Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: save on August 19, 2013, 06:13:33 PM
-
I have been flying the 190F8 this month, in fighter mode.
I see no difference when hit in the A8 or the F8 from ground or air, anyone tested the differences ?
I have a sense that Lancs .0303 don't kill my F8 engine as fast when I approach from above in the F8 (tracers give them away),but its hard to count pings and I don't know where they hit.
From the Wirbies the F8 dies pretty much as other planes from what I've experienced, so is the armour useless in MA ?
Normally the A8 and the F8 both average 2-3 pings from field ack until something more critical than flaps or guns get hit, about the same as the p47.
They could be removed in the field afaik, is that something that should be a choice in ordnance?
I'm basically carrying 500kg armour extra, for little use it feels like.
-
Can you get a friend to help you in a custom arena to perform Perverts jeep and 50cal test?
-
Isn't it hard to hit the engine underneath of the F8 at some hundred of range with the underneath angle so .50 do not always penetrate ?
Or do you suggest one fly and other one shoot from jeep ?
I was hoping someone already had more experience to tell if they have seen any difference between the F8 and A8 model.
-
You may be the first man in with this observation. In the real world generally your peers would allow that you own it until you show it one way or another. Pervert pioneered a reasonable test method. You could always park a PT on shore next to a runway ending at that shore to test single 20mm rounds. Turn off kill shooter in the CM settings and your squad can help their CO test his question with a PT and a jeep.
Ever noticed the MK108 seems to have more random dispersion than it once did? The round also has a spin drift influence very unlike other cannons used in ww2 fighter aircraft. Something unique to the factors in play to create that specific auto cannon package for mounting in engine hubs. Around 2ft right hand at 400 yards. Not sure it's modeled, I'd like to think so but for the more accurate appearing dispersion patterns now at 400 yards on the offline target.
And again it could simply be my perception of Hitech tweeking the damage modeling to what constitutes a hit against different surfaces on different aircraft with different rounds. But, it looks good on the offline target when I compare it to the data from Rheinmetall - Borsig.
If you ever get a chance. Set the K4 cannon to 150. Offline fly on auto level at 312-318 IAS. This will adjust the cannon level with the ground when you shoot. Then look at how far rounds drop at 400 and the dispersion. Matches the Bf109 G6/u4 armorers ballistic diagram the closest. Then consider how far below the horizontal red line the center of your gunsight is to account for being able to aim a round that drops like a rock. That red line is your MK108 barrel line. Very few pilots had anything good to say about the MK108 in that configuration. Hitech fortunately allows you to half the drop at 400 with a 650 convergence making it easier to use in the game. So it's a game and Hitech does things with it.
-
The F-8 is indeed heavier by 489 lbs give or take a few lbs. Fuel capacity is the same (%25 = 42 gal fuel and same flight time), base guns are the same, engine is the same (in theory, there are conflicting reports as to exactly which models AH's A-8 and F-8 models actually represent). So the only place I could see the extra weight being from is the added armor around the engine and pilot as seen on the diagrams.
In terms of damage models, while I can't say I've actually tested them outright but I can say it sure does seem like the F-8 can take more hits to the engine cowling vs the A-8 and keep on trucking. I notice this more from auto ack from the fields than from player controlled guns. I get shot down just as easily in either model. :D
-
I've noticed that the F-8 is quite a bit more durable regarding the cowling and underside. Over the years, when strafing ground targets, I've gotten a lot more pings with the F-8, whereas with the A-8 I've gotten a lot more damage. One could say that this is purely coincidental, but the fact remains that the F-8 was better-armored for strafing ground targets. I imagine it has been modeled that way in AHII.
Now, if we could get all of those juicy jabo packaged the F-8 was known for...
-
I feel the A8 takes more damage. But it could just be me.
-
This is where someone who is good at custom arenas steps in and says, "Hey guys, have I got a testing arena for you". Then three of you up, park an F8 at the end of the runway next to a PT pulled up on the shore, drive a jeep up to it and test, test, test. Counting one ping at a time.
Then share with your audience who will be waiting with high expectations anything about German Iron that might gain them something good for their ride. That's why Pervert did it.
-
I've noticed that the F-8 is quite a bit more durable regarding the cowling and underside. Over the years, when strafing ground targets, I've gotten a lot more pings with the F-8, whereas with the A-8 I've gotten a lot more damage. One could say that this is purely coincidental, but the fact remains that the F-8 was better-armored for strafing ground targets. I imagine it has been modeled that way in AHII.
Now, if we could get all of those juicy jabo packaged the F-8 was known for...
INDEED!!!! I'm really surprised that HTC has yet to include any these options:
8/50kg bombs [this is something currently not available in AH on ANY aircraft, it would truly be unique!!!] This variant ESPECIALLY should be available!!!
3/250kg bombs (1 center line and 1 under each wing) [currently only the P47D and P40N offer the ability to mount 3/250kg or 500lb bombs] A very common loud out on the Ost Front!!!
1/1000kg bomb
2/30 mm MK 103 cannons (via pods or internal mount, I'm not sure)
-
The interwebs has pictures of a 190F-8 named "yellow 14" showing the 8/50kg bombs mounted. Though, those pics may not be exactly what HTC wants for "proof", but they do show four 50kg bombs mounted center line and two 50kg bombs under each wing. ;)
This variant would be unique in AH, no other single engine plane can carry 8/50kg bombs. :aok
-
The interwebs has pictures of a 190F-8 named "yellow 14" showing the 8/50kg bombs mounted. Though, those pics may not be exactly what HTC wants for "proof", but they do show four 50kg bombs mounted center line and two 50kg bombs under each wing. ;)
This variant would be unique in AH, no other single engine plane can carry 8/50kg bombs. :aok
I have posted dozens of photo of this bomb rack, including the G series etc. We should be able to get 8x 50kg bombs on a Fw190F.
-
I have posted dozens of photo of this bomb rack, including the G series etc. We should be able to get 8x 50kg bombs on a Fw190F.
And a 190G :old:
-
I have posted dozens of photo of this bomb rack, including the G series etc. We should be able to get 8x 50kg bombs on a Fw190F.
Do you have any sources (pictures) showing the 190F-8 with the 3/250 kg bombs?
I'm quite confident that HTC will, sooner or later, add in the 8/50kg and hopefully the 3/250kg options as well. After all, someone posted a simple pic of the Typhoon with a combination of 4 rockets and 2 fuel drop tanks and BAM! the next update that option was added. One would think that HTC would add certifiable ordnance options for the 190F-8 and both the 8/50kg and 3/250kb options were as popular and as important as the current options available. I'll give HTC kudos for adding the SAP bomb to the 190F-8's ordnance options, I was surprised they didn't add in the two options in question when they added the SAP.
-
The lines start blurring between F and G, with regards to their bombloads. Suffice it to say there was an underwing bombrack that could carry a 250kg bomb under each wing. Both the F and the G could mount this bomb. Think of it as similar to the Ju87 swapping the 2x50kg racks for a single 1x250kg rack. This was common amongst almost all Luftwaffe craft that carried 2x50kg wing bombs -- they were relatively ineffective and most eventually upgraded to better loads as aircraft development progressed.
This 250kg wing rack for the 190G was often paired with a centerline drop tank because of the extra fuel needed to lug such a load. 190Gs were often tasked with longer-ranged missions anyways. The 190F is often seen with a centerline 250kg and 2x50kg under each wing.
190F-8 with outboard wing rack capable of 250kg load:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/Focke-Wulf_Fw_190F_in_1945.jpg)
P.S. Loon, no 30mm gunpods were used operationally on any single-seat fighter in the Luftwaffe in WW2. The Mk103s were found to be too heavy and draggy and when fired were radically unsafe for the airframe under which their pods were slung. After preliminary testing they were dropped from the Fw190 as far as weapons development goes.
Also, the Me410 should be able to carry 8x50kg internally, as well as another 4x externally, for a total of 12x50kg.
Now THAT would be interesting, IMO. Not overly effective, but interesting nonetheless.
-
INDEED!!!! I'm really surprised that HTC has yet to include any these options:
8/50kg bombs [this is something currently not available in AH on ANY aircraft, it would truly be unique!!!] This variant ESPECIALLY should be available!!!
3/250kg bombs (1 center line and 1 under each wing) [currently only the P47D and P40N offer the ability to mount 3/250kg or 500lb bombs] A very common loud out on the Ost Front!!!
1/1000kg bomb
2/30 mm MK 103 cannons (via pods or internal mount, I'm not sure)
:aok :aok
-
The lines start blurring between F and G, with regards to their bombloads. Suffice it to say there was an underwing bombrack that could carry a 250kg bomb under each wing. Both the F and the G could mount this bomb. Think of it as similar to the Ju87 swapping the 2x50kg racks for a single 1x250kg rack. This was common amongst almost all Luftwaffe craft that carried 2x50kg wing bombs -- they were relatively ineffective and most eventually upgraded to better loads as aircraft development progressed.
This 250kg wing rack for the 190G was often paired with a centerline drop tank because of the extra fuel needed to lug such a load. 190Gs were often tasked with longer-ranged missions anyways. The 190F is often seen with a centerline 250kg and 2x50kg under each wing.
190F-8 with outboard wing rack capable of 250kg load:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/Focke-Wulf_Fw_190F_in_1945.jpg)
P.S. Loon, no 30mm gunpods were used operationally on any single-seat fighter in the Luftwaffe in WW2. The Mk103s were found to be too heavy and draggy and when fired were radically unsafe for the airframe under which their pods were slung. After preliminary testing they were dropped from the Fw190 as far as weapons development goes.
Also, the Me410 should be able to carry 8x50kg internally, as well as another 4x externally, for a total of 12x50kg.
Now THAT would be interesting, IMO. Not overly effective, but interesting nonetheless.
Good info. Thanks for sharing. The pic of the 190F-8 with the 250kg wing rack is MOAR proof. Lets hope HTC is watching this thread. :aok
I was not aware of the 8/50kg + 4/50kg option for the Me410. I dont think it would be a waste at all, once the actual damage is taken in to consideration (pound of dmg per pound of bomb weight), 10 of the 50kg bombs deliver more punch to a single target than a single 500kg bomb. Plus, the option of dropping on 4 separate targets (312 lb hardness OBJ) would be nice as well. Adding even more options to the Me410 would be nice.
-
Yeah, the F8 and the 410 seem pretty lacking for flexibility, compared to what they could do in real life.
Out of curiosity, does anyone know if 110's ever carried 250kg bombs on the wings?
-
Yeah, the F8 and the 410 seem pretty lacking for flexibility, compared to what they could do in real life.
Out of curiosity, does anyone know if 110's ever carried 250kg bombs on the wings?
I've never seen any, mainly its been drop tanks or 4 rockets.
-
I wonder why they didn't load up the 110 a lot more. I mean it could probably carry 8 50kg bombs on the wings, with another 8 on the fuselage if you packed them in tight. Could almost use it as a light bomber.
The wings are clearly capable of carrying even 500kg bombs, structurally speaking. A 110 packing that much would almost be perk worth in terms of sheer destructive capability (greater than any single bomber, save the Lancaster and B-29, and greater than even a set of light bombers.
-
I wonder why they didn't load up the 110 a lot more. I mean it could probably carry 8 50kg bombs on the wings, with another 8 on the fuselage if you packed them in tight. Could almost use it as a light bomber.
The wings are clearly capable of carrying even 500kg bombs, structurally speaking. A 110 packing that much would almost be perk worth in terms of sheer destructive capability (greater than any single bomber, save the Lancaster and B-29, and greater than even a set of light bombers.
The 110 leads a funny life, it started out as a Destroyer - a long range fighter which turned up great until Battle of Britain (mainly due to flying against obsolete junk). During BoB it was useless as a fighter, and ground attack wise carrying bombs made it a fat target. In Barbarosa did alright bombing airfields and doing limited fighter roles, however it was being phased out completely for the Me-210 - however enough were built it could continue flying, however the Me210 was a total failure, bringing the Me-110G into production.
The Bf-110E was the fighter bomber variant, however it was considered underpowered and if you lumbered 2k in ords it was rather...slow as hell (consider the C model with only 1k in ords).
I think it got brought back to life due to the British bombing at night, and the American Air raids which when unescorted the 110 and 410 did some serious damage (otherwise with escort fighters, neither were useful at all), I say around december 1944 is when it disappeared again (once the P51B showed up).
After that it stayed as a night fighter serving quite well.
But because everything shifted to the Me-210 is what really killed the 110, it probably could of been a decent fighter/bomber since it had some pretty great firepower along with bombs, however the G model was a jack of all trades type 110.
-
So basically buerocracy killed what could have been a great attacker. I wonder why they put so much into the 210 and 410 when neither offered significantly better performance nor capabilities. The 110 could have accepted the 410's armament, and carried it better as well. And the DB603's could have been used on the 127, making it reasonably powered.
It seems the 110 could have easily bested the mosquitos record for flexibility, had it not been tossed aside.
-
So basically buerocracy killed what could have been a great attacker. I wonder why they put so much into the 210 and 410 when neither offered significantly better performance nor capabilities. The 110 could have accepted the 410's armament, and carried it better as well. And the DB603's could have been used on the 127, making it reasonably powered.
It seems the 110 could have easily bested the mosquitos record for flexibility, had it not been tossed aside.
Well problem was the 110 was a total disaster at the battle of britain, its possible bullshiat killed the plane but in fact the Me-210 was in development and the luftwaffe needed a long range fighter at this point in time vs ground attack planes. Consider the time period, the Luftwaffe did not need those big guns yet, or fighter bombers. It makes more sense that they were trying to get a decent twin engine fighter to make up for the "range" problem every fighter in the world suffered from at that point.
Unfortunately because of BoB, it killed the 110, since the 210 was just finishing its prototype and trials, it seems failed to get it in the air, until they realized the 210 was flat out horrible. So basically they had to rush to drawing board for the Me-110g2
-
Probably lucky for the allies, but terrible for AH and general interestingnes.
-
Ah, the old BoB-110 myth again. The Bf 110 was rather successful in the fighter role until limited by the big fat man to fly close escort for the bombers = sitting duck like the bombers.
If F/B 110s were caught down low it was hard for them to escape.
-
Ah, the old BoB-110 myth again. The Bf 110 was rather successful in the fighter role until limited by the big fat man to fly close escort for the bombers = sitting duck like the bombers.
If F/B 110s were caught down low it was hard for them to escape.
To a degree the 110 was successful, when employed as a ground strafing or free range escort it did wonders, flying ahead or behind before the bombers (109s) showed up - it would of been highly effective. Also using them as ground attack on the radar stations instead of Stukas would of helped.
If the 110s were left High above the Bombers and not tied to close escort they would of been fine using slashing attacks with heavy armaments, while the 109s were close escort, however this didn't last very long and it does account for more then 25% of the victories in BoB.
Its slow acceleration and climb rate is what caused it to be a failure as an escort fighter, it basically neutralized the 110 causing it to have heavy losses.
Not sure how that made it "rather successful" - problem is mismanagement on Gorings part more then anything else. It doesn't make the aircraft a failure, just the tactics used caused the 110 to be crippled, otherwise if it stayed as a hunter it would of been highly successful rather than being a sitting duck.
It wasn't a total failure, however the myth that it was "slaughtered" over Britain is generally the misconception about the 110. On certain tanks it was a failure, however it did excel in hunting.
-
:rofl .. someone mentioned that the 110x would have bested the Mossi... :rofl
apple vs orange, really. They both had different origins and ultimately and both were used differently in practice. Remember that hindsight is always 20/20 and I think it is obvious that if Germany would have put more RnD in to the 110 series they would not have needed the 210 or 410. The 110 was obviously a very capable attack platform.
I know I wouldn't have wanted to be on the receiving end of either the 110 or Mossi.
-
:rofl .. someone mentioned that the 110x would have bested the Mossi... :rofl
apple vs orange, really. They both had different origins and ultimately and both were used differently in practice. Remember that hindsight is always 20/20 and I think it is obvious that if Germany would have put more RnD in to the 110 series they would not have needed the 210 or 410. The 110 was obviously a very capable attack platform.
I know I wouldn't have wanted to be on the receiving end of either the 110 or Mossi.
It could have. The 110G, could be packing around 4k in bombs by simply changing out the type of hard points on the wing. Hell, even that might not be necessary, depending on what type of rack was used to hold the drop tank. If its a universal model, the 110G was fully capable of carrying 2200kg of bombs with no modifications to the structure. Drop in the Mk 103's firing AP rounds, and you've got what might have been the most potent ground attack platform of WWII.
Could it have been a better fighter than the mossie? Probably not without significant redesign. Could it have been more versatile? Probably.
-
"Could it have been a better fighter than the mossie? Probably not without significant redesign."
That is why 210 and 410 were made and Ar240 was planned, and as a night fighter Ju88G and He219 were preferred over it in NF role. The 110 was an old design and the G model was already severely pushing the limits of the design.
More info: Messerschmitt 110/210/410 Illustrated history, Mankau/Petrick, Schiffer.
I wouldn't make any conclusions about the usability of 410 on the basis on how it is modelled in AH.
-C+
-
It could have. The 110G, could be packing around 4k in bombs by simply changing out the type of hard points on the wing. Hell, even that might not be necessary, depending on what type of rack was used to hold the drop tank. If its a universal model, the 110G was fully capable of carrying 2200kg of bombs with no modifications to the structure. Drop in the Mk 103's firing AP rounds, and you've got what might have been the most potent ground attack platform of WWII.
Could it have been a better fighter than the mossie? Probably not without significant redesign. Could it have been more versatile? Probably.
Ah, I see your gauging better/best attack platform on the amount of ordnance a plane can carry? ;) Regardless, I see your point. I think the Germans would have been better off not having wasted all the RnD on the 210/410 and simply worked with and advanced the 110x. The Soviets would have made it a primary target, I'm sure. Same goes for the Stuka, a lot of resources were wasted in extending the life of that thing when the 190F/G could have benefited instead.
-
Can you get a friend to help you in a custom arena to perform Perverts jeep and 50cal test?
You, me, sometime after 11pm (gotta love night classes) or Sunday?
-
Guys, this is blasphemy, asking for more/further development of the 190 series (even just the A, F and G) gets a lot of other players feathers ruffled.
I mean, it would make sense to most of us twittlers (it really does if you look at the history and production runs of the aircraft), but it's a complicated issue.
"We need more 190s"
-"You have five of them already"
"We ned better 190s"
-"You have the best - the 152"
/sarcasm off
Would be awesome to have a handful of 190F and 190G series modeled someday, and I think there is enough interest in the AH playerbase to justify expanding the 190A series with at least one if not two more models. Anything else is asking for late-war beasts that were actualy rare (but used). Of cource we want those (D-13, yay baby!), but I would love to just focus of the radial 190s first (maybe even an A-9 :pray ).
-
It could have. The 110G, could be packing around 4k in bombs by simply changing out the type of hard points on the wing. Hell, even that might not be necessary, depending on what type of rack was used to hold the drop tank. If its a universal model, the 110G was fully capable of carrying 2200kg of bombs with no modifications to the structure. Drop in the Mk 103's firing AP rounds, and you've got what might have been the most potent ground attack platform of WWII.
Could it have been a better fighter than the mossie? Probably not without significant redesign. Could it have been more versatile? Probably.
Where would you mount the 103's they wont fit into the gunbay on the 110 and even if you could mount them you'd be limited in the amount of ammo for them,60 to 100 rounds.
Trying to compare the 110 to the mossie is like comparing a house cat to a bobcat,ya they're both cats but that's about it.
Your pro German stance just doesn't allow you to see the forest for the trees.
If the 110 could have been even close to the mossie then Goring would never have asked for his own mossie...... :rolleyes:
:salute
-
Your pro German stance just doesn't allow you to see the forest for the trees.
If the 110 could have been even close to the mossie then Goring would never have asked for his own mossie...... :rolleyes:
:salute
This is nothing new. Wasn't there someone who asked for a squadron of Spitfires?
-
And weren't there even more people who took that request out of its context and made it to mean something it didn't mean?
-C+
-
Where would you mount the 103's they wont fit into the gunbay on the 110 and even if you could mount them you'd be limited in the amount of ammo for them,60 to 100 rounds.
Trying to compare the 110 to the mossie is like comparing a house cat to a bobcat,ya they're both cats but that's about it.
Your pro German stance just doesn't allow you to see the forest for the trees.
If the 110 could have been even close to the mossie then Goring would never have asked for his own mossie...... :rolleyes:
:salute
103's would have gone in a gunpod, similar to the 4x 20mm option.
The 110 could have done a lot more in terms of ground attack than the mossie, had research been put into it. But it looks like they just shoved it aside for the most part after 1942, which is not the case with the mossie.
Sure the mossie would have been a better fighter and bomber (internal bomb bay), but not THAT much better as a fighter. Even now the 110G isn't a terrible match for the mossie.
-
103's would have gone in a gunpod, similar to the 4x 20mm option.
The 110 could have done a lot more in terms of ground attack than the mossie, had research been put into it. But it looks like they just shoved it aside for the most part after 1942, which is not the case with the mossie.
Sure the mossie would have been a better fighter and bomber (internal bomb bay), but not THAT much better as a fighter. Even now the 110G isn't a terrible match for the mossie.
Here's the problem, with every war or battle comes Research and development (R&D) - it takes time to do this, especially when you have dozens of different things you are researching. If you look into the case of the Tiger tank, when the Germans invaded Russia they realized their tanks were heavily inferior to the Russian tanks, R&D shifted in tank research to designing something to combat this and it took almost a year for the tank to be researched and developed. Its possible the Me-110 could of been upgraded, but honestly if they shifted R&D into the Me-210 its most likely the 110 was already at its very limits of improvements.
The Me-110g was a stop gap because frankly the 210 was a total blunder, the luftwaffe needed something in the air rather then nothing. I don't think even if they would of continued to upgade the Me-110 it would of been any better then the G-2. Problem is the airframe only has so many limitations it can do.
-
103's would have gone in a gunpod, similar to the 4x 20mm option.
The 110 could have done a lot more in terms of ground attack than the mossie, had research been put into it. But it looks like they just shoved it aside for the most part after 1942, which is not the case with the mossie.
Sure the mossie would have been a better fighter and bomber (internal bomb bay), but not THAT much better as a fighter. Even now the 110G isn't a terrible match for the mossie.
Like I said your bias wont let you see the forest for the trees!
First check the Cd on the Mossie,then compare it to the 110,then calculate how much HP the 110 would need to match,say about 425 mph,I'm positive the mossie could go faster but 425 is a nice round number.
Once you've done that,find and engine in the Luft inventory that could produce the required HP.
There is no way the 110 can compete,not speed,ords or fighting ability. In AH I used to fly the mossie a fair bit,several hundred hours,lately I've been fly German planes. I fly the 110C a fair amount,the 110C can turn with the mossie but the mossie can dictate the fight with superior speed and climb.
Oh and adding 103's would just overload an already overloaded airframe! Also the Mossie can counter that with the 6 pounder,oh and it actually carried that gun unlike the 110 and the whatif 103's.
:salute
-
Here's the problem, with every war or battle comes Research and development (R&D) - it takes time to do this, especially when you have dozens of different things you are researching. If you look into the case of the Tiger tank, when the Germans invaded Russia they realized their tanks were heavily inferior to the Russian tanks, R&D shifted in tank research to designing something to combat this and it took almost a year for the tank to be researched and developed. Its possible the Me-110 could of been upgraded, but honestly if they shifted R&D into the Me-210 its most likely the 110 was already at its very limits of improvements.
**with apologies to the O/P**
That is a nasty can of worms you've opened. For someone who supposedly as educated on the issue(s) as much as you say you are you would not have much such a statement. While on paper the T34/1941 may have been superior to the Panzer IIIx and IVx in terms of armor protection and speed, there are a great many other factors involved. With that in mind I will take the liberty of cautioning you on making such overly grandeur statements. ;)