Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: major347 on December 05, 2012, 08:15:46 AM
-
That plane is a sniper with wings. Grab that 50mm and hold back about 1.5k to 2k and you gotta one shot kills any bomber. :x
-
You're not the only one. It's a great "destroyer". :aok
-
thats funny,evrytime i encounter a 410 while in a bomber,the 410 goes boom :headscratch:
-
This is cheating but would someone post a gun camera shot showing proper aim at 1k, 1.5k and 2k. Consider this a squad briefing.
Thanks in advance!!
Boo
PS Cobia, virtually everything goes 'boom' in front of that dadblasted A-20. What is your point?
-
I do like that 50mm gun and it is a long range bomber killer if you can catch up to one in the 410 to get a shot. Any other fighter type plane other than another 410 will shot you down since one or two hits on the 410 kills your pilot or blows up the plane. I don't think I have ever been shot down in any other plane as fast as I have in that 410. I spent a lot of time in the off line arena in the 410 before I tried in the MA but it did me no good in the end. However if it is unopposed at a field you can deack a small field pretty fast if you don't get a pilot wound right off the bat.
-
thats funny,evrytime i encounter a 410 while in a bomber,the 410 goes boom :headscratch:
Per your posts on this forum, any time you meet anything in anything the other thing goes boom with ease. You're just too good.
-
Too bad the game doesn't model the issues the Me 410 had with the 50mm cannon.
ack-ack
-
Per your posts on this forum, any time you meet anything in anything the other thing goes boom with ease. You're just too good.
na, trust me,i die plenty :D
-
Too bad the game doesn't model the issues the Me 410 had with the 50mm cannon.
ack-ack
Why is that "too bad"?
-
I got show down by a 410 while in my Mossie VI. Had to shower for hours while crying and the shame has still not washed off of me.
My life will never be normal again.
-
I got show down by a 410 while in my Mossie VI. Had to shower for hours while crying and the shame has still not washed off of me.
My life will never be normal again.
I do not know you.
-
I loled.
-
Too bad the game doesn't model the issues the Me 410 had with the 50mm cannon.
ack-ack
If it did that opens doors to model poor reliability of specific aspects of almost any plane in the game.
-
If it did that opens doors to model poor reliability of specific aspects of almost any plane in the game.
I'd love to see 262 engine flame outs or spontaneous combustions and Me163 exploding on the runway. The N1Ks will hardly ever get off the ground.
-
And P-38 engines randomly failing above 30k due to cooling issues. P-47s blowing their turbos in dives. P-51 wings folding in dives. The whining would never end...
-
The 410 is a monster and perhaps the best bomber destroyer at altitudes below 23k. Get too much higher than 23k and the 410 becomes a fish out of water. Sure, if it already at that altitude then it still may be able to intercept, but otherwise not.
I pity any bomber under 20k that runs in to a 410.
-
The N1Ks will hardly ever get off the ground.
:headscratch:
-
:headscratch:
The Nakajima Homare engine used by the N1K and Ki-84 was horribly unreliable due to Japanese quality control issues late in the war.
-
If it did that opens doors to model poor reliability of specific aspects of almost any plane in the game.
Which would be awesome. Some of the stars of AH were dogs IRL because of problems the game doesn't model - the C-Hog and KI-84 come to mind. Why model these planes to be so uber when they weren't?
-
Yes, we really need more things to get in the way of fighting...
-
I'd love to see 262 engine flame outs or spontaneous combustions and Me163 exploding on the runway. The N1Ks will hardly ever get off the ground.
oh this list could get really fun actually - Typhoon/Tempest random blackouts and death due to exhaust poisoning? sounds fun.
-
Yes, we really need more things to get in the way of fighting...
You can't fight in an F4U-1A instead of a 1C?
-
Sure I can (and do), but what would be the point of having a -1C if the guns jam after the first burst?
Can you imagine the whines if a customer pays those hard earned perks for a 262 only to get a pair of engine fires when he fire-walls the throttles on take-off?
Can you imagine the whines if a customer selects "The Plane that Won the War" P-51D, and as soon as it dives over 500 mph a wing folds over the cockpit, trapping the player in a spiral of death?
The hard reality is that WWII fighters were very much experimental aircraft if judged by today's standards. The P-51, for instance, was developed in less than a year. They all had their vices and quirks, and were a lot harder to fly than in any computer game... Let alone to fight in.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but in the real P-51 there were hundreds of switches and levers that needed to be used to successfully operate the aircraft. In this game you hit "e", fire-wall the throttle and pull on the stick.
I'm, sorry if I overstate the obvious...
-
For those that havent seen it yet: The 410 can now carry 2x 500kg SAP bombs in the internal bomb bay, increasing it's bomb damage capacity by x2.5 with direct hits compared to the old 2x250kg GP loadout. :old:
-
oh this list could get really fun actually - Typhoon/Tempest random blackouts and death due to exhaust poisoning? sounds fun.
Also the P-39 suffered from gases in the cockpit and I am excluding the cases of pilots eating beans before missions. As far as I know Yaks did not carry oxygen and the pilots could lose consciousness above 15k.
Just to be clear, while I think these things would be hilarious for a tour or so, once the joke has passed they will just get in the way of fighting as some posters already pointed out.
-
Even more fun is : when you have to take what plane that is left to fly at the field (109e with no rudder) , transfer the whole map where the fight is, and find out they dont have the fuel you wanted at destination field + only 7.9mm bullets.
-
Lots of love for the 410!
You either fly it 24k or 100 feet, in between is bad news!
-
I took one up to ~28,000ft with the 50mm cannon.
Don't do this. It doesn't like it up there.
Also, don't use this if you want to hunt anything other than unperked, heavy or older medium bombers.
-
Karnak is right, I've tried it as well; the 410 can not persue the b29 at all!
-
Sure I can (and do), but what would be the point of having a -1C if the guns jam after the first burst?
Better than having a fantasy -1C that never actually existed.
Can you imagine the whines if a customer pays those hard earned perks for a 262 only to get a pair of engine fires when he fire-walls the throttles on take-off?
I can imagine the joy of having a much more realistic number (i.e., a lot fewer) of 262 sorties.
Can you imagine the whines if a customer selects "The Plane that Won the War" P-51D, and as soon as it dives over 500 mph a wing folds over the cockpit, trapping the player in a spiral of death?
Learn to fly within the limitations of the plane. As it is now you can't dive a KI over 500mph without shedding much needed parts, and KI pilots somehow live with this limitation.
The hard reality is that WWII fighters were very much experimental aircraft if judged by today's standards.
True, but I'm not talking about modeling every nitpicky detail, just major performance issues that affected one or two planes particularly severely, ones that are game changers for that plane. Yes, there are compromises of realism for playability and that's fine, but the unrealistic modeling makes some planes and GVs much, much more effective than they were IRL. An F4U with working, reliable Hispanos did not exist in WW2, and yet we have one. Why? Either model the huge, glaring deficiency that made the -1C a dog of a plane IRL, or don't include it in the game. Likewise the Tiger II - if you want to play with the fantastic guns and armor you should have to accept the chance that more often than not it breaks down irreparably before you get anywhere near the enemy like the real ones did. Or better yet, just don't have it in the game.
-
I took one up to ~28,000ft with the 50mm cannon.
Don't do this. It doesn't like it up there.
Also, don't use this if you want to hunt anything other than unperked, heavy or older medium bombers.
When I go buff hunting in the 410, I do position myself at 25-28k, the latter one being about the practical limit, though my highest kills in a 410 had been above that even (long chase vs B-24). This enables you not only to shred almost every standard bomber, but also to get the occasional B-29 that hasn't climbed (yet) to altitudes above 30k. This way I killed 6 of them in the 410 so far. Of course once you are on their six, there's no hope to ever catch up with them unless the 29 pilot does a very bad job.
I also never use the 50mm gun myself. The Mk 103 loadout is a much better weapon package, still providing long range sniping capability (and a much easier one to use) with less performance loss and higher versatility.
-
But lusche, the 103 has standard range (around 1k) I thought.
That would put you within the danger zone for a really good buff pilot.
Having the 50mm ensures you never have to take that risk.
I would question the versatility of it as well, I only ever use 103's when I want to kill fighters as it only seems to be good for that.
Bomber/raider killing at low alt, the extra 4*20mm I find is much better because of the sheer amount of lead thrown at them.
-
But lusche, the 103 has standard range (around 1k) I thought.
That would put you within the danger zone for a really good buff pilot.
Having the 50mm ensures you never have to take that risk.
I would question the versatility of it as well, I only ever use 103's when I want to kill fighters as it only seems to be good for that.
Bomber/raider killing at low alt, the extra 4*20mm I find is much better because of the sheer amount of lead thrown at them.
The moment the icon changes to 1.0, you are at 1250 yards and can fire away. At that range it's way easier for you to hit the bomber due to the very flat trajectory of the 103. The bomber gunner has the problem that due to the 500yds convergence setting, only a tiny fraction of his guns will be on target (mostly just the 2 MG of the station hes sitting in) and his bullets will have lost a lot of their destructive power (B-29 20mm gun aside). The Mk 103 shells are tightly grouped and have lost almost nothing of their destructive power.
You are simply pwning every heavy bomber but the 29 in firepower.
For a "really good" bomber pilot it's easier to avoid 1.5-2k 50mm rounds coming in in single shots by clever maneuvering, than to avoid that hail of 30mm bullets. If he's really clever, he will slam on the brakes in to get the 410 closer to him as quick as possible, but that is very much against the instinct of most buff pilots, as they usually try (for good reason) to keep heavily armed fighter at bay.
Against buffs, the extra 4x20mm pale in comparison to the Mk 103. Much less effective range, shorter trajectory, less destructive power. They would only be a reasonable choice against fast moving and maneuvering targets like fighters.
-
meh, will give it a try :D
-
The first time I encountered B-17s in a 410 I killed all three with the 50mm, must have been a fluke, I emptied the gun from 1.5K-1K last week, didn't scratch them & don't know what I did wrong...getting old I guess.... :old:
-
Tried the 103's specifically for bombers, luche, I see what you mean and I would reckon to say thats its arguably the *better* of the two for accuracy and assured effectiveness but it still doesn't provide that "untouchable" distance you get with the BK5. Which is very important to me when im flying my 410.
W7LPNRICK, don't overthink it, just feel it out; you will find your shots landing better that way. Overthinking and overfocusing is only effective for very flat trajectory weapons (more predictable).
-
Out of curiosity, is there any fighter that the Me410 would actually have the advantage over in a co-alt, co-E meeting? Hurricane Mk I? Spitfire Mk I? I-16? A6M2? B-239?
I have a feeling the A6M2 and Spitfire Mk I would tear it apart. Well, nibble it apart anyways.
-
From my experience, its only the really late monsters that are the fatal threat, other moderate threats include focused firing platforms (p38/mossie) and the occasional cannon bird.
Early war stuff can be outran by the 110G, let alone the 410 + 2*13mm deterrent.
-
From my experience, its only the really late monsters that are the fatal threat, other moderate threats include focused firing platforms (p38/mossie) and the occasional cannon bird.
Early war stuff can be outran by the 110G, let alone the 410 + 2*13mm deterrent.
Running away = defeated.
Not sure how the P-38 and Mossie are only moderate threats. They out perform the Me410 across the board leaving it with very little to work with.
What fighters, if any, starting co-alt and co-E, does the Me410 have the advantage over when it comes to shooting the other down.
Also, it is not just late war monsters that will out run the Me410. The Bf109F-4, Bf109G-2, Spitfire Mk IX, Fw190A-5 and the F4U-1 are all much faster and none are late war.
-
Also, if planes that out perform the Me410 across the board, such as the P-38 and Mossie, are only "moderate" threats I think your evaluation of the Me410 is overly optimistic.
For the record, I consider the Mosquito to be a moderate threat to an La-7 or Spitfire Mk XVI.
-
The 410 can use its speed against those fighters that are slower to build an E advantage, then B&Z. It would be a slow and boring process though.
-
The 410 can use its speed against those fighters that are slower to build an E advantage, then B&Z. It would be a slow and boring process though.
It can't because it can't climb above them. If it tries to BnZ an A6M2, how? If I am the A6M2 and the Me410 flies away from me I will climb so that if he comes back I'll be able to dive to speed to get him. If he tries to climb at his maximum climb rate I'll just run him down and kill him. If he tries to climb while keeping his airspeed above what I can do I will, again, just climb above him.
-
Karnak, did you mean in the DA or the MA?
" The Bf109F-4, Bf109G-2, Spitfire Mk IX, Fw190A-5 and the F4U-1 ", only real problem plane here is the F4u cause of the .50s, when extending; they can sometimes knock out your tail gun from an erratic shot at 1k. The rest usually turn away after feeling the 13mm at 1k or 800 (and the f4u seems to absorb the most damage as well).
PS: Any plane that can knock you out without having to completely out fly you is a moderate threat.
Nose focused weapons especially seem to be an issue when it comes to a tail gun shoot out.
-
It can't because it can't climb above them. If it tries to BnZ an A6M2, how? If I am the A6M2 and the Me410 flies away from me I will climb so that if he comes back I'll be able to dive to speed to get him. If he tries to climb at his maximum climb rate I'll just run him down and kill him. If he tries to climb while keeping his airspeed above what I can do I will, again, just climb above him.
A Zeke that expend all his E like that will get a face full of taters as the 410 turns around and makes high speed slashing attacks.
-
A Zeke that expend all his E like that will get a face full of taters as the 410 turns around and makes high speed slashing attacks.
Hard to do high speed slashing attacks on an aircraft thousands of feet above you.
-
A Zeke can't zoom climb faster than the 410 and if it just continues to climb when the 410 comes at it it will die. You can't out climb those MK 103s.
-
You know, the A6M2 and M3 (and arguably even the M5b) doesn't have all that much better climb rate than the 410, and the 410 is significantly faster at all altitudes.
-
In my experience the Me410 climbs at about 2100fpm, well below any other fighter. I may be remember it with the BK5 though.
EDIT:
Per the AH performance charts the Me410 and A6M2 climb about the same. The A6M3 and A6M5 both out climb the Me410 by a useful, though not dominating, margin.
-
Yes, I was looking at the charts as well. In a B&Z / E battle the Zeke, in particular the M2, would be at a disadvantage against the 410. A slight climb advantage in the later models does not make up for those very significant disadvantages in speed, firepower and ability to take damage. To be realistic, a fight between these two aircraft would end in a series of HOs where the Zeke gets to chose to evade and allow the 410 to make a slashing attack, or face overwhelming firepower head on.
-
GScholz,
How do you see the Me410 doing against the Mossie VI, P-38G, P-38J or P-38L? My estimation puts the Me410 in mortal danger against any of those and Torquila sees them as only moderate threats. I think the Bf110G-2 also has the advantage, though not as steep as the others.
-
Depends greatly on the situation (obviously). In a 1-on-1 co-alt, co-E, equal skill situation the 410 would be at a significant disadvantage against any of those fighters except the 38G, to the point of the outcome almost being a forgone conclusion.
-
I would put the 110G and P-38G in the same slot on the threat board. I guess we are pretty much in agreement.
-
Yeah, the 38G isn't like the other P-38s. I was at about 4,000ft providing CAP for some of our tanks that had been under A-20G attack in the Mossie VI when a P-38 bounced me. I saw him at about 2000 yards and given he was diving on me anticipated a hard, uphill fight to win. Then the icon resolved the version and my thought was something like "Oh, a P-38G. No problem." I shot it down about 10-15 seconds later.
-
:D
-
Anyone got any vids of killing buffs in the 410, would be intrested in seeing them :salute
-
Anything specific you are looking for? I have a lot, but most are very boring - the 'parking 1K behind a set of Lancs and blasting away' type...
-
I think thats pretty much what he means, ive got a few; I will go searching for them!
-
GScholz,
How do you see the Me410 doing against the Mossie VI, P-38G, P-38J or P-38L? My estimation puts the Me410 in mortal danger against any of those and Torquila sees them as only moderate threats. I think the Bf110G-2 also has the advantage, though not as steep as the others.
A P-38J dominates the Me 410 so much so that the Me 410's only hope is to catch the P-38J pilot completely unaware. Even with pilots of equal skill, the Me 410 doesn't have a chance against a P-38J, because the P-38J can dictate the fight at will.
ack-ack
-
A P-38J dominates the Me 410 so much so that the Me 410's only hope is to catch the P-38J pilot completely unaware. Even with pilots of equal skill, the Me 410 doesn't have a chance against a P-38J, because the P-38J can dicate the fight at will.
ack-ack
The P-38L is just as dominating over the Me410 and the Mosquito VI not all that far behind both of those.
-
Depends greatly on the situation (obviously). In a 1-on-1 co-alt, co-E, equal skill situation the 410 would be at a significant disadvantage against any of those fighters except the 38G, to the point of the outcome almost being a forgone conclusion.
Howdy GScholz <S> sir. Id like to try this out if you want to give it a whirl.....Ill take the 38G and you the 410.
Id like to see the 410 in the hands of someone that fights it......
-
Hi there <S>! Sure we can do that. Just give me a reminder in January when I'm back in the game. Though I'm not sure what it will prove; the 38G is still a better fighter, just not as dominating as the others on Karnak's list.
-
Got some Q's about the historical 410:
Was the turret system heavily armoured? (I notice that .303s can knock it out)
Did the slats come out independently of eachother? (This causes quite some unpredictable instability during manouvres)
-
The only historical account I have read of the Me410's turrets came from the perspective of a Spitfire Mk IX pilot in Italy. He and his wingman encountered an Me410, probably a PR version, which dove to the deck to escape them. The Spitfires pursued but his wingman gave up the chase. He was slowly closing on the 410 so he kept at the tail chase. The 410's tail gunner proceeded to empty his guns at the slowly overtaking Spitfire without ever scoring a hit. The 410 was subsequently shot down by the Spitfire.
As to the slats, I am not aware of any WWII slats that did not deploy independently.
-
You really love that little anecdote, don't you Karnak? ;)
-
You really love that little anecdote, don't you Karnak? ;)
Its the only Me410 anecdote I have.... :p
That said, it was kinda relevant to the question of the tail guns. In reality they seem to have been rather ineffective.
Of course it also could have been that they were miscalibrated on that particular Me410 or that the tail gunner on that Me410 sucked.
-
Its the only Me410 anecdote I have.... :p
That said, it was kinda relevant to the question of the tail guns. In reality they seem to have been rather ineffective.
Of course it also could have been that they were miscalibrated on that particular Me410 or that the tail gunner on that Me410 sucked.
The ineffectiveness of the gunner seem to be a property shared with the 110s. I recall many stories of allied pilots shooting down 110s and not one case where they mention taking hits from the gunner. Even worse, in several account the allied pilot closed in on an unsuspecting 110 from behind - what the heck was the gunner doing?! watching an inflight movie while eating his Leberkaese?
The rear gunner and guns were clearly not worth their weight and space on board. Were they at least helping with navigation?
-
While covering the Dunkirk evacuations Robert Stanford Tuck's Spitfire Mk I got shot up fairly badly by the tailgun of a Bf110C that he subsequently shot down.
-
Ineffective defensive weapons is something the 410 shares with every WWII aircraft that had them. A box of B-17s has what? ... 50 to 60 guns that can fire at any one direction. Still the 109s and 190s... and 110s, 410s, and even Ju88s and Do17s got through and slaughtered them when they had no fighter escort.
-
Hi there <S>! Sure we can do that. Just give me a reminder in January when I'm back in the game. Though I'm not sure what it will prove; the 38G is still a better fighter, just not as dominating as the others on Karnak's list.
Sounds great, Im just looking to have fun, and watch the 410 be fought......not trying to prove anything. Worse case, maybe it'll help scrape some rust off my "G" flying :lol :salute
-
There was a single seat heavy 410 fighter available at some stage but it was not very popular. The pilots prefferred to have a tailgunner and less performance without GM1. Go figure if the gunner was considered useless...
Also notice that the tail guns in 410 can be considered as a powered turret so their dispersion should be rather small and accuracy very much better since the recoil does not affect the aiming as in Ju88, Do14 He111 rear facing guns.
-C+
-
There was a single seat heavy 410 fighter available at some stage but it was not very popular. The pilots prefferred to have a tailgunner and less performance without GM1. Go figure if the gunner was considered useless...
He may have been useless as a gunner, but I'm sure he was valuable as an enemy aircraft spotter.
- oldman
-
A second pair of eyes are very useful. Perhaps not useful enough considering the weight and aerodynamic penalties, but when the aircraft is designed like that the extra eyes are well worth the 150 lbs of the second crew member and his gear. And as long as he's there, why not give him a gun.
-
Perhaps not useful enough considering the weight and aerodynamic penalties, but when the aircraft is designed like that the extra eyes are well worth the 150 lbs of the second crew member and his gear. And as long as he's there, why not give him a gun.
Ask de-Havilland, he'll tell you.
-
A second pair of eyes are very useful. Perhaps not useful enough considering the weight and aerodynamic penalties, but when the aircraft is designed like that the extra eyes are well worth the 150 lbs of the second crew member and his gear. And as long as he's there, why not give him a gun.
A flex mounted gun as on the Bf110, sure. A ton of remote controlled turret mechanisms, not so much.
-
As to the slats, I am not aware of any WWII slats that did not deploy independently.
The Westland Whirlwind's outer slats were manual and linked together.
Sorry if this offends some people's favourite plane, but I think the 410 was a terrible design solution. :old:
-
nrshida, I agree.
Otherwise,
I don't know about real life, but in this game; having the rear turret adds a lot of mental safety factor and means I can force situations in which I can use it (when the opportunity arises).
My only question about this is really how easily was such a system knocked out? most of the time it is killed easier or about as easy as the rear gun on the 110G.
Which is the most frustrating thing :_(
-
I don't know how easy it was to knock out, but if you look at diagrams of the Me410 the rear turret apparatus is very large. If HTC modeled its "hit box" based on that it probably would explain why it is pretty easy to knock out in AH.
-
"Sorry if this offends some people's favourite plane, but I think the 410 was a terrible design solution."
That's all right. Care to elaborate why you consider 410 like that?
-C+
-
That's all right. Care to elaborate why you consider 410 like that?
Alright but don't get all moody and defensive now, it's just an interesting discussion :old:
Just a bit of idle doodling from a design perspective...
It's arguable whether the rear armament is worth the weight and drag penalty in the first place (second crew member notwithstanding). I think that DeHavilland demonstrated this with the Mosquito design (better to strip that out and run with the extra speed). But if you're going to insist on having defensive armament then you'd be hard pushed to find a more convoluted solution. Splitting the weapons on either side of the fuselage ensures that you halve the armament available for any shots apart from those where the attacking aircraft is directly in the same plane as you. The whole barbette solution is essentially a remote controlled turret, mounted in ridiculous proximity to the cockpit. I don't know what the total weight of the whole assembly including control and electrical system was but I imagine it was quite a lump, hideously complex to manufacture and maintain and not really bringing an awful lot to the party over a pair of very lightweight flexible mounts, say.
With the flaps and the radiators the designers failed to take advantage of the twin engine format and basically duplicated all the disadvantages of a single liquid-cooled fighter. The Mosquito and some other designs with this format reduce drag a lot by plonking the rads in an inner split wing section. They also decided to use a low profile nacelle as it merges with the wing presumably to facilitate the plain flap format which forced them to use a rotating main leg instead of using a deeper nacelle and exploiting that for both a simplified landing gear and also a superior flap solution. Again more unnecessary complexity from a poor design decision and more weight (a common theme).
With a pair of those very powerful engines you should expect a very high speed but it's mediocre compared to its peers (you guys say), this implies a high drag shape, it's reasonably transitional in form so probably the juxtaposition of nacelles and fuselage conspire against it (in addition to the radiators etc.) to make a very poor overall aerodynamic form. This is a stark contrast to the Mosquito say which is very clean and simply 'looks right' (<-- a very good metric even in today's computer rich environment).
It very much looks like the sort of design that emerges from an overly large design team / committee perhaps with conflicting interests. It's as if different factions were all vying to have their ideas incorporated which totally removes the holistic quality of a design. Contrast this to DeHavilland's rather clean design process or even an earlier instantiation of the Messerschmitt design team itself which brings me to the final point the structure:
Old Willy did some really clever things with the design of the 109, most especially centralising stresses and making single components do more than one job, this is undoubtedly superior to the Spitfire's internal structure, for example. Lighter, stronger, easier to manufacture and maintain and scalable. These concepts were apparently abandoned for the 410 however which is back to disparate structures and distributed stress throughout, again increased weight and complexity. It's a devolution of their design philosophy.
With those engines and other components it's not a big stretch to imagine a slick design roughly equivalent to the Mosquito, essentially a twin late war 109 (as you could argue the Mosquito is a twin Spitfire). With an empty weapons bay, such a beast could have worried a lot of fighters in terms of speed, climb rate and even perhaps manoeuvrability.
Alternatively if they had been really committed to the effective rear gunner concept then they might have instead employed the Fokker G.1 format with a long and slender central nacelle and a single rear mounted and damped, manually aimed 20-mm with a coaxial sight. That would give a large field of fire including downwards, be more intuitive to aim and would be far lighter and more streamlined than the barbette approach. Another solution would have been to install a single remote controlled gun right in the arse of the tail, since you're going to all the trouble to develop a remote controlled gun you might as well locate it in a sensible position. Then you would have good reason to call it a Hornet! :old:
-
Nice writeup. :aok
-
I don't agree with the mosquito having the "looks right"; it never struck me like that at first. To me it looks more like a fixed wing dragon fly with tail stabs (that's why I never fly it). If anything, its just perfectly "Built right"; en contrare, to this metal monster we are discussing.
The barbettes are lacking something yes, but being in the very end of the tail makes it hard to reach the high angle of attack targets above you, so its a tradeoff somewhere. If anything; if they had added another barbette on the top of the fuselage and the bottom, to make it 4; that would of been quite the thing to see and a really effective defensive armament (you would always have atleast 2 guns to put on the target).
-
To me, gunners on a fighter is a concept that fails while still on the drawing board. What is the purpose gunners? active defense. The other form of active defense is maneuvering. Fighters rely on maneuvers as active defense. Bombers (WWII) give up all evasive maneuvers and rely entirely on massed firepower of gunners. There is very little middle ground as the two concepts conflict. Gunners are useless if their plane is maneuvering. To be able to aim and hit, their plane needs to do very little maneuvering. The installation of the guns and turrets hurt maneuverability and speed. So it is one or the other, not both.
By installing the turret system, the design team is stating that in case the 410 is attacked they expect it to do NO evasives, but instead to rely on the gunner to fend off the attacker. If there is any intention that the 410 would maneuver like a fighter, the gunner is useless and the plane is better off without it (as a gunner, not as a 2nd crew). A concept doomed to failure on a fighter.
-
That is only if you have an absolutist way of approaching the situation, I am pretty sure you could fire your guns while manouvering because on such a plane you would first not be able to perform amazing acrobatic feats anyways (based on the FM here and not to mention the guns were fully mechanical).
But otherwise, the idea behind the german "destroyer" is at the very heart of development; the concept of an "everything" machine, which provides a pinnacle and direction for the "stem cells" of further developments and offshoots, like dedicated fighters, or bombers or interceptors.
It is not a bad idea, but it takes so much more time to get right then a specialist machine and like mentioned before, the 410 really needed more thought.
Tell ya what, if the 410 HAD those 4 barbettes here, how would you feel about approaching it?
All it takes is someone semi decent with a mouse and a well calibrated gunsite (1k,800,600,400).
-
Gunnery in AH is much easier than in RL. Aiming while maneuvering is incredibly difficult on two levels. The one is that the gunner himself is under G and being thrown around in the cockpit - in real life, back seat system operators on fighters have to be careful not to bang their heads against the canopy when the pilot surprises them with a quick roll. Operating the guns under 5G will not result in accurate aim, especially if they are hand held. Sitting backwards through twists and turns was not a pleasant experience.
The other is that gunnery off the axis of the plane is complicated. For example, shooting at the profile of a plane in your front sector requires much more lead than firing at the profile of a plane flying parallel to you at your 3 o'clock. Gunners in AH also score much poorer when you approach them from unusual angles like above and the side. Add to that the acceleration of a maneuvering plane that make bullets fly off of your aim point and gunners can hit **** like that.
-
Tell ya what, if the 410 HAD those 4 barbettes here, how would you feel about approaching it?
I would be unconcerned with its tail guns.
-
Let's not forget amid all this fighter talk that the 410 was also designed as a schnellbomber, and most of them served in bomber/attack/recce roles.
-
I don't agree with the mosquito having the "looks right"; it never struck me like that at first.
You've got to think like air! :old:
Nowadays designers call it Biomimicry, but those pseudo raindrop shapes are also nature's solution to this kind of issue. There are lots of examples of this in design. I think there is also something else at play with the 410, Mosquito, Whirlwind and Sea Hornet etcetera, but I haven't got time to work through the sectional drawings :old:
Tell ya what, if the 410 HAD those 4 barbettes here, how would you feel about approaching it?
I'd feel safer. Imagine what the weight of four would to to the airframe and you'd still only be able to bring two to bear. More guns wouldn't solve it. A good indication is when you have to add extra levels of complexity to solve your problem, then it's time to re-examine your fundamental solution.
Just for the sake of argument: how do you feel approaching the top of a Ki-67? Me, I feel the need for new underpants :banana:
-
"Alright but don't get all moody and defensive now, it's just an interesting discussion"
Thanks for a condescending start but I rarely burn my fuse over these thinks unlike some other people here.
"It's arguable whether the rear armament is worth the weight and drag penalty in the first place (second crew member notwithstanding). I think that DeHavilland demonstrated this with the Mosquito design (better to strip that out and run with the extra speed). But if you're going to insist on having defensive armament then you'd be hard pushed to find a more convoluted solution. Splitting the weapons on either side of the fuselage ensures that you halve the armament available for any shots apart from those where the attacking aircraft is directly in the same plane as you. The whole barbette solution is essentially a remote controlled turret, mounted in ridiculous proximity to the cockpit. I don't know what the total weight of the whole assembly including control and electrical system was but I imagine it was quite a lump, hideously complex to manufacture and maintain and not really bringing an awful lot to the party over a pair of very lightweight flexible mounts, say."
Arguable indeed. When we look at the design choices made to give the 410 "Hornet" its "sting" it has to be considered a very clean low drag design the only negative factor being the weight. As I already pointed out pilots rather had the rear gunner than the added performance given by 30 minutes of GM-1 endurance -and it was not a small boost!
Hideously complex? They made hideously complex "kommandogerät" to thousands of FW190s during the war, I doubt the gun system was even that complex. Also like I have pointed out I think the 410 gun barbette is almost useless in this game either due to ridiculous vibration when firing or ineffectiveness of MG131. I have lit the noses of several LA7s within 200yds without ANY effect whatsoever.
"With the flaps and the radiators the designers failed to take advantage of the twin engine format and basically duplicated all the disadvantages of a single liquid-cooled fighter. The Mosquito and some other designs with this format reduce drag a lot by plonking the rads in an inner split wing section. They also decided to use a low profile nacelle as it merges with the wing presumably to facilitate the plain flap format which forced them to use a rotating main leg instead of using a deeper nacelle and exploiting that for both a simplified landing gear and also a superior flap solution. Again more unnecessary complexity from a poor design decision and more weight (a common theme)."
Do you have any figures or explanations to offer how much superior the radiator was in the Mossie than that of standard recessed MT design? It has already been conluded that the problem with surface radiators (as in Spitty) the boundary layer makes part of the radiator ineffective and this is for the large part negated in MT recessed radiator where the boundary layer does not enter the radiator also giving the radiator smaller drag surface seen from the front. Apart from boundary layer effect negation the radiator needs a certain area to be effective and when it does what it does it always creates drag. How was this any better than that of 410? Besides first Mossies came with a small engine nacelle but more about that later.
"With a pair of those very powerful engines you should expect a very high speed but it's mediocre compared to its peers (you guys say), this implies a high drag shape, it's reasonably transitional in form so probably the juxtaposition of nacelles and fuselage conspire against it (in addition to the radiators etc.) to make a very poor overall aerodynamic form. This is a stark contrast to the Mosquito say which is very clean and simply 'looks right' (<-- a very good metric even in today's computer rich environment)."
No. One part of the problem is the wing profile used which is NACA 23018, an 18% thickness profile which gives the wing good lift qualities even in low speed and high start weight. Up high where the drag is lower the wing is too small (except when the armament is light) so the induced drag is also high but as it happens the FTH of DB603 is around 20k so at that height the aircraft should perform pretty well. As there is plenty of PS available and a thick wing +slats you would expect the manuverability to be pretty good at large AoA. Well, according to Mosq's chart this is not so in Allies High. You can also compare the lift qualities to, say, Tiffie, Hurricane and BW which all have a thick airfoil to get a grip what qualities a thick wing has -yet 410 handling radically differs from these aircraft even if it has slats and the other examples do not.
Me410 also has a large rudder when compared to that of Mossie yet of those two the Mossie is more stable in slow flight, even if they had to make the engine nacelles longer due to stability issues after the intial patch of Mossies AND it had a 13% wing profile without slats! Mossie gets another free lunch there.
410 compresses after 400 mph. Where did that come from? In 410s life early on the field considered the dive brakes to be useless and suggested removing them totally from the design to speed up the production. This was not done even later on in majority of the new planes. If the 410, plane capable of divebombing, had a serious problem with compression would the field units suggest the removal of dive brakes? Add that to Mossie's free lunches.
"It very much looks like the sort of design that emerges from an overly large design team / committee perhaps with conflicting interests. It's as if different factions were all vying to have their ideas incorporated which totally removes the holistic quality of a design. Contrast this to DeHavilland's rather clean design process or even an earlier instantiation of the Messerschmitt design team itself which brings me to the final point the structure:"
According to history of 410 that is not how it happened. However there were other, some more competent, designs around the same time so 410 design did have potent competition. Why 410 won then? Maybe it was due to old Willy's good relations to Nazi party?
These aircraft, 410/Mossie, also have a different philosophy behind their designs. Me 410 is a light bomber, dive bomber and a "heavy zerstörer" to be used against bombers. Mossie was used as a light bomber and an attack aircraft (despite the liquid cooled engines) and later on as a (night) fighter and intruder.
All in all while I'm happy that 410 is finally in this game I think the way it is modelled gives a false idea what was the actual potential of the design.
-C+
PS. Almost forgot: :old:
-
Thanks for a condescending start
:frown:
If you feel the AH 410 is modelled incorrectly you should probably submit a case to HTC. I'm only generalistically discussing design decisions and features of the real aircraft.
When we look at the design choices made to give the 410 "Hornet" its "sting" it has to be considered a very clean low drag design the only negative factor being the weight.
True the barbettes are reasonably sleek, but the extra weight must be borne by the wings which causes more induced drag. This is what I mean with holistic design, everything is connected as a single entity.
Hideously complex?
Alright, uneccesarily complex then. What does it practically bring to the party over a decent balanced and damped flexible mount?
Do you have any figures or explanations to offer how much superior the radiator was in the Mossie than that of standard recessed MT design?
No I'm afraid no figures, you'll have to work those out for yourself. I think if we apply lateral thinking we can say with some confidence however that surface radiators were a good deal more 'draggy' for the reason you mentioned. We know how much better the Mustang's radiator intake is just because it avoids this effect. I think the recessed radiators are a lot closer to this than to surface rads.
No. One part of the problem is the wing profile used which is NACA 23018, an 18% thickness profile which gives the wing good lift qualities even in low speed and high start weight.
Okay, so it has a dubious selection of wing as well. :rolleyes: :lol
Me410 also has a large rudder when compared to that of Mossie yet of those two the Mossie is more stable in slow flight, even if they had to make the engine nacelles longer due to stability issues after the intial patch of Mossies AND it had a 13% wing profile without slats! Mossie gets another free lunch there.
I think you're stretching your logic there. The Mosquito could simply have been a superior shape and solution (with the longer nacelles). A larger airframe is usually more docile than a smaller one. The Me410 might have missed out on this simply because it was a poor shape. The handling was always an issue I thought. The large vert stab was needed to control lateral stability problems wasn't it? Then there's the asymetrically deploying slats on top of that. A problem which they knew about in the mid 30s already?
According to history of 410 that is not how it happened. However there were other, some more competent, designs around the same time so 410 design did have potent competition. Why 410 won then? Maybe it was due to old Willy's good relations to Nazi party?
You are no doubt right, I'm not a buff on the 410, but the design gives that impression.
These aircraft, 410/Mossie, also have a different philosophy behind their designs. Me 410 is a light bomber, dive bomber and a "heavy zerstörer" to be used against bombers. Mossie was used as a light bomber and an attack aircraft (despite the liquid cooled engines) and later on as a (night) fighter and intruder.
There's sufficient similarity to draw a comparison. The roles of both changed during use.
All in all while I'm happy that 410 is finally in this game I think the way it is modelled gives a false idea what was the actual potential of the design.
I'm sorry to disagree with you, I think the design was a dubious iteration of an already problematic design. It was overcomplex, overweight and replete with poor design decisions.
If you enjoy flying it in the game then more power to you :salute
-
Your "personal affection" to any particular plane does not aid in it's effectiveness. You get what you get. It is up to you to figure out the aircrafts idiosyncrasies and how those idiosyncrasies affect how you can use the aircraft.
You have the benefit of trying many many things many times without actually dying and losing all the information you have gained. With a well thought out approach, and practice you may actually be able to obtain better results than what "history" documented for the aircraft.
-
"Allied High"? Really? If you want everything you say to be ignored that kind of juvenile BS is a good way to accomplish that.
You compare the Me410's wing to the Typhoon's and Hurricane's wing and then whine about it not turning as well, but ignore the fact that the Me410's wing loading is vastly higher than either and that the Typhoon is hardly good at turning while the Hurricane is slow as molasses. The Typhoon also rolls like crap.
As to the Mosquito's radiators, De Haviland claimed that they provided a net boost in thrust, much like the P-51's. I am not sure if that is true or not though as Supermarine claimed the Spitfire's radiator would boost thrust too and if it did it wasn't even close to compensating for the drag of the radiator.
-
You compare the Me410's wing to the Typhoon's and Hurricane's wing and then whine about it not turning as well, but ignore the fact that the Me410's wing loading is vastly higher than either and that the Typhoon is hardly good at turning while the Hurricane is slow as molasses. The Typhoon also rolls like crap.
I didn't see Charge saying anywhere that Me410 should turn as well as the aircraft he mentioned. That would be rather illogical considering the differences in turn radius of the Hurricane and the Typhoon for example and thus, it's rather illogical to assume that he meant that.
Maybe you should read his post again?
-
More than once I've done a tight turn in a 110, 410, A20, or other such aircraft and then hopped in to that dorsal rear gun and caught a pursuing fighter with a face full of lead enough to smoke an engine, deal a PW, or generally make them get shy real quick. The slower the aircraft and the more time the rear gunner has to let loose a steam of fire the more likely they will pull their own weight. It helps to be low and slow. When at higher alts and higher speeds the fighters have an even greater advantage.
Do not discount the dorsal rear guns on anything if you're in their line of fire. :aok
-
Man, ive sent plenty of non monster (some monster) planes home packing with just the two 13mm, let alone my fantasy of 4 :D
The 410 handles the extra 1000lb's of rockets pretty easily without being fazed, so 2 more barbettes on the already existing mechanism might of been ok :D
*sigh*
-
Man, ive sent plenty of non monster (some monster) planes home packing with just the two 13mm, let alone my fantasy of 4 :D
The 410 handles the extra 1000lb's of rockets pretty easily without being fazed, so 2 more barbettes on the already existing mechanism might of been ok :D
*sigh*
Not sure which plane you've been flying with the 4 air to air rockets on them, but the 410 is a dead dog instead of just a dog when the 4 rockets are mounted. :headscratch:
FWIW, I've recorded the different weights each weapon package has. For simplification purposes we'll say all of the packages include %50 fuel (40min in MA) and 4/13mm MG's:
+2/20mm: 21118 lbs (base package)
+4/20mm: 21689 lbs
+6/20mm: 22198 lbs
+2/20mm & 2/30mm: 22479 lbs
+2/20mm & 1/50mm: 22601 lbs
As you can see, having just the 50mm adds almost 1500 lbs to the plane from the base weight that is shown in the speed/climb charts. The 410 is a different bird once the weight is piled on, the same cant be said for the Mossi Mk IV and 110G-2. It seems to be that the 410 is very adversely affected by any extra weight in handling and acceleration. I've not tested the top speeds just yet, but will.
-
It does make it a little sloshy, as does having 100% fuel; but it sure doesnt effect the flight characteristics as bad as it effects the 110G!
-
It does make it a little sloshy, as does having 100% fuel; but it sure doesnt effect the flight characteristics as bad as it effects the 110G!
Maybe because its already that much worse than the 110?
-
IRL 410 where effective killers vs unescorted bombers, and as night-fighters, something AH unfortunately can not reproduce due to the fact that bombers defensive weapons reach out and are effective up to 1.5k out in AH and we do not have night in here.
I still remain suspicious against its compression speed, and its total vulnerability to enemy fire.
Also a small numbers of allied planes got shot down by the rear gunner of the 410.
-
Anyone notice that when the 410 loses its left rudder, it dips to the left on climbs?
-
I was living in an illusion that the 410 only had one rudder.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/lBoqA.jpg)
-
(http://i.imgur.com/lBoqA.jpg)
No wonder it turns so poorly!
-
(http://i.imgur.com/lBoqA.jpg)
Bit odd. Off to the bugs section with you young man :old:
-
(http://i.imgur.com/lBoqA.jpg)
That seems to be a bug in the dmg-listing.
Do you know what a rudder is?
-
Do you know what a rudder is?
:frown:
-
Maybe "left rudder" means the rudder that was left in the hangar when the plane took off with the other. How it took damage is a mystery though.
-
:P
Yes, I do know what a rudder is.
This bug was reported when the 410 first came out and it hasn't been fixed yet, neither have a few other bugs.
I figured I would have a bit of fun poking at the whole modelling thing! :D
-
This bug was reported when the 410 first came out and it hasn't been fixed yet, neither have a few other bugs.
It's cos no one flies it. Not even the Luftwaffe :rofl
-
Well I tell ya what, I see more 410s then 110s!
-
It's cos no one flies it. Not even the Luftwaffe :rofl
Last tour the 410 has seen more usage than the P-47N. It's ranked #31 out of 67 fighters available in that tour. Pretty good for a fighter that nobody flies... :noid
-
Last tour the 410 has seen...
:rofl Good grief.
Is it true statistically Lusche, that Germans tend to laugh spontaneously less than other European cultures in a 24 hour period? I'm sure I've seen a pie chart somewhere (http://i1114.photobucket.com/albums/k526/rwrk2/stirpot.gif)
Well I tell ya what, I see more 410s then 110s!
I'm not really surprised, I don't think it is because it is a better fighter as such do you? I'm sure it is more to do with the reason it was mostly voted in in the first place: a huge selection of toys in the hangar that go bang and make pretty flashes!
-
Is it true statistically Lusche, that Germans tend to laugh spontaneously less than other European cultures in a 24 hour period? I'm sure I've seen a pie chart somewhere
I only know that laughing spontaneusly is classified as a medical condition here.... :noid
-
I only know that laughing spontaneusly is classified as a medical condition here.... :noid
I meant spontaneously as in without analysing the joke in a scientific manner before deciding if laughter is the appropriate response :old:
-
Well... I've heard that Germans do find this funny: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ha8uVPxBRrk
What does that say?
-
Well, my experience in AH of late is that if I take the time to position correctly my wife will find something that I need to do the moment I am in position to attack, or if she is out and about, she'll call right at that moment. My only Me410 sortie thus far was a 45 minute climb and flight to find bombers, followed by getting in position, and as soon as I put the nose down to dive on the bombers the phone rang and she needed me to answer some questions. It is hard to attack and focus on detailed questions. Result: One dead B-24J and one dead Me410,
Last week, climbed a B5N2 to 12,000ft to go bomb a radar, long flight there and I see an La-7 upping as I near the target, but I figure with the B5N2's manueverability I stand a fair chance of causing him to auger, so I steady on my bomb run. Phone rings, she needs me to find something. Result, dead radar, but La-7s are hard to avoid when you aren't able to focus on keeping track of them.
-
What does that say?
Nothing good :lol
Well, my experience in AH of late is that if I take the time to position correctly my wife will find something that I need to do the moment I am in position to attack...
I think I read this in someone's signature once: wife ak? Deploy chaff $$$$$$$$$$
-
Well... I've heard that Germans do find this funny: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ha8uVPxBRrk
What does that say?
Not quite as much as this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVctHGGA_Ik
Doesn't need translation.