Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: alpini13 on October 18, 2011, 09:54:24 AM
-
please add this aircraft,Junkers Ju 188
Specifications (Ju 188E)General characteristics
Crew: 5
Length: 15 m (49 ft 1 in)
Wingspan: 22 m (72 ft 2 in)
Height: 4.4 m (14 ft 7 in)
Wing area: 56 m² (603 ft²)
Empty weight: 9,900 kg (21,825 lb)
Loaded weight: 14,500 kg (31,967 lb)
Powerplant: 2 × 1 BMW 801 G-2, 1,700 PS (1,250 kW) each
Performance
Maximum speed: 499 km/h (310 mph)
Range: 2,190 km (1,360 mi combat)
Service ceiling: 9,500 m (31,170 ft)
Wing loading: 258.9 kg/m² (53.0 lb/ft²)
Power/mass: 0.175 kW/kg (0.106 hp/lb)
Armament
Guns: 1 × 20 mm MG 151/20 cannon
3 × 13 mm (.51 in) MG 131 machine gun
Bombs: 3,000 kg (6,612 lb)
-
moin
i agree would be a nice adition :-)
and its able to dogfight with that 2mm :-)
cu
-
well...over the current ju-88, the ju-188 is faster,has better defensive armaament,and a good bomb load.it was made in quantity,series production,used for years in combat and the axis need better bombers.
-
well...over the current ju-88, the ju-188 is faster,has better defensive armaament,and a good bomb load.it was made in quantity,series production,used for years in combat and the axis need better bombers.
Its also sexy.
-
Hey, it worked for the Mossie, it'll work for the Junkers! :aok
-
Hey, it worked for the Mossie, it'll work for the Junkers! :aok
Maybe I am being slow, but I don't follow you here.
-
Its also sexy.
There is nothing sexy about that hunk of metal.
-
Maybe I am being slow, but I don't follow you here.
Being sexy got the Mossie some HTC lovin'..... So being sexy could work for the 188, too!
-
Following that logic, why don't we have the Me210 and 410?
-
Following that logic, why don't we have the Me210 and 410?
For one, the Me-210 was a disaster, it was a complete and total failure with poor characteristic's that while it was in limited production,
it was phased out the second the Me-410 arrived, mainly because the 410 fixed all the problems the 210 had.
-
alpini's Ju188 stats are for the E model. The A model, which arrived later, had the intended engines and was faster, 325-330mph if I recall.
-
(http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/data/910/JU_188_by_Oxygino.jpg)
:aok
-
Being sexy got the Mossie some HTC lovin'..... So being sexy could work for the 188, too!
This may be the only time we see Krusty use the word "Sexy" to describe an aircraft.
+1 for the Ju188 and +1 for yet another "Krusty meter"
-
From a "want" standpoint, not a "best for the game" standpoint, the Ju188A-1 would be my choice for the next bomber to be added to AH. It would go straight to my "Favorites" list and stay there. One of my friends who tried Aces High for a couple months back in 2001 says he'd come back just to fly the Ju188.
-
moin
just want to say we need that baby :-).
and a remodeled ju88 with a lot more load out variants. would be realy nice .
cu christian
-
I still want it.
-
Agreed
-
Being sexy got the Mossie some HTC lovin'..... So being sexy could work for the 188, too!
We only campaigned for over a year to get the original mossie FM fixed and that was a major flaw with the FM. It was skipped over during two patches, which is why some of us started a long slow burning campaign to keep the mossie issue visible on the forums so HTC will not forget about it when they happen to have a meeting to arrange their ToDo list. This included tests posted in the bug section, several very long threads in the Wishlist section, mossie threads in the aircraft&vehicles section (I was posting a mossie pic every time one thread dropped out of the front page) and my "so you want to fly the wooden wonder" guide to the AH mossie which was actually a disguised long and elaborate rant about its modeling.
Then it was "fixed" in a way that made it completely anemic. Only months later it was completely redone both FM and 3D model, plus we got the pregnant bomber version. FINALLY! By then I was living in another country and away from the game, so it took me another two years till I could play AH with the sweat mossie we have now. Nearly 4 years in total for me since we started campaigning to get it fixed.
So much for sexiness. Real girls know that being sexy is not enough - they have to put out occasionally.
-
hi
nice story bozon,
so you are saying we should do the same with the 188? i will do if it will rice the posibility of implementing this bird. or remodeling the ju88.
if htc let me knew what he is needing for i will do my best to organice it here in germany.
cu christian
-
so you are saying we should do the same with the 188? i will do if it will rice the posibility of implementing this bird. or remodeling the ju88.
Asking for a new plane is different from asking to fix an obvious bug in a plane already in the game. When asking for a new plane you have to compete with all the other requests for new planes. I mean, with all due respect to the 188, if a poll comes up and I need to choose between Ju188, D.520, and a Beaufighter, the latter wins hands down.
HTC does not like being pressured. Nobody does. Therefore prepare for a long battle of awareness. This is what the D.520, Beaufighter and Boomerang lobbyists are doing. They have VERY long threads that keep getting bumped once in a while to keep their requests in the mind of HTC, so when they decide on the next models in the queue, your favorite will at least be considered and not overlooked. Our F6F is 15-20 mph too slow at its FTH. Can you imagine the commotion on the forums if a 190 was 5 mph too slow? We had plenty of data posted and debated on the F6F years ago, yet there is no ongoing campaign to fix it and it has not been fixed.
What would really help your case is if the current JU88 is scheduled for graphics update. HTC often adds another model when updating old ones. I don't remember how old is the Ju88 3D model. HTC are now busy with the new terrain engine, so new plane models are probably a low priority.
In the mean time, posting interesting stuff on your plane in the aircraft&vehicles forum cannot hurt your case and is always an interesting read and possibly an interesting discussion. Got good photos of 188s? Some juicy anecdotes? test documents? something to debate about them? post it little by little so a 188 thread will be active somewhere on the forum most of the time, for a long time... and hope for the best.
-
I don't remember how old is the Ju88 3D model.
Version 1.04 Released (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,14652.0.html)
The Ju88A-4 was added on September 8th of 2000 along with the Lancaster and the Ostwind. The Lancaster and Ostwind have been updated, though only relatively recently for the Lancaster.
-
Version 1.04 Released (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,14652.0.html)
The Ju88A-4 was added on September 8th of 2000 along with the Lancaster and the Ostwind. The Lancaster and Ostwind have been updated, though only relatively recently for the Lancaster.
That is actually good news in case someone wants to start a 188 and/or other 88 derivatives lobby.
-
hi
this would be one of the ju 88 option i would like to be added.
(http://img5.fotos-hochladen.net/uploads/bju88g1248acqm5sopg.jpg) (http://www.fotos-hochladen.net)
cu christian
-
:aok any new luftwaffe bombers from the 1942-44 are welcome
-
+1
-
So if I read correctly, the Ju188 carries the same ords (with options for larger external ord) as the Ju88 but is faster, climbs better, and has more capable defensive guns? Sounds good, however it appears that the range of the Ju188 is even LESS than that of the Ju88. Not good. The Ju88 already is handicapped thanks to barely having an hour in the air in the MA (with 2.0X burn rate).
-
Just like the later Ju 88 versions the ~1200l fuel tank in the forward bombbay was pretty much standard
-
Just like the later Ju 88 versions the ~1200l fuel tank in the forward bombbay was pretty much standard
Given the option on the He111 I would imagine the Ju88 will get that when it is remodeled and a prospective Ju188 would have it as well.
Perhaps the Mossie VI can get its long range fuel tank in the bomb bay option added as well.
-
moin
jes that was one of my ju88 wishes a long time ago, i wished the internal fuel adition for the inner bombay door. or just 2 900liter DTs.
that would made able to use the 88 more strategikaly. longest flight in a ju 88 i was able to made was about 400 miles but i need to use all tricks and was gliding home the last 2 sectors lol.
here is a other load out option
the "Waffenbehälter WB 81"
(http://img5.fotos-hochladen.net/uploads/junkerswbbgy0564rwl.jpg) (http://www.fotos-hochladen.net)
it was used singel with 3 outer bombs or in dobel with 2 outer bombs.
cu christian
-
Given the option on the He111 I would imagine the Ju88 will get that when it is remodeled and a prospective Ju188 would have it as well.
Perhaps the Mossie VI can get its long range fuel tank in the bomb bay option added as well.
I see the historical point of having the option available, but in AH I've not ever come across a bombing run in which I've needed the extra fuel. If I take the 6/500 lb bombs the Mossi climbs even faster and gets to the target that much faster, and if I take the cookie I usually add wing tanks depending on the alt I'm going to reach.
-
Perhaps the Mossie VI can get its long range fuel tank in the bomb bay option added as well.
I can count the number of time I loaded more than 50% fuel on the VI on the fingers of one hand. The VI gets 17 minutes per 25% at MIL power, so 100% is 68 minutes. That is without the small or the huge DTs available.
A more interesting option would be the 25lbs AP rockets in a two-pairs structure that allows a DT at the same time. The DT will still be an overkill, but the rockets allow another weapon type that leaves less drag than the fixed rails we have now. If the 25lbs AP rockets could also be modeled to travel underwater and puncture ship hulls below the water line for extra damage - now that would be something!
I see the historical point of having the option available, but in AH I've not ever come across a bombing run in which I've needed the extra fuel. If I take the 6/500 lb bombs the Mossi climbs even faster and gets to the target that much faster, and if I take the cookie I usually add wing tanks depending on the alt I'm going to reach.
The VI is the fighter-bomber version, not the unarmed bomber. It typically needs even less fuel than the bomber for its missions.
-
moin
mmh, why should i fly a 109 if a p51 is in game ;)
cu christian
-
I see the historical point of having the option available, but in AH I've not ever come across a bombing run in which I've needed the extra fuel. If I take the 6/500 lb bombs the Mossi climbs even faster and gets to the target that much faster, and if I take the cookie I usually add wing tanks depending on the alt I'm going to reach.
I don't know if there was a bomb bay tank available for the Mk XVI.
I can count the number of time I loaded more than 50% fuel on the VI on the fingers of one hand. The VI gets 17 minutes per 25% at MIL power, so 100% is 68 minutes. That is without the small or the huge DTs available.
A more interesting option would be the 25lbs AP rockets in a two-pairs structure that allows a DT at the same time. The DT will still be an overkill, but the rockets allow another weapon type that leaves less drag than the fixed rails we have now. If the 25lbs AP rockets could also be modeled to travel underwater and puncture ship hulls below the water line for extra damage - now that would be something!
The VI is the fighter-bomber version, not the unarmed bomber. It typically needs even less fuel than the bomber for its missions.
Options are good though and, occasionally, I decide to try to pull an extremely long ranged day ranger sortie. I have run the Mossie VI out of fuel on 100% with the large drop tanks.
-
In the VI you can load 100%+DT, put it on cruise setting, go watch the Hobbit move, come back and the old wooden girl will still be flying :)
-
In the VI you can load 100%+DT, put it on cruise setting, go watch the Hobbit move, come back and the old wooden girl will still be flying :)
Drop tanks leave speed draining shackles though.... :p
-
moin
here comes a view at the weapons load out of a ju88 a14. exspecialy the mounted gun in the nouse would be nice
(http://img5.fotos-hochladen.net/uploads/dsc04775ob63d9j2up.jpg) (http://www.fotos-hochladen.net)
this variant would be realy get an multitool in game i the game
cu christian
-
More versions of the Ju88 would be very nice. It was one of the most varied aircraft, perhaps even the most varied, of WWII. A single variant doesn't do it justice.
-
moin
here comes a view at the weapons load out of a ju88 a14. exspecialy the mounted gun in the nouse would be nice
(http://img5.fotos-hochladen.net/uploads/dsc04775ob63d9j2up.jpg) (http://www.fotos-hochladen.net)
this variant would be realy get an multitool in game i the game
cu christian
Did it carry bombs in addition to the guns, or is it a fighter version?
-
hi
it carrys to bombs beside the waffenbehälter.
i also saw drawings with 3 bombs and one waffen behälter.
cu christian
-
Doesn't need to be an A14. All A4s had an option for nose mounted MG FF/M. It just replaced the level bombing sight.
-C+
-
hi
thank you that means it would not need a new model, jus licke the b25 H and C.
i realy hope to get these optione one day.
cu christian
-
I think more ju88 variants is a very reasonable request, especially since the current 88 is still waiting for a graphics update.
We will need a BoB era 88 because the current one is a later model AFAIK.
Some model with fixed guns as posted above will be nice too.
Is there some definitive "ultimate" late war version to the 88/188/288?
-
There was no such gunpod on the Ju 88, also at this position at Minimum the outer gun has to fire through the prop arc.
Better use the twin MG FF installation in the forward gondola as used by night fighters. Usage should be possible with rear gunner in place although I'm not 100% sure on this.
-
hi
the waffenbehälter are real and were used. it is a real drawing made from troijka and the gun pot at this position will not have trobel with the propeler.
at the outside position yes but the inner worked.
cu christian
-
hi
its not much space you are right.
but the mount of the guns in the gun pood will get the needed space, maybe only some milimeters.
(http://img5.fotos-hochladen.net/uploads/dsc04815g3mq09rzcj.jpg) (http://www.fotos-hochladen.net)
and here some other interestening variants.
(http://img5.fotos-hochladen.net/uploads/dsc04811c0bxag13ku.jpg) (http://www.fotos-hochladen.net)
(http://img5.fotos-hochladen.net/uploads/dsc0481220tznqgim8.jpg) (http://www.fotos-hochladen.net)
(http://img5.fotos-hochladen.net/uploads/dsc0481417g8a5tr40.jpg) (http://www.fotos-hochladen.net)
cu christian
-
Your drawing made the impossibility of this gunpod clear as the prop goes through the mid of the inner wing station.
The four-gun image with the rounded glazed nose is of a Ju 188 (or Ju 88B).
The Z19 image is a prototype installation or unit hack.
I belive they could use the downward firing WB 81 gunpack on the inner station but only with the top gun removed (prop limits again), the full 3-gun WB 81 could be used at the outerwing station.
http://i588.photobucket.com/albums/ss321/CruverCollecter/Ju88FighterNeatPaintScheme-1.jpg
->Later-war Ju 88C with fake noze glazing and twin cannon in streamlined gondola. Most likely a day-fighter version used in France or Russia.
-
hi
the secret is the position of the guns in the pood.
(http://img5.fotos-hochladen.net/uploads/dsc04817vbfzxgpy86.jpg) (http://www.fotos-hochladen.net)
(http://img5.fotos-hochladen.net/uploads/dsc04818947mnidqot.jpg) (http://www.fotos-hochladen.net)
sure it will be not much space but it schould work, also i relativly sure that it were no big deal to use the magnetick control to stop the gun fireing if the probeler goes thrue the bulets way. Keep in minde that in the 88 are much hightech is implemented.
yes its a ju88 B.
cu christian
-
They never developed an interrupter mechanism for the Jumo 211 so impossible to use synchronized guns with these engines. It is therefore impossible to install any straight forward firing gunpods on carriers between fuselage and engine. They could be installed in the outer wing position only.
The WB 81B is downward firing, not straight as shown in your image.
-
moin
so you are saying these drawings are wrong?! Trojika is very famouse in technickal research thay have done alot of literatur in all technickaly aereas. so im sorry but i think i belive more the drawing of troijka as your opinion.
Also werd did you get the information that there is not interupt mechanism on the jumo 211. i think in the that time periode every technickaly crew member were able to desinge somthing easy like that, and of cores the enginerers of junkers would be implementing this easy. Exspezialiy if thay remodel a ju88 from a bomber to a destroyer. The jumo 213 did have this so why not the 211.
But how i tried out to explain, the position of the gun in the gun pood will put it in that place were the bullet dont get true the propeler. its not much but it must work. how ever with a interupt mechanism or with out.
Or show me that these drawings are wrong.
cu christian
-
moin
so you are saying these drawings are wrong?! Trojika is very famouse in technickal research thay have done alot of literatur in all technickaly aereas. so im sorry but i think i belive more the drawing of troijka as your opinion.
Also werd did you get the information that there is not interupt mechanism on the jumo 211. i think in the that time periode every technickaly crew member were able to desinge somthing easy like that, and of cores the enginerers of junkers would be implementing this easy. Exspezialiy if thay remodel a ju88 from a bomber to a destroyer. The jumo 213 did have this so why not the 211.
But how i tried out to explain, the position of the gun in the gun pood will put it in that place were the bullet dont get true the propeler. its not much but it must work. how ever with a interupt mechanism or with out.
Or show me that these drawings are wrong.
cu christian
I think he is saying the guns were angled downward for use in straffing while the aircraft flew low and level over the target. That they were not fixed forward for use as a fighter.
-
hi
ah, yes thats true.
this 2omm gun pod shows 2 diverent angels, for forwar fiering and strafing. i dont knew if that were ajustable in flight, i will will not wonder if
(http://img5.fotos-hochladen.net/uploads/dsc04821e0k7nfvpy6.jpg) (http://www.fotos-hochladen.net)
(http://img5.fotos-hochladen.net/uploads/dsc048200tc8kbz3dq.jpg) (http://www.fotos-hochladen.net)
cu christian