Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: moot on April 01, 2011, 06:28:45 AM
-
A paper plane discussion, exercise in practical performance prediction from theoretical specs and performance figures. All hinged on and oriented to the assertion that the 410 is a "jack of all trades", but especially on the A2A dogfighting "trade" which is arguably the dominant one of the two major "trades" in the AH MAs.
This started as a tangent, was taken here to end other thread hijack. Quotes below are edited, edits in bold. My quotes unquoted for readability.
0) the jack of all trades, the Me410
0) The 410 is no jack of the A2A trade, except for destroying slow targets.
I disagree.
1) Look at a 190a8 compared to the charts of a 110G2.
2) They look rather similar, no? But the end results are quite different.
3) You look at them vs a P-38 and you'll also see some similarities, but again very different.
4) I think it'd be a big step up from the 110 in overal effectiveness, but I don't think it would be uber.
5) More than capable of engaging cons just as a 190 would, a typhie would, a p-51d would.
1)The A8's about 25mph faster at most altitudes, 33 on the deck.
It accelerates faster. 17 seconds less to 300 mph at SL; and then it keeps going to about 34 mph beyond what the 410 and 110 do.
It's 30% wider in a flat turn with no flaps, 40% wider with full flaps. That's the difference between being the worst sustained turner in the game, and something that can usefully hang with spits for long enough to get a solution.
2) They don't. So it's no surprise that the two planes are different in practice. On top of that the rest of the context to this comparison: the A8 is single engined. It very seriously relies on its better attributes for what little success it manages: roll rate, above average top speed, guns, durability. The 410 won't have that roll rate, nor that top speed. So at this point we're comparing, for the sake of arguing that the 410 is a jack of the A2A trade, the 410 to an "A8" with slow roll rate (assume equal to 110's, roughly) and 30mph less top speed, along with everything else the 410 would be: a larger target area than the infamous P-38, and worse powerloading(i) IE projected acceleration (on par with the P-47D-11, P-51D, and Me 110). The only similarity is wingloading: the 410 would have worse wingloading than pretty much everything, worse than the A8, the D9. And that's with the "light" 2x13mm+2x20mm configuration. Go to 6x20mm or MK103 loadouts and you have worse wingloading than ..
3) ..the P-38 (how does that fly without fowler flaps out, or even just 1 notch of fowlers?), along with correspondingly even worse powerloading (what does the P-38 maneuver like throttled back to 80% power?). The P-38 charts don't look like the 410's either. The 38 is in another class on the deck and from there on keeps going further out of reach. Adding practical context: the 410 doesn't have fowler flaps, doesn't (...) have anything like the P-38's powerloading, has wingloading at best only a little worse, doesn't have counter-rotating engines. The 410's dive flaps, glass cockpit, and huge guns (and huge weight with those) aren't enough to bridge the gap.
I don't think that all makes for a good comparison for A2A proficiency, and even for argument's sake if it were, it wouldn't be favorable to calling such an Me 410 a jack of the A2A trade as found in the MAs.
4) What exactly is the step up from 110 to 410?
Speed-wise: The 410 has 500 more HP but is slower than the 110 on the deck, and only catches up at ~7.5kft. Eventually 20mph faster, up in the 20s, and the difference is marginal till about 15k.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3538/3664362438_6d2a44bcb3.jpg?v=0)
The data crunching that WMaker did in his recent thread shows there's something up with the 410 that keeps it slow.. So if it's going to be faster than the 110 in practice, it'll probably be when you lug that weight at the ground. Powerloading wise it is the same, and top speed wise it is barely different, so there's no evidence to support assertion that the 410 would accelerate faster than the 110 to their no-different top speeds.
Agility-wise: The 410 has the same powerloading (that excess thrust that makes planes like the P38 plow on thru high AoA & inertia by sheer power), and more wingloading. It has leading edge flaps but so does the 110. So the only difference that could offset the much worse wingloading is the aerodynamic character of its wing shape, in practice, IE how manageable its underpowered heft is thanks to its overall handling character. So let's be optimistic and say it has comparable handling character to the Mossie (see footnote for relative weight, power, powerloading, wingloading figures): the result would be a mossie with slightly more thrust, but wingloading like the P-38's rather than like the 110's. And the same 410 performance otherwise: slower. That would take a Mossie weighing roughly 3,000 lbs more:
454 sq.ft carrying 21,500 lbs = 47.4 lbs/sq.ft : a dogfight-ready Me 410 (2x13+2x20mm) does about 47 lbs/sqft.
Wingloading-wise that's equivalent to a Mossie with 100% fuel and 3x500 bombs. What does that kind of wingloading feel like? And this is all assuming optimistically that the 410's wing shape gives handling as good as the Mossie's.
Guns-wise: the 410 is clearly better for A2A: the MK103 are going to hit pretty much as hard as anything the game has or will ever have, as easily as .50's do (same muzzle velocity). The BK5 will make confetti of bombers (about the same muzzle velocity there), nevermind if the BK5 round gets the same "infinite" lifetime that other tank rounds got instead of the 1.5K limit. But for A2G the 410 is no better than the 110: it carries enough hitting power to destroy no more buildings than the 110. And the only way to carry that much total hitting power is to weigh the 410 down so that it's easily less survivable than the 110. So that's what the majority of AH players will be faced with as a choice: just as much potential toolshedding for much worse survivability.
So what would the step up in overall effectiveness be? It would be about as fast, have identical or similar acceleration, and be less maneuverable than the 110. The only clear step up is the MK103 and BK5 packages, and how would that work out? Probably the same way it works out for the 110's monster gun package now: people just step out of the way till the 110 is out of maneuvering mojo. And the 410's numbers say it'll run out even quicker. What do you base this "Step up" on?
-
5) How would a 110 that has the same powerloading, weighs more and has less wing area be "more than capable" of A2A against most of the AH single engined planeset, and do this "just as" a 190/tiffie/P-51 would?
A) The 190 is the poster boy for BnZ, but the 410 wouldn't compete there due to its heft and low top speed. The only comparable 190 is the A8, and that's the worst turner in the game: even with its guns it's always been a rarity, way up on the ENY scale, and 95% of what few times you do see it, it's running home (slow enough that most top tier fighters will catch it, and that's 30mph faster than the 410 would go) after one or two passes; or it dies. There's no comparison whatsoever with the nimble A5, or rocket D9. Ironically enough there may be similarity with the F8's specs.
B) The Tiffie's one of the fastest and punchiest fighters, and the 410/110 doesn't compete there either; and even if it did, the Tiffie's limited agility makes it a pretty unpopular choice - despite being survivable thanks to its speed, it doesn't rack up the kills in A2A either. I can kill tiffies pretty easily in a 152, never mind the most common fighters in the MA - Spits, 51s, F4Us, La7s, Ki84, etc.
C) The P-51's one of the sleekest, fastest, most flexible planes in the game - how exactly are you saying the 110 is comparatively "more than capable" of engaging cons "just as" the P-51 does?
13) You're going way off tangent and totally taking things the wrong way.
You can't assert things and not back them up. Show evidence for this assertion or concede it's false. I've followed the topic (ie no tangents) to a tee and I'm doing the same as ever - completely ignoring emotional appeals, incl any of my own RE: wishing the 410 was better than worse. You want to see another instance of this? See here. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,271092.msg3393615.html#msg3393615) BaldEagl mistakenly makes the same kind of argument you're trying to make here, the gist beingI'm not arguing your tastes BE.
Discussion winds up here (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,271092.msg3396113.html#msg3396113) and you can see that BaldEagl probably concludes the same thing I said from the start: I'm being as dispassionate and impartial as possible, nothing to do with any emotional or ridiculous appeal of any kind. Back on topic:
6) The P-51, the Typhie, and the 190a8, are all very poor dogfighters.
7) They are potent killers but their manuverability is sorely lacking with regards to turning circles, performance, and handling quirks. Yet they are still quite capable of engaging in dogfights every day in Aces High, often against more nimble foes.
6)
A) Shall we examine the P-51's history as a "very poor" dogfighter in AH? Seriously?
B) The Tiffie and A8 are, I'll agree.
7) The 51 isn't "a very poor dogfighter", so the argument there is a non starter. The Tiffie, and to a lesser but still significant degree the A8, are both not comparable to the 410 because the 410 doesn't have what allows the Tiffie and A8 to redeem themselves as "killers" capable of successfully and durably engaging in dogfights against more nimble foes. BaldEagl himself, an A8 fan, says the A8 cannot run. KillnU admitted that there was no secret uber envelope, it (and Im paraphrasing now) is just him flying the living poop out of it). And you're arguing that the 410 would fare better with worse specs.
I was saying that just because something doesn't have the best manuverability doesn't count it out. Hence that's how my comment tied to the 410 and its poor stats.
See above. How many 110s or A20s do you see doing much BnZ before being killed by anything co-alt or even co-alt to the bottom of their BnZ? It doesn't take long to dodge those BnZ passes and equalize E. The only thing the 410 would improve on is its momentum thanks to extra mass, and lead shots with the gun packages that don't cover up cockpit glass panels. The A8 is better for BnZ and it gets taken out sooner than later; assuming it sticks to BnZ and doesn't try to turn. Remove from the A8's performance envelope the A8's relative advantage over the 410, and you have an A8 that is simply dead meat.
As for the numbers, my point was that among similar loadouts, similar weight ratios, hp ratios, you still get significantly different craft. The 410 and the P-38 are nearly identical in the stats, hp/weight, weight/area, etc. Therefore you're saying the P-38 is similar to a 110 (assuming your comment the 410 being the same loadings as the 110). You would hardly compare the 2 (38 v 110) as the 38 is clearly superior.
See above. The comparison is wrong, so argument based on the comparison is a non-starter. On paper the 410 mostly does not compare (and is nowhere near the 38 in HP/weight, and weight/area comparable to P-38 means a flying brick as you can see for yourself if you try to dogfight a flapless 38), and on the few times it does, it compares worse than the worse dogfighters in the game: point 0) and the root of this whole argument:
the jack of all trades, the Me410
* So my point remains: It's not just comparison to 110 stats. The handling, the BnZ,
8) the internal weapons (no drag)
9) the better rear guns (able to fire down, low, left and right)
10) and the forward visibility -- the entire package would be more effective, given the same pilot skill, than a 110G.
* See 4) above
8) No drag, yet effectively identical speed as a 110.
9) rear guns that'll trigger autopilot on a slow, big, unmaneuverable plane. If you're in the rear guns you're probably about to die. One 50cal isn't going to turn it into an A2A killer. IOW this one's clutching at straws
10) Visibility is better but that doesn't undo all the major (almost an understatement) handicaps.
13) Your entire post is a 100% argumentative rebuttle without much real merit. "Show me a benchmark and I'll argue past it or spin it in my favor" is what you're saying.
14) In fact, it turns out I was only reiterating what you had said some time back:
[edit: emphasis on last line there]
So you're arguing with yourself.
13) Again you can't just say this and make it come true. What merit can an argument have other than accurately addressing the points in contention? Show me where I'm not doing that. Show me where I'm "arguing past" anything.
14) I'm arguing my previously uninformed self, but yeah, you could put it that way - it does spin it like I'm being a hypocrite.. Nice device, that, spin, eh Krusty?
The length of these two posts is illustration of the amount of arguing required to keep up with endless dodging and inaccurate nit picking. And that's not a barb either, it's pragmatic observation.
i) powerloading comparo
(http://dasmuppets.com/public/dlamb/410/410vulgperfscontext1k.gif)
-
:aok
Good write up moot!
-
Another massive wall-o-text I'm not going to read. I can tell you're just reposting old info. That I've already read 100 times.
That I never disagreed with in the first place.
Your stubborn knee-jerk contradiction of whatever I post is getting tiresome. Your comprehension of what I'm typing isn't up to snuff. I tried dumbing it down in my last response. Instead of getting the point you go off on a tangent not even understanding that I wasn't picking on you, not understanding my intent or my meaning, you just spam the forums with the same info.
While, in the drive to get interest for the 410, I applaud the effort to post another thread on the matter, your aim at trying to impugne me is misguided and illogical.
The arguments you have pasted there (scrolling past I recognized a few) have all been made before, with countering arguments made against the ones you've been posting lately as well. You nitpick little things, you try to misdirect attention from the overall issue. You try to spin things for whatever posting mood you're in. It's not even on topic some of the time. I.E. Your attempt to go off topic and nitpick things like P-51 or 190 comparisons.
I wonder if I should state the sky is blue, just to see if you contradict me?
-
if the 13mm has a good angle and view it can be of some use against an nmy plane only marginally faster than yours. I disagree it's useless.
-
I'm curious if a single person on the forum can point out where I'm not "comprehending" what Krusty argued.
not even understanding that I wasn't picking on you
Who said anything about picking on anyone?
your aim at trying to impugne me
Read the topic. The argument is on the statement "Me 410 jack of all trades" not "Krusty said this"
I wonder if I should state the sky is blue, just to see if you contradict me?
Stop changing the subject. Answer the questions. Show how the 410 specs make it out as a jack of the A2A trade in realistic MA. Show how it is "more than capable of engaging cons just as a 190 would, a typhie would, a p-51d would". You make all these ridiculous statements and then cry that someone is "picking on you" when he calls BS. And not just BS, I coulda done that, but takes the time to show exactly from A to Z how it's bunk.
if the 13mm has a good angle and view it can be of some use against an nmy plane only marginally faster than yours. I disagree it's useless.
You mean the 110 with a single 50cal would turn into an A2A killer? That most planes couldn't just ignore that and just maneuver out of the way and into a better position while the guy is sitting there autopiloted in his Me 110 slowpoke? That it wouldn't be perfectly useless is beside the point - the point is whether it matters as far as the plane being worth more or less for A2A.
-
Read the topic. The argument is on the statement "Me 410 jack of all trades" not "Krusty said this"
LOL, so a direct response to a post I made, in a new topic, quoting me, and attempting to nitpick the things I've said yesterday, isn't directed to me, aimed at me, or even about me?
Riiiiiiight.
Is this about the perked troops thread? Be honest.
EDIT: Also more of your twisting, spinning, and nitpicking: I never said it would be a "great" A2A platform. Jack of all trades means it can perform all jobs to some extent, or at least has connotations that it's decent enough. Your recent focus on trying to suggest I said otherwise doesn't hold water. Neither does this entire thread, for that matter.
I reiterate: It's nice that you compiled all those previous posts, but your intent is misguided and your focus on me more so.
For folks just tuning in: Moot even likes the Me410, from past discussions and posts! His recent behavior in light of this... well I won't comment as much. I think he needs some time to himself.
-
LOL, so a direct response to a post I made, in a new topic, quoting me, and attempting to nitpick the things I've said yesterday, isn't directed to me, aimed at me, or even about me?
It was off topic in the 109K thread. I think it's clearly not a jack of all trades. I presented the arguments for it. It doesnt matter if it's you or someone else. Stop dodging the subject. I have to mention your "not fair" complaints because you brought them in trying to turn plain topical arguments into me "blowing a gasket".
Is this about the perked troops thread? Be honest.
This is me arguing the topic. When will you stop trying to add drama to plain facts and figures? I don't care about your feelings, I just want some straight answers on the topic.
EDIT: Also more of your twisting, spinning, and nitpicking:
Show me where previous twisting, spinning and nitpicking is. That the Me 410 is overwhelmingly bad on paper except for just that - exceptions: guns and cockpit visibility, isn't nit picking. It's an overwhelmingly major trend in the specs. How is that nit picking? Why even call it these things instead of pointing out how the figures don't add up to what I say they do IE spun, or how the figures are wrong IE twisted?
I never said it would be a "great" A2A platform. Jack of all trades means it can perform all jobs to some extent, or at least has connotations that it's decent enough. Your recent focus on trying to suggest I said otherwise doesn't hold water. Neither does this entire thread, for that matter.
Where did I say you said that? Show me. Nowhere did I say that. And like I said above in detail, the A8 with more weight, rolling slow as a 110, 30mph less speed, target area on par with P38, probably no such high speed agility, less acceleration, that's not "decent enough". The A8 barely makes "decent enough".
Next, what are the other jobs for it to do? The only thing the 410 will do well is kill slow or stopped targets. G2A it's no different from the 110, general A2A it's barely different from the 110. Any other trades? So the 410 is good at one trade, terrible at another, and on the last (g2a) as good as the 110 but with the tradeoff that it's much less survivable - specifically worse than almost anything in the game IOW not "decent enough".
I reiterate: It's nice that you compiled all those previous posts, but your intent is misguided and your focus on me more so.
Stop being so paranoid and back up what you said, or concede at least some of it was grossly inaccurate. How do the 410's specs, or the 110, add up to something that's More than capable of engaging cons just as a 190 would, a typhie would, a p-51d would.
For folks just tuning in: Moot even likes the Me410, from past discussions and posts! His recent behavior in light of this... well I won't comment as much. I think he needs some time to himself.
:lol
Moot even likes the Me410
irrelevant
-
I can say only one thing:
give it us, and we will see ;)
-
Krusty this is coming from someone who enjoys watching you take a virtual beating. Moot is not on some bash krusty tangent he has a difference of opinion on an ac and has a well laid out difference of opinion. You however are on your usual path. You'd do well if you actually take the time and have a discussion with moot.
Sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "i cant hear you!" isn't an argument.
-
Krusty this is coming from someone who enjoys watching you take a virtual beating. Moot is not on some bash krusty tangent he has a difference of opinion on an ac and has a well laid out difference of opinion. You however are on your usual path. You'd do well if you actually take the time and have a discussion with moot.
Sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "i cant hear you!" isn't an argument.
Remember who you're talking about Bronk.
-
Krusty this is coming from someone who enjoys watching you take a virtual beating. Moot is not on some bash krusty tangent he has a difference of opinion on an ac and has a well laid out difference of opinion. You however are on your usual path. You'd do well if you actually take the time and have a discussion with moot.
Sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "i cant hear you!" isn't an argument.
Depends how old you are...
-
Krusty PM'd me to say he was bowing out of this discussion. So I guess he has no answer and concedes that the Me 410 is not a jack of all trades.
-
Krusty PM'd me to say he was bowing out of this discussion. So I guess he has no answer and concedes that the Me 410 is not a jack of all trades.
Shame if he would focus his tenacity of facts instead of hyperbole.... the possibilities.
-
Me410 will probably be fairly useful as a ground attack platform and will score some kills in air-to-air combat, though the majority of those will be from on a perch.
It will be, so far as I can tell, less effective at air-to-air combat than the twin engined fighters already in AH, possibly excluding the Bf110C-4b.
-
Funny part is I think moot wants the 410 like I want the Beaufighter. Not expecting some uber bird, but something new and different :)
-
Being completely dispassionate makes it so much easier to faithfully assess something. But yeah, I want this one bad. I probably already spent more time researching it than all the time spent on the Ta 152. Since the original topic is probably done with, on this other topic - it really was strange to read for the first time, about a plane that I loved so much, just how it was built by slave labor. How, in detail, a few of those gremlins were sabotage. And of course I would've been one of those guys, not being aryan. There were lots of historical and political and technical warts and lots of candidly deprecatory insights of all kinds but the slave labor thing just broke the fourth wall so to speak. A pretty good minduplift :lol
Though in a way it makes any genuine taste for the design itself more genuine still. You actually know it for what it really was. You can tell what the design was meant to be from what it turned out to be. I've been a Design freak since I was a kid, so maybe it's just me. If I had the cash I'd either join or do what Flugwerk's doing. It might be only a few generations from now that standards of living and manufacturing tech have progressed enough that something like a Beaufighter or Mossie or Me 410 can be built like kit-planes are built today, as affordably as you buy a mid range family sedan -- only a few decades ago a lot of the things we have today were unimaginable.
Wouldn't that be just nuts? Actually owning one of these. Even if it's mostly gutted and much of the functional bits are updated. All you'd need would be blueprints and training, and the sky's yours and your warbird's. Blueprints and good pictures could be all that needs to be saved to preserve this warbird heritage.
.. Just had an idea. If the 110 and 410 have the same specs except for wingloading (assuming that's all there is to it for argument's sake), would using a very intolerant stall limiter in AH give a close enough analog to what the 410 would fly like? Maneuverability wise. Maybe a new topic would better get an answer.
-
I'd love to see both the Me410 and Beaufighter added. I just don't expect them to be as good at air-to-air combat as the twin engined fighters already in AH. :p
Though in a way it makes any genuine taste for the design itself more genuine still. You actually know it for what it really was. You can tell what the design was meant to be from what it turned out to be. I've been a Design freak since I was a kid, so maybe it's just me. If I had the cash I'd either join or do what Flugwerk's doing. It might be only a few generations from now that standards of living and manufacturing tech have progressed enough that something like a Beaufighter or Mossie or Me 410 can be built like kit-planes are built today, as affordably as you buy a mid range family sedan -- only a few decades ago a lot of the things we have today were unimaginable.
Wouldn't that be just nuts? Actually owning one of these. Even if it's mostly gutted and much of the functional bits are updated. All you'd need would be blueprints and training, and the sky's yours. Blueprints and good pictures could be all that needs to be saved to preserve this warbird heritage.
Part of me is quite jealous of the guy who will get that Mossie they are building in New Zealand.
-
I'd love to see both the Me410 and Beaufighter added. I just don't expect them to be as good at air-to-air combat as the twin engined fighters already in AH. :p
Part of me is quite jealous of the guy who will get that Mossie they are building in New Zealand.
Mossies coming together all over Karnak. Gonna be a good time for Mossie fliers in the next few years I think.
My thing with the Beau, is I got into the history of it, and now I want to fly it down on the deck where I'm most comfortable anyway in AH and see what it can do. Might even need to learn to shoot a rocket or drop a torp in that case :)
-
Being completely dispassionate makes it so much easier to faithfully assess something. But yeah, I want this one bad. I probably already spent more time researching it than all the time spent on the Ta 152. Since the original topic is probably done with, on this other topic - it really was strange to read for the first time, about a plane that I loved so much, just how it was built by slave labor. How, in detail, a few of those gremlins were sabotage. And of course I would've been one of those guys, not being aryan. There were lots of historical and political and technical warts and lots of candidly deprecatory insights of all kinds but the slave labor thing just broke the fourth wall so to speak. A pretty good minduplift :lol
Though in a way it makes any genuine taste for the design itself more genuine still. You actually know it for what it really was. You can tell what the design was meant to be from what it turned out to be. I've been a Design freak since I was a kid, so maybe it's just me. If I had the cash I'd either join or do what Flugwerk's doing. It might be only a few generations from now that standards of living and manufacturing tech have progressed enough that something like a Beaufighter or Mossie or Me 410 can be built like kit-planes are built today, as affordably as you buy a mid range family sedan -- only a few decades ago a lot of the things we have today were unimaginable.
Wouldn't that be just nuts? Actually owning one of these. Even if it's mostly gutted and much of the functional bits are updated. All you'd need would be blueprints and training, and the sky's yours. Blueprints and good pictures could be all that needs to be saved to preserve this warbird heritage.
I spend my imaginary lottery winnings all the time on warbirds :) Fluwerke is selling thier business last I heard if you want all the tools for 190 building. The warbird market in Germany is really growing quickly too. Mustangs, Spits, 109s Corsairs etc all starting to land there with new owners.
-
I asked a few of the pistonheads and they said the market was just too thin. Too little profit margins and too little unsaturated market... Though this was from me asking about if someone were to build new warbirds in the US with the intent to lower prices so that more people would get into it, to keep the warbird blood flowing. Not-for-profit, or only-for-enough-profit that you could keep flooding the market with affordable warbirds long enough to avoid extinction.
Good to hear about Germany's warbirds though. I'm looking forward to hearing a genuine D-9 and 152-H engine with the sight of them airborne, in person.
I just don't expect them to be as good at air-to-air combat as the twin engined fighters already in AH. :p
Yep, if only there was such a thing.. hehe
Part of me is quite jealous of the guy who will get that Mossie they are building in New Zealand.
You never know, you might win the lottery on the same day the guy decides to sell it :D Right?
-
I'd rather HTC had brought in either the Beau or 410, than the B-29.
-
I'd rather HTC had brought in either the Beau or 410, than the B-29.
:aok
-
My 'hunch' on how the low speed maveuverability of the 410 would be in AH...
I did some very quick in-game testing with the 110G-2 and Mosquito Mk.VI regarding low speed maneuverability. I didn't have a proper stop watch and cellphone can be a bit akward to use so instead of timing complete turning circles I was lazy and just quickly checked the corner speeds.
Mosquito - sea level - 50% fuel:
Clean config: 179mph
Flaps all out: 116mph
110G-2 - sea level - 75% fuel:
Clean config: 154mph
Flaps all out: 113mph
Looking at the figures, the first thing that's really noticeable is how much Mosquito gains on the 110 when the flaps come out. Comparing real life 410 and Mosquito Mk.VI, while the difference in wing loading is quite brutal, The Me410 produces significanly more lift per square feet of wing area due to the differences in airfoils and the fact that Me410 has slats.
Mosquito used a modified version of the RAF 34 both in the root and the tip and Me410 used NACA 23018-636.5 in the root and NACA 23010-636.5. in the tip. Quick and dirty calculation using just the root profiles giving 0.2 extra (I base this on the gain of that of the 109G) on the Clmax for the Me410 due to slats puts Mosquito's and 410's clean stall speeds very very close to each other. Not wholly accurate as far as exact results go but it does give general direction.
So, in AH I'd expect the 410 being able to hang with the Mosquito in clean config. But if the difference when the flaps come out is as drastic as it is between the 110G-2 and Mosquito, the moment the flaps start to come out the Me410 isn't able to hang with the Mosquito anymore.
Again, just my hunch, take it with a grain of salt.
(edit) Forgot this:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/twinscomparison.jpg)
-
Well we know how you ruined Aces High with your faulty Brewster uber plane. We don't want you anywhere near the 410! :)
How bout getting to work on the Beaufighter instead? :)
-
Well we know how you ruined Aces High with your faulty Brewster uber plane. We don't want you anywhere near the 410! :)
How bout getting to work on the Beaufighter instead? :)
LOL. :) :D
You did notice that my assesment wasn't very flattering for the Me410, right? ;)
-
One of the strengths of the FW's in scenarios is that they handle very well at high speed. I wonder if the 410 would handle better at speed than the 110? That would make a big difference in its usefulness in scenario-type settings.
-
So I'm not just bumping this for the sake of having the last word (the 410 from quick skim is, contrary what Krusty insisted, at least as much of a DF pig (pardn mfrench) as the A8, IOW bottom of the entire AH planeset dogfighting ladder), but to point out another thing that I meant to defend in theory in advance of empirical evidence - that you can indeed look at tons of paper figures and flog virtual planes in AH for tons of hours, and if done right, suss out enough of a feel for the corelation between performance in trials and on paper, and enough of both a plane's performance (more of this) and its overall character (much less of this) to make useful predictions.
It's too bad it turned out to be bad news as far as the 410's concerned. You can lock this one if it breaks forum law.. Sorry for the bump but it's nice to see research/debates brought to their final conclusion.
-
Do you find the aircraft disappointing now that it's here Moot, or does your enthusiasm prevail?
-
I fargin love it as a bomber destroyer. Strangely somehow, that's what it was built to do.
-
In frame 3, the 410's (ZG26) got 17 kills (all bombers, I think) from 9 pilots. That is quite good.
-
two guys who think the bar or stars under their name mean something other than we have been on the forums too long. Play the game.
-
In frame 3, the 410's (ZG26) got 17 kills (all bombers, I think) from 9 pilots. That is quite good.
Me410 is designed a buff interceptor and does quite good just as the Ju-87 was a ground attack aircraft...... long as both have clear skies, they rule the battlefield.
-
two guys who think the bar or stars under their name mean something other than we have been on the forums too long. Play the game.
Not sure if this is directed at me, but I don't think the Me 410 is great except in its firepower. My comments are for commending the ZG26 pilots for great work.
-
Do you find the aircraft disappointing now that it's here Moot, or does your enthusiasm prevail?
Enthusiastic as far as really liking the plane despite it all, sure.. But not playing AH and only checked in here for first time in probably 1 year because someone told me Morpheus posted. Most likely wont play again at least for the next ten years... Too busy finishing school and other long term plans etc.
See ya on the flip side.
two guys who think the bar or stars under their name mean something other than we have been on the forums too long. Play the game.
You know nothing about others true intentions.
-
Good luck with your endeavours moot, take care :salute
-
Not sure if this is directed at me, but I don't think the Me 410 is great except in its firepower. My comments are for commending the ZG26 pilots for great work.
nope not you :aok
All I am saying is you guys spend way to much time and emotions on this type of topic..that's just my opinion and I find it funny.
-
nope not you :aok
All I am saying is you guys spend way to much time and emotions on this type of topic..that's just my opinion and I find it funny.
I find your signature funny. I find it really really funny when you say the things you say in this thread. :)
-
you two should go on Maury and let the audience decide.
-
While I am no great pilot (frame rate way to slow) I did find the ME-410 a big disappointment. I don't think I ever been killed faster in any other plane in the game than the ME-410. However I do like it's big gun and I found I can hit a bomber at 1-K out with it's flat trajectory. It is almost to slow to catch bombers so you have to be at atl in the bomber stream to be effective and it take damage very poorly I by far prefer the ME-110.
-
Moot - I agree that in the MA the 410 isn't much of a threat.
HOWEVER.
In the AvA during historical match-ups, as a bomber inteceptor, JABO, or tank hunter, the 410 is a monster. Intercepting bomber formations like B-17's or 24s with the big gun package, the 410 can and will pick off formations from 1000+ out. Suprise attacks, a tactic often used by Hornese pilots during WWII is actually used quite a bit in the AvA. With the ability to hit 1k+ out, the 410 often makes confetti out of mid-war bombers, especially slower twin engines.
For ground targets, the 410 is a bit of a beast to handle at slow speeds, but the stability of its large gun package makes it even better than the B-25. Same for JABO - drop your iron, strafe the crap out of the area, head home. Of course, its no match against mid war allied fighters like the Spit 9 or D-11 Jug. Furthermore, catching a 300+MPH twin-engine Hornet is a challenge in a mid-war fighter like the Spit 9, Jug D-11, or the P-38G.
Overall, in the AvA the Me-410 is a very popular choice for Luftwaffe pilots. Try to keep it in perspective for other arena use ... ;)
-
The problem is when it runs up against mid-war Allied fighters that don't have any trouble catching it. Things like the Spitfire Mk VIII, P-38J, P-51B, Typhoon Mk Ib, Mosquito Mk VI and La-5FN.
Comparing it to older Allied fighters like the Spitfire Mk IX isn't really very fair to the Allied fighters.
-
The Spit IX is a mid-war fighter. Production started in November 1942 and ended in December 1944. Deliveries of the Me 410 started in January 1943, only three months after the Spit IX. The three P-38 groups in Europe didn't start converting to P-38Js until December 1943.
-
The Spit IX is a mid-war fighter. Production started in November 1942 and ended in December 1944. Deliveries of the Me 410 started in January 1943, only three months after the Spit IX. The three P-38 groups in Europe didn't start converting to P-38Js until December 1943.
Spitfire Mk IX entered combat in July, 1942 for the first time. It is a mid-war aircraft, but on the very early end of it.
Also, keep in mind that the Spitfire Mk IX from mid-1942 was the Merlin 61 version we have in AH as the Spitfire Mk IX. The one that finished production in 1944 was a Spitfire LF.Mk IXe, the same as the Spitfire Mk XVI in AH.
-
Those were converted Spit Vs not production IXs. If that's your criteria then the 410 is a 1942 bird also, counting converted 210s.
FYI: January 1942 is still "mid-war"; at least on this side of the pond. Early-war: 1939-1941.
-
The only difference between a Spitfire Mk V with the universal wing and a Spitfire Mk IX with the universal wing is the engine, so yes, they count.
-
I always wondered, weren't some of the Spitfire Mark Vs essentially re-engined Spitfire Mark Is?
-
I always wondered, weren't some of the Spitfire Mark Vs essentially re-engined Spitfire Mark Is?
Early Spitfire Mk Va with fabric ailerons and eight .303s, yes.
-
Did any Mark Is end up as Mark IXs then?
-
Did any Mark Is end up as Mark IXs then?
Absolutely not. We're talking about a few hundred of the earliest Spitfire Mk Va and Mk Vb fighters with "a" or "b" wings. The vast majority of Spitfire Mk Vbs had metal ailerons and all Spitfires after them had metal ailerons.
There was no such thing as a Spitfire Mk IXa or Spitfire Mk IXb.
-
There was no such thing as a Spitfire Mk IXa or Spitfire Mk IXb.
Yes and no.. According to "Late Mark Spitfire Aces, 42-45" when the IX was introduced there was no A, B, C however the planes came with different engines, so they became know as the IXa and the IXb by virtue of their particular engine the "A" having merlins either 61, 63 or 63a, and the "B" the 66. It was only much later that the Ministry came out with the official designations. the IXa became the L IXC, the IXb became the L IXc. By the time the edict reached the squadrons, the pilots where too used to calling them by the a, b and logged them as such.
-
The only difference between a Spitfire Mk V with the universal wing and a Spitfire Mk IX with the universal wing is the engine, so yes, they count.
Karnak,
i get your point, but still, generally refferring to "the" Spit IX is just not possible. As far as i can see, the Supermarine and the Rolls Royce constantly upgraded the Spitfires in production, as there is only a minor difference between the late Is and the early Vs, also the late Vs and early IXs, also even the XVI started its life as a modifyed version of the late IX... Correct me please if i am wrong, im not an expert.
Same as with the 109 Gs, the G-0 was a very early 1942 bird, essentially simmilar to the F, yet the G14 was completely different. And they were all Gustavs ;)
-
The Mk XVI is an LF.Mk IXe. No difference other than the American built Merlin 266, which is just a Merlin 66 with Imperial measurements and a critical altitude 1000ft higher, and the only reason there is any Mk differentiation between the LF.Mk IXe and the Mk XVI is because the Mk XVI's engine needed Imperial measurement tools and the LF.Mk IXe's engine needed Metric measurement tools. The two came off the production lines side by side and which frame was going to be an LF.Mk IXe and which would be a Mk XVI wasn't determined until the engine was put in it.
The Mk XVI in AH is actually an LF.Mk IXe as its critical altitude is the same as the LF.Mk VIII we have, thus indicating it has a Merlin 66 in it, not a Merlin 266.
The Spitfire Mk IX in AH is powered by a Merlin 61, the version that first saw combat in July, 1942.
-
Allright, just see what i meant, the late Spit IXs were different from the earlyer ones, even though they were running under the same number.
Only to avoid the misunderstandings and stuff about the XVI being a mid-war fighter.
-
Allright, just see what i meant, the late Spit IXs were different from the earlyer ones, even though they were running under the same number.
Only to avoid the misunderstandings and stuff about the XVI being a mid-war fighter.
Yes, but in the context of AH the July, 1942 Spitfire Mk IX is not the contemporary Spitfire with the Me410. The contemporary Spitfire to reference is the mid-1943 Spitfire LF.Mk VIII, hence my original post on the subject. Imagine it is a Spitfire LF.Mk IX with the universal wing, also a mid-1943 Spitfire version.
-
You're talking production dates, not service life. The Merlin 61 Spit IX ended production in March 1943, but served for far longer than that. The Spit VIII entered service in July of 1943, but the Spit IX would still be the most numerous fighter in the RAF (until the end of the war in fact). The early Spit VIIIs also used the Merlin 61 engine, so from a performance aspect the difference would be negligible.
-
There were only 300 or so Merlin 61 Spitfire F.Mk IXs built. I am talking about contemporary fighters. The Me410 also entered service in 1943, correct? So, like the Spitfire LF.Mk VIII and Spitfire LF.Mk IX, by far the most common version of each mark, the Me410's service life would be overlapping with the Merlin 66 Spitfires, not so much the Merlin 61 Spitfires.
As to the first Spitfire Mk VIIIs using the Merlin 61, no. By the time the Spitfire Mk VIII was coming off the lines the engine put into it could have been a Merlin 61/63, Merlin 66 or Merlin 70, depending on its intended role. They were all produced concurrently, though the Merlin 61/63 was not continued with for long.
-
Late 1942 if we're counting converted earlier models (Spit Vc & Me 210).
-
Late 1942 if we're counting converted earlier models (Spit Vc & Me 210).
Given the wing/airframe differences between the Me210 and Me410 were there conversions? Or did late production Me210s incorporate most of the changes seen in the Me410?
-
All the late 210s were converted into 410s. Wings changed, the stuff.
One way do see if the plane was previously a 210 was the engine gauges in the inner engine wall (same as in 110). Those were eventually moved inside the cockpit and the holes covered.
-C+
-
All the late 210s were converted into 410s. Wings changed, the stuff.
One way do see if the plane was previously a 210 was the engine gauges in the inner engine wall (same as in 110). Those were eventually moved inside the cockpit and the holes covered.
-C+
When did those Me210 conversions enter service and were they entered as Me410s or Me210s? Debrody is making a distinction between the two, Me210s converted to be Me410s and Me410s that were Me410s from the ground up.
The Brits didn't do it the same it seems. The last Mancesters on the line were completed as Lancasters, you can tell if they were going to be Manchesters if they have a row of little windows along the fuselage, and they were considered Lancaster Mk Is just as much as the airframes built as Lancaster Mk Is from the ground up. Same would be true of Spitfire Mk Vs that became Spitfire Mk IXs at the factory.
-
Hey, dont give words into my mouth ;) But basically, almost.
Was there a strick line, a bigger-than-usual upgrade package or something when they started to call them 410s? I think so.
IMO the converted planes count as real 410s - from the day they were equipped with the key modifications what makes the 410 a 410.
If the main flight parameters and the performance were simmilar enough, of course.
-
There was a noticable difference between 210s and 410s: Mostly the engines. The 210s in production at that time already had the longer fuselages, I believe also had the leading edge slats, and the only real difference was the cranked wing leading edge and the engine type.
I believe the 410 was really to be called the 210D or 210E but was renamed to get past all that political bickering. However, even using the existing 210 fuselages I'd say the wing and engine differences were enough that there wasn't very much mixing of the two on the production lines.