Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: iron650 on May 14, 2011, 07:32:33 AM
-
The He177 was both a divebomber and a level bomber. The He177 participated in Operation Steinbock and a daylight bomber of the Eastern Front. The He177 was comparable to the B-29 Superfortress. They were the long-ranged bombers used by the Luftwaffe. The were both internal and external bombs.
Armament:
48 50kg bombs
1 2,500kg bombs
12 250kg bombs
6 500 kg bombs
2 1,800kg bombs
10 500kg bombs
6 1000kg bombs
2 LT 50 torpedoes on external racks
Guns:
1 7.92mm MG81 gun in nose
1 20mm MG151 cannon in foward ventral gondola position
2 7.92m MG81 in rear ventral gondola position
2 13mm MG131 in a remotely operated forward dorsal turret 360 degree traverse
1 13mm MG131 in aft dorsal turret
1 20mm MG151 cannon in tail position
Characteristics:
Crew 6
31.44 meters
6.40 height
101.99 meter squared wing area
empty weight 16,800 kg
Loaded weight 27,200kg
Powerplant: 2× Daimler-Benz DB 610 24-cylinder liquid-cooled inline piston engines, 2,900 PS each
Max speed 565km/h at 19,000 ft
Rate of climb 623 ft a minute
Stall speed 135 km/h
I think it would be useful because it would make a long range bomber and help close the gap in the German bomber gap. Also, the bomber may be sluggish. Also, the plane can adapt to level bombing and dive bombing.
-
Eventually it would be a good idea to have it, but first I think we need the He 111 & Do 17. They had a greater impact on the war. Also a remodeled Ju 88 would be nice.
-
Personally, we need more German bombers. :salute
-
Personally, we need more German bombers. :salute
Agreed.
I'd love to shoot them with my Spit14 :devil :bolt:
-
Agreed.
I'd love to shoot them with my Spit14 :devil :bolt:
I'll fly the He177 and try to gun you down. :uhoh :bolt:
-
+1
flakhapy
-
Agreed.
I'd love to shoot them with my Spit14 :devil :bolt:
haha you have balls ten risking the perks facing with the 20mm :aok
anyway, been discussed several times even only this year...
-
The He177 was both a divebomber and a level bomber. The He177 participated in Operation Steinbock and a daylight bomber of the Eastern Front. The He177 was comparable to the B-29 Superfortress. They were the long-ranged bombers used by the Luftwaffe. The were both internal and external bombs.
Armament:
48 50kg bombs
1 2,500kg bombs
12 250kg bombs
6 500 kg bombs
2 1,800kg bombs
10 500kg bombs
6 1000kg bombs
2 LT 50 torpedoes on external racks
Guns:
1 7.92mm MG81 gun in nose
1 20mm MG151 cannon in foward ventral gondola position
2 7.92m MG81 in rear ventral gondola position
2 13mm MG131 in a remotely operated forward dorsal turret 360 degree traverse
1 13mm MG131 in aft dorsal turret
1 20mm MG151 cannon in tail position
Characteristics:
Crew 6
31.44 meters
6.40 height
101.99 meter squared wing area
empty weight 16,800 kg
Loaded weight 27,200kg
Powerplant: 2× Daimler-Benz DB 610 24-cylinder liquid-cooled inline piston engines, 2,900 PS each
Max speed 565km/h at 19,000 ft
Rate of climb 623 ft a minute
Stall speed 135 km/h
I think it would be useful because it would make a long range bomber and help close the gap in the German bomber gap. Also, the bomber may be sluggish. Also, the plane can adapt to level bombing and dive bombing.
YES YES! YEZZZZZZZZZZ!
(http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/5796/he1771.jpg)
(http://imageshack.us/m/824/7470/24422609.jpg)
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/avapub/avatar_28193.bmp)
-
If this got in the game you think it would be perked?
YES YES! YEZZZZZZZZZZ!
:x
-
help close the gap in the German bomber gap.
To be honest, we don't need another heavy bomber. With all the historical events that I have flown in I still have yet to see one where Germany is in need of another bomber, the Ju88 does fine.
As for filling a gap, the He-111 is needed more so because of its extensive use early in the war and mainly the Battle of Britain.
-
To be honest, we don't need another heavy bomber. With all the historical events that I have flown in I still have yet to see one where Germany is in need of another bomber, the Ju88 does fine.
As for filling a gap, the He-111 is needed more so because of its extensive use early in the war and mainly the Battle of Britain.
who would fly a plane in the late war (where the large majority of the action happens) what was an easy kill for even a spit1? //ju-188 ;)
-
As for filling a gap, the He-111 is needed more so because of its extensive use early in the war and mainly the Battle of Britain.
EW arena is about empty, more than 90% of all combat happens in LW arena anyway. BOB scenario occurs how often? LW players & squadrons do have to be contend with a slow, weak defended bomber for years. I'm not against the HE 111 as such, but saying it fills a bigger gap than a mid / late war plane like Ju 188, Do 217 or He 177 borders on ridiculousness
-
+1 for he -177 ju-188.do 217
-
+1 for he -177 ju-188.do 217
same as alpini said :aok
To be honest, we don't need another heavy bomber. With all the historical events that I have flown in I still have yet to see one where Germany is in need of another bomber, the Ju88 does fine.
I have flown a Ju88. I get shot down due to lack of defensive guns. I haven't had one Ju88 sortie where I got shot down.
-
Only problem I have with the He177 is that AH would turn what was one of the worst bombers of WWII into what might well be the best unperked bomber in AH. It is absurd.
I would love to see the Ju188 though.
-
I have flown a Ju88. I get shot down due to lack of defensive guns. I haven't had one Ju88 sortie where I got shot down.
wait...you get shot down in the 88 due to lack of defensive guns but you haven't had a sortie where you got shot down in them? :headscratch:
-
wait...you get shot down in the 88 due to lack of defensive guns but you haven't had a sortie where you got shot down in them? :headscratch:
Got killed IN them
Only problem I have with the He177 is that AH would turn what was one of the worst bombers of WWII into what might well be the best unperked bomber in AH. It is absurdly awesome.
I would love to see the Ju188 though.
How about perking it?
The Ju188 was a recon plane or tactical bomber that has less defensive and bomb load.
He177 :noid
-
yooooooooooooo :noid we have to get that... it pretty much is a german B-29 :airplane:
-
Got killed IN them
How about perking it?
The Ju188 was a recon plane or tactical bomber that has less defensive and bomb load.
He177 :noid
It seems absurd to have one of the worst bombers of WWII and have to perk it because it is too good.
As to the Ju188, so? It had a 20mm in the top turret, good performance and carried more than a B-17. Seems good enough to me.
There is literally no reason that we need a German, or Axis, heavy bomber.
-
haha you have balls ten risking the perks facing with the 20mm :aok
anyway, been discussed several times even only this year...
Spit14 farms be enough perks to fly a Spit14 :D
I'll fly the He177 and try to gun you down. :uhoh :bolt:
Key word is "try"... :devil
-
-1 to any new heavy bomber
-
-1 to any new heavy bomber
he is right we have what like 50 fighters and like 15 bombers no need for more buffs..... :headscratch: :bolt:
-
It seems absurd to have one of the worst bombers of WWII and have to perk it because it is too good.
As to the Ju188, so? It had a 20mm in the top turret, good performance and carried more than a B-17. Seems good enough to me.
There is literally no reason that we need a German, or Axis, heavy bomber.
We don't have many axis bombers. :huh
-
We don't have many axis bombers. :huh
:old: :old: :old: :old: :old: :old: :old: HE177 for ACES HIGH 2! :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:
-
:old: :old: :old: :old: :old: :old: :old: HE177 for ACES HIGH 2! :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:
I don't have an issue putting it in. How ever I do agree with Karnak in that if this aircrafts terrible flaws are not programmed in with it's possible inclusion. You would have a devastating bomber that just would not be realistic at all. Just like our AR-234B with rearward facing guns it just never existed.
-
I don't have an issue putting it in. How ever I do agree with Karnak in that if this aircrafts terrible flaws are not programmed in with it's possible inclusion. You would have a devastating bomber that just would not be realistic at all. Just like our AR-234B with rearward facing guns it just never existed.
How about the B-29 it's engines commonly burst into flames after landing. Me163, too would explode on landings often.
-
We don't have many axis bombers. :huh
I have no idea what you are referring to.
How about the B-29 it's engines commonly burst into flames after landing. Me163, too would explode on landings often.
The B-29's teething problems pale into insignificance when compared with the utter failure that was the He177 program.
-
As I remember the DB-610 engines were really just 2 DB-605s mated together, and they had huge problems with them. They finally solved enough of the problems to go into production, but the He-177s really spent most of their time sitting on the tarmac until it was too late for them to make a difference.
I'd much rather see one of the JU88S versions, or maybe even one of the anti-tank P variants.
-
We need a German bomber that's not outclassed.
-
We need a German bomber that's not outclassed.
Not a lot to choose from the Germans were not really heavy bomber oriented. The Italian Piagio P108 was a purpose built heavy Axis bomber. Not very many built & the Italians never had more than 24 in service at any one time. They could not afford a large aircraft & simply was pushed aside for more appropriate aircraft.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/p1082kz.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/2.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Squadron2002220-20Italian20Aircraft.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/p108typeiireviewbg_box.jpg)
-
We need a German bomber that's not outclassed.
I was meaning a bomber that's not easy to shoot down like the easily outclassed Stuka or the faster Ju88.
-
We need a German bomber that's not outclassed.
Why?
Besides that, I don't think that the Ju188 or Do217 are really outclassed in any case.
-
Why?
Besides that, I don't think that the Ju188 or Do217 are really outclassed in any case.
I agree it's just we need a less outclassed German bomber. :salute
-
How about the B-29 it's engines commonly burst into flames after landing. Me163, too would explode on landings often.
Had an older fella come into the shop last week who after a little discussion turned out to be a mechanic who worked on B-29s.
I asked him about 29 engines being prone to fires, he said he had never seen that.
The only fire he remembers was on a 29 that was set up as a refueling plane.
-
Had an older fella come into the shop last week who after a little discussion turned out to be a mechanic who worked on B-29s.
I asked him about 29 engines being prone to fires, he said he had never seen that.
The only fire he remembers was on a 29 that was set up as a refueling plane.
Odd I've seen footage of a B-29 after land burst into flames. In several documentaries they even mentioned that, too.
-
We need a German bomber that's not outclassed.
Thats the Ar-234.
-
Odd I've seen footage of a B-29 after land burst into flames. In several documentaries they even mentioned that, too.
It was a quote from one guy---I never said it didn't happen.
However it may not have been as prevelent as rumour would have it.
-
Thats the Ar-234.
Maybe I should have added unperked. I'm rooting for a Do217 now. But it's still slower than a He177 at the altitude the 177 flew.
-
My preference would be a Ju188A with the MG151/20 in the top turret.
You still haven't answered why we need a German bomber that isn't outclassed though.
-
Fly a Stuka and Ju88 and see their defensive armament, plus the ease to kill them.
-
Fly a Stuka and Ju88 and see their defensive armament, plus the ease to kill them.
And? What does it matter? Grab a B-17G, B-26B or Ki-67 then.
-
And? What does it matter? Grab a B-17G, B-26B or Ki-67 then.
To some of us, it does. There are pure "german iron" squads as much as there are British or US "themed" ones, or players that do fly certain countries "theme tours". We do have a vulnerable early war bomber and a perked late war bomber with somewhat limited usefulness. Would be nice to have another more survuvable mid war bomber covering the middle ground.
-
To some of us, it does. There are pure "german iron" squads as much as there are British or US "themed" ones, or players that do fly certain countries "theme tours". We do have a vulnerable early war bomber and a perked late war bomber with somewhat limited usefulness. Would be nice to have another more survuvable mid war bomber covering the middle ground.
I agree. The Stuka is too weak for the MA (often), the Ju88 is very weak defensively, the Ar234 is perked and only advantage is speed.
And? What does it matter? Grab a B-17G, B-26B or Ki-67 then.
Instead of flying the bombers when I had a German theme I flew a 110 because it was better to me.
-
I am not saying that I don't want to see some of these, just trying to get you to look at the difference between "need" and "want".
If the Ju188 is added it will go on my "favorites" list and be one of the two unperked bombers I am likely to use. I really want it added, but there is a difference between wanting it and needing it.
-
I am not saying that I don't want to see some of these, just trying to get you to look at the difference between "need" and "want".
If the Ju188 is added it will go on my "favorites" list and be one of the two unperked bombers I am likely to use. I really want it added, but there is a difference between wanting it and needing it.
In this case, we do not need any additional plane in a AH. There is also no "need" for a He 111. :)
-
In this case, we do not need any additional plane in a AH. There is also no "need" for a He 111. :)
The topic is He177
-
The topic is He177
Oh, really? :rolleyes:
-
Oh, really? :rolleyes:
Yes. :furious :bhead
-
In this case, we do not need any additional plane in a AH. There is also no "need" for a He 111. :)
I see it a bit different. Core aircraft that fought the war are "needed" for scenarios and such, thus the need for the He111, Pe-2, Ki-43 and such. By the time the Germans had better bombers than the Ju88 and He111, they were peripheral to the mainline German operations, which had switched to fighters. In the same way, we didn't "need" the Ki-67, but we did "need" the G4M1. That said, I like having the Ki-67 and would like having the Ju188.
-
I see it a bit different. Core aircraft that fought the war are "needed" for scenarios and such, thus the need for the He111, Pe-2, Ki-43 and such. By the time the Germans had better bombers than the Ju88 and He111, they were peripheral to the mainline German operations, which had switched to fighters. In the same way, we didn't "need" the Ki-67, but we did "need" the G4M1. That said, I like having the Ki-67 and would like having the Ju188.
I agree with the first 3 and G4M1. :salute
-
I see it a bit different. Core aircraft that fought the war are "needed" for scenarios
This is no more a legit "need" than our need in the MA. BOB scenario is taking place how often? A few hours every couple of years. Just do another scenario, as we MA pilots (making up more than 90% of the game) have to chose something else every day :P
-
This topic just got shot down... :bolt:
-
This is no more a legit "need" than our need in the MA. BOB scenario is taking place how often? A few hours every couple of years. Just do another scenario, as we MA pilots (making up more than 90% of the game) have to chose something else every day :P
Not just the full on scenario, but FSOs and such as well.
The reason things are rarely "needed" in the MA now is that everything is covered. We don't "need" a Meteor so that Allied only guys can have a jet as the Me262 is available. Their self limitations do not create a need, they create a want.
Most "wants" are entirely valid though. I would love to see the Ju188A. While I am not personally enthused about the Do217, it would be also be a good addition. I have reservations about the He177 for reasons already covered.
-
How about the B-29 it's engines commonly burst into flames after landing. Me163, too would explode on landings often.
Early models on the B-29 had this issue I think it was corrected at some point. 163 would die for the most part on take off when fuel was mixed & lit not so sure on landing. But to answer your question I would not have a problem programing all of that in.
-
Had an older fella come into the shop last week who after a little discussion turned out to be a mechanic who worked on B-29s.
I asked him about 29 engines being prone to fires, he said he had never seen that.
The only fire he remembers was on a 29 that was set up as a refueling plane.
From http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/flygirls/sfeature/waspsb29.html (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/flygirls/sfeature/waspsb29.html):
"The B-29 was not only much larger and heavier than any bomber the U.S. had flown before, it also hadn't gone through the years of operational testing to which Boeing had subjected its predecessor the B-17. Initially engine fires were one of the major problems. The planes' Wright engines were often called the Wrong engines. Part of the trouble could be traced to the engine cowlings that were too tight and often caused fires even before the planes had taken off. Although engine improvements were made over time, fires remained a problem throughout World War II."
And from http://www.skytamer.com/Boeing_B-29.html (http://www.skytamer.com/Boeing_B-29.html):
"The most common cause of maintenance headaches and catastrophic failures was the engine. Though the Wright R-3350 would later become a trustworthy workhorse in large piston-engined aircraft, early models were beset with dangerous reliability problems, many caused by demands that the B-29 be put in operation as soon as possible. It had an impressive power-to-weight ratio, but this came at a heavy cost to durability. Worse, the cowling Boeing designed for the engine was too close (out of a desire for improved aerodynamics), and the early cowl flaps caused problematic flutter and vibration when open in most of the flight envelope. The 18 radial cylinders, compactly arranged in front and rear rows, overheated because of insufficient flow of cooling air, which in turn caused exhaust valves to unseat."
"These weaknesses combined to make an engine that would overheat regularly at combat weights, particularly during climbs after takeoff. Unseated valves released fuel-air mixtures during engine combustion that acted as a blowtorch against the valve stems. When these burned through the engines disintegrated and caught fire. A fire that was not immediately contained in the forward part of the engine by fire extinguishers became impossible to put out. An accessory housing manufactured of magnesium alloy in the back of the engine would often catch fire and produce heat so intense it burned through the firewall to the main wing spar in no more than 90 seconds, resulting in catastrophic failure of the wing."
-
The He177 was comparable to the B-29 Superfortress.
WHA---???!!! :huh
-
From http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/flygirls/sfeature/waspsb29.html (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/flygirls/sfeature/waspsb29.html):
"The B-29 was not only much larger and heavier than any bomber the U.S. had flown before, it also hadn't gone through the years of operational testing to which Boeing had subjected its predecessor the B-17. Initially engine fires were one of the major problems. The planes' Wright engines were often called the Wrong engines. Part of the trouble could be traced to the engine cowlings that were too tight and often caused fires even before the planes had taken off. Although engine improvements were made over time, fires remained a problem throughout World War II."
And from http://www.skytamer.com/Boeing_B-29.html (http://www.skytamer.com/Boeing_B-29.html):
"The most common cause of maintenance headaches and catastrophic failures was the engine. Though the Wright R-3350 would later become a trustworthy workhorse in large piston-engined aircraft, early models were beset with dangerous reliability problems, many caused by demands that the B-29 be put in operation as soon as possible. It had an impressive power-to-weight ratio, but this came at a heavy cost to durability. Worse, the cowling Boeing designed for the engine was too close (out of a desire for improved aerodynamics), and the early cowl flaps caused problematic flutter and vibration when open in most of the flight envelope. The 18 radial cylinders, compactly arranged in front and rear rows, overheated because of insufficient flow of cooling air, which in turn caused exhaust valves to unseat."
"These weaknesses combined to make an engine that would overheat regularly at combat weights, particularly during climbs after takeoff. Unseated valves released fuel-air mixtures during engine combustion that acted as a blowtorch against the valve stems. When these burned through the engines disintegrated and caught fire. A fire that was not immediately contained in the forward part of the engine by fire extinguishers became impossible to put out. An accessory housing manufactured of magnesium alloy in the back of the engine would often catch fire and produce heat so intense it burned through the firewall to the main wing spar in no more than 90 seconds, resulting in catastrophic failure of the wing."
Thanks for clearing that up.
-
Exactly what do you think he cleared up?
The B-29 had engine fire problems, but they were much less prevalent than the He177's, which had as much as 2/3rds of a raid aborting due to engine failures in earlier versions. Granted, the He177A-5 seems to have gotten the engine fires under control, more or less, but it still didn't address the structural weaknesses of the aircraft, nor did it ever operate like an American or British heavy bomber.