Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: DEECONX on February 21, 2012, 08:51:22 AM
-
Can anyone direct me to more information about the gun pods that were fitted on various 190s? From what little I can find (wiki, so take it lightly until confirmed) is that they were kits from the factories sent to the front lines.
What were the results of these?
Did the pilots immediately demand them off?
Did they appreciate the extra firepower or not?
What limitations did it put on them performance wise?
Would it be enough to add them to the game (Much like the gondolas or the WGr 21 rockets we have now) ?
Thanks! :salute
-
If we consider only attachable pods they were called Rüstsätse i.e. field conversions kits.
R1 2xWB151/20 making the total of 20mms six pieces, used agains bombers (pulk-zerstörer)
R2 2xMk108 cannon, these were either in an underwing pod or inside the wing dependin on version they were installed in.
R3 2xMK103 cannon, mainly for JABO work, never used in large scale.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%BCstsatz
-C+
-
If we consider only attachable pods they were called Rüstsätse i.e. field conversions kits.
R1 2xWB151/20 making the total of 20mms six pieces, used agains bombers (pulk-zerstörer)
R2 2xMk108 cannon, these were either in an underwing pod or inside the wing dependin on version they were installed in.
R3 2xMK103 cannon, mainly for JABO work, never used in large scale.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%BCstsatz
-C+
Yeah, that's what I had seen earlier, but it doesn't really give me what I am looking for. Thanks though. :aok
-
Oh, ok.
What is comes to R1 and R2 installations they were preferred in their intended role in bomber interception but they also hindered the performance of 190 too much, particularly when the amount of enemy escorts increased. These "Pulk Zerstörers" also required escorts themselves due to increased weight and drag. I'd say that R2 was the most successful of these as later on the 30mm cannon was put inside the wing in cannon bay and most of these fighters also had additional armoring (Sturmbock) but parts of these were taken off from some fighters creating a wild array of armor variants in field units. One usual variant is displayed in A8 in AH which only has the wing MG151/20 switched to MK108 (notice that the wing leading edge former for MG151/20 and MK108 installation are different).
R3 was not really meant for bomber interception since the performance of 190 suffered too much making even the bomber interception limited to 6 oc attacks, which were dangerous without additional armoring. MK103 would not have fit inside the wing of 190 so there was no workaround for drag caused by pod installation. Add to that the required armor for bomber interception and the 190 would have been quite useless. Their use for JABO work was presumably restricted by unsynchronized firing which tended to yaw the aircraft making them inaccurate when firing bursts. I'm sure that making a fast attack plane slow and lumbering with such installation did not attract the pilots too much either so the MK103 installation was very unpopular and was not used after initial experiences.
-C+
-
Oh, ok.
What is comes to R1 and R2 installations they were preferred in their intended role in bomber interception but they also hindered the performance of 190 too much, particularly when the amount of enemy escorts increased. These "Pulk Zerstörers" also required escorts themselves due to increased weight and drag. I'd say that R2 was the most successful of these as later on the 30mm cannon was put inside the wing in cannon bay and most of these fighters also had additional armoring (Sturmbock) but parts of these were taken off from some fighters creating a wild array of armor variants in field units. One usual variant is displayed in A8 in AH which only has the wing MG151/20 switched to MK108 (notice that the wing leading edge former for MG151/20 and MK108 installation are different).
R3 was not really meant for bomber interception since the performance of 190 suffered too much making even the bomber interception limited to 6 oc attacks, which were dangerous without additional armoring. MK103 would not have fit inside the wing of 190 so there was no workaround for drag caused by pod installation. Add to that the required armor for bomber interception and the 190 would have been quite useless. Their use for JABO work was presumably restricted by unsynchronized firing which tended to yaw the aircraft making them inaccurate when firing bursts. I'm sure that making a fast attack plane slow and lumbering with such installation did not attract the pilots too much either so the MK103 installation was very unpopular and was not used after initial experiences.
-C+
Exactly what I was looking for. Thanks Charge! :aok :salute
-
Oh, ok.
What is comes to R1 and R2 installations they were preferred in their intended role in bomber interception but they also hindered the performance of 190 too much, particularly when the amount of enemy escorts increased. These "Pulk Zerstörers" also required escorts themselves due to increased weight and drag. I'd say that R2 was the most successful of these as later on the 30mm cannon was put inside the wing in cannon bay and most of these fighters also had additional armoring (Sturmbock) but parts of these were taken off from some fighters creating a wild array of armor variants in field units. One usual variant is displayed in A8 in AH which only has the wing MG151/20 switched to MK108 (notice that the wing leading edge former for MG151/20 and MK108 installation are different).
R3 was not really meant for bomber interception since the performance of 190 suffered too much making even the bomber interception limited to 6 oc attacks, which were dangerous without additional armoring. MK103 would not have fit inside the wing of 190 so there was no workaround for drag caused by pod installation. Add to that the required armor for bomber interception and the 190 would have been quite useless. Their use for JABO work was presumably restricted by unsynchronized firing which tended to yaw the aircraft making them inaccurate when firing bursts. I'm sure that making a fast attack plane slow and lumbering with such installation did not attract the pilots too much either so the MK103 installation was very unpopular and was not used after initial experiences.
-C+
I've always assumed from reading about their development that they were developed in their external accessory form first and earlier-on, with those most-effectively developed systems that were found succesful and that were small and compact enough to be arranged within the wing's profile were incorporated into later production models and improved wing designs (some production models then had these outer wing cannons installed, others just provisions but not installed, and many were modified in the field later to meet their mission's/pilot's requirements despite the configuration that they were produced in).
Those external cannon platforms too large/cumbersome/unreliable to be enclosed within the wing or to be adopted in later production designs though I think still stayed available in the arsenals and in it's external-pod form throughout most the war (in particular I'm thinking the R3, but the R1 too). They might not of been ideal to most pilots (especialy in comparison to the more popularly preffered internal single Mk108 or MG151/20), and likely were far from it, but there are at the least some photos documenting that they still existed in active use until about the end.
-
I've always assumed from reading about their development that they were developed in their external accessory form first and earlier-on, with those most-effectively developed systems that were found succesful and that were small and compact enough to be arranged within the wing's profile were incorporated into later production models and improved wing designs (some production models then had these outer wing cannons installed, others just provisions but not installed, and many were modified in the field later to meet their mission's/pilot's requirements despite the configuration that they were produced in).
Those external cannon platforms too large/cumbersome/unreliable to be enclosed within the wing or to be adopted in later production designs though I think still stayed available in the arsenals and in it's external-pod form throughout most the war (in particular I'm thinking the R3, but the R1 too). They might not of been ideal to most pilots (especialy in comparison to the more popularly preffered internal single Mk108 or MG151/20), and likely were far from it, but there are at the least some photos documenting that they still existed in active use until about the end.
Cool! Thanks for the info! :aok
-
This looks interesting: http://falkeeins.blogspot.com/2011/11/focke-wulf-190-vol-i-1938-43-smith.html
Three volume Fw190 publication in the works! :x :banana: First I've heard of it, eager to look more into it and the authors.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-4iyKXthmakU/TtPc_bvGSnI/AAAAAAAAEDI/w1vj5QbmPoA/s1600/fw190CreekSmith.jpg)
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-eWnlr4Hby1w/TtZZTQB0xuI/AAAAAAAAEEo/0WSoPw4kENY/s1600/chap2profile.jpg)
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ltcLdhW6uac/TtZaLkPlxZI/AAAAAAAAEFQ/vhwjd-ot3dA/s1600/Chap.2_Page_06.jpg)
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-mc2RryYs-0A/TtZaPTg_VHI/AAAAAAAAEFY/LAyOBP5fP58/s1600/Chap.2_Page_07.jpg)
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Ieleu9izOtY/TtZZURaBfdI/AAAAAAAAEEw/_I8w7xe0K1Q/s1600/chap2page10.jpg)
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-0ogvkNnozFs/TtZZV45QulI/AAAAAAAAEE4/uNridCq9ECo/s1600/chap2page12.jpg)
If I can't afford it, I hope someone who can will also have a hangar or office that I can sweep for them while I read their copy. :pray
Anybody else already hear of this or looked into it/the authors?
-
Smith/Creek have authored many high quality books on German a/c.
Me262, 4 vol. sells for over $500 ea. now
He162, 3 vol.
Hs129
and some others I can't remember.
Spend the money on the Fw190 books.
-
Smith/Creek have authored many high quality books on German a/c.
Me262, 4 vol. sells for over $500 ea. now
He162, 3 vol.
Hs129
and some others I can't remember.
Spend the money on the Fw190 books.
You've made me both near estatic and suicidal.
Have mop and bucket, will travel. :cry
-
Put the mop and bucket away. The 262 books have been reprinted and can be had for a descent price.
-
Wow, that looks awesome! Will keep my eyes open for these! :aok
-
Put the mop and bucket away. The 262 books have been reprinted and can be had for a descent price.
I paid $12 for it on amazon, along with many of my books I paid under $20 for.
-
The external gunpods weren't simply "unpopular" -- they were field tested and found to be unsuitable for use in combat. Hence, they were never put into production. The one exception is the WB151 twin gunpod that saw limited use against bombers (before the escorts showed up en mass) and on airframes other than the 190.
It's not that the Mk103 was inaccurate or cumbersome, so pilots didn't use it. They didn't use it because it was never allowed to be made a production kit. It was never distributed to units or depot levels. It simply wasn't used because it wasn't a valid weapon system.
-
Smith/Creek have authored many high quality books on German a/c.
Me262, 4 vol. sells for over $500 ea. now
He162, 3 vol.
Hs129
and some others I can't remember.
Spend the money on the Fw190 books.
I have the Me262 series. It is amazing work.
-
The external gunpods weren't simply "unpopular" -- they were field tested and found to be unsuitable for use in combat. Hence, they were never put into production. The one exception is the WB151 twin gunpod that saw limited use against bombers (before the escorts showed up en mass) and on airframes other than the 190.
It's not that the Mk103 was inaccurate or cumbersome, so pilots didn't use it. They didn't use it because it was never allowed to be made a production kit. It was never distributed to units or depot levels. It simply wasn't used because it wasn't a valid weapon system.
What did reach production and was the redesigned wings after the gun pod tests, which had the provisions to make the pod-mounted cannoned internaly wing mounted.
One thing that I don't get and Im sure I'm missing something on recently - the D-series preceding the D-11 (so almost specificly the extremely popular D-9 series), they were built and designed around the more recent and redesigned A-series wing... the same wings comming off the line for the A-series and F-series with provisions/bays for the wing-mounted cannons that we're all familiar with in those series (which on the D-11, came from the factory with cannons installed in those bays (as well as removing the two cowl MGs and thus also making the cowl sleeker)). I'm wondering, did they utilised to even some degree those provisions (if indeed identicle/compatable) for the A-series that were also likely present on the D-series for combat operation too?
-
That has nothing to do with it... The wings were designed to hold a number of possible weapons. That doesn't mean these experimental gunpods were put into production just because they COULD be mounted... Doesn't matter what kind of clever adapters they could have rigged up, or if they jammed the ammo racks into the empty gun cavity inside the wing or what-have-you. The guns were still found unsuited for combat and the systems were dropped like hot rocks.
As for the 190D series, they did in fact have the same mounting points and framework as the 190A series. However, doctrine and emphasis on performance dictated these were never used. The same goes for the 109K series and wing gondolas, bomb racks, WGR tubes, etc. The same goes for the Ta152H and the 175 rpg instead of 250 rpg-- the ammo bins were identical they just loaded them to a lesser number to save weight and improve performance.
You might as well ask why P-47Ns never carried more than 267 rpg (if that much -- often stripped down and far less) when they technically had the capacity for much more? The answer is: That's not what they ever did. The orders and the doctrine was dictated to the pilots: "Fly it this way, period. This is your ammo limit. End of orders. Now follow the orders."
So, yes... The 190D wing was the same, but no it wasn't utilized the same way. You see a couple rare D-11 or D-13 models with outboard Mk108 30mm guns, but overall the move was towards a hub-mounted gun instead of the outboard wing positions. You see the same trend with Ta152C models and other designs as well.
When the 152 series was planned to take over fighter duties, the slower 190F line was to be replaced with in-line 190D series jabos... These would have centerline racks, wing racks, rocket rails, etc... However it was just talk and nothing came of it. It shows the capabilities were all still there, they just were disregarded to keep the planes competitive against ever-powerful-enemies.
-
Sorry Krusty but I find it hard to believe that they would put all those options in official equipment lists if those were not valid options and not in production. It is another matter if the operational units used them and evidence of those would be only pictures or anecdotal evidence as equipment book keeping probably does not exist anymore. Of course if there are actual lists available of what was produced and what was not that would shed more light on issue. Otherwise we only have educated opinions of what existed what did not.
As for R1 and R2 I'd put these available in a simulation as they were probably used most in the era when LW was struggling with increasing bomber activity over Germany and the need for firepower was high but less so when the survival was dependent of speed. R3 would not be available as it was a product of the era when FW190 was taking over duties from Ju87 but did not really achieve this as Ju87 was better suited for certain duties e.g. for tank busting.
Considering wing cannon options in operational units I'd say that while Rüstsätze were fairly easy to put in a plane and take out that was not done in a whim. If the technical officer saw a need for heavier armament some planes would be armed with e.g. wing cannons and pilots selected for the mission would fly them instead of their regular rides. Also if lighter armed versions were not available they would fly a "kanoneboot" as they would be available, although not well suited for the task at hand. Also if the need for wing armaments slowly died away these machines were stripped of extra armament and made available for "normal use".
After all what we probably see here is the reaction of RLM to provide equipment for front line units that the RLM thought they needed to be most efficient, but in practice the front line units did not just use these options because they were available but they had a high level of autonomy of what to use and when, so the use of heavy and draggy installations were not popular, at least not among experienced pilots who could utilize efficiently also the lighter armament.
-C+
-
Sorry Krusty but I find it hard to believe that they would put all those options in official equipment lists if those were not valid options and not in production...
How many photos exist of FW-190's with the standard, built-in wing guns? Lots.
How many photos exist of FW-190's with the underwing pods? Few. And most of *those* are of the VERY few known "versuchs" examples.
Seems pretty simple to me...? :headscratch:
-
No, Charge, I don't think you've described it accurately at all.
You find it hard to believe? Well do some reading! There's plenty of Luftwaffe history. Hell, even the F6F had mounts for 20mm Hispanos... Guess what? They didn't use it.
The P-40s had mounting brackets designed from the start to take 20mm cannons. Guess what? It never happened.
The Me410 has preliminary diagrams and charts showing the mounting points and locations for certain bomb loads under the outer wings -- oh that's right, they never were ever installed this way.
The thing about the Nazi planners is they threw a metric &*!@-ton of ideas at a wall and only "X%" stuck. You get a lot of these dead end, never-was, ideas floating around and even some thrown onto paper plans, or even with potential brackets or mount points put onto airframes, but that doesn't mean they ever saw the light of day. Most were barely a glimmer in a desperate designer's eye.
If you find it hard to believe... Well that's your failing. Not mine. It's nothing new and it's a QUITE common theme amongst many nations, not just the Germans.
-
That has nothing to do with it... The wings were designed to hold a number of possible weapons. That doesn't mean these experimental gunpods were put into production just because they COULD be mounted... Doesn't matter what kind of clever adapters they could have rigged up, or if they jammed the ammo racks into the empty gun cavity inside the wing or what-have-you. The guns were still found unsuited for combat and the systems were dropped like hot rocks.
As for the 190D series, they did in fact have the same mounting points and framework as the 190A series. However, doctrine and emphasis on performance dictated these were never used. The same goes for the 109K series and wing gondolas, bomb racks, WGR tubes, etc. The same goes for the Ta152H and the 175 rpg instead of 250 rpg-- the ammo bins were identical they just loaded them to a lesser number to save weight and improve performance.
You might as well ask why P-47Ns never carried more than 267 rpg (if that much -- often stripped down and far less) when they technically had the capacity for much more? The answer is: That's not what they ever did. The orders and the doctrine was dictated to the pilots: "Fly it this way, period. This is your ammo limit. End of orders. Now follow the orders."
So, yes... The 190D wing was the same, but no it wasn't utilized the same way. You see a couple rare D-11 or D-13 models with outboard Mk108 30mm guns, but overall the move was towards a hub-mounted gun instead of the outboard wing positions. You see the same trend with Ta152C models and other designs as well.
When the 152 series was planned to take over fighter duties, the slower 190F line was to be replaced with in-line 190D series jabos... These would have centerline racks, wing racks, rocket rails, etc... However it was just talk and nothing came of it. It shows the capabilities were all still there, they just were disregarded to keep the planes competitive against ever-powerful-enemies.
Don't mistake me too much, I'm being casual losse-minded/lipped with my thoughts, not trying to go into any debate or sitr any pots. I was deliberatley speculating on why it clearly wasn't done when it could very easily have been. You helped clarify (and reminded me) a lot about why things never materialized that way for the D-series.
Your post also touched on my dream/desire that we should have at least as many A-series 190s in the line-up/representation, someday, as P-47D series currently... they're very different - but also have many coincidences I feel, more than many other comparable aircraft from opposing countries, almost like Kurt Tank had a twin brother he never knew about, wisked away to russia at birth, whom later became one the jug's conceivers at Republic.... but anywho, speaking of random thoughts.
I do have a couple more serious questions since things seem to be going that way now, though;
1 - Speaking of the many ideas thrown onto the wall: one that I'm honestly unclear if it stuck or not - the single centerline-mounted Werfer-Granate 21 mortar rocket. The single wing-mounts made it, why not the third centerline?
2 - What recorded incidents, if anyone knows of (even vaguely would help), that the D-9 used its ETC rack for a 250kg and/or 500kg bomb?...
It could... but as we're pointing out in this conversation in regards to many other things.... I have never (yet, always learning, pretty sure it's out there but I've overlooked it, etc.) seen a D-9 utilise it for anything but a drop tank by any account.
-
Sorry if I seemed snappy. I don't mean to be.
the centerline WGR was tested on early 190A models. it had to be extended and angled down to clear the prop. I believe it was difficult to aim in this manner. I imagine (and this is speculation) it was far easier to aim the other mounts as they were angled up and were outside the prop arc.
I don't know about ETC bomb use on 190Ds. I know it was planned, but am not sure it ever was used as by this time the 190Ds were mainly pure fighters.
-
Sorry if I seemed snappy. I don't mean to be.
the centerline WGR was tested on early 190A models. it had to be extended and angled down to clear the prop. I believe it was difficult to aim in this manner. I imagine (and this is speculation) it was far easier to aim the other mounts as they were angled up and were outside the prop arc.
I don't know about ETC bomb use on 190Ds. I know it was planned, but am not sure it ever was used as by this time the 190Ds were mainly pure fighters.
No problem, as my first ex will tell you, I have a knack for sticking my head too far out sometimes. :devil
Interesting, I'm definetley going to try and make a note to look into it more for any documented use of the ETC rack for bombs on the D-9s. Consistency should be consistent... and all. Any suggestions where to start would be apreciated.
The WGR stipulation is similar to what I was thinking, they must of had to of extended it pretty far below the fueselage (or angled it differently from the wing-mounts so that it was also a beast to aim), and this must of created at the least signifigantly more drag and at most a severe landing/TO hazard (and you couldn't eject the empty stove pipe(s)). Edit: not to mention the 190s rather bouncy landing characteristics with that thing hanging so perilously low - I can't imagine this modification helped improve the hazards that came with that.
-
Cool stuff guys! Thanks for all the info and discussion! Sorry for lack of responses, as most of the time I read this I have this face--> :confused: while trying to suck in as much information as possible.
:aok
-
"2 - What recorded incidents, if anyone knows of (even vaguely would help), that the D-9 used its ETC rack for a 250kg and/or 500kg bomb?..."
Well, at least Rudel's SG2 was assigned a number of D-9s later in WW2 and these could have been R5 variants with ETC504 in fuselage and possibly four ETC50 racks in wings. I'm not sure if they ever carried bombs or just provided aircover for Ju87s or 190Gs as there are no pictures of them carrying a bomb and AFAIK Rudel was busy shooting down Russian fighters in his D9.
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/Navomotu/Rudel_799x272.jpg?t=1298654540)
-C+
-
"2 - What recorded incidents, if anyone knows of (even vaguely would help), that the D-9 used its ETC rack for a 250kg and/or 500kg bomb?..."
Well, at least Rudel's SG2 was assigned a number of D-9s later in WW2 and these could have been R5 variants with ETC504 in fuselage and possibly four ETC50 racks in wings. I'm not sure if they ever carried bombs or just provided aircover for Ju87s or 190Gs as there are no pictures of them carrying a bomb and AFAIK Rudel was busy shooting down Russian fighters in his D9.
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/Navomotu/Rudel_799x272.jpg?t=1298654540)
The bomb looks like an AB250 on that profile.
-
The WGR stipulation is similar to what I was thinking, they must of had to of extended it pretty far below the fueselage (or angled it differently from the wing-mounts so that it was also a beast to aim), and this must of created at the least signifigantly more drag and at most a severe landing/TO hazard (and you couldn't eject the empty stove pipe(s)). Edit: not to mention the 190s rather bouncy landing characteristics with that thing hanging so perilously low - I can't imagine this modification helped improve the hazards that came with that.
Well you could emergency jettison the tube, and the frame was light enough that I think it would easily have crumpled or just sheared off in a ditch attempt.
From FalkEins:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_fhZZ63PRjhQ/TKzVBeTUd1I/AAAAAAAABpA/JQ1zQ9awb4c/s1600/ILkrebs.jpg)
It wasn't overly long because the angle was lower. Remember the huge drop these shells had, and I think that more than drag was the main factor. You already have to aim high when they're canted up, pilots with this getup must have had to pull up well above the target, losing all sight on it.
EDIT: oops that's a rearward firing one. The forward one was lower hanging I think.
-
It is seemingly impossible to find a picture of a bomb ladden Dora. There are plenty of photos showing the ETC rack but almost none of anything on it. Even DTs are rare (in photos). I caution that this doesn't necessarily prove anything, though. It's possible the DTs weren't loaded late in the war because of short range missions, or that the longer bomber hunting missions up at higher alts used up the DTs and they were dropped often, or that any bombs they carried were also dropped -- it's not easy to determine if it's just an oddity of timing (when the pictures were taken) or more of an indicator of the role the planes played (purely air to air).
Examples with the rack:
http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/LCBW5/FW190-D9-5.jpg
http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/LCBW5/FW190-D9-12.jpg
http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/LCBW5/FW190-D9-11a.jpg
http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/LCBW6/FW190-D9-28f.jpg
http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/LCBW/FW190-D9-17.jpg
One of the few photos actually showing ANYTHING on the rack, in this case a drop tank:
http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/LCBW10/FW190D-39f-s.jpg
-
"2 - What recorded incidents, if anyone knows of (even vaguely would help), that the D-9 used its ETC rack for a 250kg and/or 500kg bomb?..."
Well, at least Rudel's SG2 was assigned a number of D-9s later in WW2 and these could have been R5 variants with ETC504 in fuselage and possibly four ETC50 racks in wings. I'm not sure if they ever carried bombs or just provided aircover for Ju87s or 190Gs as there are no pictures of them carrying a bomb and AFAIK Rudel was busy shooting down Russian fighters in his D9.
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/Navomotu/Rudel_799x272.jpg?t=1298654540)
-C+
Sounds like a D-9, busy shooting down the fighters, lol.
Thank you immensley for the SG2 tip, you have no idea (when I do get the time) how much it will help with me looking into the Dora actual (hopefuly documented and available) ground support roles.
The bomb looks like an AB250 on that profile.
Good catch. Don't have time to now, but will look into.
It is seemingly impossible to find a picture of a bomb ladden Dora. There are plenty of photos showing the ETC rack but almost none of anything on it. Even DTs are rare (in photos). I caution that this doesn't necessarily prove anything, though. It's possible the DTs weren't loaded late in the war because of short range missions, or that the longer bomber hunting missions up at higher alts used up the DTs and they were dropped often, or that any bombs they carried were also dropped -- it's not easy to determine if it's just an oddity of timing (when the pictures were taken) or more of an indicator of the role the planes played (purely air to air).
Examples with the rack:
http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/LCBW5/FW190-D9-5.jpg
http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/LCBW5/FW190-D9-12.jpg
http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/LCBW5/FW190-D9-11a.jpg
http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/LCBW6/FW190-D9-28f.jpg
http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/LCBW/FW190-D9-17.jpg
One of the few photos actually showing ANYTHING on the rack, in this case a drop tank:
http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/LCBW10/FW190D-39f-s.jpg
I'm not trying to kick the Dora in the balls (trust me) but I've always wondered what the justification was for its bombs and attack sortie ability, especialy in comparison to the 109K-4 in AH.
I love a good Dora conversation.
-
http://www.luftwaffe-experten.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=4033
Some good info in the thread above about the Rockets mounted to the D-9.
-
http://www.luftwaffe-experten.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=4033
Some good info in the thread above about the Rockets mounted to the D-9.
Curious. Good link.
-
(http://i1051.photobucket.com/albums/s436/coolkassill/1-Pilots-2JG11-Black-13-Erich-Hondt-Michael-Widmann-and-Erich-Bartels-01.jpg)
(http://i1051.photobucket.com/albums/s436/coolkassill/mon5_71.jpg)
-
:t
(http://www.nakatomitower.com/ahskins/images/screenshots/190a5_7.jpg)
:devil :devil :devil
-
:t
(http://www.nakatomitower.com/ahskins/images/screenshots/190a5_7.jpg)
:devil :devil :devil
Great skin Krusty! :aok
Last one I have of his bird
(http://i1051.photobucket.com/albums/s436/coolkassill/hondt1.jpg)
Would love to see more if you, or anyone else have any!
-
:t
(http://www.nakatomitower.com/ahskins/images/screenshots/190a5_7.jpg)
:devil :devil :devil
OT, but great skin. :aok
-
I can't do it justice... The in-game fuselage is round (blech!)
So the lines look bad, compared to the real thing which had flatter sides. So mine has a "kink" or bend that shouldn't be there but it's the best I could do.
I do wish they'd put THAT particular gun package in the game. Rare, but it was used. It was also non-uber, being heavy and draggy, so it's not like the wish is for some super weapon. Game-wise it wouldn't unbalance much, especially not with other planes that have better guns options.
One can hope, eh?
-
Yes, it is a great skin. In fact it has become my mainstay A5 skin. :aok
Maybe whenever the remodel comes around you can give it another go Krusty! And maybe the gun package will be there.
-
prefer one of these tho.
(http://www.eagle-editions.com/ec6.gif)
-
prefer one of these tho.
(http://www.eagle-editions.com/ec6.gif)
Eh, a little to much going on in the color scheme for me. Especially the last two.
Like the Luftwaffe Clown planes... :uhoh :bolt:
-
It looks a bit worse on the profile than it would in-game... Most of those markings are there on the skin screenshot above, only difference being the striped nose. Those colors are rather harsh in the decal sheet image :)
-
Eh, a little to much going on in the color scheme for me. Especially the last two.
Like the Luftwaffe Clown planes... :uhoh :bolt:
Like American P-51s.;)