Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Megalodon on October 31, 2011, 09:11:45 PM
-
Me410A documents .pdf
https://viewer.zoho.com/docs/txv5j (https://viewer.zoho.com/docs/txv5j)
Good for 30 days,
:salute
-
I may have posted that same thing to photobucket, an image for each page.
http://s814.photobucket.com/albums/zz63/krustacious/Me410%20scans/#!cpZZ1QQtppZZ16 (few other images in there too, just some things used on this forum)
-
Nice to see that a non EU bird made it to the end and a pretty cool one but... we can have the yak-3 too mom??? pls pls pls pls pls pls :pray
-
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/twinscomparison.jpg)
The speed on the deck for the Me410 will probably be higher in AH than the one I listed on that table.
I'm almost positive the speed listed on the deck there for the Me 410 is at Steig- und Kampfleistung, = MIL power, not WEP. Not sure I've ever seen a WEP curve for the 410.
Also bear in mind that as a Zerstoerer, the 410's engines weren't rigged for maximum power down low (in contrast to the Merlin 25s on the Mosquito VI). The 410 develops its top speed at a much greater altitude than the Mossie VI, the better to intercept high-flying buffs.
Edit - Looking at the pdf docco posted above, the 410 does 366 mph at 21,000 feet at MIL power.
-
Scherf,
Did you convert that? all I saw was 590km at 5500m. I didnt convert it but I think it's close to what you posted. :aok
I take it thats at Mil and not a wep rating? my german is next to none. Did you see an ATA rating anywheres,it escaped me.
:salute
-
So, just out of curiousity... why would you ask for the 110s to be update with the 410? I replied the way I did because normally such requests accompany "similar" airfames, as moot mentioned the 152 and the 190s, or say updating the FM-2 when the F4F-4 gets redone.
In hindsight I see how you can mean other things, that at the time of replying I hadn't considered.
No worries. :aok I am well aware that the models are completely different, but I am hoping that they do decide to update them when the 410 get's added. I know they are low in the update list, but I was thinking, "Will we get a package deal?". Besides, with how good they are doing the new planes, I can only drool at how the 110's will look when they get around to them. :x My guess though, would be that the Lancaster and/or B-26 will be one of the next planes updated at the 410's arrival. Those two airframes are used quite a bit, so it's not all that outrageous.
Volron it's not like we know HTC's minds but common sense says there's not too good odds the 110 gets worked if 410's added. E.G. the 152 was left out of 190 updates. It might've been because of lack of time, but whatever the reason, you can see it's not exactly promising for that prospect.
Well you can't blame me for hoping, can you? :D
-
Scherf,
Did you convert that? all I saw was 590km at 5500m. I didnt convert it but I think it's close to what you posted. :aok
I take it thats at Mil and not a wep rating? my german is next to none. Did you see an ATA rating anywheres,it escaped me.
:salute
Heya Morph,
Yes, I did convert that. 590 km/h = 366 mph exactly, according to the web converter I used, I think I took the altitude to be 6,350m = 20,833 feet.
On page 9 of the docco, below the table which gives speed at alt and time to alt, there's the sentence "Die angegebenen Leistungen sind mit Kampfleistung (1,3 Ladedruck und 2,500 U/min) geflogen." Translates as: "The performance figures listed were flown with Military Power (1.3 [ata] boost and 2,500 rpm)."
On page 10, where the graphs are, there is a handwritten title on the right-hand side, running top to bottom. It reads "Flugleistungen mit Steig- u. Kampfleistung (n = 2500 U/min, 1,3 ata) bei verschied. Startgewicht". Translates as "Flight Performance at Climb and Combat Power (2,500 rpm, 1.3 ata) at various weights."
As described at the bottom of page 9, the weights are 11.3 tonnes (ie. 11,300 kg) and 9.5 tonnes. The former is the maximum permissible takeoff weight, and the latter is an average return-flight weight. That paragraph goes on to say that extermal bombs (4x50kg) knock around 10 km/h off the speeds, and that the figures were flown with the Me 410 A-1 and are valid for the A-1/U-2 U/4, A-2 and A-3, so long as they are not equipped with external tanks or air-to-air mortars.
-
I'm almost positive the speed listed on the deck there for the Me 410 is at Steig- und Kampfleistung, = MIL power, not WEP. Not sure I've ever seen a WEP curve for the 410.
It's that speed which I extrapolated from this doc for WEP:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/Me410.jpg)
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,299977.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,299977.0.html)
So yes, it's for WEP but since then I came across this very interesting chart on this BBS (don't remember who posted it):
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/th_DB_WF-Echterdingen2.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/?action=view¤t=DB_WF-Echterdingen2.jpg)
That gives 20km/h faster speed with Steig -und Kampfleistung than the previous doc. Extrapolating from that, I arrvied to a figure of ~329mph with WEP.
A quote from Moot from that 410-speed thread:
From Generalluftzeugmeister meeting notes, dated 6/15/43
"In the area of the Angriffsfuhrer England [Generalmajor Dietrich Peltz?], an Me 410 is said to have increased its speed by 40 kph [25 mph] through the use of filler paste, something which possibly indicates the potential of this measure, or the poor build quality."
I'm guessing that the Me410 in AH will do something between 329-340mph on the deck.
-
How did you extrapolate speed at WEP from a chart that's clearly labeled Steig und Kampfleistung (MIL)?
-
I believe that second chart first appeared in, of all things, the pdf evaluation report of the DB-engined captured Spitfire.
I take it Notleistung in the DB603 is 1.42 ata?
-
I believe that second chart first appeared in, of all things, the pdf evaluation report of the DB-engined captured Spitfire.
I take it Notleistung in the DB603 is 1.42 ata?
Edit - Meh, answered my own question, WMaker posted a DB603 power curve over on the other thread.
-
How did you extrapolate speed at WEP from a chart that's clearly labeled Steig und Kampfleistung (MIL)?
Using the data and the parameters of the aircraft and the equation below:
The basic speed equation for piston engined aircraft: V=((2*eta*P)/(rho*S*Cd))^(1/3)
Where:
eta = prop efficiency
P = power
rho = air density at given alt
S = wing wet area
Cd = Drag Coefficient
-
Maker, your linked picture shows that the 410 could reach 600km/h ~ 370mph at about 20k altitude while it did around 315-320 on the deck. Thats with the DB-603 engine, 1.3 ata.
Unfortunately im not sure whats the exact difference between the DB-603 and the 605, also i have no information about which ata settings it could reach.
If it could do 1.42 as wep, like the DB-605A, then the Me-410 would be faster than the 109 G-6 on the deck (according to your chart). That means, its faster that 335mph, maybe 337-340, whats fairly good.
A bit confused about the high-altitude performance. Looks like the speed curve is dropping compared to the DB-605 models, and tops out at a lower altitude. Its strange, couse i thought the DB-603's compressor was designed for a higher-altitude performance. If im right, the DB-605/AS was basically a DB-605A equipped with the 603's compressor, and it had the peak in the top speed at 27k. Possibly that was an other version of the DB-603.
Btw the engine performance looks competitive, even tho the climb rate would be a bit weak (like 2500 feet/min)
-
Thanks for the docs. :salute
-
Unfortunately im not sure whats the exact difference between the DB-603 and the 605, also i have no information about which ata settings it could reach.
One could roughly say that the DB603 is an enlarged DB601 depending on how one wants to look at it. DB605 was basically a bored 601 with more effective supercharger. While 605s displacement was 35,7 liters the DB603 had a displacement of 44,5 liters.
Here are the power curves for DB603:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/DB603A_powercurve.jpg)
So 1.4ata@2700rpm is the WEP-power setting.
If it could do 1.42 as wep, like the DB-605A, then the Me-410 would be faster than the 109 G-6 on the deck (according to your chart). That means, its faster that 335mph, maybe 337-340, whats fairly good.
Well like I said, based on the chart I posted which is dated 17.2.44, I got a figure of ~329mph with WEP (1.4ata@2700rpm).
A bit confused about the high-altitude performance. Looks like the speed curve is dropping compared to the DB-605 models, and tops out at a lower altitude. Its strange, couse i thought the DB-603's compressor was designed for a higher-altitude performance. If im right, the DB-605/AS was basically a DB-605A equipped with the 603's compressor, and it had the peak in the top speed at 27k. Possibly that was an other version of the DB-603.
In the DB603 the same supercharger is feeding a much bigger displacement than in the DB605. I'm sure that that largerly contributes to the lower FTH.
-
Thanks!
-
With all the variations, I am not even sure what seat the pilot sits in :headscratch: :aok Good stuff, kudos for those that are talented enough to figure it all out.
-
Soooooo.... Any official word whether HTC will put this in? :D
(http://i814.photobucket.com/albums/zz63/krustacious/Me410%20scans/BK5.jpg)
:pray
-
I'm sure this has been posted before. If not enjoy
I found it interesting watching all the movements and how the rear guns worked etc..
Film Document
http://wn.com/Messerschmitt_Me_410_Hornisse (http://wn.com/Messerschmitt_Me_410_Hornisse)
:salute
-
From LEMB, which doesn't let you in unless you have login for the forum, so I will post it here....
In a discussion regarding Me410 performance, and replying to a question about the impact of different loadouts:
"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 external MG151 pod isn't listed, and doesn't show up in Stocker/Petrick either, so it was possibly one of those field-mods. The pod itself looks like the one that some late Fw190A's used. Might be the very same type."
He says 2x 3 WGR21, so I don't know if he's confusing the 3x WGR15 test configuration, or if he means the 2x 2 configuration they really used. It would be easy enough to compare to Me110 drag. It should be identical to that, because it was 110 units that adopted it to the 410 from their old airframes.
Related note: Does anybody know what the records say for the Fw190A's underwing WB151 pod? How much drag does that add (as in how many MPH are lost)?
-
2x 3x WGr21 was in the factory options offered, but I've seen no pics and at least one reliable source says they were not used because too draggy. It's consistent everything else, e.g. removing factory-installed armor being the first thing many ground crews did when they got the planes.
-
The 4x WGR21 load on the 110G currently drains 19mph, according to icepac's in-game testing (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,318817.msg4157843.html#msg4157843) so why does it list there only a 20kph (12.5mph) loss from Mankau/Petrick? Was it a different angle of setup, reducing drag? Or just one of those quirks?
Just curious.
-
Aerodynamics are dynamic. For a given draggy item you lose this much speed at 250 mph and that much at 330. There's that and there could be all sorts of other parameters at play. And then this is a comparison between two airframes, and one of them a real one versus a virtual one.
-
Soooooo.... Any official word whether HTC will put this in? :D
(http://i814.photobucket.com/albums/zz63/krustacious/Me410%20scans/BK5.jpg)
:pray
I don't honestly see why not, although it may be for a price or later (and lower ENY) variant.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/Me_410_Hornisse_with_BK_5.jpg)
Is that a 50mm in that 410, or is he just happy to see that Yankee B-17?
-
Thanks for the docs. :salute
Where should we send any others we might happen to have?
-
Send them to me please. I can use whatever documentation you have. :aok
-
gotta have the 50mm pyro :D
-
"the BK-5 cannon with 21 rounds, to turn the aircraft into a dedicated bomber destroyer. The BK 5 cannon - derived from the Panzer III tank's main armament, the 50 mm (2 in) KwK 39 L/60 - allowed the Me 410s to shoot at their targets from over 914 m (1,000 yd), a distance at which the bombers' defensive armament was useless"
-
I hope the Me410 is modeled in the better range of performance levels that we've seen documented on this forum.
-
"the BK-5 cannon with 21 rounds, to turn the aircraft into a dedicated bomber destroyer. The BK 5 cannon - derived from the Panzer III tank's main armament, the 50 mm (2 in) KwK 39 L/60 - allowed the Me 410s to shoot at their targets from over 914 m (1,000 yd), a distance at which the bombers' defensive armament was useless"
That was Hitler's dream, and a nice theory... As you can see in the picture above, they did get quite close to deliver their shots. The guns also had a bad habit of jamming after 1 or 2 rounds, and the fight would be pressed on with just a light 2x20mm cannon loadout.
-
That was Hitler's dream, and a nice theory... As you can see in the picture above, they did get quite close to deliver their shots. The guns also had a bad habit of jamming after 1 or 2 rounds, and the fight would be pressed on with just a light 2x20mm cannon loadout.
but there is no gun jamming in the game... :D
-
From wiki...
"Intended for long-range shots, the cannon was given a telescopic sight in addition to the Me 410's standard Revi C12C gunsight."
Will we have this same telescopic sight in our 410 if they add the 50mm? I wouldn't think so seeing as we have zoom, but I figured I would ask anyways. :aok
-
Since no other planes have it, I'm going to guess the answer is "no, use the zoom"....
A telescoping optic was common on a number of planes in WW2.
-
Since no other planes have it, I'm going to guess the answer is "no, use the zoom"....
A telescoping optic was common on a number of planes in WW2.
did the scope on the d3a1 zoom at all?
-
A telescoping optic was common on a number of planes in WW2.
Really, or are you confusing it for an Aldis sight?
(http://christophe.arribat.pagesperso-orange.fr/stofki43-1.jpg)
This Ki-43 does not have a telescopic sight, but an Aldis sight. One of the earliest examples of collimated sights. First used during WWI. There was no magnification.
-
I know some had just basic tube-sights, but a number did have some kind of optic. I get the impression most were removed and standard sights were used. It was a tool that didn't work well due to vibrations and other things that made it hard to use.
Ever look through a telescope that's not on a good mount? Trying to pick out some detail on something is hard if it's not a perfectly steady view. I imagine that's why it was pretty useless on fighter planes.
-
Really, or are you confusing it for an Aldis sight?
Nope its a telescoping sight, seen here with the bk5. there are many pictures of them.
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/me410bk5andtelescope-1.jpg)
Mk-103's
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/me410bk10330mmandtelescope.jpg)
-
Hmm....ideas of synchronized gun fire for a screenshot popping into my head. :)
-
Something which Superfly/Waffle would certainly appriciate is very accurate and detailed line-drawings of the plane with cross sectionals.
-
Nope its a telescoping sight, seen here with the bk5. there are many pictures of them.
I know the 410 had a "sniper scope" for the BK-5. I was adressing Krusty's claim that "A telescoping optic was common on a number of planes in WW2."
The Aldis sight is an optical sight, just no magnification. It was the precursor to the reflector sight commonly used in WWII.
(http://storage.mfa.free.fr/gallery/Se5/aldis2.jpg)
(http://storage.mfa.free.fr/gallery/Se5/aldis4.jpg)
-
The Aldis worked just like a modern "red dot sight" except it used engraved circles on the glass itself rather than a laser reflector.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6GyglxFRpQ
Just like the red dot sight led to the "holographic sight", the Aldis led to the reflector sight.
-
I know the 410 had a "sniper scope" for the BK-5. I was adressing Krusty's claim that "A telescoping optic was common on a number of planes in WW2."
The Aldis sight is an optical sight, just no magnification. It was the precursor to the reflector sight commonly used in WWII.
(http://storage.mfa.free.fr/gallery/Se5/aldis2.jpg)
(http://storage.mfa.free.fr/gallery/Se5/aldis4.jpg)
It was more common in ww1 planes :)
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,282953.msg3578621.html#msg3578621 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,282953.msg3578621.html#msg3578621)
-
Yes, but it was still used in the '30s and even into the early years of the war. Like on the Ki-43 I posted above. The 410 is the only aircraft I know of that used a telescopic sight during the war.
-
The 410 is the only aircraft I know of that used a telescopic sight during the war.
I've seen field mods where 109s had different kind of telescopic sights. One even had the sight used by the Me410. But yes, they indeed were rare.
(http://www.luftarchiv.de/bordgerate/ziel4.jpg)
(http://www.luftarchiv.de/bordgerate/zfr.jpg)
Into the Me410 it could be modelled as bomb/tank sight selected by the main board's number keys. Doubt that it'll happen but that's how it could be implemented using existing game feature.
-
Something which Superfly/Waffle would certainly appriciate is very accurate and detailed line-drawings of the plane with cross sectionals.
I have some scans I can upload later today that may help get the proper shape of the plane for 3D modeling. I believe they have cross-sections like you suggest.
-
(http://www.asisbiz.com/il2/Me-410/Messerschmitt-Me-410/images/0-Me-410A3-Hornisse-1-72-scale-Line-drawing-01.jpg)
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/me410illus-1.jpg)
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/me410illus-5.jpg)
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/me410illus-2.jpg)
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/me410illus-3.jpg)
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/me410illus-6.jpg)
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/me410illus-4.jpg)
These?
-
Nice. I have those as well. I was thinking of this one that you just put up:
http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/me410illus-4.jpg
as well as another I think I have with more cross sections.
-
I got these from a website as a source of info for building models. They are clearly scans from a book but I never knew which book. At least credit for the drawings is listed on the pages.
THESE ARE BIG! I left them big to avoid quality loss on resizing them down
Things to note: The bomb door pivot points show how the bomb doors rotate inward.
Specific angles of the radio mast, landing gear, engine angles. Note in the cross-section profiles how the wing trailing edge forms a fillet against the fuselage. Note size and placement of leading edge slots. Note droop of oil cooler flaps.
[/IMG](http://www.nakatomitower.com/410refs/ME410-1.gif) (http://www.nakatomitower.com/410refs/ME410-1.gif)
(http://www.nakatomitower.com/410refs/ME410-2.gif) (http://www.nakatomitower.com/410refs/ME410-2.gif)
(http://www.nakatomitower.com/410refs/ME410-3.gif) (http://www.nakatomitower.com/410refs/ME410-3.gif)
(http://www.nakatomitower.com/410refs/ME410-4.gif) (http://www.nakatomitower.com/410refs/ME410-4.gif)
(I hope this works, sorry for anybody on dial-up, altogether it's 325kb for the 4 pictures)
EDIT: The forums are down-sizing them. They're really about 1500x2000 or so. I made them links to the full size pictures. Bring them up in new windows for full size. Click on each image as if it were a thumbnail.
-
she is a pretty one!!
-
With all this info, I now drool at what she'll look like when she gets added. :x Well, I'm drooling more than I was before.... :lol
-
On the 3rd diagram, i see dive brake listed, is this similar to the P47D40 or more like JU88 or JU87?
-
Totally different from any you've seen before, no doubt.
See here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zvkbIJWSRI&feature=player_detailpage#t=212s
-
Looks like with that style dive brakes, trim won't be affected too much when deployed
-
Send them to me please. I can use whatever documentation you have. :aok
Empty ah say empty yo' email inbox, son, it appears ta be full.
(grins)
-
Did some emails bounce?
-
I'm wondering about the damage model here:
(http://www.nakatomitower.com/410refs/ME410-4.gif)
See the domed cover of the wing spar joint? Outboard of the engine. Hypothetically if you lost a wing tip due to damage, that's where it'd break off (similar in P-38 also, it breaks outboard of the engines).
However, the underwing radiator is outboard of this point! Hypothetically, if you lost your wingtip, would it also mean instant loss of radiator on that wing, even if the radiator was never shot up?
It would make RTBing with missing wingtips very hard! Interesting, but hard!
Thoughts?
-
Did some emails bounce?
One did, yes.
Will try it again.
-
I'm wondering about the damage model here:
(http://www.nakatomitower.com/410refs/ME410-4.gif)
See the domed cover of the wing spar joint? Outboard of the engine. Hypothetically if you lost a wing tip due to damage, that's where it'd break off (similar in P-38 also, it breaks outboard of the engines).
However, the underwing radiator is outboard of this point! Hypothetically, if you lost your wingtip, would it also mean instant loss of radiator on that wing, even if the radiator was never shot up?
It would make RTBing with missing wingtips very hard! Interesting, but hard!
Thoughts?
Around 71 looks looks to be the point after the main spar.
Especially since we know HTC doesn't model 2 rads.
-
Around 71 looks looks to be the point after the main spar.
Especially since we know HTC doesn't model 2 rads.
Say whut?
-
The area of the wing near annotation # 71
Just below caption "Traversing angle of remotely controlled guns .. "
-
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/me410chart-1.jpg)
-
Scherf you sent Pyro the whole digital enchilada we've accumulated on the 410, right? So I don't end up sending him stuff he's already got.
-
Remember, that 388mph is with bomb racks, the clean speed is well known to be around 395 or so! :salute
-
I've sent Pyro a good deal of the German doccos which I can find, bit by bit. I haven:t been able to send some of the other ref materials yet, family duties. I mentioned to Pyro I reckoned there'd be doubling up on some of the stuff he was getting, I guess he can dispose of anything he gets twice.
-
Remember, that 388mph is with bomb racks, the clean speed is well known to be around 395 or so! :salute
The speed curves posted earlier are for a clean wing. Would love to see a speed curve or indeed any original doccos for Notleistung, especially if it specifies racks/clean.
-
Remember, that 388mph is with bomb racks, the clean speed is well known to be around 395 or so! :salute
The 410 has a bomb bay. Is it sure it carries external bomb racks?
WMaker posted a chart on the 1st page, that shows, the 410 had a top speed of 320mph on the deck and 600kmph ~ 368mph at altitude, at 1.3 ata.
Following this logic, if cleaned out, 1.4 ata, it had a top speed of 395 at alt, then it should have (transferring the difference, 27mph), 320+27 = 347mph on the deck? Are you sure?
Still, if it could do 388 at alt, then on the deck it should do 338, whats fairly good, just between the g6 and the g2, close to the p38J/L and the D-jugs. According to the same chart, it could do 565+20=585kmph at 6k, whats like 357mph. Fairly decent.
One more thing.
Look the chart of the 109s, on the same picture
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/DB_WF-Echterdingen2.jpg)
In the characteristics, that curve isnt even simmilar to out 109s.
-
The 410 has a bomb bay. Is it sure it carries external bomb racks?
The bomb racks were ordered fairly soon to be removed on all 410s that weren't designated bombers. There was some lag in execution of the order, but I don't remember the exact chronology.
-
The bomb racks were ordered fairly soon to be removed on all 410s that weren't designated bombers. There was some lag in execution of the order, but I don't remember the exact chronology.
Thats a logical step. Still, i would ike to see a couple loadout variations, that bomb bay was highly flexible.
Btw we used the 210 Cas both as heavy divebombers, mostly to weaken the soviet supply lines, and also used 210s as night fighters/bomber destroyers.
-
The bomb racks were ordered fairly soon to be removed on all 410s that weren't designated bombers. There was some lag in execution of the order, but I don't remember the exact chronology.
Thats a logical step. Still, i would ike to see a couple loadout variations, that bomb bay was highly flexible.
Btw we used the 210 Cas both as heavy divebombers, mostly to weaken the soviet supply lines, and also used 210s as night fighters/bomber destroyers.
I would like to see them modeled like they are on the Mosquito. The racks would only be mounted if you took bombs, rockets or tanks. That way you can get a completely clean Me410 for fighter ops, taking internal bombs if you like, or have a dirtied up Me410 if you are moving mud or swatting cockroaches.
-
The 410 has a bomb bay. Is it sure it carries external bomb racks?
WMaker posted a chart on the 1st page, that shows, the 410 had a top speed of 320mph on the deck and 600kmph ~ 368mph at altitude, at 1.3 ata.
Following this logic, if cleaned out, 1.4 ata, it had a top speed of 395 at alt, then it should have (transferring the difference, 27mph), 320+27 = 347mph on the deck? Are you sure?
Still, if it could do 388 at alt, then on the deck it should do 338, whats fairly good, just between the g6 and the g2, close to the p38J/L and the D-jugs. According to the same chart, it could do 565+20=585kmph at 6k, whats like 357mph. Fairly decent.
One more thing.
Look the chart of the 109s, on the same picture
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/DB_WF-Echterdingen2.jpg)
In the characteristics, that curve isnt even simmilar to out 109s.
You're right! In these charts, the 109g6 gains much more speed with less gains in altitude than it does in game ! :noid :noid
-
One thing worth figuring out is what pieces of armor the crews removed on delivery. In the Luftwaffe brass meeting notes you have them noting that it's the first thing ground crews do when they get the planes. That "this redundant work needs to stop."
Also in another meeting it's noted that the 410 "outflew" the 190 in all respects in a fly off they had. No details given, so that's one thing to dig up maybe by getting our hands on a copy of these meeting notes.
And a minor thing on the 410's flight/FM character: it's also said that experienced pilots have no trouble dealing with the plane's quirks, only newer pilots.
-
You're right! In these charts, the 109g6 gains much more speed with less gains in altitude than it does in game ! :noid :noid
That is a Bf109G-6/AS, which has an AS engine for much better performance at altitude. We have a Bf109G-6 with a normal DB605.
It would be nice to have the Bf109G-6/AS or Bf109G-14/AS, but we need the Bf109G-6 we have as well.
-
Shemp, was just drawing a very simple line to the same chart:
(http://i1134.photobucket.com/albums/m601/Debrody/DB_WF-Echterdingen2.jpg)
The red line shows our actual G-6 (more or less accurately). Look the curve: it misses that step what the original one has, around 3-5km (9-15K). All the 109s has it.
Why is that? Almost looks like it has 2-staged supercharger, while i heard that the DB-6xx series had an one-staged, large supercharger.
Also what the heck is the me 109 hv1? Slow as hell, and "ohne waffen", unarmed.
Moot, the 410 wont be as a bad turner, based on its wingloading: its less that the 190, also has large flaps. The climb rate will be the real pain, not the turn ability.
-
Moot, the 410 wont be as a bad turner, based on its wingloading: its less that the 190, also has large flaps. The climb rate will be the real pain, not the turn ability.
Wing loading less than the 190 is not a ringing endorsement of its turning ability. The Mosquito's wing loading is significantly lower than the Me410's and it doesn't turn very well. The flaps are just basic flaps, so I don't think much help will be had from them, but those slats looked larger than normal.
-
Debrody look at those "vulgar" excel tables I made for the 410's different loadouts. Those figures are about like the 190A8's as soon as you take more than minimum equipment.
HV1 sounds like Versucht (prototype) #1 for H-model.
-
Wing loading less than the 190 is not a ringing endorsement of its turning ability. The Mosquito's wing loading is significantly lower than the Me410's and it doesn't turn very well. The flaps are just basic flaps, so I don't think much help will be had from them, but those slats looked larger than normal.
Yup, the Mossie cant turn as well, but still enough to easily kill ponies, jugs and have fun against 38s, jaks. Im not saying the 410s should change the world, dont let me wrong plz! Just wanna tell, it should be able to be at least semi-competitive against the BnZ part of the planeset in a knife-fight. I cant tell you exact data, i have never been flying this, im just making comprasions between this one and the ones what are already modelled. Its just pure speculation, trying my lil brain and the short physics knowledge i got.
True, i wasnt counting in the extra guns. My bad, im sorry.
Anyway, im a masochist, i like to turn my ride against spixes : ) if once we get this one, i wont be afraid to take it to the limit ;)
-
Scherf you sent Pyro the whole digital enchilada we've accumulated on the 410, right? So I don't end up sending him stuff he's already got.
Trying to send the enchilada mate, however the email pipe is narrow at either end, trying to upload to a webspace. Are you able to send a CD Pyro's way? I can't even upload some of the files to the web space - I keep getting helpful messages that there's an error with the file.
-
Lemme check something out.
-
Totally different from any you've seen before, no doubt.
See here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zvkbIJWSRI&feature=player_detailpage#t=212s
Looks a lot like the SBD's dive brakes, except bars instead of panels.
-
How much difference is there between the BK 5 and the 5 cm KwK 39? Other than the modifications to make it mountable in the Me-410.
-
Shemp, was just drawing a very simple line to the same chart:
(http://i1134.photobucket.com/albums/m601/Debrody/DB_WF-Echterdingen2.jpg)
The red line shows our actual G-6 (more or less accurately). Look the curve: it misses that step what the original one has, around 3-5km (9-15K). All the 109s has it.
Why is that? Almost looks like it has 2-staged supercharger, while i heard that the DB-6xx series had an one-staged, large supercharger.
Also what the heck is the me 109 hv1? Slow as hell, and "ohne waffen", unarmed.
Moot, the 410 wont be as a bad turner, based on its wingloading: its less that the 190, also has large flaps. The climb rate will be the real pain, not the turn ability.
I was under the impression the 410 climbed better than a 110. Also, The large wing area of the 410 and the shape, besides the fact that it's wingloading is less than A8, will probably help its turn ability.
Look at the Spit 14, terrible wingloading compared to our other spits, but turns as well as a 109g2. (at least) Moot brings up a great point as well, if the ground crew removed armor immediately, the weight will be significantly less than factory specs!
Lets not forget about this, as it should make quite a diff. in wingloading and performance (prime example is our armor-stripped, lightweight Finn Brewster) :O
-
When making comparisons between Mossie and ME410 regarding their turning ability keep in mind that Mossie has a 13% thickness ratio wing and 410 has 18% thickness ratio which also explains some of its higher drag, but 410 also tolerates more AoA and the slats help it further. So in short a Mossie is able to fly a circle at faster speed but 410 can pull lots of angles for a snap shot (and bleed E like a pig in the process...).
With enough E I'd say they could be initially quite even in turning ability but in sustained turn the Mossie retains E better, i.e. not much different from 109/Spit case.
-C+
-
STEELE,
You sure about that? The Spitfire Mk XIV is a mediocre turner. I think it slightly out turns the Bf109K-4 and Bf109G-14, but not other Bf109s.
-
In a sustained turn, the spit14 is way above average, its huge engine pulls it around quick. Definiately gets any 109.
In a scissors, its a fail: large turn radius, medicore stall speed, very poor stability and stall behaviour. Even a k4 outscissors it.
Since i consider the long sustained turn as a homie move, i choose the K-4
:aok
-
STEELE,
You sure about that? The Spitfire Mk XIV is a mediocre turner. I think it slightly out turns the Bf109K-4 and Bf109G-14, but not other Bf109s.
according to MOSQ sustain turn radius tests
turn rate: 109G2 20 deg/s, Spit 14 22.5
turn radius: 109G2 636.1 feet vs Spit 14 628.6 feet
at full flaps G-2 is marginally better in both-
-
Debrody: From the previous page we were talking about the bomb racks. This is just an addition to that discussion:
(http://luftwaffefighters.co.uk/410/me410-4.jpg)
When the role turned towards heavy fighter, they were removed as Moot said. When they needed to drop bombs, like the night raids on UK or against VVS ground forces, you might find them with racks.
-
Might provide a bit of insight about the wing. This is some sort of stall/flutter test on the 210 (note the cranked outboard leading edge?).
Also note the position and gap near the flaps, for visual cue on modeling the 410 in AH. I know this is the 210 but the look should be similar near the flap seam.
(http://www.nakatomitower.com/410refs/210_wing_stall_test.jpg)
EDIT: You can see part of the wheel so the gear must be down. Not sure it makes a difference, but interesting to note.
-
Now it made me curious.
Heard the 210 suffered from real bad stability and flight characteristics problems, which were "mostly" solved on the 410.
Anyone has some info what are the exact changes between the two airframes?
ty
-
The 210 did not have leading edge slats. The tail was too short, so it had some yaw instability with regards to spins. However many of the bad traits were due to faulty landing gear design, bad brakes, and such. It had many problems crashing during landing when the brakes simply failed to stop the plane like they should, or the gear itself just collapsed for no reason.
Messerschmitt was rebuked over these failings. Such a basic principle, but so poorly executed.
In regards to the fixes:
The engines were longer, the nacelles also longer, and this changed the balance of the plane as well as the center of gravity (guessing on that). The leading edges were changed to have slats. The tail was lengthened. The increased horsepower helped the handling (or so I have read) at slow speeds near the stall.
All of these changes were implemented into the 210 production models. It was really the first batch which was "bad" (and even then pilots still wanted it). The only difference that I can see the 410 added which the 210 did not already include is the straight leading edge of the outboard wings (the 210 had a kinked wing, the 410 did not). [edit: and of course the engine nacelles were shorter on the 210A, 210C, 210Ca models]
-
Similar testing being done on the twin-tailed prototype (note the canopy is different from the previous pic)
(http://www.nakatomitower.com/410refs/210_wing_stall_test2_resized.jpg)
-
The wing was redesigned with new outer sections and a different radiator flap setup.
(http://www.luftarchiv.de/flugzeuge/messerschmitt/me210_drei.gif)
210 on top, 410 below.
-
That twin-tailed prototype also has split flaps, unlike the production model.
-
Thank you, never guessed thees two planes were as much different.
<S>
-
That twin-tailed prototype also has split flaps, unlike the production model.
Not surprising, given how early it was built. I noticed that in my photo as well but forgot to note in my caption. You can see the radiator flap top edge doesn't droop either. It must not have been very good for lift!
-
"You can see the radiator flap top edge doesn't droop either. It must not have been very good for lift!"
What do you mean?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=VKipM2CF2Cc#t=293s
-C+
-
Charge, we're talking about the twin-tail original prototype. It has split flaps and the upper edge doesn't drop as the oil cooler opens. See the picture in the previous page (with the air flow yarn taped to the wing).
-
Those are the engine coolant radiators not the oil coolers. The oil coolers are the small air scoops located underneath the engines.
-
Those are the engine coolant radiators not the oil coolers. The oil coolers are the small air scoops located underneath the engines.
Correct. Simply used in haste without really thinking which cooler it was.
-
"It has split flaps and the upper edge doesn't drop as the oil cooler opens. See the picture in the previous page (with the air flow yarn taped to the wing)."
Indeed, sorry didn't notice that. That looks like an interesting arrangement, however, I suspect that while there is a small "spoiler" above the flap in original 210 arrangement the warm air flow from radiator over the landing flap should compensate pretty much all the lost flow caused by that small upper flap. Or maybe it didn't since they changed it in 410... Other reason could be that more powerful engine simply required more cooling flow which the original arrangement failed to deliver.
-C+
-
In youtube video footage of the me410 lowering its flaps, the gap between wing and flap actually looks smaller, and doesn't present itself until full flaps. At other stages the curve of the flap hugs the wing rather tightly.
Just noticed that the other day.
-
I am curious to how they will model the tail guns on it.... :headscratch:
-
Just like a turret that controls multiple guns. B-17s and B-29s already do this. The only question is will they work it so it's 1 station or do you jump left/right as if there are 2 stations? (like upper rear deck Ju88 gunners, is what I mean)
-
That was what I was thinking. But how will the view work when firing down and to the R or L if it just one station? Or do you think they will model in 2 stations to deal with this? I have no clue what the view is like from the gunner's station on a 410. The couple of videos I pulled up (youtube) don't have the camera where his head would be when it came to using them. Maybe someone can get down to the RAF Museum or the NASM and hop in with a video camera? :) Though something tells me they wouldn't let that happen, IF the turrets are even functional.
-
Well as you can see here:
(http://www.nakatomitower.com/410refs/210_wing_stall_test.jpg)
...the canopy extends out left and right in "wings" near the gunner station. And if you look here:
(http://www.snyderstreasures.com/eBay/Images/2006/110906/PhotoMe410GunMount.jpg)
You can see the gunner's station. Ignore the pistol grip, it appears it's folded when not in use. Note the gunsights in each "wing" so that as you tilt the guns down you can still look down past the fuselage. [EDIT: I don't know what field of view you'd get, but the intent for the 410 was to be able to fire below the tail] The outer sights are also inverted to avoid getting in the way when looking down. When firing up you can use the central sight.
I proposed one idea to HTC regarding this. Make it 1 gun stations but with 3 gunsights. You can only see the gunsight when centered on it, so the default head position is where you'd start. Then you slide your head left or right until that gunsight is now your new aiming reference. Because of the reflector nature, as long as you see it on the glass that's where you are aimed.
It was just one idea. I wouldn't mind a left/right setup if that's what they give us. I hope they come up with a more interesting way, though.
-
What about not sliding but rather "toggling" the view. E.g. if you enter the gunner position your view is through center reticle and if you press either of the other position buttons your view moves to that position but stays there only if you keep pressing that button.
The other way would be to put the buttons as normal position buttons as we have now, e.g. 2=left, 3=center,4=right (1 is for pilot).
Of course there is still the option of making it fully automatic so that when the guns are lowered below the center line the sight view moves to that side to which the guns happen to be more aligned and once you turn the guns over the center line the sight view moves to that side which gun that has free movement arc and vice versa.
-C+
-
or just leave that damn tailgun :aok
-
I suppose there are a couple of ways to do it like you suggest.
And mind you these are just my musings....
HTC could model it so that your default head position for the "view-forward-left" snaps you over to the left side gunsight. They could map the default "view-forward-right" to snap you over to the right side.
Or they could get complex, and say "If level or above the horizon, stay in center gunsight, but if below the horizon, jump to the gunsight in the direction guns are pointing" (i.e. if you're pointed out left a little -- if you're dead astern it could just default to left always or right always).
I'm not sure I like the second idea... I think it's interesting but I'd want more control. I wouldn't want it to change my gun view right at a moment that got me killed. I'd rather get killed because I'm a poor shot!
-
The 1st idea sounds reasonable. :aok Must say it sounds better than the 2nd one. :) The one possible issue that I have with it is that I would have to keep it pressed down to continue looking while gunning? Setting up 3 stations for it may be what they end up doing... While a little complex-ish, one could get use to it. 1 Pilot, 2 L sight, 3 C sight, 4 R sight.
1
4 2
3
EXTREMELY crude diagram, but it should get my point across.
-
I would like the option to remove the defensive armament altogether like it was done on many day-destroyers. They stripped off most of the armor too (it was factory armored against ground fire as a dive bomber). Perhaps we could get a lightened "hot rod" version like they did for the P-40. Option to have GM-1 installed in place of the guns would be very nice too for high-alt performance.
-
You need to show the exact documentation. It couldn't be modeled by guesswork.
-
I'll leave that to Pyro and Co.
-
:noid
-
I'll leave that to Pyro and Co.
Pretty sure they can always use a hand.
Which reminds me, I need to finish that skydrive page.
-
I would like the option to remove the defensive armament altogether like it was done on many day-destroyers. They stripped off most of the armor too (it was factory armored against ground fire as a dive bomber). Perhaps we could get a lightened "hot rod" version like they did for the P-40. Option to have GM-1 installed in place of the guns would be very nice too for high-alt performance.
Moot can post some numbers, but it was only done on a handful of machines... Only one unit I believe had them. From memory I think Moot threw out "40" converted, but no idea how many actually flew in combat this way. If memory serves it was a last-ditch thing done late in the service life not long before production was cancelled completely.
-
It wasn't last ditch. Like I said before it was from the General der flieger or whatever the exact name was, Adolf Galland, at first on his own and later with consensus of whole top Luftwaffe brass, that campaigned and finally got it, going so far as to bounce the idea off Hitler to accelerate production. This conversion is as last ditch as anything in that period - BK5 and MK103 e.g.
It'd be like saying BK5 or MK103 were last ditch because, for some totally off-chance reason in an alternative universe that made that other reality barely different from WWII as we know it, BK5/MK103 never made it to production beyond something like 50 units before 410 production wound down.
I don't have any numbers yet that could help Pyro. For anyone else curious in general non-modeling terms I can say it changes power/weight and weight/wing-area figures up to P-38 level instead of barely different (P/W) or worse (W/A) from the 110G.
Top level speed would probably not change, but Powerloading goes up to P38 and P47M level and Wingloading goes to MossieVI/Me110/A20/Ta152/47N level. These are all measured with fuel/ammo for 20min and about 10 kills worth (incl spare ammo for stray bullets IE more 50cal rounds to waste than 30mm's).
-
Just noticed that on this famous photo the barbettes looks to have been removed.
(http://www.lonesentry.com/panzer/may/pics/messerschmitt-me-410.jpg)
-
No, I reckon that's one right there immediately outside the left wing's shadow on the left side of the forward tail fuselage.
(http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/8030/barbieh.jpg)
a is gondola, b is gun barrel
-
Sorry Moot, "last ditch" was my own description of it, given the benefit of hindsight you can see it was towards the end of 410 development. They wouldn't have described it this way at the time, but I can now (looking back). I didn't mean anything by it.
A famous photo of a no barbettes me410 is "Yellow 7":
(http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/attachments/military-aviation/5451d1158305077-sexiest-ever-planes-me_410-a1.jpg)
There are better angles showing it, but that's all I can find right now.
-
Sorry Moot, "last ditch" was my own description of it, given the benefit of hindsight you can see it was towards the end of 410 development. They wouldn't have described it this way at the time, but I can now (looking back). I didn't mean anything by it.
A famous photo of a no barbettes me410 is "Yellow 7":
(http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/attachments/military-aviation/5451d1158305077-sexiest-ever-planes-me_410-a1.jpg)
There are better angles showing it, but that's all I can find right now.
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/me410wh7.jpg)
-
Niiiiice... I want!
-
I say give it the option to have them removed, i would have the .30 and .50 removed from the A20G if i could do so. =]
-
It's not that simple. It's a rather big modification. Look at Yellow 7 in that last pic. They reshaped the rear canopy and the fuselage joining point as well. The rear seat, the rear guns, the rear motor for the guns, etc.... It's a big change. they didn't just chuck the gun and leave the plane intact.
If HTC adds it as an option, it would be interesting (I agree!), but I wouldn't really hold my breath because of the small numbers and limited service this configuration saw.
When you think of B-17F, you think "no chin gun" -- even though some late -Fs had it.
When you think of P-40N you think of the cut-down rear deck -- even though the early models looked like normal P-40s.
When you think of 110s you think of a plane with a rear gunner -- and IMO that's kind of how I think of the 410.
-
The problem isn't number produced & used but how to model it. HTC needs enough data to model it accurately rather than just guessing at it. Even if we know what was removed, what was added (GM1, ballast etc) can't be unknown.
-
That's a good point. Was it primarily to save weight or to save weight because something else was added?
Were these planes usually loaded with a light gun loadout?
-
Also would be nice know whats the operation history for those modifyed planes. Simply a heavy fighter, night bomber-killer, close-support destroyer, recon, or (it isnt possible tho) a schnell-bomber? Getting curious.
-
2x 151 and 2x 103 was IIRC the most common if not only gun config mentioned for the single seater.
Ballast was added for balance but overall the weight loss is something like 1800 kg. GM1 was supposed to be added, but we'd need something more concrete than enthusiasts/historians' books as evidence.
Off the top of my head, the sorties were mostly if not only destroyer. One of the best pilots in the squadron died picking a fight with P-38s after a few kills. IIRC those P-38 kills were logged during the period the squadron used single seaters.
-
Since the data has been pretty much covered I want to add a few notes to help inform whoever at HTC is building the 3D model (Waffle or whomever).
There are certain areas on the plane that would be nice to model correctly, as far as externa visuals go. I know when I see an otherwise perfect 3D model in-game but I see that one glaring error it bugs me, so this is purely to prevent that in the case of the Me410.
1) The Canopy
The canopy is divided into: windscreen, pilot hatch, middle frame, gunner hatch, and rear glass. My own terms, naturally.
The windscreen somewhat matches the slope of the fuselage on the way up. The front edge of the pilot's hatch matches this. The curve from front edge to rear edge of the pilot's hatch leaves us with a more vertical rear edge, but no outward bulge. The middle frame (between the 2 hatches) is where the noticable ourward bulge begins. Once we get to the gunner's hatch we find that there is a slight outward curve on the leading edge, and a noticable bulge on the rear edge. The rear glass has a remarkable outward bulge and it gets even wider (though it narrows vertically) until you get "wings" left and right looking backwards.
It's hard to find precise images, but here are a few to help:
Windscreen and rear glass shapes:
(http://i814.photobucket.com/albums/zz63/krustacious/me410-3.jpg)
Shows the change from front edge to rear edge on pilot's hatch:
(http://i814.photobucket.com/albums/zz63/krustacious/Me20410-3.jpg)
Special note: The rear glass meets the fuselage at almost a flat edge. The fuselage here is rather flat and squared off, and after the canopy quickly transitions into a rounded shape. This is hard to find a clear photo of to prove my point so I'll just reference a couple of scale model photos. Note however, it appears this way on the real craft, too.
Angle 1:
(http://i814.photobucket.com/albums/zz63/krustacious/me410fw_9.jpg)
Angle 2:
(http://i814.photobucket.com/albums/zz63/krustacious/snazel410e.jpg)
2) Bomb Bay Doors Pivot Point
The bomb bay doors don't just swing open. They are hinged on arms that swing them upward, inward, and they actually begin curving BEHIND the guns or the bombs mounted on the center rack. I showed this in one of the diagrams I posted near page 1 or 2 of this thread, but just to show you how the majority of the doors don't stick out, here's an image:
(http://i814.photobucket.com/albums/zz63/krustacious/499vgcw.jpg)
Another angle showing rear edge is more recessed:
(http://i814.photobucket.com/albums/zz63/krustacious/14216881604799362.jpg)
The rear edge is almost flush with the fuselage, whereas the forward edge protrudes a little more (due to the curve of the fuselage nose)
3) Turret Orientation and Fuselage Shape
The turrets mount on the fuselage. The fuselage should be mostly flat where they sit. There is only the slightest of curves, just a bit at the bottom and top. This is because the "plug" (the round part) and the entire drum rotate with the gun. NOTE: Make sure the skin rotates with it, or it just won't look right! This is just to point out the proper shape of the aft fuselage and how the guns should look. You can only really see the seam "break" when the gun is rotated up or down significantly.
Example of the gun and fuselage, note the letters have almost no curve, being painted on a flat fuselage:
(http://i814.photobucket.com/albums/zz63/krustacious/9781857802719.jpg)
Here we see the seams "break" just barely as the gun is rotated up:
(http://i814.photobucket.com/albums/zz63/krustacious/me410-1.jpg)
Also note the shape of the trailing edge wing fillet in that photo... It swings UP to meet the fuselage rather than points straight backwards. ALSO note, that photo turns out to be helpful with regards to the canopy shape: It shows all the frames relative to each other!
4) Landing Gear angle
While the struts are mostly vertical, the tires themselves are angled inward noticably. This is due to the way the tire rotates backwards and sits inside the flat wing whe fully retracted. Similar to a P-40 but not quite.
(http://i814.photobucket.com/albums/zz63/krustacious/a_Me_410-3.jpg)
The point of this post is to ensure we get the best possible 3D shape we can, right off the bat.