B-2 was modified in the field to carry the U-3/R-5 package and the U-1 gondola for a total of eight MG151's (including internal armament).
-
Post your sources and make an argument out of that list.
-
:huh You mean a 50HP difference is a significant difference?
It is a difference, i.e. it is not the "SAME". And since we're talking about twins, it's a 100 hp difference.
The 219 was underpowered.
No it wasn't. It had roughly the same power loading as the P-47D. I'm sure climb and acceleration would be similar too. I've never heard the P-47 being described as "underpowered".
...that it has more firepower than the 410 (arguable in practice).
It has more firepower. There's no arguing the numbers.
You argue that it's comparable to the 38 in maneuverability...
No, I've never argued that. I said it had a comparable wing loading to the P-38, in context to Wmaker's claim that the He 219 had "rather heavy wing loading".
...that it's 400mph-class while the 410 isn't (arguable again, only a dozen MPH difference and huge heft)...
Again, nothing to argue, just hard numbers. And it is more like two dozen (with a clean 410, no gondolas or protruding guns). Weight (heft) has little or no impact on top speed, and the weight difference with similar guns and fuel isn't that much.
SM guns don't mean any more for combat than rear guns on the Me110 do. Unless you can fire em from the cockpit and not from a gunner position (auto-pilot automatically toggles)...
They were fired by the pilot.
Even then, it's a practical firepower of only 2x108.
LOL That's the first time I've heard/read anyone say "only" two MK 108's! Two 108's will rip any bomber apart with a one second burst, and with the Jazz Music it can be done quite a lot safer compared to a conventional attack.
...and from up close it's really a dodgy factor since the 219 is big and slow...
The 219 is faster than the 410, so what does that make the 410? Big and slower? :lol
What's the significance of 4x108 when you're bigger and slower than a mossie?
Bigger yes, slower no. The 219 is faster than the Mosquito F.B VI (as modeled in AH). Why can't you get these simple facts straight?
The 110 demonstrates this easily.. 4x20 and 2x30, and how many of them do you see in AH dogfights?
I'm not sure what you're getting at, but I see plenty of 110's in dogfights, especially when I'm in one. ;)
Anything the 219 does, the 410 can do as well or better.No?
No. With more guns, more weight and more speed the 219 is clearly the superior B&Z'er. That's what made the P-47 great, guns, speed and inertia. Not power loading or wing loading.
The big picture is that the 219 is dogmeat.
Against the top five most used MA fighters I'm fairly certain that both the 219 and 410 will be "dogmeat".
-
:lol Something tells me you suck at the game.
-
Post your sources and make an argument out of that list.
Source: Messerschmitt 210/410 Hornisse - An Illustrated Production History. Peter Petrick and Werner Stocker.
Argument: Your previously posted list was not correct.
-
:lol Something tells me you suck at the game.
Really?
Well, I guess you're right at the moment since I haven't played for several months. The 110G is a killer if flown right; the 109's were getting boring.
-
(http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/2904/fighterframefamiliesec5.jpg)
Notice how the two Bf110's have almost as many fighter kills as all the P-47's, and about half the kills of all the 190's and La-5/7.
It's a killer if you know how to fly one. I guess you don't. :)
-
(http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/2904/fighterframefamiliesec5.jpg)
Notice how the two Bf110's have almost as many fighter kills as all the P-47's, and about half the kills of all the 190's and La-5/7.
It's a killer if you know how to fly one. I guess you don't. :)
Something tells me that most of those kills are from vulching in the course of NOE smash n'grabs....the arena is not chock full of pilots like Dastardly tooling around in 110s.
-
Something tells me that most of those kills are from vulching in the course of NOE smash n'grabs....the arena is not chock full of pilots like Dastardly tooling around in 110s.
Speculation.
-
Despite all those kills, which i agree are predominantly obtained form vulching, the 110G has a surprisingly abysmal k/d.
-
No. With more guns, more weight and more speed the 219 is clearly the superior B&Z'er. That's what made the P-47 great, guns, speed and inertia. Not power loading or wing loading.
Uh, wasn't a *critical* advantage of the P-47 for a2a the power it was still producing at very high alts when other planes were running out of breath? I mean, just going by the AHII charts, at 30K the P-47D-11 and D-25 are climbing as well as the G2 and G-14 and are much faster.
-
Despite all those kills, which i agree are predominantly obtained form vulching, the 110G has a surprisingly abysmal k/d.
Not surprising when you consider it is a very popular Jabo. Jabo's always get their k/d's skewed due to the deaths incurred in air-ground combat. The actual air combat k/d ratio is therefore impossible to determine.
-
Speculation.
Informed observation, I've seen how 110s are and are not used in the game.
110 would probably be a quite popular fighter plane if it had a little better performance,dive qualities, and/or didn't tend to depart so badly when wallowing around in the stall. But that is not the case.
Note, I'm not against adding the planes in question, I'm just pointing out that the stats here are deceptive.
-
Uh, wasn't a *critical* advantage of the P-47 for a2a the power it was still producing at very high alts when other planes were running out of breath? I mean, just going by the AHII charts, at 30K the P-47D-11 and D-25 are climbing as well as the G2 and G-14 and are much faster.
Most of the fights weren't at 30k, but at 20-25k. The P-47 excels at diving B&Z attacks; nothing zooms like a P-47... Well, a He 219 might. ;)
-
Informed observation, I've seen how 110s are and are not used in the game.
110 would probably be a quite popular fighter plane if it had a little better performance,dive qualities, and/or didn't tend to depart so badly when wallowing around in the stall. But that is not the case.
Note, I'm not against adding the planes in question, I'm just pointing out that the stats here are deceptive.
The 110G is a killer in the right hands. Just trust me on this one. ;)
-
Most of the 110 sorties that are flown are about as far from 'the right hands' as you can get.
-
Most of the fights weren't at 30k, but at 20-25k. The P-47 excels at diving B&Z attacks; nothing zooms like a P-47... Well, a He 219 might. ;)
Even at 20K the performance difference is not nearly so pronounced as it is lower.
And quite a few aircraft zoom "like a P-47"...at low altitude, where the Jug is at a power-loading disadvantage. The P-47 is not the "slickest" airframe. All that turbocharging plumbing on the belly is just a big heavy drag on the deck.
-
Even at low altitude the P-47 out-zooms almost everything. I think the only planes that are better zoomers at low alt are the Tempest and F4U-4, though I'm not sure.
-
Even at low altitude the P-47 out-zooms almost everything. I think the only planes that are better zoomers at low alt are the Tempest and F4U-4, though I'm not sure.
I've tested zoom climbs quite abit, using the following procedure:
Dive to to sea level and in excess of 400mph. Level and allow speed to bleed down to exactly 400mph IAS...do a 3G pull up into the straight vertical. Hold zoom until it becomes impossible to hold the craft in the zoom. Note the highest altitude regained. (Note: In a pure vertical zoom like this, the G meter will be at zero, the craft *will* be unloaded.)
Using this test, the P-47D-40, F4U-1A, P-51D, and the SpitXVI all zoom back up to about 6,200-6,500. The plane that has an edge clearly enough to be seen in these tests is the P-38, from which I can usually get 6,700-7000. And this probably has as much to do with neutral torque as any other factor.
In AHII, the heavier airplanes do not nessecarily outzoom the lighter ones with advantageous power loading co-alt co-e. And in the real world, wouldn't zoom climb also be a matter of mass/drag ratio along with thrust/weight, rather a matter of "weight" per se?
-
Die Hard I'm gonna go out on a limb and say I have a good handle on what the 110 can and can't do, and what it really means to say "if I put a great stick in x or y plane, it'll do well" as an argument in this thread.
-
It's a bit counterintuitive, but if you have two aircraft identical in every way except weight, both flying level at the same speed and pulling gently up into a (near) vertical climb... The heavier aircraft will zoom-climb higher than the lighter identical aircraft. It works because the heavier aircraft brings more kinetic energy into the climb, and because gravity affects all objects equally no matter the weight; so the equation is something like this: thrust + inertia (speed and weight) - drag and gravity. Thrust, speed, drag and gravity being the same only weight decides the outcome.
The P-47 has tremendous power and is quite heavy; if you follow one up into a zoom you'd better have a lot of extra E or get ready for the rope!
-
It might be a good business move to add an Australian plane that didn't even see combat time. Maybe more Aussies would be interested to test it out and buy a subscription.
-
It might be a good business move to add an Australian plane that didn't even see combat time. Maybe more Aussies would be interested to test it out and buy a subscription.
I think we have more than enough Aussies that play the game already. ;) Bunch of smelly buggers too.
-
I've tested zoom climbs quite abit, using the following procedure:
Dive to to sea level and in excess of 400mph. Level and allow speed to bleed down to exactly 400mph IAS...do a 3G pull up into the straight vertical. Hold zoom until it becomes impossible to hold the craft in the zoom. Note the highest altitude regained. (Note: In a pure vertical zoom like this, the G meter will be at zero, the craft *will* be unloaded.)
Using this test, the P-47D-40, F4U-1A, P-51D, and the SpitXVI all zoom back up to about 6,200-6,500. The plane that has an edge clearly enough to be seen in these tests is the P-38, from which I can usually get 6,700-7000. And this probably has as much to do with neutral torque as any other factor.
In AHII, the heavier airplanes do not nessecarily outzoom the lighter ones with advantageous power loading co-alt co-e. And in the real world, wouldn't zoom climb also be a matter of mass/drag ratio along with thrust/weight, rather a matter of "weight" per se?
With dissimilar aircraft with very different attributes, say a P-47 and a Spit you can get interesting results. A light aircraft with a powerful engine might zoom just as high as a heavy aircraft, but the heavier aircraft will get there first. In this case the Spit is initially left behind by the P-47, but the Spit's better power to weight ratio allows it to hang by the prop for longer and thus "crawl" up on the P-47. This scenario invariably ends in a vertical HO as the P-47 rotates above the prop-hanging Spit and dives, both aircraft firing as they pass each other. The P-47 has then gained separation and an E advantage... If it survived the HO.
-
Die Hard...
You are right that the all other factors being equal, the aircraft with more weight would zoom higher, in our idealized zoom climb test. However, actual combat conditions will involve more radical maneuvers pulling Gs, and E bleed under Gs will be heavier for the higher wing-loaded craft, all other factors being equal. So it is quite possible that your heavier-loaded Jug would NOT outrun the lighter one in the vertical, if the zoom came after some maneuvering.
This is probably the reason no one ever tried to improve zoom climb by armor-plating an entire aircraft, too much downside. :D
-
That's just it... If flown right a P-47 (He 219 or whatever fast and heavy) should never have to pull more than 2-3 G's (except for getting the snap shot). Boom down, zoom back up; typical altmonkeying.
Edit: But with your name I guess you knew that! ;)
-
Die Hard I'm gonna go out on a limb and say I have a good handle on what the 110 can and can't do...
Ok. In your opinion what can and can't the 110 do?
-
Right, I'm gonna go on one more tangent that would take pages to answer that open ended question, when the 219 discussion isn't even done.
FYI the 47 is about as bad as the A8 for zooming. They are both outclassed unless they manage to not be interrupted in their zooms. Now, give that P47 a target area the size of the 219... The A-20 is a much better analog. That inertia works both ways. The A20 isn't something you can afford to be caught slow in. You're dead meat, the same way you're dead meat in a 110 if you let the fight slow down to where other lighter planes can just walk away. Horizontally, and especially vertically.
-
The 219 discussion was over long ago, you're just not accepting it.
The A-20 is also one of those killer surprises if flown light and right: www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV6Ue2bAnO8
-
That's just it... If flown right a P-47 (He 219 or whatever fast and heavy) should never have to pull more than 2-3 G's (except for getting the snap shot). Boom down, zoom back up; typical altmonkeying.
Edit: But with your name I guess you knew that! ;)
Nah, "BnZ" is just a punchier call sign than "Climbing Spiral Roper"
-
See Rule #4
-
Nah, "BnZ" is just a punchier call sign than "Climbing Spiral Roper"
Let me guess... 109 driver? ;)
-
Die Hard I'm gonna go out on a limb and say I have a good handle on what the 110 can and can't do...
Let's try this again...
Ok. In your opinion what can and can't the 110 do?
-
I can't think of any good reason to answer that open ended question.
-
You claimed you had "a good handle on what the 110 can and can't do", but now you refuse to quantify that. Ok, I'll just disregard your claim then.
-
Let me guess... 109 driver? ;)
Not really...I just find getting aware bandits to actually make themselves vulnerable to *my* level of gunnery in an E fighter often requires something more than the keep it fast, up and down method...need to be a bit tastier, closer, maneuvering target to get them to bite. So I find a good power loading and/or a good E-retention under Gs (Ta-152) at least as useful in combat as a good pure zoom.
-
Not really...I just find getting aware bandits to actually make themselves vulnerable to *my* level of gunnery in an E fighter often requires something more than the keep it fast, up and down method...need to be a bit tastier, closer, maneuvering target to get them to bite. So I find a good power loading and/or a good E-retention under Gs (Ta-152) at least as useful in combat as a good pure zoom.
Indeed.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-1-FmAD7ZE
:aok
-
See Rule #4
-
Come on, don't be like that. :frown:
-
Yes, and that makes it easy to add to the game (when they get around to remodeling the Ki-61). The Ki-100 is very cool and might get some love from the turn and burn crowd.
My list was meant to list aircraft that AH doesn't have which could be fairly popular in the LWMA. I doubt Ki-100 coud be any more popular than the Ki-61 we have now and it really isn't that much used.
There were many versions of the Pe-2, some more MA friendly than others. I'd like the Pe-2FT and Pe-2I. The FT was the mass produced light-bomber version. I think there is a place in the MA for a 360 mph at 13,000 feet light bomber with 3,527 lb bomb load. The I was a late-war fighter-bomber, based on the Pe-2F, and powered by VK-107A engines. It could carry a bigger bomb load because of the mid-wing configuration, and was configured as a two-seater with a remote controlled .50 cal in the tail. A max level speed of 407 mph at altitude and 343 mph at sea level. It could climb to 16,400 ft (5.000 m) in 7 min 6 sec, and had a range of 1,317 miles.
Often nicknamed the Soviet Mosquito. I think there is room for a 407 mph fighter-bomber twin in the MA.
In any case, there is no excuse for not having such an important, 11,000+ produced combat aircraft in AH.
According to all sources I have seen Pe-2FT's max. bomb load is no more than 2204lbs (1000kg). Pe-2FT's speed is normally listed around 320-330mph. I've never seen figures even approaching 360mpn. Finally, there were only 5 Pe-2I's made, none of them saw combat.
If I had to name two planes that should be added next they would be Ki-43 and Pe-2. Both are very important scenario/special events aircraft but again, I don't think Pe-2 would see much more use in the LWMA than Boston III due to it's rather small bomb load.
I'll leave you guys to argue about the He-219. I've said my opinion regarding it. :)
-
Even the Aussies wouldnt fly it. Just like they wouldnt have in real life had they something better. Didnt they replace them with P-40s or wildcats ?
Now the Beaufighter? I think that would be competative as a strike air craft. Plus its so cool looking.
Boomerang would be a good addition to the Early War and even Mid-War plane set. While outclassed by Japanese fighters, it was still a decent plane with good handling characteristics and maneuverability. It was also a good gun platform with its mix of machine guns and cannons and used quite extensively as an interceptor until it was finally removed from this roll in late '43 when P-40s and Spitfires became available. The Boomerang was then used in the ground support role and did quite well.
If the Finns get the Brewster then the Aussies should get the Boomerang.
ack-ack
-
The loadouts I listed were correct. They're all in yours except for the B2/U4 which I got from some book, can't recall which. I'm fairly sure the whole A2 never happened as A2 because the 103s weren't ready. So you're calling me out on inaccuracies I haven't made, while yourself making some.
What do you make of notes (can't find the two places, other than wikipedia, where I read it) that 103s were usually not fitted, for weight concerns?
What do you make of all the hints that the plane never made the predicted performance? Fully fueled and armed, it couldn't climb above 26kft. Jane's Fighting Aircraft of World War II says its (A7 model) top speed is actually 385mph. One (admittedly unreferenced) page on the web says that with all the extras, it did only 360mph.
What do you make of the damn plain fact that the 219's heft means that despite its supposed top speed of a bit more than 400mph, it'll be an anchor in anything but extreme bnz like the A8 is restricted to? That it's a huge target and will never be as capable as the mossie... which thanks to everyone with any clue, gets ganged silly on sight? If the mossie can't compete, how's the 219 supposed to?
WMaker specifically said that because of the wingloading, it wouldn't be too maneuverable. You replied to this by saying that the wingloading was comparable to the P38. What the hell is that supposed to mean, other than that the 219 would be "maneuverable" on par with the P38? How the hell is the 219 supposed to be "fast" when it's that heavy? The 152 is "fast" too, but can't accelerate worth a damn thanks to its heft. I don't know how f=ma escapes you like that. The 219 being underpowered would be as helpless as a P51D or P47 that had slowed to drop its flaps - most other planes will just walk away from it or get above it, out of its reach.
Cpt Brown is who said that it was underpowered. If that's not a good enough reference, anyone can look at the damn specs and see that the powerloading sucks.
The only way the 219 would be a viable alternative to the 410 is if it didn't have all these disadvantages, and if it had the 1900HP 603G.
-
The A-20 is also one of those killer surprises if flown light and right: www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV6Ue2bAnO8
Like the Bf 110, if an A-20 is caught by most single engine fighters flown by a pilot of equal or superior skill, the Havoc will die.
ack-ack
-
The 219 apparently had drooping ailerons.
And apparently the ~410mph figure is for a stripped down model.
-
The 219 apparently had drooping ailerons.
And apparently the ~410mph figure is for a stripped down model.
From what I have read, no He219 ever managed to break 400mph level in Luftwaffe service. The oft quoted 416mph number were Heinkel claims.
-
From what I have read, no He219 ever managed to break 400mph level in Luftwaffe service. The oft quoted 416mph number were Heinkel claims.
Just like the claims the He 219 shooting down 6 Mosquitos during one mission.
ack-ack
-
Just like the claims the He 219 shooting down 6 Mosquitos during one mission.
ack-ack
Sure that was not Lancasters?
-
Sure that was not Lancasters?
My mistake, it was claimed that after the He 219s, first operational flight, the next three days afterwards the He 219 shot down 20 Allied aircraft including 6 Mosquitos. Never happened.
ack-ack
-
Between June 12 1943 and Nov 3 1944, the He219 claimed 10 Mossies.
On the night of June 11/12 1943 a 219 (G9+FB), V9, WNr 219009, piloted by Major Werner Streib and RO Uffz Helmut Fischer claimed 5 British heavies. Of the 783 a/c that took off to bomb Dusseldorf, 38 failed to return to base.
One often sees it stated that it was 5 Lancasters but as can be seen below it was 1 Lancaster and 4 Halifax
12.06.43 Maj. Werner Streib Stab I./NJG 1 Halifax 14 km. S.E. Roermond: at 4.700 m
12.06.43 Maj. Werner Streib I./NJG 1 Halifax 2 km. S.W. Rheinberg: 5.800 m.
12.06.43 Maj. Werner Streib Stab I./NJG 1 Halifax 3 km. N. Mook: no height
12.06.43 Maj. Werner Streib Stab I./NJG 1 Lancaster 05 Ost S/KN-2.6: no height [Goch]
12.06.43 Maj. Werner Streib I./NJG 1 Halifax 05 Ost S/KM-6.3: at 5.900 m. [Gennep]
-
It is a difference, i.e. it is not the "SAME". And since we're talking about twins, it's a 100 hp difference.
Marginal at best.
No it wasn't. It had roughly the same power loading as the P-47D. I'm sure climb and acceleration would be similar too. I've never heard the P-47 being described as "underpowered".
You "never heard" of the 219 being underpowered either, so that doesn't mean much if anything. The 47 is underpowered, overweight. Only an N with low fuel and ammo, or an M would change this.
It has more firepower. There's no arguing the numbers.
The argument isn't the numbers compared in the vacuum of paper world, but in practice. The B25H has huge firepower and....
No, I've never argued that. I said it had a comparable wing loading to the P-38, in context to Wmaker's claim that the He 219 had "rather heavy wing loading".
Answered in other post.
Again, nothing to argue, just hard numbers. And it is more like two dozen (with a clean 410, no gondolas or protruding guns). Weight (heft) has little or no impact on top speed, and the weight difference with similar guns and fuel isn't that much.
Doesn't seem that way at all. Karnak quotes (no ref but I'll take his word for it) service performance never breaking 400. The 410 does 388. 1 dozen MPH tops; I was right. In a plane that won't accelerate all that fast. Marginal paper advantage and probably negligible practical advantage. I'll get back to you on weight differences with similar guns and fuel being "not that much". Weight having no impact on top speed is a flawed argument.
They were fired by the pilot.
We're talking about implementation in the game. Not ideal figures. I'll concede that Pyro & co would probably (given the 2-trigger convention) work something out like the SM guns firing when looking fwd+up. Bad news for their usability otherwise.
LOL That's the first time I've heard/read anyone say "only" two MK 108's! Two 108's will rip any bomber apart with a one second burst, and with the Jazz Music it can be done quite a lot safer compared to a conventional attack.
That's because you're a bit clueless. 2 108s don't guarantee a kill on heavy bombers (or even Il2s, A20s, 26s) unless it's one of the ball turret-less bombers, where you could come under (better be fast, the 219 being a whale - otherwise good luck at surviving the exit) at ~25deg for the SM to point vertical, and to some comparably narrow angle of climb before the SM points too far back. Worse, it means that in the slow whale of a 219, you have to (SM angle always 0 deg lateral) show your full 470-some sqft of (slow) target area to the other bombers with full coverage guns, while shooting those crappy short range 108s. Yeah, that's a real advantage there. The only way 108s are "safe" against well-gunned full coverage bombers like the B17 or B24 is with a 262 shooting very early and coming in at high speed (999000 will attest). High front quarter passes showing a small fraction of that target area with the full battery, or longer reaching 103s or BK5 is safer. SM with 103s would be a different story.
Man... You sound like Bee1le.
The 219 is faster than the 410, so what does that make the 410? Big and slower? :lol
Disprove that the 219 never broke 400 in service and couldn't climb past 26k or break 360 when loaded. The 219 is heavier than the 410, and with a marginal top speed advantage and all clues pointing to it being definitely underpowered (the 152 isn't quite underpowered and yet it has lethargic climb and level acceleration at altitude), yes, the 219 is effectively slower than the 410 unless you're fighting players whose brains are equally underclocked.
Bigger yes, slower no. The 219 is faster than the Mosquito F.B VI (as modeled in AH). Why can't you get these simple facts straight?
See above. It never broke 400... Loaded, it might only have done 360. You're not after the truth here, just the last word.
I'm not sure what you're getting at, but I see plenty of 110's in dogfights, especially when I'm in one. ;)
I'll believe that you can make a 110 fly worth a damn when I see it. There's certainly no value to this argument either way - cf. "loaded question". All things being equal, the 110 is dogmeat.
No. With more guns, more weight and more speed the 219 is clearly the superior B&Z'er. That's what made the P-47 great, guns, speed and inertia. Not power loading or wing loading.
Again, we're talking about AH here. The 219 in daylight fighting, with its target area, powerloading, and dismal performance compared to paper figures, would be dogmeat. The only positives are the wing shapes looking like the mossie's, drooping ailerons, some potential use of SM in a knife fight (what a crutch!), and the A20 with similar powerloading/windloading/wing shape being a surprisingly agile.... piece of dogmeat against all the other twins. Yes, I have first hand controlled-environment evidence of this.
Against the top five most used MA fighters I'm fairly certain that both the 219 and 410 will be "dogmeat".
Loaded comparison again. The useful argument is which german 400mph 6 cannon twin to add first. Because players certainly won't see much use in adding a third redundant model when so many more needed models are still missing, nevermind that SM could show up in the game via a Ju88 or 110.
The 219 isn't the more viable alternative, and HTC agrees - it's the 410 that showed up in the public poll for next inclusion, not the 219.
-
"Again, nothing to argue, just hard numbers. And it is more like two dozen (with a clean 410, no gondolas or protruding guns). Weight (heft) has little or no impact on top speed, and the weight difference with similar guns and fuel isn't that much.
Doesn't seem that way at all. Karnak quotes (no ref but I'll take his word for it) service performance never breaking 400. The 410 does 388. 1 dozen MPH tops; I was right. In a plane that won't accelerate all that fast. Marginal paper advantage and probably negligible practical advantage. I'll get back to you on weight differences with similar guns and fuel being "not that much". Weight having no impact on top speed is a flawed argument."
Weight? I guess you mean load there, i.e. wingloading. It does affect top speed since it affects the A.o.A. needed, but in most cases of WW2 aircraft it will not hurt the absolute top level speed very much. Just a bit.
It will hurt just about anything else performance-vise.
-
The A20 and 219 are the closest analogs.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3300/3551833550_a54ee53b2e_o.png)
Without flaps, the A20's flat turning radius is right below the 109G2's on this chart.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2085/2307680173_fe1c3b0bd1_o.gif)
This is what the profiles look like, with a spitfire added for context, and flap areas greyed out. I don't know what the ratio of flap angle/aileron droop (both slotted type btw) is for the 219. I didn't have the patience to find and do the 38's fowler surfaces, but I assume anyone reading knows the deal there.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3575/3552185538_c7a4891853_o.png)
So... The 219 is shaping up to be another A20 with possibly better flat turning ability, but just as big and lumbering.
Weight? I guess you mean load there, i.e. wingloading. It does affect top speed since it affects the A.o.A. needed, but in most cases of WW2 aircraft it will not hurt the absolute top level speed very much. Just a bit.
It will hurt just about anything else performance-vise.
No. I mean thrust, acceleration, time to get to that unproven top speed (30mph range between Heinkel claims and Jane's figures). The Ta152 isn't "fast". Not unless you're willing and allowed to spend 10 minutes waiting for it to get to top speed at optimal altitude (and I say 10min for the 219 argument's sake - in the 152's case it's 15min + from climb speed to top level speed). That's why it's a flawed argument.
-
I did some more digging on the He219. The 416mph speed might be achievable for an He219 that had no radar tree, no flame dampers and had its weight reduced. With the radar tree and flame dampers it did about 350-360mph at best altitude.
Eric Brown test flew one after the war, but I haven't been able to dig his comments up while at work.
-
Warplanes of the Luftwaffe (Donald) says that the A6 "anti-mosquito" variant, weighing 12klbs loaded and using 603L did 404mph. Infamous "Erich" from the LEMB, ww2aircraft.net, etc, says no A6 was ever operational.
Gebhard Aders ("Geschichte der deutschen Nachtjagd") says the 219 "never achieved the values given in its manual. With almost full tanks and full armament, the 219 couldn't get above 26kft. With Lichtenstein and flame dampers, the maximum fell to about 311mph at this height."
Cpt Brown, in Air International, says that it was "somewhat overrated.. It suffered from perhaps the nastiest characteristic that any twin-engined aircraft can have: it was underpowered. This defect makes take-off a critical maneuver in the event of an engine failing [sounds like the 25H missing an engine], and a landing with one engine out can be equally critical. There certainly could be no overshooting with the 219 in that condition."
Donald goes on to say that "a typical A7 version weighed more empty than any Ju88 night fighter, and more than a fully-loaded Mosquito."
-
I did some more digging on the He219. The 416mph speed might be achievable for an He219 that had no radar tree, no flame dampers and had its weight reduced. With the radar tree and flame dampers it did about 350-360mph at best altitude.
Eric Brown test flew one after the war, but I haven't been able to dig his comments up while at work.
Yes the 416mph number is for a stripped and lightened He219. He says the 219A-2 he flew had a tendency to sink. Raising the u/c was not recommended till at least 50' altitude had been reached.
There was also the questionable ejection seats. Ejection was a 50-50 chance of survival.
The He219 book by Roland Remp has Brown's report on the He219.
-
Yep, the ejection seat often fired without the canopy getting out of the way. But that's something that the AH 219 wouldn't have. Otherwise there's lots of other flaws with it which led operational units to leave their A-5s and A-7s on the fields, to fly Ju88G-6s instead.
-
The loadouts I listed were correct. They're all in yours except for the B2/U4 which I got from some book, can't recall which.
I don’t know why you have these problems with comparing two lists, but the 2x103 + BK 5 didn’t exist operationally.
I'm fairly sure the whole A2 never happened as A2 because the 103s weren't ready.
The A and B series were produced at the same time. The only difference is that the A series were conversions of older 210 and interim 210/410 airframes (which is why they retained some equipment and armament from the 210), while the B series were new production airframes with updated armament (MG131). When the MK 103 became available in the summer of 1943 it was available to both the A and B series Me 410.
So you're calling me out on inaccuracies I haven't made, while yourself making some.
Only in your own little fantasy Moot. ;)
What do you make of notes (can't find the two places, other than wikipedia, where I read it) that 103s were usually not fitted, for weight concerns?
I assume you’re talking about the He 219… It is correct the MK 103’s were seldom used with the He 219, but not because of weight. It was simply better to have a battery of four MK 108’s since night fighting involved very short range. The MK 103’s range was simply not needed and its slower rate of fire was a drawback. However, that the MK 103’s were seldom used is not relevant to AH or this discussion. They were available, and after all you included the seldom used (and hardly effective) BK 5 in your Me 410 loadout.
What do you make of all the hints that the plane never made the predicted performance?
Hints? I don’t give much credence to “hints”. Only facts and sources; do you have any?
Jane's Fighting Aircraft of World War II says its (A7 model) top speed is actually 385mph.
That is probably accurate for typical night operations where the very draggy FuG 212/FuG 220 antennas and the drop tank rack were fitted. For daylight operations the antennas were removed and the drop tank was of course the pilot’s prerogative. As it would be in AH.
What do you make of the damn plain fact that the 219's heft means that despite its supposed top speed of a bit more than 400mph, it'll be an anchor in anything but extreme bnz like the A8 is restricted to?
The Fw 190A-8 is a very capable bomber interceptor and B&Z fighter. It’s not a dueler however and is best used in multi-aircraft engagements. Last LW tour the 190A-8 had a better k/d than the Spit XVI, Spit XIII, P-51D, P-51B, Yak-9U, P-47N, La-7, La-5, 109F, all 109G’s and many other very respectable fighters. Are you sure you want to imply that the Fw 190A-8 has no place in AH?
How the hell is the 219 supposed to be "fast" when it's that heavy?
Anyone with even a limited understanding of aerodynamics would know that weight has little effect on top speed. At top speed most WWII fighters would have a negative wing angle of attack due to wing camber. Parasitic drag would be the limiting factor, not induced drag.
The only way the 219 would be a viable alternative to the 410…
Like I’ve said repeatedly now: I’m not interested in your silly forum politics. I don’t regard the 410 and 219 to be in “competition”, only that both are on a list of planes that would be nice to have.
My list was meant to list aircraft that AH doesn't have which could be fairly popular in the LWMA. I doubt Ki-100 coud be any more popular than the Ki-61 we have now and it really isn't that much used.
Maybe you’re right.
Finally, there were only 5 Pe-2I's made, none of them saw combat.
Darn, you’re right. That’s too bad though, would have been a fun plane.
Like the Bf 110, if an A-20 is caught by most single engine fighters flown by a pilot of equal or superior skill, the Havoc will die.
The 110 is somewhat superior to the A-20, but against one of the late-war single-engine monsters it will be at a serious disadvantage. The flipside of that coin (your argument) is that it is down to pilot skill. The 110 (and probably the A-20) is actually as good or better than many mid-war single-engine fighters in the MA, and the lethal gun-package makes up for any slight disadvantages.
Just like the claims the He 219 shooting down 6 Mosquitos during one mission.
The Luftwaffe never made that claim, but I'm sure there are a lot of bogus internet claims.
Marginal at best.
Still not “SAME”. Perhaps you shouldn’t have made such an inaccurate claim using bold letters an all.
The 47 is underpowered, overweight. Only an N with low fuel and ammo, or an M would change this.
Yet it was one of the most successful fighters of WWII, with the two leading American ETO aces flying the P-47.
The argument isn't the numbers compared in the vacuum of paper world, but in practice. The B25H has huge firepower and....
…actually sees a good deal of use in the MA.
Doesn't seem that way at all. Karnak quotes (no ref but I'll take his word for it) service performance never breaking 400.
Yeah, I’d like to see some documentation on that please.
Weight having no impact on top speed is a flawed argument.
Little to no impact with the engine power and speeds involved here; and it is perfectly understandable for anyone with any understanding of aerodynamics. Try upping a P-51D with 25% fuel and record the top speed. Then up one with 100% fuel (1,100 lbs heavier) and test it. Does the top speed drop even a single mph?
Man... You sound like Bee1le.
I don’t know the gentleman, but I like him already! :)
Disprove that the 219 never broke 400 in service and couldn't climb past 26k or break 360 when loaded.
Heh, you want me to prove a negative? How about you documenting your claim instead of me having to disprove it? That’s how it is usually done you know.
-
It never broke 400... Loaded, it might only have done 360.
Document that please. Milo already provided charts showing the 219A-5 doing 360 mph on military power (Kampfleistung).
I'll believe that you can make a 110 fly worth a damn when I see it.
Good. I’ll probably re-subscribe at some point in the future. After a short time to knock some rust of my skills I’ll arrange for a demonstration. If you started flying about the same time you joined this message board we have about the same in-game time, of course that’s unless you have no life and play all day.
Again, we're talking about AH here. The 219 in daylight fighting, with its target area, powerloading, and dismal performance compared to paper figures, would be dogmeat. The only positives are the wing shapes looking like the mossie's, drooping ailerons, some potential use of SM in a knife fight (what a crutch!), and the A20 with similar powerloading/windloading/wing shape being a surprisingly agile.... piece of dogmeat against all the other twins. Yes, I have first hand controlled-environment evidence of this.
“Dogmeat…” you seem to like that word. The 410 will be no less “dogmeat” in the MA, it was “dogmeat” in real-life too. No argument there.
The 219 isn't the more viable alternative…
Viability is irrelevant. We got the B-25 didn’t we? Not exactly the most viable choice of addition, and certainly very redundant performance wise.
Without flaps, the A20's flat turning radius is right below the 109G2's on this chart.
That’s rather impressive don’t you think?
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3575/3552185538_c7a4891853_o.png)
So... The 219 is shaping up to be another A20 with possibly better flat turning ability, but just as big and lumbering.
It seems to me that the He 219 has the largest area of flaps of those aircraft. Much larger than the A-20.
No. I mean thrust, acceleration…
Then you would do better using the word “quick” rather than “fast”. The 410 would have quicker acceleration at low and medium speed, the 219 would probably be “quicker” at high speed due to being more aerodynamic and would have a faster top speed.
I did some more digging on the He219. The 416mph speed might be achievable for an He219 that had no radar tree, no flame dampers and had its weight reduced. With the radar tree and flame dampers it did about 350-360mph at best altitude.
So a daylight version without the antennas and dampeners (I hope HTC gets rid of them on the Mosquito asap!), but with a good gun package (maybe drop the Jazz) could conceivably do 407 mph?
Warplanes of the Luftwaffe (Donald) says that the A6 "anti-mosquito" variant, weighing 12klbs loaded and using 603E+MW50 and GM1 (for 2100hp) did 404mph. Infamous "Erich" from the LEMB, ww2aircraft.net, etc, says no A6 was ever operational.
404 mph is very impressive with those draggy antennas and flame dampeners. Imagine how fast it would have been without them.
Gebhard Aders ("Geschichte der deutschen Nachtjagd") says the 219 "never achieved the values given in its manual. With almost full tanks and full armament, the 219 couldn't get above 26kft. With Lichtenstein and flame dampers, the maximum fell to about 311mph at this height."
As anecdotal evidence go… Fully loaded with radar at that altitude I’m not surprised. The He 219’s best speed altitude was 23,000 feet. And in that book Alders goes on saying; “’The 219 was the only German night-fighter that could still climb on one engine, and even go round again for another landing attempt,’ a belief echoed by many former Uhu pilots.”
Cpt Brown, in Air International, says that it was "somewhat overrated.. It suffered from perhaps the nastiest characteristic that any twin-engined aircraft can have: it was underpowered. This defect makes take-off a critical maneuver in the event of an engine failing [sounds like the 25H missing an engine], and a landing with one engine out can be equally critical. There certainly could be no overshooting with the 219 in that condition."
I have a lot of respect for Captain Brown. However this anecdotal evidence does not in any way describe its combat effectiveness, nor does it specify what version He 219 and in what state it was. As far as I know the allies only managed to get their hands on a few A-2’s. In any case Brown’s remarks on landing with one engine are in conflict with those of Alders’ and other 219 pilots.
-
DieHard:
"Anyone with even a limited understanding of aerodynamics would know that weight has little effect on top speed. At top speed most WWII fighters would have a negative wing angle of attack due to wing camber. Parasitic drag would be the limiting factor, not induced drag."
You will then also understand the effect on climb and acceleration I presume? Actually one of the two would do, since they are pretty much knotted together.
-
DieHard:
"Anyone with even a limited understanding of aerodynamics would know that weight has little effect on top speed. At top speed most WWII fighters would have a negative wing angle of attack due to wing camber. Parasitic drag would be the limiting factor, not induced drag."
You will then also understand the effect on climb and acceleration I presume? Actually one of the two would do, since they are pretty much knotted together.
Of course. I don't expect the 219 to climb any better than say a P-47D or F4U-1, at best. The 410 will climb much better, especially in a light configuration.
-
There were no daylight versions of the He219 that I have ever heard of.
And the A-6 was never operational.
-
I did some more digging on the He219. The 416mph speed might be achievable for an He219 that had no radar tree, no flame dampers and had its weight reduced. With the radar tree and flame dampers it did about 350-360mph at best altitude.
Eric Brown test flew one after the war, but I haven't been able to dig his comments up while at work.
Wings of the Luftwaffe by Eric Brown p.148:
In my view, the Heinkel fighter--certainly in its He219A-2 version--was decidedly underpowered. An engine failure on take-off must have been a very nasty emergency to handle at night as, below 137 mph (220km/h), the aircraft was difficult to hold straight and, combined with the sink as the undercarriage came up, this meant that there was a critical area between 50ft (15,20m) and 300 ft (91,50m) on climb-out.
wrongway
-
There were no daylight versions of the He219 that I have ever heard of.
There were no daylight version per se, but for daylight scouting they removed the flame dampeners and radar antennas leaving only the stubs (not the internal radar equipment though).
(http://www.cockpitinstrumente.de/Ausr%FCstung/Teile/Schleudersitz/Schleudersitze/he219bild.jpg)
(http://www.geocities.com/bigassbird17/he-219.jpg)
-
Half your replies miss the point.
Are you sure you want to imply that the Fw 190A-8 has no place in AH?
:lol
A-B produced at same time - Yeah I know about that. A2s not having the 103 and simply being refitted/renamed B2.
103s left off to save weight - I'll back this one up in a bit. The gist is they were left off because 4x20mm was deemed enough.
Hints - Look at the full round-up of historical events, documents, comments on the plane. It fell short of projected specs. It was underpowered.
Heavy/fast - That's not the point. Lugging that mass to whatever top speed the 219 had wouldn't be a quick thing. Somehow I think you know this but choose to repeat the off-topic drag bullpoop. Nowhere is my argument that the 219's heavy weight would kill its top speed. Only that it would take forever to get there. F=MA
The A8. I don't even know what the point of replying to this one is. You have to be delusional to think the A8 is anything but a lump of lead. The 47 is almost as much of a sitting duck once you've slowed it down. It's dead meat without altitude below it to regain some speed. That I'm implying the A8 has no place in AH - huh? what?
Forum politics - Here you are making such a big deal out of it though. I don't give a rat's about forum politics and don't see what the flup you're on about there. The fact is that the 219 and 410 are redundant, that this argument started with you replying to a thread titled "What we NEED are some what-if planes" where someone asserted that the 219 wouldn't see much use among other reasons because it wouldn't be maneuverable enough. Nothing political there. Nor in the fact that the 219 isn't going to show up anytime soon because of the two dozen+ other models more NEEDED than it, of which the 410 is one. And after the latter, the 219's going to be a hard sell for most players when there's already planes that do what the 219 does and more. Argument which you started by contradicting. Nothing about politics there either.
The A20 better than mid-war single engine fighters - which are those?
100hp difference on a 20 thousand pound plane, isn't as good as no different? Alright, whatever.
P47 most successful plane of WWII - Not the topic here: this game's environment is, and there the 47 is definitely overweight for dogfighting.
"The B25H has huge firepower and…actually sees a good deal of use in the MA." - You can't be serious.. You're pretending to miss the point.
"Viability is irrelevant. We got the B-25 didn’t we? Not exactly the most viable choice of addition, and certainly very redundant performance wise." You're comparing the B-25 series to the He 219? Seriously?
A20-109G2 turning radius: It's a paper figure that probably makes the A20 jocks all warm and fuzzy. Reality is totally different. You don't just do flat circles without flaps. There's no dogfighting parity to match that radius parity. So no, it's not impressive at all. An A20 isn't an impressive dogfighting opponent.
“quick” rather than “fast”. English isn't my first language. Leave it to you to not see the argument being made and instead autistically miss the point when the rhetoric paints a big arrow at it.
404 mph is very impressive with those draggy antennas and flame dampeners. Imagine how fast it would have been without them.
How fast an AH 219 would be with DB603Ls?
BK5 uneffective? :rofl
-
Half your replies miss the point.
Then perhaps you should make your points more clear.
BK5 uneffective? :rofl
Quite ineffective yes. They couldn't hit anything with them. Did a good job on tanks in the ground attack role though.
-
What.. Did the BK5 shoot sideways or something?
-
There were no daylight version per se, but for daylight scouting they removed the flame dampeners and radar antennas leaving only the stubs (not the internal radar equipment though).
Nice pic of FE 612, Heinkel He219A-0, W.Nr.210903, at Freeman Field, Seymour Indiana, USA. For shipping to the USA, all sensitive equipment, such as antennas, were removed
-
How about you try the “reply” button rather than the “modify” button next time hmm? ;)
A-B produced at same time - Yeah I know about that. A2s not having the 103 and simply being refitted/renamed B2.
No, the A-reihe served alongside the B-reihe to the end of the war.
Hints - Look at the full round-up of historical events, documents, comments on the plane. It fell short of projected specs. It was underpowered.
Why don’t you do that instead? Give me facts, not hints please.
The A8. I don't even know what the point of replying to this one is. You have to be delusional to think the A8 is anything but a lump of lead. The 47 is almost as much of a sitting duck once you've slowed it down. It's dead meat without altitude below it to regain some speed. That I'm implying the A8 has no place in AH - huh? what?
You’re saying the He 219 has no place in AH aren’t you? Since you compared it to the 190A-8 I have to assume you don’t think it has no place either. A “lump of lead” you say… A lump of lead that has a better k/d than most fighters in the game including some of the “big five”. That’s a pretty awesome lump of lead.
Forum politics - Here you are making such a big deal out of it though. I don't give a rat's about forum politics and don't see what the flup you're on about there. The fact is that the 219 and 410 are redundant, that this argument started with you replying to a thread titled "What we NEED are some what-if planes" where someone asserted that the 219 wouldn't see much use among other reasons because it wouldn't be maneuverable enough. Nothing political there. Nor in the fact that the 219 isn't going to show up anytime soon because of the two dozen+ other models more NEEDED than it, of which the 410 is one. And after the latter, the 219's going to be a hard sell for most players when there's already planes that do what the 219 does and more. Argument which you started by contradicting. Nothing about politics there either.
Then why are you making such a fuzz? I couldn’t care less what you think may or may not be included or deemed “needed” by HTC; I’ll be happy with whatever they decide to add to the game. I just added the He 219 to a wish list and you almost seem to take offence to the very idea, and that the He 219 is in “competition” to your Me 410. You’re a very strange person Moot.
The A20 better than mid-war single engine fighters - which are those?
I can’t speak for the A-20 since I never flew it much, but I can speak for the 110G. I’d say it is pretty even with the P-38L at typical MA altitudes. The 110G is 25 mph slower and climbs 500 feet less per minute, but it is more maneuverable and has a more lethal gun package. I consider it superior to all the P-47D’s; equal climb rate, 20 mph slower, but much more maneuverable. The 110 will give a Spit IX and 109G6 a good run for their money, being about equal in speed (109 a bit faster, Spit slightly slower) and maneuverability, but worse climb.
P47 most successful plane of WWII - Not the topic here: this game's environment is, and there the 47 is definitely overweight for dogfighting.
I thought we were adding planes to the MA, not the dueling arena. Try fighting Widewing in a Thunderbolt. Better yet, try fighting two Thunderbolts that have altitude and who know how to support each other; bring a buddy, you’ll need one.
"The B25H has huge firepower and…actually sees a good deal of use in the MA." - You can't be serious.. You're pretending to miss the point.
You’re arguing that the He 219 wouldn’t see much use in the MA because it is “redundant” and “underpowered” and “dogmeat”… And you used the B-25H as an example. Bad choice.
"Viability is irrelevant. We got the B-25 didn’t we? Not exactly the most viable choice of addition, and certainly very redundant performance wise." You're comparing the B-25 series to the He 219? Seriously?
In terms of HTC being willing to add planes that are “redundant” and “dogmeat” in the late war MA… Yeah.
A20-109G2 turning radius: It's a paper figure that probably makes the A20 jocks all warm and fuzzy. Reality is totally different. You don't just do flat circles without flaps. There's no dogfighting parity to match that radius parity. So no, it's not impressive at all. An A20 isn't an impressive dogfighting opponent.
Again with the “dogfighting”…
What.. Did the BK5 shoot sideways or something?
No it shot very straight, but the pilots didn’t. It is very difficult to hit a moving target shooting from a moving platform when your weapon only fires 45 rounds per minute and has only 22 rounds in the clip.
During the trials with ZG 26 in February of 1944 the test staffel shot down several aircraft, but only with the internal MG151s. They simply couldn’t get hits with the BK 5. Despite this Göring ordered the weapon into service and not surprising it was proven a total failure.
As for firepower:
BK 5, 45 rounds per minute, 250 grams of explosives per minute.
MG 151, 700 rounds per minute, 840 grams of explosives per minute.
MK 108, 600 rounds per minute, 3200 grams of explosives per minute.
The BK 5/KWK 5’s only success as an aircraft gun was as a tank buster; firing hartkern rounds.
-
Nice pic of FE 612, Heinkel He219A-0, W.Nr.210903, at Freeman Field, Seymour Indiana, USA. For shipping to the USA, all sensitive equipment, such as antennas, were removed
Thank you, I liked it too.
-
I think there must be some kinda cultural barrier. I do think you're a thick old squeak who'd rather argue semantics than the real arguments, but that's something else. I'm not offended, I'm not interested in politics, I'm just arguing what I see as true. The 219 is redundant as far as what to add to the AH plane set goes, right now. That's been clear since the start of the argument, except thru whatever you've got in your eyes.
I'm not saying the 219 has no place in AH. I have no idea how you figure that. Maybe it's the thick old squeak part. The A8 is a lump of lead. That's not tantamount to saying it doesnt belong in AH. The A8 K/D is as irrelevant as the Spit16's is to its performance. End of story.
You didn't add the 219 to "some wishlist", that's got nothing to do with the argument. You argued specifically that it would be maneuverable as a P38 and that it wouldn't fare less well than the 410 in the game. Which it isn't and would. It turned out to be a fuzz because you're busier playing semantics, e.g. making a fuzz out of 100hp - which changes the powerloading by something like 3% - not being a negligible difference; if you didn't have an agenda here (who's playing politics?) you'd have admitted that it means nothing in this argument since its so marginal, and if the 603A makes 1850hp at 7kft as it's quoted in a couple of places. Or that the BK5 isn't effectively as lethal as 2x108 and 2x103. What the hell are you smoking to figure that a gun that can fire and hit from as far as the BK5 won't be killing whatever it's aimed at in two rounds? In practice it doesn't matter if the 108 and 103 shoot out more rounds in 1sec. Nor does having 2x108+2x103+2x151 make as much sense as e.g. 6x151.
If I were playing politics I wouldn't bring up that that 219's flaps and ailerons actually add up to a flat turning performance that's about as good as the A20 or better -- which isn't too bad but does nothing to save 219 from being a lead magnet thanks to all its combined attributes.
I can’t speak for the A-20 since I never flew it much, but I can speak for the 110G. I’d say it is pretty even with the P-38L at typical MA altitudes. The 110G is 25 mph slower and climbs 500 feet less per minute, but it is more maneuverable and has a more lethal gun package. I consider it superior to all the P-47D’s; equal climb rate, 20 mph slower, but much more maneuverable. The 110 will give a Spit IX and 109G6 a good run for their money, being about equal in speed (109 a bit faster, Spit slightly slower) and maneuverability, but worse climb.
... I'm not even gonna touch this one. You're clueless.
I thought we were adding planes to the MA, not the dueling arena. Try fighting Widewing in a Thunderbolt. Better yet, try fighting two Thunderbolts that have altitude and who know how to support each other; bring a buddy, you’ll need one.
Same thing here.. A loaded premise and even then... Been there, done that. A hundred times.
You’re arguing that the He 219 wouldn’t see much use in the MA because it is “redundant” and “underpowered” and “dogmeat”… And you used the B-25H as an example. Bad choice.
No, but you wish. I'm saying the 219's firepower is just one paper figure. The whole picture is what matters. That's where you see that it's dogmeat. You quoting the 219 as having more firepower than the 410 is a red herring, cherry-picking.
In terms of HTC being willing to add planes that are “redundant” and “dogmeat” in the late war MA… Yeah.
You left out the qualifier I specified and repeated half a dozen times: It's too redundant when there's two dozen other more sorely needed models. The 410 is more eligible. Sit back and watch and see for yourself.
Dogfighting - It's inevitable.
Goering and WWII reality - Not the reality of AH. As if I needed to say this: You don't bring a 1000kg BK5 to a knife fight. The figure you left out is the muzzle velocity. It's as fast as a 50cal. It's also larger than 30mm, which means that in AH it'll shoot to 2K instead of 1.5K, or even be modeled as a tank round in which case it'll have indefinite time of flight. It'll make for arguably the best sniping gun in the game. No one with a clue will have trouble landing hits with it. It'll be safer to use against bombers than the 108s, especially when mounted on a platform that's more agile and mobile. Quoting the 108's 3200g/min is one more cherry picked stat with no consideration of the full practical context. If you're shooting at fighters, the BK5 isn't (if you know what you're doing) what's loaded on the 410, and the 219 isn't what you're flying if you mean to survive. The A20 and Mossie have demonstrated this already. This is some of the most basic stuff anyone with experience in the MA would know.
I'm getting bored of this discussion with you. Mischaracterization, semantics, cherry picking, red herrings.
-
I can speak for the 110G. I’d say it is pretty even with the P-38L at typical MA altitudes. The 110G is 25 mph slower and climbs 500 feet less per minute, but it is more maneuverable
:lol
I'm done arguing with someone that'd say everything else, and this, with a straight face.
-
I think there must be some kinda cultural barrier. I do think you're a thick old squeak who'd rather argue semantics than the real arguments, but that's something else. I'm not offended, I'm not interested in politics, I'm just arguing what I see as true. The 219 is redundant as far as what to add to the AH plane set goes, right now. That's been clear since the start of the argument, except thru whatever you've got in your eyes.
Cultural barrier? I think I read somewhere that you were French, right?
One thing puzzles me: Why do you think I or anyone else want to know what you think about the 219’s redundancy or how likely it is to be included? Are you some kind of authority around here? Please excuse me; I haven’t been on this message board that long so I have to ask.
I'm not saying the 219 has no place in AH. I have no idea how you figure that. Maybe it's the thick old squeak part. The A8 is a lump of lead. That's not tantamount to saying it doesnt belong in AH. The A8 K/D is as irrelevant as the Spit16's is to its performance. End of story.
So the He 219 has a place in Aces High in your opinion. Thank you.
You didn't add the 219 to "some wishlist", that's got nothing to do with the argument. You argued…
This is what I posted:
And...
Ki-100
Pe-2
He 219
Ju 388 (it's a stretch, but it would be very cool)
Someone else started arguing the flaws and merits of the He 219. Why someone would do that in a thread like this is beyond me.
Or that the BK5 isn't effectively as lethal as 2x108 and 2x103. What the hell are you smoking to figure that a gun that can fire and hit from as far as the BK5 won't be killing whatever it's aimed at in two rounds?
You’ll have to hit with those two rounds. In WWII they couldn’t. In Aces High it will be difficult; a lot more difficult than with two MK 103’s. The BK 5 was a useless weapon for aerial combat in real life, and I suspect it will be equally useless in AH.
If I were playing politics…
Then why didn’t you just say “Hey the He 219 is cool, I’d like it too!” or just say nothing? Why argue against someone else’s wish in a wish list thread? It makes no sense unless you have an agenda of some sort.
... I'm not even gonna touch this one. You're clueless.
In other words you can’t argue against hard facts so you just dismiss the whole argument out of hand and attack my person. Nice.
No, but you wish. I'm saying the 219's firepower is just one paper figure. The whole picture is what matters.
I completely agree. The whole picture: Great firepower, good speed, good maneuverability, great E-retention (inertia), poor climb and acceleration, big target. Did I leave anything out?
You left out the qualifier I specified and repeated half a dozen times: It's too redundant when there's two dozen other more sorely needed models. The 410 is more eligible. Sit back and watch and see for yourself.
Who asked you? I really don’t care which comes first or even if none of them gets modeled. Why can’t you understand that? If one or both gets modeled, great! If not, who cares? Plenty of fun with the planes we already have.
Goering and WWII reality - Not the reality of AH. As if I needed to say this: You don't bring a 1000kg BK5 to a knife fight. The figure you left out is the muzzle velocity. It's as fast as a 50cal. It's also larger than 30mm, which means that in AH it'll shoot to 2K instead of 1.5K, or even be modeled as a tank round in which case it'll have indefinite time of flight. It'll make for arguably the best sniping gun in the game. No one with a clue will have trouble landing hits with it. It'll be safer to use against bombers than the 108s, especially when mounted on a platform that's more agile and mobile. Quoting the 108's 3200g/min is one more cherry picked stat with no consideration of the full practical context.
Really… or perhaps bomber pilots will just start stick-stirring a little whenever a 410 parks 2k of their tail? Anyone who’s played this game for a while should realize how easy it would be to jink the aim of someone lobbing single shells from long range.
I'm getting bored of this discussion with you.
Perhaps next time you won’t start one then.
:lol
I'm done arguing with someone that'd say everything else, and this, with a straight face.
Oh no! Please say it isn't true! You who have been so friendly and polite; calling me stupid, clueless, thick old squeak and whatnot to the point of being moderated twice so far. Please don’t stop, I beg you! :frown:
-
I can’t speak for the A-20 since I never flew it much, but I can speak for the 110G. I’d say it is pretty even with the P-38L at typical MA altitudes. The 110G is 25 mph slower and climbs 500 feet less per minute, but it is more maneuverable and has a more lethal gun package.
You're not serious are you? The P-38L outclasses the Bf 110G-2 in all areas with the sole exception of fire power and can easily out maneuver the G-2 at all altitudes. If you are of any doubt, I can personally show you.
Given equal pilots, the P-38 driver will win every time.
ack-ack
-
You're not serious are you? The P-38L outclasses the Bf 110G-2 in all areas with the sole exception of fire power and can easily out maneuver the G-2 at all altitudes. If you are of any doubt, I can personally show you.
I'd like that very much. Thank you! :)
When I re-subscribe I'll look you up.
-
In all the time I played, I never lost a Mossie to a Bf110 either. The closest I came was a pilot wound from the tail gun that I received while he ate quad 20mm. I've only downed two fighters with the quad .303s, one was an La-7 that I shot up and it subsequently stalled out into the ground and the other was a Bf110G-2 that I took the wing off of.
I consider the Bf110 to be the weakest of the twin engined fighters for air-to-air combat.
-
After looking through all these posts i came up with an idea.
WHY DONT WE ASK HITECH CREATIONS IF THEY WOULD CONSIDER CREATING A POST WW2 ARENA AS WELL AS A WW1 ARENA.
if you remember we were asked early on in the year what our thoughts were on adding ww1 aircraft and as far as i know it got a resounding thumbs up.
My theory is that this would allow the addition of aircraft that were in early stages of development or did fly as WW2 ended such as the Shooting Star and The Vampire annd the Gloster Meteor,but also later varients of aircraft in the game already i.e post war Spits and P51's.
This could also allow the addition of aircraft used during post WW2 conflicts such as the Phenomanell and respected F.86 Sabre which i think was one of the last true Gun armed Dogfighters.
-
Cultural barrier? I think I read somewhere that you were French, right?
One thing puzzles me: Why do you think I or anyone else want to know what you think about the 219’s redundancy or how likely it is to be included? Are you some kind of authority around here? Please excuse me; I haven’t been on this message board that long so I have to ask.
Reason. It doesn't matter if a french toad speaks it. And no, I'm not french. Other than having argument in my blood.. I could've gone lawyer instead of engineer.
Someone else started arguing the flaws and merits of the He 219. Why someone would do that in a thread like this is beyond me.
Because of the realities of which planes we should have.
You’ll have to hit with those two rounds. In WWII they couldn’t. In Aces High it will be difficult; a lot more difficult than with two MK 103’s. The BK 5 was a useless weapon for aerial combat in real life, and I suspect it will be equally useless in AH.
Wager.
Then why didn’t you just say “Hey the He 219 is cool, I’d like it too!” or just say nothing? Why argue against someone else’s wish in a wish list thread? It makes no sense unless you have an agenda of some sort.
The argument wasn't (isn't) a wishlist perspective at all.
In other words you can’t argue against hard facts so you just dismiss the whole argument out of hand and attack my person. Nice.
Nope, I argued them, you dismissed readily available evidence. So either you're incapable of accurate assessment of said primary evidence (performance in the game), or you're sandbagging. My impression is it's both. The "attacks" on your person are for fudging the arguments, not for arguing in contradiction per se.
I completely agree. The whole picture: Great firepower, good speed, good maneuverability, great E-retention (inertia), poor climb and acceleration, big target. Did I leave anything out?
The same accuracy and impartiality that you leave out when you pretend the A8 isn't a lump of lead or that the A20 is better than mediocre anytime there isn't a horde to clear its six, or that the P47 is some kind of one-unit airforce "if you put a good pilot in it"/"if its opponents are clueless", or that the 110 is somehow the 38's equal. Now that's objective.
Who asked you? I really don’t care which comes first or even if none of them gets modeled. Why can’t you understand that? If one or both gets modeled, great! If not, who cares? Plenty of fun with the planes we already have.
If you had a clue, you'd realize that's how I see it too. I'm just arguing what's arguable. I've said before and haven't change my position that both planes are desirable. Only that the 219 doesn't stand a chance of being included before the 410, and that this and other circumstance push its intro way back. Why is the interesting argument.
Really… or perhaps bomber pilots will just start stick-stirring a little whenever a 410 parks 2k of their tail? Anyone who’s played this game for a while should realize how easy it would be to jink the aim of someone lobbing single shells from long range.
Uh.. No. That's not how it's going to play out. Let's (and again you can bow the flup out of this argument anytime instead of squeaking about being "forced" to take part) simplify things a bit for argument's sake: there's three targets in the game. Fighters, Bombers, Toolsheds. Ground vehicles, and vulchees count as toolsheds. They're as good as immobile to a BK5 projectile. Curtains for them when trigger is pulled. The Flaks will be interesting. The ballistics and rate of will make it a piece of cake to turret them. The calibre means it'll fly at least to 2K out. If it's modeled as a tank round, it's really bad news for them. Unless the round is modeled stricly AP. That doesn't change the outcome much though.
Fighters? You don't need a BK5 for the fighters. 6x151 or a pair of 103s will do it. You've admitted yourself that a difficult plane can be successful in the right hands.. You're preaching to the choir there, I knife fight spits and n1ks in one of the worst turning planes in the game. The 410 will be the same. A MK103 would make for a kill zone as lethal as the 108-equipped planes' nosecones, but with a range around the same as .50's. The 219 might have 20s, 108s for short range high volume, and 103s for long range sniping at even greater lethality, but that's all overkill and all on a platform that's not as mobile as the 410. On top of that, the 219 will lumber along just the same as an A20.. Does anyone fly straight and slow for A20s? Or 110s? No.. They get push them down into inferior position and it doesn't take much effort for them to concede from there. Even more so when they're such big targets.
The 410 on the other hand isn't as big as an A20, has better acceleration, which on their own are enough to make it harder for the mob of spits/la/n1ks to spray it to death. If a 152 can do it with 1x108+2x151, the 410 can do it with 2x103 or 6x151. The 219 isn't going to do as well at all.
Bombers: Yes, a 50mm shell shot at 50cal velocity and reaching out to 2K (nevermind unending time of flight) once a second will ruin bombers' day. It is safer than MK108s. Bombers do in fact stand still for even the B25H's slow 75mm. A large target like the A20 does in fact pay correspondingly in received fire. Two on-target shots of BK5 from a platform as small mobile as the 410 are a better weapon in the game than a pair of 151, 108, and 103 on a 219. That's why it's unrealistic to point to the 25H's firepower on its own. It's the whole package in situ that counts.
Perhaps next time you won’t start one then.
Perhaps you could be less of a bore by arguing the points instead of beating around the bush with semantics and cherry picking?
Oh no! Please say it isn't true! You who have been so friendly and polite; calling me stupid, clueless, thick old squeak and whatnot to the point of being moderated twice so far. Please don’t stop, I beg you! :frown:
That's funny. Those posts are the polite ones where I say exactly why you're nit-picking the argument into circles. Where you try and derail the topic (see rule whatever) by bringing in one more tangent whose pertinence is undefined.
-
In all the time I played, I never lost a Mossie to a Bf110 either. The closest I came was a pilot wound from the tail gun that I received while he ate quad 20mm. I've only downed two fighters with the quad .303s, one was an La-7 that I shot up and it subsequently stalled out into the ground and the other was a Bf110G-2 that I took the wing off of.
I consider the Bf110 to be the weakest of the twin engined fighters for air-to-air combat.
This is one of the intriguing aspects of playing the game. The match up within the match up (pilot vs pilot) is often more important then the actual planes involved. I favor the A-20 over the mossie or 110 but all 3 are at a significant disadvantage vs a well flown single engine fighter if they do not engage from a position of initial advantage....simply the realities.
I cant recall ever losing an even fight ever to either a mossie or 110 in MA play. I don't see how any of this is relevant to the topic at hand. Just like the A-26 is a bit redundant so are both the 410 and 219. No question the 410 would be a better fit for scenarios then the 219.
A plane like the Tu-2 would provide a much better overall capability (8000lb+ bombload) and a 20mm armed Air to air/air to ground weapon with excellent wingloading and reasonable speed and fill a real need for FSO/scenarios...
-
Stop that arguing! This is a wishlist! :lol
Seriously - I don't think the A20 comes out on top. The 110 and Mossie outdo it. It's kinda close between the mossie and 110, but in the MA I'd say the mossie is a little more lethal (way more leading shots ability) and definitely more survivable. I don't think the A20 stands as much of a chance of surviving vs well flown 1-engine fighters without initial advantage as the 110 and Mossie do. And there too I think the mossie takes the cake more often than not.
They're all at a significant advantage, but a less general assessment puts the Mossie as clearly competitive, unlike the 110 and A20. Respectively because of speed limit and bad ballistics, and sluggishness and large target area.
-
One plane also forgot from this "popular in the MAs" list of mine was definately the Il-10...
(Not accounting variants of the existing planes)
A-26
B-29A
Beaufighter Mk.X
B7A2
Firefly Mk.1
G.55
H8K2
He-162A
He-177A
Il-10
J2M3
Ju-188A-5
Ki-44-IIc
Ki-102b
Me410B
Meteor III
PB2Y-5
P-61A
P-63
Re.2005
Tu-2
Yak-3
So, there's still plenty of planes to add that could be popular in the MAs and saw at least limited combat/operations in WWII.
-
Would you care to guess what order those'd be in, for historical need?
-
Ki-102 saw some combat at Okinawa. It would be fun to have the best Japanese twin fighter too.
-
Well, on top of my head
Significant (in somewhat that order):
B-29A
Beaufighter Mk.X
Yak-3
Me410B
Tu-2
Ki-44-IIc
Ju-188A-5
He-177A
Firefly Mk.1
J2M3
P-61A
In the middle (in somewhat that order):
PB2Y-5
H8K2
A-26
Insignificant (in somewhat that order):
Il-10
G.55
Re.2005
Ki-102b
B7A2
He-162A
P-63
Meteor III
Disclaimer (to everyone, not directed at moot): If "your" aircraft is below some a/c that you don't think it should be, no need to come bite my head off. There are many variables here and my listing is very much subjective ie. my own opinion, on top of my head.
-
Ki-102 saw some combat at Okinawa. It would be fun to have the best Japanese twin fighter too.
Yeh, had that in my initial list, but then managed to cut paste the wrong iteration from my .txt...it's there now. It's combat was very very limited but it does "qualify", most of them were with held from combat to spare them to be used as platform for AtG-missle which was in development incase of the allied invasion. 57mm cannon would be cool. It's one of my personal favourites.
-
That's interesting, thanks WMaker. I didn't expect the G55, 2005, and Ki44 to rank that low.
-
I didn't expect the G55, 2005, and Ki44 to rank that low.
Only a handful of 2005's were made. G-55 fought a fairly short period of time and had a low production. Actually Ki-44 should be in the significant-category, I had some what a brain fart about it's production numbers...some IIc's were armed with 40mm "cannons" (more like lightened mortars), they were rare inside IIc production but IIs total production was a healty 1167 a/c (with small number of Ki-44-IIIs counted in).
-
So the Italians didn't have any models competitive in the MA, that were historically significant?
Another thing I'm curious about : Why only the B model of the Me410? From what I've read, the A could serve in mid-war arena, and be about as competitive (less gun options but the same performance otherwise). It wouldn't take much work (basically the same) to add alongside the B, and would allow for all the historical ordnance loadouts to exist in the AH Me410 family - having only the B model looks like it exceeds the allowed number of loadout options for a single model in AH.
-
So the Italians didn't have any models competitive in the MA, that were historically significant?
Pretty much so.
-
Sorry, edited the above post.
-
One more note regarding the KI-44-II, the ones armed with 4x20mm were built in rather small numbers (IIcs). IIa (4x12.7mm) was the most built II-variant...so that was my initial reason to but them so low on that list.
-
Well, my list was about "popular LWMA" rides so in there, B leaves the A somewhat redundant...I wasn't really thinking about MW. But yes, I'd like to see both variants, but I somehwat doubt that will happen.
-
Yep, the issue is that the 410B would have to compromise its full range of possible loadouts to fit inside the AH hangar. So having the A would accomodate these.
Do you know if there were any significant performance advantages over the A? I haven't read about any yet. If there weren't any, it seems reasonable that HTC would see the small extra work as worthwhile to allow the whole loadout range.
-
I've come to pretty much same conclusions as you regarding the A and B...no big differences with similar loadouts.
-
In all the time I played, I never lost a Mossie to a Bf110 either. The closest I came was a pilot wound from the tail gun that I received while he ate quad 20mm. I've only downed two fighters with the quad .303s, one was an La-7 that I shot up and it subsequently stalled out into the ground and the other was a Bf110G-2 that I took the wing off of.
I consider the Bf110 to be the weakest of the twin engined fighters for air-to-air combat.
I think that’s a result of your superior skills in the Mossie, or bad memory. I bet it’s the former. :)
The in-game performance numbers (unless DoKGonzo, Widewing, Hammer and MOSQ’s data is now obsolete) favor the 110G over the Mosquito. Mossie is 22 mph faster on the deck, but the 110 has a tighter turning circle and slightly better climb rate. Has the Mossie’s performance been changed?
Wager.
A wager huh? What’s next? You’ll double-dare me, and call me out at dawn? lol
What are the parameters of the wager? And what do you think should be the stakes?
The argument wasn't (isn't) a wishlist perspective at all.
Then why start it in this thread?
The "attacks" on your person are for fudging the arguments, not for arguing in contradiction per se.
I haven’t “fudged” anything to my knowledge, and even if I had, that’s no excuse for making personal attacks.
When you played forum-Sheriff in the Tiger thread you said “Refute his argument or concede”, and “So just refute his factual arguments.”
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,262580.msg3296795.html#msg3296795
Perhaps you should take your own advice.
The same accuracy and impartiality that you leave out when you pretend the A8 isn't a lump of lead or that the A20 is better than mediocre anytime there isn't a horde to clear its six, or that the P47 is some kind of one-unit airforce "if you put a good pilot in it"/"if its opponents are clueless", or that the 110 is somehow the 38's equal. Now that's objective.
When did I say that the A-20 is better than mediocre? Nor have I said or implied that the P-47 is a “one-unit airforce”. You’re putting words in my mouth, and that’s not very nice either.
If you had a clue, you'd realize that's how I see it too. I'm just arguing what's arguable.
So you’re arguing just for argument’s sake?
Only that the 219 doesn't stand a chance of being included before the 410, and that this and other circumstance push its intro way back. Why is the interesting argument.
First of all, I have never said the 219 should be modeled before the 410, and frankly I couldn’t care less. Why would it be interesting?
Bombers: Yes, a 50mm shell shot at 50cal velocity and reaching out to 2K (nevermind unending time of flight) once a second will ruin bombers' day. It is safer than MK108s.
The MK 103 also has a muzzle velocity similar to the 50 cal. Don’t you think a Me 410 lobbing 17 30mm rounds has a much greater chance of hitting a bomber at range than lobbing a single 50mm round?
Perhaps you could be less of a bore by arguing the points instead of beating around the bush with semantics and cherry picking?
No one forced you to start this argument. No one is forcing you to continue it. And no one is forcing you to be so impolite and degrading.
That's funny. Those posts are the polite ones…
Calling people stupid and clueless is not polite; even in France.
I don't see how any of this is relevant to the topic at hand. Just like the A-26 is a bit redundant so are both the 410 and 219. No question the 410 would be a better fit for scenarios then the 219.
Exactly! :aok
-
On the subject of the BK 5-
"At the beginning of the war our tanks could only open fire from a distance of 800 yards if they wanted to be sure of the results, while our latest types were in a position to combat enemy tanks from a distance of 3000 yards. The Jagdwaffe alone had not developed along these lines. They still had to close in to 400 yards before they could use their weapons effectively.
From this consideration arose the order for fighters and destroyers to use a large-caliber long-distance cannon against the American bomber formations. The result was as follows: an Me-410 destroyer, equipped with [the] armored-car cannon KWK 5, weighing 2000 pounds (!), was reconstructed as an automatic weapon with a magazine holding about 15 shells, [with] a rate of fire [of] about one shot per second. It was possible to fly with this monster sticking 3 yards out in front; firing was possible, too, although the cannon jammed hopelessly after about five shots. One could even hit something, not at 1000 or 3000 yards' distance, but at the most from 400 yards! Beyond that all chances of a hit were spoiled by having to fly the aircraft. Nothing was gained, therefore, and firing was reduced to single shots. We used to say ironically that we only had to shatter the morale of the bomber crew by a few artillery shots, then we could ram the Mustangs and Thunderbolts with our gun barrel.
From The First and the Last by Adolf Galland.
-
Die Hard, lemme know when you're in game and open for some fights. Arguing this with you doesnt matter to me anymore. You just don't get it.
fyi there's nothing degrading about being frank. If you had any experience (the pattern here, talking about what you dont know about), youd know that "in france" even big mouths get lots of credence if they call things out as they are.. A polite hypocrit gets little consideration in comparison. Theres nothing degrading in calling out what I think is the real reason for all the "fuzz". You're old. Thats the cultural barrier.
Motherland - Consider the perfectly still air and controls of planes in AH. The distances we shoot at and deflection angles we manage. Unless the BK5 flies sideways, it's going to be hard to miss with it.. Consider the 30mm shots we land while firing just 2 rounds at a time... I know where my wager money is.
-
fyi there's nothing degrading about being frank.
If that includes calling people stupid, clueless, old squeak and all the other degrading remarks you've thrown at me these last few pages... Yes, that's degrading.
And thank you for conceding; even if you couldn't do it gracefully. :)
-
See Rule #4
-
Even if you're being honest you can't call people stupid, clueless and now "thick" without it being an insult. I know English isn't your first language, but this is something I think is much the same in all languages. If you call someone stupid, it's an insult and degrading no matter if you're being honest or not.
As for the rest; take your own advice: “Refute his argument or concede.”
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #5
-
Nice edit, but you were too late.
-
:lol There's nothing changed in the post that tries to hide something.
I disagree on what I should or shouldn't do.
This is my last post to you in this thread on this argument.
-
On the subject of the BK 5-
"At the beginning of the war our tanks could only open fire from a distance of 800 yards if they wanted to be sure of the results, while our latest types were in a position to combat enemy tanks from a distance of 3000 yards. The Jagdwaffe alone had not developed along these lines. They still had to close in to 400 yards before they could use their weapons effectively.
From this consideration arose the order for fighters and destroyers to use a large-caliber long-distance cannon against the American bomber formations. The result was as follows: an Me-410 destroyer, equipped with [the] armored-car cannon KWK 5, weighing 2000 pounds (!), was reconstructed as an automatic weapon with a magazine holding about 15 shells, [with] a rate of fire [of] about one shot per second. It was possible to fly with this monster sticking 3 yards out in front; firing was possible, too, although the cannon jammed hopelessly after about five shots. One could even hit something, not at 1000 or 3000 yards' distance, but at the most from 400 yards! Beyond that all chances of a hit were spoiled by having to fly the aircraft. Nothing was gained, therefore, and firing was reduced to single shots. We used to say ironically that we only had to shatter the morale of the bomber crew by a few artillery shots, then we could ram the Mustangs and Thunderbolts with our gun barrel.
From The First and the Last by Adolf Galland.
I have that book, but in German. "Dolfo" speaks a lot of the equipment by the way. It would probably not suit the "etiquette" to quote from my version though :devil
-
I think that’s a result of your superior skills in the Mossie, or bad memory. I bet it’s the former. :)
The in-game performance numbers (unless DoKGonzo, Widewing, Hammer and MOSQ’s data is now obsolete) favor the 110G over the Mosquito. Mossie is 22 mph faster on the deck, but the 110 has a tighter turning circle and slightly better climb rate. Has the Mossie’s performance been changed?
The Mossie has always climbed slightly better than the Bf110G at low altitudes. People tend to test the Mossie with too much fuel in it and that reduces its climb rates. For example, HTC's charts are for full fuel (540 gallons @ ~3,000lbs) and four 500lb bombs. The Mossie also turns slightly better than the Bf110G according to the charts that have been posted recently.
There is no comparison for gun packages. The Mosquito's is vastly superior for air-to-air work.
-
The Mossie has always climbed slightly better than the Bf110G at low altitudes. People tend to test the Mossie with too much fuel in it and that reduces its climb rates. For example, HTC's charts are for full fuel (540 gallons @ ~3,000lbs) and four 500lb bombs. The Mossie also turns slightly better than the Bf110G according to the charts that have been posted recently.
There is no comparison for gun packages. The Mosquito's is vastly superior for air-to-air work.
Oh I'd like to see those charts! Can you point me in the right direction? :)
You seem like the person to ask: Any news on getting those ejector stubs fitted?
-
The Mossie also turns slightly better than the Bf110G according to the charts that have been posted recently.
Which charts? The 110G has a better turn rate and radius than the Mosquito; that was testing both with 50% fuel.
-
He219A-0/R2, W.Nr.190009 coded G9+FB, flown by Streib and Fischer on the night of 11th June 1943. Two A-0 types delivered with two types of weapons for comparison trials with I./NJG 1 at Venlo:
He219A-0/R1: 2x wing-root MG151/20, 4x MK108 under the fuselage
He219A-0/R2: 2x wing-root MG151/20, 4x MK103 under the fuselage
This last one is the only way I can see the 219's target area and lumpiness being worthwhile enough for the 219 to be an interesting alternative to the 410. And then it'd have to be a clean daylight config.
-
IMHO the Uhu has nothing to do within Ah before we have both night and nightfighting equipment, and that is going to be a lot more than 2 weeks.
For the job, we already have the 110 and the Mossie, as well as the Ju88, - they just have to be tweaked a bit. And they don't come much better than the Mossie. Isn't ours the NF anyway? It's got the dampers I think.
The Beaufighter would IMHO be a better choice, since it was fairly common, and completely multi-role. There you have a nightfighter with radar and quad-hizoo, as well as a rocket-carrying, torpedo carrying mean-horn. Only some 316 mph though. (out of memory). But a 300 mph torp aircraft with quad cannons in the nose is not in AH today :t
-
Angus,
Our Mossie is a night intruder, not a night fighter. No radar.
-
A little off topic here, how ever the controversy of adding night fighters because we don't have night & we have no ability to add radar to such planes seems to me rather moot. For example our clip board & map showing DAR bar & if they are inside your country's radar ring a bright red dot I would say would have been far ahead of anything that any night fighter jock would have had back in the day.
-
Angus,
Our Mossie is a night intruder, not a night fighter. No radar.
But the same exhaust dampers right? Slowing you down, but making the eyesight better. Something very hard to model anyway.
Am I right?
-
Angus, like they said it doesn't really matter if the model was a night fighter. The real prime criteria is whether it's air combat worthy, how much sense it makes in the MA and scenarios.
And I don't see how in this criteria the Beaufighter is a better alternative. I'm not saying we shouldn't have it sooner than later.. I'm just curious how it's better. It's as slow, and packs less punch. Aside from the torpedo loadout(s).
-
Well, the Beau has a torp, AND rockets AND quad Hizoo. There is no naval attacker that does that.
If there would be proper modelling of night, with the gadgets that would come with it, the Beau would also be there.
The Beau was also around in many fronts for quite some time.
That was my point.
-
But the same exhaust dampers right? Slowing you down, but making the eyesight better. Something very hard to model anyway.
Am I right?
The flame dampers aren't for the Mossie's crew's eyesight. They are to block the exhaust flame from making you a target to the aircraft sneaking up behind you.
Incidentially, the quad of .303s on the nose did cause problems for the pilot's vision, that is why they are ommited on every Mosquito night fighter after the Mk II. Well, that and the radar goes in the nose where the guns used to be.
-
Ahh, I did one mistake. I do recall some comments on flares being blinding for the pilot, but it was on either a Spitfire or a Hurricane. Now there you have the engine in front of you.
BTW, somewhere in my pile, I have an account of a NF Mossie chasing what was probably an "owl". Will have a lookie and post.
-
Sorry but being a die hard bomber boy, I couldn't help but bring up what could have been the greatest bomber of the war had it been introduced as planned. We have enough people bickering and whining about keeping the B-29 out of AH that I thought I'd give them all a look at a REAL untouchable bomber.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/XB-36_first_flight.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fd/B-29_and_B-36.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/B-36_Peacemaker_-_personnel_and_equipment.jpg
-
Ahh, I did one mistake. I do recall some comments on flares being blinding for the pilot, but it was on either a Spitfire or a Hurricane. Now there you have the engine in front of you.
BTW, somewhere in my pile, I have an account of a NF Mossie chasing what was probably an "owl". Will have a lookie and post.
I count sixteen He219s destroyed by Mosquito night fighters or intruders doing a quick scan through the lists of kills. There are probably one or two more in the unidentified enemy aircraft.
He219 kills by Mosquito mark #:
Mk VI: 2
Mk XIII: 3
Mk XVII: 2
Mk XIX: 5
Mk XXX: 4
-
There has been discussion of flying boats being added to AH, and the names turning up are the PBY, The Emily, and the Sunderland.
Now, the Sunderland was nicknamed "the Hedgehog" since it was hard to bring down and was well gunned. Here's an article about an off-coast kill which mentions the Sunderland in the way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BOAC_Flight_777
"The following day, German aircraft returned to the area of the downing of BOAC Flight-777 and engaged in a fight with an Australian Short Sunderland flying boat, which was on patrol searching for survivors from the previous day's incident. The Sunderland was severely damaged, but managed to shoot down six of the eight Junkers Ju 88s that attacked it."
Is there a proper foot in this? That's what I found. Incredible:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Sunderland#2_June_1943
-
Angus, many years ago, I had a book on the Sunderlands operated by the RAAF, entitled. "They shall not pass unseen". It had quite a few stories like that, and that is familar. Unfortunately, i have lost that book.
-
I count sixteen He219s destroyed by Mosquito night fighters or intruders doing a quick scan through the lists of kills. There are probably one or two more in the unidentified enemy aircraft.
He219 kills by Mosquito mark #:
Mk VI: 2
Mk XIII: 3
Mk XVII: 2
Mk XIX: 5
Mk XXX: 4
Karnak, -sorry for the delay. To my disappointment, my book doesn't have much more than the text, so no quick paging. It is good to read though. ISBN 0 907579 16 7 Night Flyer by Lewis Brandon DSO DFC. You probably have it ;)
-
I count sixteen He219s destroyed by Mosquito night fighters or intruders doing a quick scan through the lists of kills. There are probably one or two more in the unidentified enemy aircraft.
He219 kills by Mosquito mark #:
Mk VI: 2
Mk XIII: 3
Mk XVII: 2
Mk XIX: 5
Mk XXX: 4
Karnak, where can this list be found. I would like to try to match up the the kills to the 17 known He219s lost in air combat. One of the losses was to a Lancaster.