Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Zacherof on January 27, 2013, 08:22:05 PM
-
Why don't we have them? :headscratch:
-
Did any see service? All I recall seeing was test installations that didn't get used.
-
The twin MG 151/20 gondolas did see service but were later replaced by the outer-wing MK 108 gunships.
-
The only gondolas you could argue for the Fw190 would be the twin 20mm packs, and those saw some service but weren't used much because they slowed the plane down and weighed it down too much. They were used against US bombers in some areas.
Whereas Ubisoft's IL2 series has a bajillion BS gunpods listed for the FWs and BFs, almost NONE of them saw service... ever... I think this is just a matter of "saw it in another game, want it here".
-
This was a read it, wonder where it's at
-
What book did you read it in? What exactly did it say about the Gondolas? Have any other books mentioned them?
All of these questions will help the community to help you out a bit more. Taking a scan of the page and posting it up here would be even better
-
Let me get back to you on this 1. Ill need to go to my local library to findem for you.
-
The WB 151 dual cannon pack was used operationaly by JG 11 (there is known FW 190 A5/U12 Wnr. 410266, flown by Leutnant Erich Hondt, 2./JG 11 in Husum Oktober 1943)
(http://www.afwing.com/intro/fw-190/chyvalries_190a5u12.jpg)
(Not that I would want anymore weight on those wings).
EDIT: Another shot:
(http://www.luchtoorlog.be/img/fw190a/mon5_71.jpg)
-
The WB 151 dual cannon pack was used operationaly by JG 11 (there is known FW 190 A5/U12 Wnr. 410266, flown by Leutnant Erich Hondt, 2./JG 11 in Husum Oktober 1943)
(http://www.afwing.com/intro/fw-190/chyvalries_190a5u12.jpg)
(Not that I would want anymore weight on those wings).
EDIT: Another shot:
(http://www.luchtoorlog.be/img/fw190a/mon5_71.jpg)
Curious, the A-5 with the clean wing had 2 x 20s per wing. Yet in the photo its only a single 20 in the wing root and then the 2x20 pod. Wonder why the internal 20 was deleted when the 20 pod was attached and not just kept in place to complement the 20 pod. Performance being like a pregnant yak something to do with it?
-
Curious, the A-5 with the clean wing had 2 x 20s per wing. Yet in the photo its only a single 20 in the wing root and then the 2x20 pod. Wonder why the internal 20 was deleted when the 20 pod was attached and not just kept in place to complement the 20 pod. Performance being like a pregnant yak something to do with it?
Isn't the outer 20mm in the A-5 way out on the wing and is a MG/FF? Also, I understood not all A-5s carried the MG/FF outer cannons.
-
6x20mms...If I am at 25k (which could burn the drop tank getting there) and the buffs are 17-10k, I could get three good, clean passes. That would mean I have the E to blow through the escorts, pull up, nose over and get two more passes.
After that, maybe even before that, it is a race to the deck and ack-cover with limited ability to fight.
My guess is this was learned the hardway and why only a few examples were used.
-
Isn't the outer 20mm in the A-5 way out on the wing and is a MG/FF?
Yes it is and it's mostly worthless.
-
20mm FF used against buffs are not worthless in AH.
I like the 190-A series look :rock
(http://sphotos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/537168_526006307430480_1755219858_n.jpg)
-
I like the 190-A series look :rock
How could you not.
-
Isn't the outer 20mm in the A-5 way out on the wing and is a MG/FF? Also, I understood not all A-5s carried the MG/FF outer cannons.
Yes, they are MG/FFs. IIRC, A5s with the outboard cannons were a minority in the field, despite that being their base armament.
-
20mm FF used against buffs are not worthless in AH.
The ballistics difference between the MGFF and the MG-151-20 ar so different it's hard to believe they mounted them together. If you're hitting at typical buff hunting distances you'll miss with one set or the other and you better hope it's the punchless MGFF's that are missing the target. Either that or you're getting in too close and risking a collision or being shot.
For the added weight they just aren't worth it for any reason.
-
The ballistics difference between the MGFF and the MG-151-20 ar so different it's hard to believe they mounted them together. If you're hitting at typical buff hunting distances you'll miss with one set or the other and you better hope it's the punchless MGFF's that are missing the target. Either that or you're getting in too close and risking a collision or being shot.
For the added weight they just aren't worth it for any reason.
In real life the cannons were considered a bit more leathal than here though. Nobody in real life would start chuggling away in a buff - hey look at that tard he tries to shoot us with those crappy MG-151-20:s LOLZ! One 151 through the aluminium skin of a bomber can maim or kill several crew members.
-
The ballistics difference between the MGFF and the MG-151-20 ar so different it's hard to believe they mounted them together. If you're hitting at typical buff hunting distances you'll miss with one set or the other and you better hope it's the punchless MGFF's that are missing the target. Either that or you're getting in too close and risking a collision or being shot.
For the added weight they just aren't worth it for any reason.
I seldom attack bombers, so I can't contest this conclusion. But in a fighter v fighter situation I've found that I much prefer having the four cannon, even if two are MG-FFs. The added weight isn't really noticeable, but the added firepower at close range is.
- oldman
-
I seldom attack bombers, so I can't contest this conclusion. But in a fighter v fighter situation I've found that I much prefer having the four cannon, even if two are MG-FFs. The added weight isn't really noticeable, but the added firepower at close range is.
- oldman
Funny how folks have different experiences/conclusions about the same condition.
I can't stand those outboard guns and never load them up. For me...the performance drop off/limited ammo/ballistic discrepancy and punch aren't worth it. The 190A series is a wonderful little fighter and a ton of fun to fly and fight in. When I want the big hitter...I load out the 4x20 in an A-8.
It comes down to personal preference.
-
Funny how folks have different experiences/conclusions about the same condition.
I can't stand those outboard guns and never load them up. For me...the performance drop off/limited ammo/ballistic discrepancy and punch aren't worth it. The 190A series is a wonderful little fighter and a ton of fun to fly and fight in. When I want the big hitter...I load out the 4x20 in an A-8.
It comes down to personal preference.
You have far more experience in the A5 than I do. People are well-advised to adopt your preference, not mine!
- jkw
-
You have far more experience in the A5 than I do. People are well-advised to adopt your preference, not mine!
- jkw
You are a fighter pilot's pilot, OM. Simple as that. I wouldn't lightly discard anything you had to offer about fighter vrs. fighter engagements.
<S>
-
I personally always took them, considering total weight increase is only a little over 100 lbs, and the roll is already so superior that it can take the almost unnoticeable hit.
-
Curious, the A-5 with the clean wing had 2 x 20s per wing. Yet in the photo its only a single 20 in the wing root and then the 2x20 pod. Wonder why the internal 20 was deleted when the 20 pod was attached and not just kept in place to complement the 20 pod. Performance being like a pregnant yak something to do with it?
IIRC, the MGFFs were removed because the space in the wings were used for the magazines for the gondola guns. Same with the MK 108 guns we have in the game.
-
Yes. I don't think it's the ammo, though. I think that might be in the gunpod itself. Not totally sure. The gunpods occupied some of the space, though, as well as blocked the bulges for the ammo canisters for the MG/FF. You could not have kept functional MG/FF with the gunpod.
Also, the MG/FF aren't nearly so bad as suggested in here. They're not AS good as MG151/20s, but they are still good. When you set the convergence the same, they will hit at the same point (with variation for recoil of individual guns). They "lob" a bit more, so if you're trying to get max-deflection shots and nothing else, some of them will miss.
I fly both with and without the outboard guns. When you want a bit of a boost, go without. When you want the extra firepower, take it. The A-8 is worse with outboard guns installed than the A-5, but still it makes a difference.
I've done the "light" thing with A8s and I've done the "take 30mm into furballs" with it. Either way you're fighting against the odds, but it just depends on what you want to do at any given time. It may get you killed more, but it sure is hilarious to pop 2 targets in a row nearly instantly with those 30mm fireballs. After that, you may be SOL, but until then you'll have some laughs.
-
Yes. I don't think it's the ammo, though. I think that might be in the gunpod itself. Not totally sure. The gunpods occupied some of the space, though, as well as blocked the bulges for the ammo canisters for the MG/FF. You could not have kept functional MG/FF with the gunpod.
Ammo for the dual 20mm pods was carried in the wings.
-
For those that don't know, my JG11 skin on the 190A5 was a plane that carried these WB151 gunpods. I know they killed performance, but I'd love to toy around with them on both A5s and A8s in game some day.
-
Yes. I don't think it's the ammo, though. I think that might be in the gunpod itself. Not totally sure.
In the standard 4x MG151 armament of the 190A-6 to A-9 they fitted the gun inside the modular wing bay with the side-mounted magazine. With the twin cannon gondola however, they put the guns under the wing in the gondola and the top-mounted magazines recessed inside the wing bay.
(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/26232318/190Aguns.jpg)
(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/26232318/190A-6_R1.gif)
-
Looking at the diagrams I wonder how much wiring came into play. I understand some room was needed for the ammo belts but it looks like there was only 1 wiring connection and it made me think it was a case of either/or based on the wiring of the firering mechanism.
:salute
-
Might have been modular in nature. Take off the gun pod, open up the wing and install the single cannon, and hook up the wires left from the gun pod.
Sorta like replacing a blown speaker in your car. You don't necessary have to run new wires, you unhook the battery, remove the old speaker, drop the new one in, and hook it up to the old wires.
-
Upon some further checking I found the arming system could only arm 4 weapons at a time! It would overload the system otherwise.
It appears they used the same electrical connection for either the inwing guns or the gondolas. The gondola's ammo was stored inthe wing to take advantage of the heating system in place for the onboard guns.
The main trigger fired mg's and inboard 20's as they were on 1 system and the secondary trigger fired the outboard guns or gondies,they use a sepperate electrical panel and wired a seperate trigger for either bombs or rockets,this was on the A models.
:salute
-
6x20mms...If I am at 25k (which could burn the drop tank getting there) and the buffs are 17-10k, I could get three good, clean passes. That would mean I have the E to blow through the escorts, pull up, nose over and get two more passes.
After that, maybe even before that, it is a race to the deck and ack-cover with limited ability to fight.
My guess is this was learned the hardway and why only a few examples were used.
Flying smart you HO the mid plane in the buff set, then proceed to the next buff set in the Tonga line, do not get greedy, since high 11-1 clock attacks is the only option, if you don't want an oily engine or worse.
90% I fly with 4*20mm.
If higher escorts bug you, enter dive, if they know what they are doing.
Lived by these rules this TOD against buffs ( except Lancs,B26 that begs to be killed from underneath) and I have only lost one airframe to a collision against them.
-
In WW2 the bombers cruised even during combat. Luftwaffe pilots could and DID repeatedly attack the front, turn around and overtake the bombers again, and attack from the front again, all in a single engagement.
In here it's totally not the same.
-
If I had x1.0 fuel I know that's how I would take on B17s
More of a time issue, IMO. Hard to make repeated head-on passes before they reach target.
-
Fuel is a time issue in the MA.
-
You know what I mean.
-
So could they be added.
-
I have asked, in wishlist for more realism in flying in formation, ie if you want a set of buff flying formation you have to go throttled down, or lose drones.
You get totally molested flying parallel with a buff set 9 o'clock at 1.5k out, which is totally BS.
Staying there only for some seconds always gives an oily engine (like there is no other place to get shot at) and then wing-tip go away.
I've been shooting with pretty much everything IRL, 7mm,12.7mm 20mm 9cm and up. and there is not a snowball in hell that anyone can shoot from a moving platform at 1.5k out on a small moving object and hit with any precision without radar and computer aid.
Were you shooting multiple MG's at once though? :old:
And could you instead fly oh I dunno, 2.0k parallel instead? :headscratch:
-
More of a time issue, IMO. Hard to make repeated head-on passes before they reach target.
It wasn't a time issue, but rather a speed issue. In this game often bombers have only a small margin of speed difference between attackers and bombers, but in WW2 it was more like the fighters were twice as fast.
Same as overtaking a yugo in your car vs overtaking a pedestrian.
-
In the A-8 hand book the wr-21 are considered "Special Weapons" but we have those. :headscratch:
The gondolas are just part of the armament installation A8/R1.
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/fwa8gondies_zpsef625871.jpg)
-
Sure, but they were seldom used, and only with one or two JGs for a short while. It was a short gap between the A-4 or A-5 and when the A-6 introduced internal MG151/20s. Once those came around the gunpod, while still technically something you could install and mount, wasn't used anymore.
The performance drop was just that bad. They opted for less guns but mounted internally for no extra drag.
Overall it was a minor footnote in LW history, but I do admit a slight fascination with this setup and would like to see it in-game someday.
-
HTCs, can we get a 190 revamp? I think it would be very fruitful, as is:
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/top10frames_zps66bddef3.jpg)
(from Lusche's thread http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,345669.msg4564380.html#msg4564380 )
In all seriousness, the 190 lineup doesn't need it as badly as other aircraft (key term: need), but at 10%-use but umpty-% under-polished in AH... very fruitful I wager. Hopefuly someday soon.
-
It wasn't a time issue, but rather a speed issue. In this game often bombers have only a small margin of speed difference between attackers and bombers, but in WW2 it was more like the fighters were twice as fast.
Same as overtaking a yugo in your car vs overtaking a pedestrian.
The cause of the problem is speed, but it still manifests itself as lack of time.
When I said that to Dolby, he was originally claiming fuel as the reason he doesn't head-on bombers. Personally, I don't because, even in my K4 which is arguably the best low-mid alt interceptor in the game, I lack time to make repeated head-on passes before they drop.
-
It's not just time. It's speed. It wasn't always a head-on pass. Often it was climbing over a formation and very carefully attacking from a side angle where the guns didn't aim as well. Italian pilots put a lot of thought into it when attacking with C.202s and C.205s (yes, C.202s... One pilot had 6 B24 claims in his C.202, and earned 2 more after moving to C.205s later on). In this game when your tail chase gives you a closure rate of 20mph or less, any single movement removes you from firing position. If you dive on a bomber, you can't catch them again. Slashing attacks are ruled out after your first pass.
Time is one of the secondary aspects of it. The speed is the real issue. Even if you had 10 hours and unlimited gas you still wouldn't come remotely close to historic ww2 fighters' ability to reposition for repeated runs. Not when bombers in this game run full throttle WEP speeds all the time.