Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Mister Fork on March 01, 2011, 11:45:06 AM
-
Shall we start now? With the B-29 finally in-game, I'm wondering what the next one up will be (apart from remodelling older birds)
My top three:
1. HE-111 - for cripes sake, add it already
2. Battleships or Individual controllable Destroyers
3. Oscar
:salute
-
We have alot I'd rather see updated.
-
He-111
-
410...
-
... By popular request...
-
C47
-
Yak-3
-
Ki-43 Oscar
-
P-38H for sure
-
M26
P-61
Ki-43
-
So it's taken a whole week to from mine, mine, mine, mine, mine
to
more, more, more, more, more, more
Pathetic :bhead
-
I thought that was a curse word for a second.
-
I wouldn't be surprised if the CV aspect of the game gets an update this year. Just my guess.
-
P-38H for sure
Not unless we get the P-47D-20 or 30
-
I would rather see HTC "fundamentally" change how it approaches new aircraft.
They should take the inventory they have now and make up a "base aircraft" list, this list would be what everyone gets when 1st subcribing. After that each individual can purchase a new plane to be added to their list, it would stay on the list and could be used as long as your sub is current and paid for. not much but maybe 1$ to $5
This would do 2 things: This being a "one time" payment!
#1- would motivate those who have accumulated a large inventory to maintain their account, paying on time etc.
#2- The added revenue would more than likely motivate HTC to put forth new product at a more frequent rate.
As it is, after just a couple days the B29 is less and less used, seems like a whole lot of effort for little to no return. WW1 could be seen as the same, much work little return. After all business is about making money and creating a product that maintains as well as grows your customer base!
I would surely be interested in this type of approach!
JUGgler
-
I would rather see HTC "fundamentally" change how it approaches new aircraft.
They should take the inventory they have now and make up a "base aircraft" list, this list would be what everyone gets when 1st subcribing. After that each individual can purchase a new plane to be added to their list, it would stay on the list and could be used as long as your sub is current and paid for. not much but maybe 1$ to $5
This would do 2 things:
#1- would motivate those who have accumulated a large inventory to maintain their account, paying on time etc.
#2- The added revenue would more than likely motivate HTC to put forth new product at a more frequent rate.
As it is after just a couple days the B29 is less and less used, seems like a whole lot of effort for little to no return. WW1 could be seen as the same, much work little return. After all business is about making money and creating a product that maintains as well as grows your customer base!
I would surely be interested in this type of approach!
JUGgler
+1. This would incentivize r&d at HTC and would discourage dilettantism w/r types. First Law: incentives matter.
-
+1. This would incentivize r&d at HTC and would discourage dilettantism w/r types. First Law: incentives matter.
That's the word that escaped me! TY
Simple economics, create something folks want and they will purchase it.
Incentivise the creator and he will continue to improve it at an increased frequency! In other words he will continue to INVEST resources to it's improvement!
JUGgler
-
Yak 3 ki43
-
I would rather see HTC "fundamentally" change how it approaches new aircraft.
They should take the inventory they have now and make up a "base aircraft" list, this list would be what everyone gets when 1st subcribing. After that each individual can purchase a new plane to be added to their list, it would stay on the list and could be used as long as your sub is current and paid for. not much but maybe 1$ to $5
This would do 2 things: This being a "one time" payment!
#1- would motivate those who have accumulated a large inventory to maintain their account, paying on time etc.
#2- The added revenue would more than likely motivate HTC to put forth new product at a more frequent rate.
As it is, after just a couple days the B29 is less and less used, seems like a whole lot of effort for little to no return. WW1 could be seen as the same, much work little return. After all business is about making money and creating a product that maintains as well as grows your customer base!
I would surely be interested in this type of approach!
JUGgler
Sounds like a good idea.
-
I would rather see HTC "fundamentally" change how it approaches new aircraft.
They should take the inventory they have now and make up a "base aircraft" list, this list would be what everyone gets when 1st subcribing. After that each individual can purchase a new plane to be added to their list, it would stay on the list and could be used as long as your sub is current and paid for. not much but maybe 1$ to $5
This would do 2 things: This being a "one time" payment!
#1- would motivate those who have accumulated a large inventory to maintain their account, paying on time etc.
#2- The added revenue would more than likely motivate HTC to put forth new product at a more frequent rate.
As it is, after just a couple days the B29 is less and less used, seems like a whole lot of effort for little to no return. WW1 could be seen as the same, much work little return. After all business is about making money and creating a product that maintains as well as grows your customer base!
I would surely be interested in this type of approach!
JUGgler
It's used by iRacing and it pisses/turns off a substantial number of potential players.
-
It's used by iRacing and it pisses/turns off a substantial number of potential players.
Sure. However, looking over the other threads, there's something to be said for picking the right clientele. I suspect you'll find that it takes a specific level of maturity and knowledge to accept that development carries a fixed cost. Those clients would self-select, leaving the whiners who piss and moan about a fi' dolla' upcharge to get a different model to go play AirQuake or Cap'n Crunch (whatevah).
I think HTC does well to find the dedicated historical air combat sim crowd and play to it - not to the MMOG crowd who are looking for the online game analog to the pet rock. I.E. it's a niche product. Long live the purity of the niche.
Just my opinion... I have no market data to back it up - and getting some would cost more than the 109s I'd buy from HTC.
-
M18
-
Just wanting to understand your idea Juggler. You are saying that any aircraft not on the free, base list would have to each be purchased individually or all extra aircraft are purchased at once like buying a premium package of the game. Also would this be a one time only payment or would it be an additional monthly payment on top of the $14.95 most players pay now?
Personally I wouldn't pay for extra aircraft every month and would have probably not ever signed up for AH in the first place if that was how it was run. (but that's just me) I also would not spend any extra money to add a newly introduced aircraft to my line up. The way it is now with the perk setup, everybody has at least a small chance to work hard and earn enough perks to fly that aircraft they have been drooling over in more than just offline or in the TA, DA. If new or high performance AC were only made available through extra money payments (one time or monthly) there would be a lot of people who would feel ignored, slighted, or just plain excluded from a part of the game simply because they won't or can't make the extra payment.
PJ - I agree that this method would help to bring in a certain clientele, but I also think that it wouldn't necessarily be a more mature clientele. The way I see it is the squeakers and immature players are the ones spending their parents money to play this game and are more likely to be able to get more of that money to buy the uber rides. It also seems to me that a lot of the immature players are also the ones concerned the most about score and will be more willing to spend that extra money for the higher performance aircraft.
In summary, I think this would do more to decrease the amount of profit HTC would receive over a longer period of time vs the current way things are implemented. Please don't take this as trying to be a jerk or trolling, I am just playing devils advocate and would really like to hear the answers to my questions above and any counter points people can make as well.
-
Just wanting to understand your idea Juggler. You are saying that any aircraft not on the free, base list would have to each be purchased individually or all extra aircraft are purchased at once like buying a premium package of the game. Also would this be a one time only payment or would it be an additional monthly payment on top of the $14.95 most players pay now?
Personally I wouldn't pay for extra aircraft every month and would have probably not ever signed up for AH in the first place if that was how it was run. (but that's just me) I also would not spend any extra money to add a newly introduced aircraft to my line up. The way it is now with the perk setup, everybody has at least a small chance to work hard and earn enough perks to fly that aircraft they have been drooling over in more than just offline or in the TA, DA. If new or high performance AC were only made available through extra money payments (one time or monthly) there would be a lot of people who would feel ignored, slighted, or just plain excluded from a part of the game simply because they won't or can't make the extra payment.
In summary, I think this would do more to decrease the amount of profit HTC would receive over a longer period of time vs the current way things are implemented. Please don't take this as trying to be a jerk or trolling, I am just playing devils advocate and would really like to hear the answers to my questions above and any counter points people can make as well.
My own vision is that since it's a fixed development cost, you'd pay a one-time fee. This fee could be tuned based on relative popularity/rarity and would offer another "lever" if you like. Jug's intent is unknown to me - though I know he likes upping the fatty.
-
This is a Wish List thread.
I'd like to see some more WWI planes ----> SE5a, Spad XIII, Fokker D.VII (with BMW 185 hp engine), Albatros DVa, and Halberstadt CL2
:salute
Mano
-
My own vision is that since it's a fixed development cost, you'd pay a one-time fee. This fee could be tuned based on relative popularity/rarity and would offer another "lever" if you like. Jug's intent is unknown to me - though I know he likes upping the fatty.
OK, so how would you handle the introduction of new AC to the "pay extra" list. Would each new AC need to be bought as they came out to help cover the cost of continued R & D?, If not I would bet that eventually the amount of new players paying for the extra aircraft list would no longer provide enough extra profit to cover the cost of new aircraft model development.
Aaaaaaaaand on topic the next thing I want added is merchant/supply shipping convoys for me to stuka to death, however if this is a wish thread why is it in the general discussion forum and not the wishlist forum? :headscratch:
-
1. Add a quad 50cal to the m-16 (Trailer)
2. Spawn, long range arty (with a delay of 1min)
3. Self proplled arty
4. Ok, the He-111
:aok
-
I think HTC does well to find the dedicated historical air combat sim crowd and play to it - not to the MMOG crowd who are looking for the online game analog to the pet rock. I.E. it's a niche product. Long live the purity of the niche.
If AH switched to a micro-transaction business model where I had to purchase additional planes so I could fly them on top of a base subscription price, I'd thank HiTech for the fun over the years and cancel my subscription.
Just my opinion... I have no market data to back it up - and getting some would cost more than the 109s I'd buy from HTC.
Small, niche games like AH die quickly if switched to a micro-transaction business model.
ack-ack
-
I was actually very surprised to NOT see the Yak 3 in the Aces High hanger when I first came over from Fighter Ace given it's popularity in that game, it's favored mount status amongst actual ww2 pilots who flew it, the fact that Luftwaffe pilots were ordered to avoid combat with it, and the number that actually saw combat.
-
Shall we start now? With the B-29 finally in-game, I'm wondering what the next one up will be (apart from remodelling older birds)
My top three:
1. HE-177 - for cripes sake, add it already
2. Battleships or Individual controllable Destroyers
3. Oscar!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:salute
-
I was actually very surprised to NOT see the Yak 3 in the Aces High hanger when I first came over from Fighter Ace given it's popularity in that game, it's favored mount status amongst actual ww2 pilots who flew it, the fact that Luftwaffe pilots were ordered to avoid combat with it, and the number that actually saw combat.
me too Nish!
I especially like the bold bit I highlighted. The game needs a faster, allied late war ride, to deal with some of the Luft rides that are dominating the main arenas.
-
I don't see the difference from killing a bunch of squirrels in a 24 than an He-177
Need more EW bombers, and planes to fill in the planeset I.E. Russian planes.
-
I was actually very surprised to NOT see the Yak 3 in the Aces High hanger when I first came over from Fighter Ace given it's popularity in that game, it's favored mount status amongst actual ww2 pilots who flew it, the fact that Luftwaffe pilots were ordered to avoid combat with it, and the number that actually saw combat.
Must keep account of FM differences..
me too Nish!
I especially like the bold bit I highlighted. The game needs a faster, allied late war ride, to deal with some of the Luft rides that are dominating the main arenas.
What LW rides dominate the mains?
-
I'd like to see the B-25J, P-61, and the He-111 added next.
-
If AH switched to a micro-transaction business model where I had to purchase additional planes so I could fly them on top of a base subscription price, I'd thank HiTech for the fun over the years and cancel my subscription.
Small, niche games like AH die quickly if switched to a micro-transaction business model.
ack-ack
I'm perplexed by this AKAK, you pretty much fly only the PJ so a one time payment of a buck or 2 "if the PJ was not included in the base sub" and you would be set! I'm not suggesting a monthly cost for additional rides, just a one time payment per plane not included in a "sub package".
I apologize for the hijack, I will move it elsewhere <S>
JUGgler
-
This is a Wish List thread.
I'd like to see some more WWI planes ----> SE5a, Spad XIII, Fokker D.VII (with BMW 185 hp engine), Albatros DVa, and Halberstadt CL2
:salute
Mano
It would certainly be nice to have a bit more variety in the WWI Dogfighting Arena, and it is the WWI arena’s first birthday this week. :D
These two would get my vote :aok
The Spad S.XIII (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPAD_S.XIII)
(http://www.swift72.co.uk/forum_pics/SPADXIII.jpg)
The S.XIII was flown by famous French fighter pilots such as Georges Guynemer and Rene Fonck, and also by Italian ace Francesco Baracca. Aces of the United States Army Air Service who flew the Spad XIII include Eddie Rickenbacker (America's leading ace with 26 confirmed victories) and Frank Luke (18 victories).
The S.E.5a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Aircraft_Factory_SE5)
(http://www.swift72.co.uk/forum_pics/SE5a.jpg)
Many of the top Allied aces flew this fighter including Billy Bishop, Andrew Beauchamp-Proctor, Cecil Lewis, Edward Mannock and James McCudden. Legendary British ace Albert Ball was initially disparaging of the S.E.5 but in the end claimed 17 of his 44 victories flying it.
-
I'm perplexed by this AKAK, you pretty much fly only the PJ
I only fly the P-38J as my main fighter ride in the MAs, in the other arenas (and when H2H comes back) I fly other planes quite a bit. I also am quite fond of the B-25H and I like to have the option of being able to hop into any plane I choose should the desire ever arise.
ack-ack
-
The game needs a faster, allied late war ride, to deal with some of the Luft rides that are dominating the main arenas.
uh
LA7, P51, Tempest, 47M etc arent fast enough? :)
:rolleyes:
-
I'd like to see the 110, C2s, C-47 & M-series vehicles for the next upgrade/update.
I'd like the Japanese & especially the Russian plane sets added to first for the next new additions.
(http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/5996/icon39.gif) (http://img11.imageshack.us/i/icon39.gif/)
And 32 player private servers.
-
I would rather see HTC "fundamentally" change how it approaches new aircraft.
They should take the inventory they have now and make up a "base aircraft" list, this list would be what everyone gets when 1st subcribing. After that each individual can purchase a new plane to be added to their list, it would stay on the list and could be used as long as your sub is current and paid for. not much but maybe 1$ to $5
This would do 2 things: This being a "one time" payment!
#1- would motivate those who have accumulated a large inventory to maintain their account, paying on time etc.
#2- The added revenue would more than likely motivate HTC to put forth new product at a more frequent rate.
As it is, after just a couple days the B29 is less and less used, seems like a whole lot of effort for little to no return. WW1 could be seen as the same, much work little return. After all business is about making money and creating a product that maintains as well as grows your customer base!
I would surely be interested in this type of approach!
JUGgler
Another thought....what if HiTech dose this idea but only to certain AC that rarely saw action or non at all. example, F8F-Bearcat, 190D-11, B-32 ect.
-
Spitfire needs updating again. :aok
-
If AH switched to a micro-transaction business model where I had to purchase additional planes so I could fly them on top of a base subscription price, I'd thank HiTech for the fun over the years and cancel my subscription.
Small, niche games like AH die quickly if switched to a micro-transaction business model.
ack-ack
Maybe. Do you have an example? I note that I provided no data (and loved it) but you're a part of "that" world. I'm thinking you've seen it happen. Where and when?
-
So it's taken a whole week to from mine, mine, mine, mine, mine
to
more, more, more, more, more, more
Pathetic :bhead
*shrug* i think it's normal for subscription games to be constantly (for a given value of 'constantly') adding new content to the game
-
I think HTC, as a company, are stronger then ever when it comes to new content releases. It took them a couple of months to release probably the most labour intensive aircraft in AH history (B-29). No doubt utilising Greebo's most excellent skinning skills has freed up a lot of time for both Superfly and Waffle to work on other projects.
-
The game needs a faster, allied late war ride, to deal with some of the Luft rides that are dominating the main arenas.
Yak-3 is slower than Yak-9U on the deck.
-
I smell sarcasm from Bruv's comment. That he's after the Gloster Meteor. :aok
-
A novel idea.... How about some female pilot models? In one of Mother Russia's planes maybe, perhaps for one of the model updates?
-
An unperked eny 40 meteor would probably see some action in the LW.
But BOB without He111 (and do17) is not an option anymore. Its closest competitor got it since many years (and Ju52) :bolt:
-
Alright since no one dares to say it too loud: The Me 410 and one or two (if not more) models that fill historical gaps. It won second place in the vote. It would be like an even more crunchy luftwaffle brick: less speed, a bit more maneuverability than the best luftwaffle model (152), and better guns than the 152 or... basically anything Aces High has ever seen.
-
I think no one is saying Me410 because they are hoping it is already in development because in won 2nd in the voting.
-
You know im a luftwhiner. But we need something russian.
-
Meteor :t
-
Me410, Tu2, or A26.
-
just based on the fact that i've sorta become addicted to doing set ups in the ava....and i like to do pto sets....i'd like to see more japanese planes, so we can make a little more variety.
-
Alright since no one dares to say it too loud: The Me 410 and one or two (if not more) models that fill historical gaps. It won second place in the vote. It would be like an even more crunchy luftwaffle brick: less speed, a bit more maneuverability than the best luftwaffle model (152), and better guns than the 152 or... basically anything Aces High has ever seen.
If what you say is accurate, it sounds delicious.
-
I think we desperately need more P-38s.
-
I think we desperately need more P-38s.
I think more JUGS with sports bras would be great, I really need the support!
JUGgler
-
Shall we start now? With the B-29 finally in-game, I'm wondering what the next one up will be (apart from remodelling older birds)
My top three:
1. HE-111 - for cripes sake, add it already
2. Battleships or Individual controllable Destroyers
3. Oscar
:salute
Yes to 2 and 3. No to another bomber.
-
If what you say is accurate, it sounds delicious.
Why does that sound like an RAF pile it rubbing his hands? hehe
If you never looked, open one of the Me 410 threads. In one of em you can see the goods at a glance. One of the things most people will like is the glass cockpit sections. Depending on the gun package, you can see as far below horizon as about where your feet are. And if the documentation gathered's correct, the bomb bay ceiling below the pilot is also see-through; although flying with it opened was reportedly really dodgy.
It'll probably be a dog by absolute measure compared to single engine fighters, but all of its specs together look like something at least as good as the 110. Better power-loading, better guns, better visibility from cockpit, better speed - overall better dogfight ability.
-
I've whined and screamed about not having the 410. The speed and higher ceiling only mean one thing to me, killing buffs. In the majority of dogfights the 410, much like the 110, does not stand a chance against a smaller, single engine fighter.
-
I would like to see the Yak-1b and Yak-7b added when they re-do the Yakovlev series, they would be great for pre 1943 GPW events, give us the Pe-2 or Tu-2 soon :bhead
-
I've whined and screamed about not having the 410. The speed and higher ceiling only mean one thing to me, killing buffs. In the majority of dogfights the 410, much like the 110, does not stand a chance against a smaller, single engine fighter.
Me too. I think it'd be great for scenarios like BoG. I fond Moot's commentary interesting on the matter of the nose. I suspect, given my experience in both 109 and 190, that doing lead shots will be significantly enabled by this. While the thnig will doubtless have a wingloading such that sustained turn is more or less crap, I suspec tit'll be a really sound picker/BnZ aircraft.
There are only two things I wonder about w/r the worthy 410...
1. what are the GIB's sights for the two remotely -controlled aft fuselage guns? Given their locations and degrees of freedom, it seems like they'd have to have independent sights.
2. What is the dive performance like? I've never encountered an LW aircraft that has dive performance that doesn't get a bit dodgy.
Otherwise, I think more is better. There are so many types we haven't got - especially from the Italian/French/Russian/Japanese sets. Further, I'd really love to see some EW flying coffins for the Allies. Early Pac War scenarios featuring Devastators, a USN version of the Buffalo (read, heavier), and P-36s would be hilarious. Or imagine BoFr with He-111s, Do-17s, Blenheims, Defiants, Battles, etc.
-
I'm gonna have to make a new thread compiling all the old 410 threads. IIRC the 410 had power/wing loadings comparable to the 110. And the 110 has better sustained turn than 109 and 190. Its top speed (a curiosity if you delve into details as e.g. WMaker has - it seems slower than it should be) doesn't seem like it'll be all that great for BnZ.
1. Pyro's comment IIRC is three sights, one middle, two each side. Or two each side at least.
2. Don't recall.. Given that little quirk in the data mentioned above, it might be unexpected.
-
Here is what "I" want...
1) He-111 H-11
2) Do-17z
3) Updated Ju-87 with BK 37's added
Here is what would be better...
1) Italian Fighter
2) Italian Bomber
3) Russian Bomber
It's been generalized simply because any plane in those classes would have the +1 from me. :D I still would like to see the Fiat CR.42 though. :x The Italians really need more representation regardless. :aok
-
I'm gonna have to make a new thread compiling all the old 410 threads. IIRC the 410 had power/wing loadings comparable to the 110. And the 110 has better sustained turn than 109 and 190. Its top speed (a curiosity if you delve into details as e.g. WMaker has - it seems slower than it should be) doesn't seem like it'll be all that great for BnZ.
1. Pyro's comment IIRC is three sights, one middle, two each side. Or two each side at least.
2. Don't recall.. Given that little quirk in the data mentioned above, it might be unexpected.
Actually, a while back I set up some spreadsheets to back out SCd for various aircraft using Max Power= Drag*Top Speed. Both the 190D-9 and Me410 came back with large SCds (see here: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,275855.msg3462728.html#msg3462728 ), given how much power they were SUPPOSEDLY making (makes you wonder about fuel for testing versus in the field, imj). Of course, drag goes up like the cube of velocity so power requirements increase radically for thos elast few increments of speed. Of the sample set I did, those two and the Vultee Vengeance were outliers on the bad side.
As for the wingloading/sustained turn perf. if it's THAT good and the dive handling is decent, I think it WILL make a decent BnZ.
-
Three sight setup of the Me410's defensive guns:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/ME410sights.jpg)
-
Three sight setup of the Me410's defensive guns:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/ME410sights.jpg)
Fabulous, Maker.
-
Seafire Mk L III
-
Godzilla, I'm working on compiling all the 410 info we have into a single thread.
What do those data mean in that table? Can you point me to what Angelucci/matricardi refers to? How does the data (source and calculated) match AH?
And most interesting, can you redo the same table comparing the 410 to 110G, P38J, Mossie, and A20? If you wouldn't mind also putting the Ta 152H in there, I'd have a strong reference point to compare from.
-
Godzilla, I'm working on compiling all the 410 info we have into a single thread.
What do those data mean in that table? Can you point me to what Angelucci/matricardi refers to? How does the data (source and calculated) match AH?
And most interesting, can you redo the same table comparing the 410 to 110G, P38J, Mossie, and A20? If you wouldn't mind also putting the Ta 152H in there, I'd have a strong reference point to compare from.
All Id d was equate max power, as published in source books from Angelucci/Matricardi (some ref books) to Max speed*Drag = .5*rho*Vmax^3*SCd... then solve for S*Cd... note that VMax was also the published figure and I used the standard atmospheric table to get rho at the published alt at max speed. I was just trying to back out the drag coefficeint and area as a proxy of aero efficiency.
I could reshoot the table but would prefer to do it with some published data that accords with AH accepted data - I'm not sure A&M would be that data. I could go to the curves, if you like. I assume AH uses a standard atmospheric table, right?
-
Yaks............. all of em. Plus a PO2 available from V Fields. At least all that WWI modeling can be used for something.
-
Godzilla-
No idea on technical questions you ask
What's the brass tacks meaning of S*Cd? It kinda sounds like you might want, if the 410 is one of or the focus point here, to look at a string of posts by WMaker a short while ago where he points out some apparent inconsistencies in 410 specs and actual performance. I'll try and find it now... Here it is:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,299977.0.html
I don't know what you mean by going to curves. You mean putting that table data into curves? Whatever's most accessible to a layman is good enough. Don't work too hard on my account either. I'm just looking for a good 'known' reference point to judge the 410's performance from. The 152's what I know best and it's in AH and has fairly complete historical data available.
-
410...
abaluley! 410 is needed. IMO it is a beautiful aircraft in it's own way. Some folks think It's ugly. I find that strange. It is definitely different. Kinda like a 110 on steroids. :joystick:
-
Somebody did a side by side comparison of the P-38 and the Me-410. They are quite close in terms of weight (combat weight), horsepower, wing area, and top speeds. While that doesn't mean they will fly the same, it is an interesting indicator that they may still retain dogfighting ability even if not as fast as later US planes.
I wish I could find that post, but the search results are hosed on this forum sometimes.
-
Sounds like my quick & dirty excel specs comparo
(http://dasmuppets.com/public/dlamb/410/410_comp_wip.gif)
WIP
-
Hehe Moot, you beat me by two minutes. :)
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/twinscomparison.jpg)
EDIT/Quite big differences in our figues.../EDIT
-
It wasn't a spreadsheet from when I last read it (some years back I think). It was simple text.
Thanks for taking the time to put that up, though! It really opened my eyes the first time I read it about the 410's potential.
-
Yeah WM the above spreadsheet might be all wrong. I'm working to redo it and everything else all over again right now.
Above: Take off is full ammo and normal fuel. (e.g. 2x20+2x30 and 50% fuel on 110). "Dogfight" is enough fuel for average dogfight to-and-back flight, and excess ammo thrown out (e.g. half the 20mm ammo on 110, but only ~25% of 20mm ammo removed on Ta 152)
I also didn't label measurement units.. It's a mess. I'm redoing everything.
-
Yeah WM the above spreadsheet might be all wrong. I'm working to redo it and everything else all over again right now.
Above: Take off is full ammo and normal fuel. (e.g. 2x20+2x30 and 50% fuel on 110). "Dogfight" is enough fuel for average dogfight to-and-back flight, and excess ammo thrown out (e.g. half the 20mm ammo on 110, but only ~25% of 20mm ammo removed on Ta 152)
I also didn't label measurement units.. It's a mess. I'm redoing everything.
No worries about units, it was evident that it was lbs/sqft. Anyways, I used the 9,5 ton weight based on that speed chart. The additional pages of the report that speed chart was taken from led me to believe that 9,5 ton would be the "regular" armament and roughly half of the total fuel load. Otherwise, the figures should be rather accurate. Rest of the weights are taken straight from AH.
-
Yes 9.5 figure is probably what makes such a big difference between our numbers. IIRC I'd done my comparisons with everything removed from the conventional luftwaffe configuration, except for what a player in Aces High would take to go dogfight.
I think I'd posted a break down of the 9.5 ton 410 from which to work your preferred loadout to compare with AH planes.. I'll have that and everything else up again today or tomorrow.
The mossie and 110 numbers match, so I don't think there's any else significantly different.
-
P-38H for sure
+1, Would love to see a new 38 added.
-
WMaker can you tell me your source for Mossie WEP?
-
If you're redoing it, please also include a 2x20mm only version for the 410 (the "light" stock setup), as this is what I would dogfight most in personally.
The rest I wouldn't concern myself with as much because if I do go super heavy I'll fly/fight accordingly. It's that baseline that is more important to me.
-
WMaker can you tell me your source for Mossie WEP?
Here it is: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mosquito/merlin25-powercurve.jpg (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mosquito/merlin25-powercurve.jpg)
Yes 9.5 figure is probably what makes such a big difference between our numbers. IIRC I'd done my comparisons with everything removed from the conventional luftwaffe configuration, except for what a player in Aces High would take to go dogfight.
Cc, currently that wing loading you list for dogfight is the same as empty and comes out at 6893kg which is quite a bit below the empty weight figures I've seen.
-
ty
I'll have all the details + sources from A to Z incl how I get 'dogfight' weight
If you're redoing it, please also include a 2x20mm only version for the 410 (the "light" stock setup), as this is what I would dogfight most in personally.
The rest I wouldn't concern myself with as much because if I do go super heavy I'll fly/fight accordingly. It's that baseline that is more important to me.
Yep thats one of them: lightest cfg, max dogfight firepower cfg, max anti-bomber firepower, max total A2G destructive power.. IIRC the torpedo configurations were never used beyond prototype.
-
double post
-
(http://www.simviation.com/pageimages/hs129.jpg)
-
Primary aircraft I would like to see.
Me-410
Hs-129 http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/hs129.html
Bristol Beaufighter
Tupolev Tu-2
Lavochkin LaGG-3
Mig-3
Kawasaki Ki43 Oscar
Mitsubishi J2M Raiden Jack
Nakajima Ki44 Tojo
Others in no order at all....well maybe some order.
A.W.41 Albemarle - Transport
Pe-2 or Pe-3 - level or dive bomber
Ju-52 - transport
He-111 - level bomber
Do-217 - level bomber
Kawasaki Ki100 - single fighter
Kawasaki Ki102 Randy - twin engine fighter
Westland Whirlwind - twin engine fighter
-
F-86A 400p-pts Amirite :aok
P-80?
Meteor?
Plz? :(
:bolt:
-
Godzilla-
No idea on technical questions you ask
What's the brass tacks meaning of S*Cd? It kinda sounds like you might want, if the 410 is one of or the focus point here, to look at a string of posts by WMaker a short while ago where he points out some apparent inconsistencies in 410 specs and actual performance. I'll try and find it now... Here it is:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,299977.0.html
I don't know what you mean by going to curves. You mean putting that table data into curves? Whatever's most accessible to a layman is good enough. Don't work too hard on my account either. I'm just looking for a good 'known' reference point to judge the 410's performance from. The 152's what I know best and it's in AH and has fairly complete historical data available.
Brass Tacks: Reference Area * Drag Coefficient... I ginned it up as a comparative metric .I'll take a look at the Maker's post. By going to curves I meant the speed/alt curves in AH. I see little need to do that, though, if we're just using the data comparatively. Let me see if I can find time over the next day or two to go through that exercise. Life's pretty busy these days, I have to warn, at the Best American Automaker. Worst case, I'll ty to fit it in over the weekend instead of at my desk at lunch.
-
No hurry, I'll be busy too.
-
I'm all for the 410 as long as we get a Beaufighter for me to get shot at in by those 410s
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/Beaufighters/Beaufighter.jpg)
-
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5058/5495881167_9f96ec1e06_o.jpg)
Just stretching out after a day at work.
-
How long has it been since we had a new German A/C? Forever?
-
If i have to say it then theres no point anymore :neener:
-
A6M3 or 6 please and thank you.
-
I'm all for the 410 as long as we get a Beaufighter for me to get shot at in by those 410s
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/Beaufighters/Beaufighter.jpg)
Definitely need another non American twin engine ftr to attempt to keep pace with the 38'S.
-
I want it ALL, is zat too much to ask! :bolt:
-
M.I.L.F, M.I.L.F, M.I.L.F!
-
Yak-3 is slower than Yak-9U on the deck.
tru, but not by a whole lot. It does however accelerate a lot faster, climbs like an angel, an should be more agile. I would argue that it was the best plane the russians made during the war an comprable to other late war varaieties of the spit (16/14), 15 (D), 109 (K4) and 190 (D), KI-84 (ia) and so on. . .
I have been waiting for this one for awhile now, but lately the 109 have proven to be just as if not more pleasurable and i may stick with the G2 till i really make it my own.
-
It does however accelerate a lot faster, climbs like an angel, an should be more agile. I would argue that it was the best plane the russians made during the war an comprable to other late war varaieties of the spit (16/14), 15 (D), 109 (K4) and 190 (D), KI-84 (ia) and so on. . .
The speed difference depends on the data used. It is true that according to one dataset the difference is only 6mph (351mph vs 357mph). A serial production Yak-3 was taken from the production line for testing and it did 345mph on the deck.
What comes to acceleration, climbrate and maneuverability I just can't see how it could be substantially different from Yak-9U:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/Yaks.jpg)
Both wingloadings and powerloadings are very close to each other. Both use similar props, and identical airfoils (Clark YH 14% at the root and 10% at the tip which was already quite old technology when Yak-3 entered service.) and very similar wing planforms. It definately would be a fun MA ride but I can't see it being any better than Yak-9U.
Regarding the best Soviet fighter, I think that title will remain with the La-7 because of its speed and heavier armament alone.
-
M.I.L.F, M.I.L.F, M.I.L.F!
Machine I'd Like to Fly?
-
Definitely need another non American twin engine ftr to attempt to keep pace with the 38'S.
Unfortunately, the P38 will feast on the Me410 any day of the week. It simply won't keep up with it. The only other non-American twin engine fighter that can compete with the P38 in game is the Mosquito Mk6.
-
I think if we got the 410 I'd fly it almost exclusively... Sorry Macchi... So long Ki84... if I want to bomb, attack, fight, hunt, it's got it all....
Question is, in the hangar is there enough room for 3 buttons: Fighter, Attack, and Bomber ?
I think it really should have that bomber designation (same as A20, same as IL2) as an option because of the nice bomb load and internal bomb bay.
-
Machine I'd Like to Fly?
Genius!
-
Genius!
Yes, yes, but as Rodney Dangerfield would've told you, "my daughter goes on a date to KFC. It's finger-licking good and one thing leads to another."
As for your Meteor, give me a V-1 to fire-and-forget and you can have it - local to the strrats, of course.
-
Unfortunately, the P38 will feast on the Me410 any day of the week. It simply won't keep up with it. The only other non-American twin engine fighter that can compete with the P38 in game is the Mosquito Mk6.
That was a reply to a Beaufighter reply.
cue 'unfortunate' reference to "inferior" 190/152/109 TnB attributes. "Unfortunately the 152 loses previous 190s' speed and crispness for still not quite competitive turn rate and stability". Etc
-
That was a reply to a Beaufighter reply.
cue 'unfortunate' reference to "inferior" 190/152/109 TnB attributes. "Unfortunately the 152 loses previous 190s' speed and crispness for still not quite competitive turn rate and stability". Etc
My apologies, I did indeed read that wrong. Was thinking he was making a comment about the Me410 in response to the P38. I am all for the Beaufighter and Me410, however. :old:
-
I don't mean to drum up the 410, but a 110 with better powerloading and MK103 guns would be something else.
-
As good as those Mk103s would be, I would find myself taking the 2x20mm, 4x20mm, 6x20mm, or 6x20mm with 2x20mm gondola (8x total) more.
To me that would be bloody marvelous!
Oh, yeah, I'd take 103s when bomber hunting, though :uhoh
-
Machine I'd Like to Fly?
Look at his sig :aok
-
Seafire Mk L III
I'm with him. The whines would be awesome to behold.
-
+1 for the Seafire L III.
Though a Ki-43 and Pe-2 are needed first, methinks.
-
Unfortunately, the P38 will feast on the Me410 any day of the week. It simply won't keep up with it. The only other non-American twin engine fighter that can compete with the P38 in game is the Mosquito Mk6.
By documented performance ratings that's not that clear...from what I read....& I might be able to fly the Me410 a little better than a 38. It always comes down to the pilot, until you get 2 ubber aces, equally ranked, going at it. My experience is I'm usually terribly out flown or I kill someone fairly easy, either because they lack experience, or someone else set them up for me. Rare occasions are when the fight lasts a good while. I think most of us are in the middle, as far as true flying skill goes. :old:
-
In a nutshell, the main things (to name a few that get it done) that keep the P-38 out of other twins' reach are counter-rotating engines and fowler flaps, good aerodynamics (it feels really clean to me at least) and boosted ailerons. Those put together mean that the 38 can far outperform its competition deep inside departure envelope, and also be in a class of its own in roll rate at high speed and probably in terms of high speed retention.
The P-38's 4x50 and 20mm all stuck together at the tip of the nose are very lethal, but in a close fight they're probably nothing like 410's better packages (obviously excluding awkward heavyweight packages like BK5) which don't even need that fraction of a second connection to guarantee a fighter kill - 4 20mm or 2 30mm probably guarantee a kill on any kind of snapshot. So the 410's handling is going to be critical. If it's as flaky as the Mossie used to be, the 38 is really gonna have a field day with it and the only exception will be those rare times a 410 gets a solution.
Look at the chart on this post: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,261828.msg3342438.html#msg3342438
The P-38 is already ~30mph faster at sea level with its curve growing positive and never looking back from there. No competition in that respect. The 410 better handle well enough for the defensive position it'll most likely/often be in, otherwise even those 50cal-like MK 103 cannons won't save it.
-
next plane is
A-26 :x :bolt:
.
-
A-26 +1
-
M26
P-61
Ki-43
Help me out with the P61.Was that the late war night fighterI think it was called the Black Widow??Did you mean P63,which I would love to see in the game,as it pretty much matched the P51,at alt.The 111,410,Ki43 and 100,the Jack,And the Mig3 are amongst the the planes I'd like to see.
-
My Signature.
-
A-26
-
My Signature.
A still-hot 'mother of two' in a weird looking jet? :x
-
Both wingloadings and powerloadings are very close to each other. Both use similar props, and identical airfoils (Clark YH 14% at the root and 10% at the tip which was already quite old technology when Yak-3 entered service.) and very similar wing planforms. It definately would be a fun MA ride but I can't see it being any better than Yak-9U.
Yak-3 was very light and that is why in real life it was so agile. Very easy and quick response on the stick and very low inertia gave this plane the unique abilities to go into manoeuvre much faster than other planes could do. I'm not sure if it can be modeled properly in AH though.
-
Me-410 or Hs-129
hopefully :pray
-
I don't mean to drum up the 410, but a 110 with better powerloading and MK103 guns would be something else.
I do mean to drum it up :rock also so did (48%?) of the voters in the poll :cheers:
Even though the He111 is needed for scenarios, the 410 would never be a hangar queen, and possibly a worthy opponent for t3h 4mazin B29 !1!!
-
Those polls aren't very accurate IMO.... Once your ride is ruled out you're voting for something you don't want. Or you're voting to negate another vote (say you don't want to see A-26 or you don't want to see B-29 -- you then vote Me410).
IMO not the best way to gauge things. Look at the first tier voting and that might give a better idea. Those later tiers with reduced options? Who knows why folks voted. Could be out of love of that plane, or could be totally different reasons.
-
My Signature.
A post war Meteor in post war markings?
-
A lot of this posturing is silly nonsense. I would be happy with the A-26/Me-410/He-111. Anything new is nice. AH will get to the one's in higher demand eventually. I bet all these nay-sayers will be flying & enjoying the one's they're opposing the most now. :old: :salute
-
By documented performance ratings that's not that clear...from what I read....& I might be able to fly the Me410 a little better than a 38.
Eric Winkle Brown wrote in personal correspondence: "My comment on the Me 410 that it was "a real knife edger" means that it felt in flight as if it was finely balanced on a knife edge where ot could topple off into an area of risk due to its inherently dangerous flying characteristics...".
-
Postwar planes .... dont open this can of worms ....
-
The Gloster Meteor F Mk III would be the only plane to get me hooked playing AH again.
(http://www.raf.mod.uk/downloads/wallpapers/1945/meteor3s1024.jpg)
-
Ki-43, Ki-44, Ki-45. Also, a J2M so the IJN doesn't feel left out.
Hell, even a Ki-27 for the I-16s! Khalkin Gol scenarios! Now that we know biplanes are possible... an I-15 to make it even cooler :)
CR 42, MC200 and we can recreate early Med/North African scenarios. We can recreate em better if we get a Gloster Gladiator and Fairey Swordfish too!
Seriously, I'm thinking all the late-war uberbirds have pretty much all been added. There isn't anything left that will see serious use.
Flesh out the planeset, or flesh out the ground game. I'd rather see the planeset, but I'm a walking, talking anachronism.
-
Given the ultra-uberness of the B29... it is time for the pendulum to swing the other way! Give me the Swordfish!
(http://img688.imageshack.us/img688/9122/swordfishs.jpg)
Rockets and Bombs and Torpedoes….. OH MY!
-
The Gloster Meteor F Mk III would be the only plane to get me hooked playing AH again.
(http://www.raf.mod.uk/downloads/wallpapers/1945/meteor3s1024.jpg)
A platinum member who's not addicted? just addicted to the forums eh? :x
-
Eric Winkle Brown wrote in personal correspondence: "My comment on the Me 410 that it was "a real knife edger" means that it felt in flight as if it was finely balanced on a knife edge where ot could topple off into an area of risk due to its inherently dangerous flying characteristics...".
Perhaps Winkle meant it cut through the air like a knife edge?
-
A platinum member who's not addicted? just addicted to the forums eh? :x
I'm a forum lurker these days.
-
Perhaps Winkle meant it cut through the air like a knife edge?
I don't think so. He clearly says he's describing the envelope. I could be wrong but I don't think so.
-
Moot, you could read that to say it's balanced on a knife and could dip a wing at the drop of a hat or slide sideways without proper rudder...
It's possible he could mean any number of things, other than our particular use of the phrase "knife fighting"..
-
I never read it as ref to knife fighting.. First one's my impression too yep. It fits with everything else- dangerously flaky flaws and overall character, fixed or at least band-aided but apparently (from his impression) still there if you tempt the plane enough.
-
105mm sherman. :x
-
I would like to see the Yak-1b and Yak-7b added when they re-do the Yakovlev series, they would be great for pre 1943 GPW events, give us the Pe-2 or Tu-2 soon :bhead
I was about to say the same :aok
-
I never read it as ref to knife fighting.. First one's my impression too yep. It fits with everything else- dangerously flaky flaws and overall character, fixed or at least band-aided but apparently (from his impression) still there if you tempt the plane enough.
This would square with its basis; the Me210, from which it was derived. The 210 was known for a number of handling issues - apparently adequately remedied on the 410.
I'll culll from wiki here but there are doubtless better sources.
<snippety snappity doo>
The first prototype flew with DB 601B engines in September 1939, and was considered unsafe by test pilots. Stability was bad in turns, and it tended to "snake" even while flying level. At first the designers concentrated on the twin-rudder arrangement that had been taken from the 110, and replaced it with a new and much larger single vertical stabilizer. However, this had almost no effect, and the plane continued to oscillate. The Me 210 also suffered from terrible stalls. With the nose up or in a turn, the stalls whipped into spins when the automatic leading edge slats opened. The second prototype, Me 210 V2, was lost this way in September 1940, when the pilot could not get out of the resulting spin and had to jump. The chief test pilot commented that the Me 210 had "all the least desirable attributes an aeroplane could possess." It took 16 prototypes and 94 pre-production examples to try and resolve the many problems.
-
The game needs a faster, allied late war ride,
P-51D? P-47M? La7? Yak9U?
to deal with some of the Luft rides that are dominating the main arenas.
??? Come on Bruv, do you have the sarcasm box checked and I'm just missing it here?
I must say, if all I hear about the Yak3 *IS* more than just hype, then I would like to see it either left out or perked about the same price as a Tempest. Because the last thing the LW MA needs is a plane with P-51 speed and Spit maneuverability.
-
how many did I get?
thats at least three :lol
-
Better real that catch in before they get off the hook, bruv.
-
This would square with its basis; the Me210, from which it was derived. The 210 was known for a number of handling issues - apparently adequately remedied on the 410.
I'll culll from wiki here but there are doubtless better sources.
<snippety snappity doo>
The first prototype flew with DB 601B engines in September 1939, and was considered unsafe by test pilots. Stability was bad in turns, and it tended to "snake" even while flying level. At first the designers concentrated on the twin-rudder arrangement that had been taken from the 110, and replaced it with a new and much larger single vertical stabilizer. However, this had almost no effect, and the plane continued to oscillate. The Me 210 also suffered from terrible stalls. With the nose up or in a turn, the stalls whipped into spins when the automatic leading edge slats opened. The second prototype, Me 210 V2, was lost this way in September 1940, when the pilot could not get out of the resulting spin and had to jump. The chief test pilot commented that the Me 210 had "all the least desirable attributes an aeroplane could possess." It took 16 prototypes and 94 pre-production examples to try and resolve the many problems.
Yep and there's more detailed list of gremlins in IIRC one of Messerschmitt's memoirs in exact technical jargon. Also apparently many corrections in that piece of literature and others.. e.g. the exact timeline of the testing regime. As usual one or a few people say something inaccurate and it gets repeated and amplified in later books. But overall yep that's the gist of it..
-
We still need the he111 for BoB, some japanese planes, an early war raf buff, but after that Id like to see the fleets updated as mentioned in many threads. Maybe some rethought to strat stuff.
-
Hey, very simple idea here...
The WWII set if not "complete", is very, very, very full at least. There are holes yes, but not gaping ones. Most of the planes that could conceivably be added to it now would be snapshot/scenario specialists, not really popular rides in any of the MAs.
The WWI set, is by comparison, ALL holes. France, one of the major combatants, is not represented by a single plane. And it is guaranteed that such additions as the Spad or the Se5 would see heavy daily use on their own merit in the WWI MA. Furthermore, with a few more planes, we could actually stage WWI AvA/scenario setups.
-
I don't think so. He clearly says he's describing the envelope. I could be wrong but I don't think so.
I wasn't arguing, because I definitely don't know, just adding food for thought. I guess he didn't elaborate? :salute
-
Yep not arguing either. Just seems to me that's clearly what he meant.. I'm all ears for evidence it means something else.
<S> :)
-
The one major benefit the 410 would have in AH's MAs is the rear guns.
As useless as the 110G, you say? I say nay! er.. I say "no"!
110Gs in-game are quite easy to take out from behind by simply staying level or below their tail gun. Whereas in the real thing it could pivot a bit more than what we have now, I believe, this one is rather rigid.
Enter the 410, and all of a sudden it can shoot down as well as up and around. With the exception of the cutoff switch so you don't shoot your own h-stabs off, it has a very large cone of fire. It's not the best for angles, no doubt, and it's not the best for most planes... but if you absolutely can't do anything to shake the guy chasing you down, then at least you can shoot him while you run.
And landing hits with 2x 13mm MGs is a lot more powerful than 2x 7mm MGs.
For MA purposes it would give a serious sting to this plane. Although I'd be far more interested in the forward armaments, I still think those barbettes would be cool. We've got them on the B-29s so it's not much of a stretch to modify that code for the 410.
-
If the 110 is blind below, the 410 might be blind dead six. It's not guaranteed the gunner's view is all that good straight down the tail. And AH self-gunner = auto pilot = no pure yaw control. You probably can just shoot when you know target is right there in your "blind spot" but overall I think it'd be tricky. Maybe more tricky than auto-angling the 110 for a clear shot. The extra lethality's up against the extra crappiness of the whole setup.
My 2c
-
Keep in mind the aim points are sticking off the sides of the fuselage so you actually can aim "down" below the tail (because your point of view isn't blocked by the tail itself)
EDIT: 90% of my deaths in a 110 while I'm in the tail gun are because I'm stomping rudder trying to find an angle to depress my guns. I know the guy is there. I know where he is. I just cannot aim at him. The pop-up auto angle is suicide, also. Presents a nice fat target and yet makes it harder to hit the guy following you from the 110 perspective (you bouncing around then as you slow down your nose drops again).
I think they would be fairly effective since they can both fire dead 6 and you can aim from either position. All you have to do is run away max WEP to make anybody chasing you close very slowly. If they're not dead 6 you have a chance to manuver for a kill. If they ARE you still have options.
that's one of the problems flying a 190a8 in-game. For all that firepower if anybody gets on your tail you're toast. This seems to remedy the problem.
-
Yep I can see the side sights sticking out, that's why the canopy's shaped that way... But it's still not clear that you'd get a very good view.
Max wep isn't going to do much for something like the top 1/3 of the non perk plane set. The 410 only does 315 or so at sea level and speed only mildly grows from there.
-
Same principle as B17s and B24s flying 300mph in this game, though, max speed drags every chase into a prolonged 6 chase, slowing the closure rate and leaving the attacker sitting there in the guns longer.
Sure, it'll be slow, but I just meant drag out the enemy's chase as long as possible. If you had a spit9 chasing you down wouldn't you want to pop him in the snout at 800-1000 yards? hehehe
-
Yep and there's more detailed list of gremlins in IIRC one of Messerschmitt's memoirs in exact technical jargon. Also apparently many corrections in that piece of literature and others.. e.g. the exact timeline of the testing regime. As usual one or a few people say something inaccurate and it gets repeated and amplified in later books. But overall yep that's the gist of it..
I'm kind of curious about that "snaking". Specifically, IIRC, one of the basic modes we learned of back there in Aero was the "Dutch Roll" mode. Thing is, it tends to inhere in AC with weak directional stability or, at least weaker directional than roll stability - hence the attempt to cure it with vertical stab. I'm just wondering why the addition of that big-aced tail didn't help. Further, I know that props themselves tend to improve directional stability.
OTOH, the fuse is quite stubby - and therefore any fuselage-driven weathervane-effect (what is it - the d(yaw moment)/d(yaw) ?) was probably minor. I just think it's kind of funny - almost a vindication of that Supermarine designers adage. The 410 looks cool, but it doesn't look quite right.
-
Same principle as B17s and B24s flying 300mph in this game, though, max speed drags every chase into a prolonged 6 chase, slowing the closure rate and leaving the attacker sitting there in the guns longer.
Sure, it'll be slow, but I just meant drag out the enemy's chase as long as possible. If you had a spit9 chasing you down wouldn't you want to pop him in the snout at 800-1000 yards? hehehe
I might keep 50-75rpg, but most likely I'd empty the turrets at the start of every flight. I'd rather reverse a spit than tailgun him down..
PJ_Godzilla, the book that reportedly goes in detail on the 210/410's gremlins is Willy Messerschmitt: Pioneer of Aviation Design, by Ebert, Kaiser and Peters (http://www.amazon.com/History-German-Aviation-Messerschmitt-Pioneer/dp/0764307274)