Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: oakranger on August 17, 2011, 08:58:26 PM
-
Can anybody tell me if Me-410 used diffrent props or was the props in the color photo cut short?
(http://i393.photobucket.com/albums/pp20/skbluestem/800px-D-Me410.jpg)
(http://i393.photobucket.com/albums/pp20/skbluestem/me410b2.jpg)
-
Could have been a prop tip mod made either in the factory or field. There are similar tip mods available for civil aircraft.
-
Could have been a prop tip mod made either in the factory or field. There are similar tip mods available for civil aircraft.
I;m guessing that one of the tips was damaged when they got the 410 ready for the museum it was easier to make them even then to source new blades
-
Me thinks Gup is right. There was a VSS prop with angled tips but it did not look like that.
-C+
-
Museums don't always get it right. Not many Me410s around. Supposing they were missing one or both props to begin with, most museums would stick a replacement on there.
So don't go by what you see in the museum, go by the photo you have. That is the standard blade type for the Me410 in every photo I've seen. Ignore the museum with regards to finer details. I've read that many people were absolutely convinced the Me109E had a gun firing through the prop because they looked down the nose of one in a museum and saw it. In reality this was never the case. The engine setup and vibrations caused the guns to jam and they were removed after the testing stage. However, a museum putting together a display won't mind putting it in there. It looks good, it captures the imagination, etc. I don't hold it against them or anything. You just can't take their setups as gospel.
-
Apparently they ran the engines up on this bird until about 1988.
Note here that there is a photo showing it with the full span blades. Also note that the sawing off of the tips is mentioned although no one seemed to know why, which points back to one of them being damaged and the rest evened out.
http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/AWA1/201-300/walk205_Me410/walk205.htm
-
What museum is this picture from and is that a Ki-45 in the background?
-
What museum is this picture from and is that a Ki-45 in the background?
I think thats a Ki.46 Dinah not a Ki.45, but I'd like to know the museum too.
-
RAF Cosford, part of RAF Museum
-
how is the me410 superior to the bf110?
-
how is the me410 superior to the bf110?
Offensive packages, a bit faster.
Wing loading was much higher though, so handling probably is worse.
-
Worse handling than the 110? I take back my vote. :D
-
Compared to what? A fully loaded, fully decked out 110g with max fuel performs a fraction as well as one with half gas and guns only.
A fully loaded 410 probably handles worse than a clean 110G in turn radius, but comparing clean to clean, the 410 had a lot more range and with standard package only so you could compare it with 25% to a 110G with 50% and save a lot of weight (making it perform better). I'd think it wasn't any worse than the 110G. Thought I don't know it was any better either. It was faster though. I don't know of any tests that tell the minimum turning radius and so forth but they must be out there somewhere.
-
The 410's wing loading was higher than the 110G, but less than the P-38L. It had better power loading than the 110G, but worse than the P-38L. I guess its turn radius would be somewhere between the 110 and P-38, probably closer to the 38.
-
Offensive packages, a bit faster.
Wing loading was much higher though, so handling probably is worse.
I don't mind the higher wingloading, I'm under the impression that a higher wingloading will make the plane less draggy and a better bnz plane....sounds like a 5 ENY plane!
-
I don't mind the higher wingloading, I'm under the impression that a higher wingloading will make the plane less draggy and a better bnz plane....sounds like a 5 ENY plane!
Not exactly. Higher wing-loading doesn't mean less draggy. That being said, if it has enough extra power, it could compensate.
-
(http://i393.photobucket.com/albums/pp20/skbluestem/DB_WF-Echterdingen2.jpg)
-
I don't mind the higher wingloading, I'm under the impression that a higher wingloading will make the plane less draggy and a better bnz plane....sounds like a 5 ENY plane!
5 ENY? I doubt it. We're talking about a heavy twin with performance substantially inferior to the P-38J, P-38L and Mosquito VI.
Per Oakranger's chart, sea level speed is 317mph, speed at 2000m is 349mph and speed at 6400m is 373mph. I don't know if that chart is WEP or MIL though.
-
5 ENY? I doubt it. We're talking about a heavy twin with performance substantially inferior to the P-38J, P-38L and Mosquito VI.
Per Oakranger's chart, sea level speed is 317mph, speed at 2000m is 349mph and speed at 6400m is 373mph. I don't know if that chart is WEP or MIL though.
I Was think 5 because the bf110G2, with his crazy ground attack capabilities, is ENY10. If you say the 410 is faster and has at least the same ord packages...
-
I Was think 5 because the bf110G2, with his crazy ground attack capabilities, is ENY10. If you say the 410 is faster and has at least the same ord packages...
I am not sure the Bf110G-2 should be ENY 10 anymore. It seems the days of the Bf110G-2 escorted/accompanied by N1K2-J's was dealt a heavy blow by the redesign of the town.
-
I am not sure the Bf110G-2 should be ENY 10 anymore. It seems the days of the Bf110G-2 escorted/accompanied by N1K2-J's was dealt a heavy blow by the redesign of the town.
Well I think the 110 is still a great town buster, I would have to test it but I'm pretty sure that 2 good 110's can still white flag the town.
-
I don't mind the higher wingloading, I'm under the impression that a higher wingloading will make the plane less draggy and a better bnz plane....sounds like a 5 ENY plane!
Indeed. Look at that nose and tell me whether you'd like it for a lead shot. It's not like using the force to aim past the Dora Jumo snout.
Does anyone know if the little "window" shown at the ventral side of that stub nose was a clear LOS for the pilot? I suspect it was but have never read anything about that piece of kit - though, e.g., the Stuka had a floor window, I'd assume for bomb-aiming, though I'm not sure how it helped since the larger bombs obscure it (perhaps when you're cutting loose from the wing hardpoints?). Anyway, the 410's window also looks like it'd help you with a look-down lead shot.
-
Top speed for the 410 was around 390. Some sources suggest with the belly 50kg shackles removed its "clean" speed was 395, some others suggest 388 (possibly slowed from the shackles?). Splitting the difference I'll round it to 390-ish. This would be a WEP setting, though I don't know if it was a 5-or-10-minute power setting or a 30-minute power setting. I don't know as much about the RPM and ata settings to recognize what is what we would call in AH a "WEP" setting.
Keep in mind the 410 had over 1000 km range of operations. Like our in-game Mossie, you wouldn't be flying it "topped off" in most situations. More times than not you'd be taking off with 25% I wager.
-
Given the period it was built in I would guess it would have 10 minutes of WEP like the other German aircraft of that time. From what I recall of, was it Wmaker's thread?, the deck speed on WEP was about 320mph. The one that was tested with calked seams did about 340mph on the deck.
Mossie had 1200 miles range on internal fuel and in AH you pretty much have to take 50% if it isn't going to be a one way trip. Even 25% + DTs pretty much means you aren't coming back unless you you keep the fighting to a very short duration. While taking 50% instead of 100% has a small effect on speed, it mostly helps in turning and accelerating/climbing.
-
I believe the speed chart above is for MIL. I think the 410's engines did 2,700 rpm on 1.4 ata for max output. (Bloody awful B4 fuel.)
The chart itself is from a Luft report on a DB-engined Spitfire - there's charts specific to the 410 elsewhere, but I've not compared them. I also believe there are engine-performance charts "out there" which might allow a comparison of available power at WEP / MIL, might help reverse-calculate the 410's WEP speeds.
-
Mossie had 1200 miles range on internal fuel and in AH you pretty much have to take 50% if it isn't going to be a one way trip. Even 25% + DTs pretty much means you aren't coming back unless you you keep the fighting to a very short duration.
I disagree there... It gains massive amounts by throttling back. Only happens as you describe if you burn WEP nonstop. I've taken it up enough times to know this much. Heck when you wing with Batfink you try things out. I've done an number of 8-kill sorties in the Mossie with 25%/DT
I usually die or run out of ammo before I ever run out of gas. It can fly for ages.
-
Karnak: My bad, I said over 1000 km, that's over 1000 miles.
-
Karnak: My bad, I said over 1000 km, that's over 1000 miles.
No, that's not right -
1 km is roughly .62 miles; therefore 1000 km is about 620 miles
-
Sorry Oboe, wasn't clear enough. I meant I made a mistake, originally saying over 1000km, but really the fact of the matter was it's 1000+ miles, not km.
-
Nice little vid... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zvkbIJWSRI It shows the glass nose detail, the bomb bay, the fence type dive brake, the rear aiming system, leading edge slats, flaps, etc... We need this little bad-ace.
-
"Higher wing-loading doesn't mean less draggy."
So what is the point of putting small wings on a plane then? Cost? ;)
-C+
-
"Higher wing-loading doesn't mean less draggy."
So what is the point of putting small wings on a plane then? Cost? ;)
-C+
He prefaced the statement. Consider a barn door with F-104 wings, then consider a streamlined fuse with larger wings. Clearly, you could make a draggier ac with a higher wingloading. Generally, this does not obtain. I think Stoney's only point was that the wing is only one part of the overall drag picture.
-
Ok, with that I agree or course. I thought that as wing-loading is calculated from wing-area to weight that would automatically mean that high wing-loading is caused by a small wing (or unnaturally great weight) and there is not really any sense to make a small wing except to counter parasitic drag, that is why the statement seemed a bit strange.
-C+
-
As an interesting note, I recently found this on LEMB (clipped):
"There are figures for just this given in Mankau/Petrick, near the end of the book.
BK5 listed as 15kph penalty, 2x 3x WG21 : 20 kph. Abwurfanlange Mittelflugel - 4 x SC 50 od. 4 x BL-Bomben : 25 kph. Both 2x300L and 2x900L drop tank configurations : 25 kph."
The follow up asked if he meant 2x 2x or if that's the experimental 2x 3x drag.
-
Ok, with that I agree or course. I thought that as wing-loading is calculated from wing-area to weight that would automatically mean that high wing-loading is caused by a small wing (or unnaturally great weight) and there is not really any sense to make a small wing except to counter parasitic drag, that is why the statement seemed a bit strange.
-C+
The original statement was that higher wing loading meant less drag. If, for example (all other things being equal), the wing area remains the same size, but the weight doubled, the drag coefficient would be the same (i.e. the plane is just as "draggy"), but the wingloading would be much higher. Without knowing what type of thrust/power the Me410 is capable of, we can't really make a comparison of how the higher wingloading will effect the plane, one way or the other. If the higher wingloading was a result of a smaller wing only, then we could potentially say "less draggy".