Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: PanosGR on January 15, 2014, 04:27:01 PM
-
(http://)(http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x39/PanosGR/TU23_zps92083c51.jpg) (http://s186.photobucket.com/user/PanosGR/media/TU23_zps92083c51.jpg.html)
(http://)(http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x39/PanosGR/TU22_zpsec48c2aa.jpg) (http://s186.photobucket.com/user/PanosGR/media/TU22_zpsec48c2aa.jpg.html)
(http://)(http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x39/PanosGR/TU2_zpsac2e610e.jpg) (http://s186.photobucket.com/user/PanosGR/media/TU2_zpsac2e610e.jpg.html)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWWfam0tw_Y
http://www.hitechcreations.com/
-
(http://i.imgur.com/Z6qGXXM.gif)
-
Looks like were finally getting a Russian bomber, Tu-2s a 1943 variant. Is that the 12.7mm in the rear? Looks like a single bomber, without formations like an A-20.
-
F3 ? :cool:
-
I see a gunsight, what forward facing guns did it have?
-
I see a gunsight, what forward facing guns did it have?
2x20mm ShVak
-
:aok
2 × 20 mm (0.79 in) fixed forward-firing ShVAK cannon in the wings
-
And it has arrived
-
Long over due and a great addition. Thanks HTC! :aok
-
:aok
2 × 20 mm (0.79 in) fixed forward-firing ShVAK cannon in the wings
Weee I can ho in it like i can the A-20
-
Looks like were finally getting a Russian bomber, Tu-2s a 1943 variant. Is that the 12.7mm in the rear? Looks like a single bomber, without formations like an A-20.
Yep, a Berezin UBT.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/UBT_machine_gun_.jpg/800px-UBT_machine_gun_.jpg)
ack-ack
-
:aok
2 × 20 mm (0.79 in) fixed forward-firing ShVAK cannon in the wings
With I think only a 100 rounds for each cannon.
ack-ack
-
Fantastic! :aok :aok
-
(http://i.imgur.com/Z6qGXXM.gif)
(http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2013/140/5/7/calm_yo_titties__animated_gif__by_aznnerd-d65xplh.gif)
SOVIET BOMBER!!! :x
-
Very nice, but is the cooling intakes bigger on the model than on the real thing?
-
:eek: :x
:joystick: <---everyone the first week after it's appearance
#S#
Josh
-
For some reason I seem to have a feeling that this thing may end up the queen of the hanger....
Move over He-111
(http://i343.photobucket.com/albums/o460/caldera_08/he111.jpg~original)
-
Very Cool Add HTC! :aok
-
For some reason I seem to have a feeling that this thing may end up the queen of the hanger....
Why? Have you looked at the performance data?
-
Specifications (Tu-2)
Performance
Maximum speed: 521 km/h (281 kn, 325 mph)
Range: 2,020 km (1,090 nmi, 1,260 mi)
Service ceiling: 9,000 m (29,528 ft)
Rate of climb: 8.2 m/s (1,610 ft/min)
Wing loading: 217 kg/m² (45 lb/ft²)
Power/mass: 260 W/kg (0.16 hp/lb)
Armament
Guns:
2 × 20 mm (0.79 in) fixed forward-firing ShVAK cannon in the wings
3 × 7.62 mm (0.30 in) rear-firing ShKAS machine guns (later replaced by 12.7 mm (0.50 in) Berezin UB machine guns) in the canopy, dorsal and ventral hatches.
Bombs: 1,500 kg (3,300 lb) internally and 2,270 kg (5,000 lb) externally
-
For some reason I seem to have a feeling that this thing may end up the queen of the hanger....
Move over He-111
(http://i343.photobucket.com/albums/o460/caldera_08/he111.jpg~original)
AVA, FSOs, and Scenarios will make a home for it.
-
AVA, FSOs, and Scenarios will make a home for it.
It will see quite some MA usage without doubt.
-
AVA, FSOs, and Scenarios will make a home for it.
Aye. But I'm willing to bet it'll be very popular in the MA.
"Pilots could maneuver like fighters and they were fast and tough enough to survive heavy damage."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-2
-
If what I see in the picture name is not to screw with us, it's a Tu-2S. This is going to be fun! :x
I am curious if it will have a formation or not. :headscratch:
EDIT: I really should calm down already. As if the BIG ARSE WHITE LETTERS didn't say it was a Tu-2S... :o
-
If what I see in the picture name is not to screw with us, it's a Tu-2S. This is going to be fun! :x
I am curious if it will have a formation or not. :headscratch:
Formations will make or break this aircraft for me.
-
For some reason I seem to have a feeling that this thing may end up the queen of the hanger....
Move over He-111
(http://i343.photobucket.com/albums/o460/caldera_08/he111.jpg~original)
Erm, this thing is definitely not a hangar queen. It was one of the last non-hangar queens available to be added. It is fast, tough, decently armed and carries a heavy bomb load.
I am curious why people jumped to the conclusion that this is a hangar queen?
-
For some reason I seem to have a feeling that this thing may end up the queen of the hanger....
Move over He-111
(http://i343.photobucket.com/albums/o460/caldera_08/he111.jpg~original)
Just to stop Hithtech’s migraines, yet rarely leaves the ground :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
SPASIBA!!
(http://i.imgur.com/xqG0QP3.gif)
-
A note as to the formations or lack thereof. It has a level bombsight and that means it will have formations.
The real question with it is what bomb loads will be offered. It can potentially carry as much as a B-24.
-
I am curious why people jumped to the conclusion that this is a hangar queen?
Maybe because it's no US or German Uber plane? :noid
-
Maybe because it's no US or German Uber plane? :noid
Just a Russian Uber plane.....
But the La-7 and Yak-3 ought to have informed people that the Russians did have some good aircraft too.
This one, by the way, is powered by the same engines as the La-5FN and La-7.
-
With I think only a 100 rounds for each cannon.
ack-ack
At the moment it seems to have 200rpg, according to the cockpit screenshot.
-
Just a Russian Uber plane.....
This one, by the way, is powered by the same engines as the La-5FN and La-7.
run for ze hills!!!
-
Wonder what handling and deck speed will be like.
I also hope HTC has finally rectified their habit of making bombers dis-proportionally tough for their size.
EDIT: After comparing the weights and wing area, looks like this thing will handle somewhere about midway between the 110 and the 410.
-
I see a soviet Fso or scenario coming up
-
F3 ? :cool:
oh no you dont!
-
some real pics have 3 props some 4 whats the difference?
-
some real pics have 3 props some 4 whats the difference?
1 :old:
-
Very nice, finally a Soviet bomber!
Hopefully Pe-2 will follow someday.
It can potentially carry as much as a B-24.
Every good source that I've read on the TU-2 shows that 8300lbs simply won't fit to the aircraft. My guess is that the 8300lbs is a mistake by one author which then got copied over and over again to many "mainstream" "aircraft of WWII-books".
Here's a Soviet source which lists 1000kg as the "normal" and 3000kg as the maximum payload:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/TU_30.jpg)
(It also mentions that the forward firing cannons have 150rpg.)
-
3000kg is still a pretty good load for a medium bomber.
-
3000kg is still a pretty good load for a medium bomber.
Most definitely!
But it would be a bit impractical carrying 2x1000kg in the two wing hard points as it would be an over kill on many cases.
-
So this is the famous Russian P-38, oops, La-38. What happened to the end halves of the two La-7 they strapped under the wings?
-
3000kg works for me in a nimble bomber.
:aok
-
Great news for SEA Events. Thx HTC :cheers:
-
That sure looks like 9 250kg? bombs it's carrying. I also do not see any mounts for external ords.
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/images/stories/news/tu2/tu2s2.jpg)
-
COOL. A new target to shoot at!
This wont be no hangar queen fer sure. And I bet we end up with more then one who will become fighter aces in them
-
That sure looks like 9 250kg? bombs it's carrying. I also do not see any mounts for external ords.
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/images/stories/news/tu2/tu2s2.jpg)
Those are probably 100kg bombs. The Tu-2 is actually pretty small.
As to the external mounts, it is possible it won't have them, possible the model hasn't been finished yet and possible they are only attached when an external load is taken.
For example, the Mossies only has its external shackles added if it takes external stores.
-
I also hope HTC has finally rectified their habit of making bombers dis-proportionally tough for their size.
What proof do you have that bombers are?
ack-ack
-
I also hope HTC has finally rectified their habit of making bombers dis-proportionally tough for their size.
You kidding?. You just have to know where to shoot. Shooting at the body alone will usually yield you little more then creating air conditioning and maybe killing a few gunners of PWing the pilot.
By contrast I find the YAK3 to be tougher then most bombers. Hell I find it to be tougher then JUGs
-
So this is the famous Russian P-38, oops, La-38.
Hardly.
ack-ack
-
What proof do you have that bombers are?
ack-ack
Well, not all bombers. Just the A-20, and maybe the B-26 a little.
You can hammer away at an A-20, and it will just fly away with what would cut a 110 or Mossie in half. Unless the wing spar is made of some alloy of adamantium and mithril, it shouldn't be taking 3-4 30mm hits to knock off.
-
What proof do you have that bombers are?
ack-ack
A-20G
But I think that is unique to that aircraft.
-
Well, not all bombers. Just the A-20, and maybe the B-26 a little.
You can hammer away at an A-20, and it will just fly away with what would cut a 110 or Mossie in half. Unless the wing spar is made of some alloy of adamantium and mithril, it shouldn't be taking 3-4 30mm hits to knock off.
Like I thought, absolutely no proof at all. It's funny how myself and others have no problems taking down bombers like the A-20, B-26 and others in a single pass, but others like you seem are incapable of it and blame the bomber for being 'too tough'.
Kind of reminds me of the whine you posted awhile back crying about how tough B-17s were to shoot down and actually posted a wish to nerf the guns on the B-17 to make it easier to kill. Maybe you should look at the tactics you're using and maybe work on improving your terrible gunnery skills if you're having troubles shooting down an A-20.
ack-ack
-
Those are probably 100kg bombs.
The cockpit screenshot says "B10", which is usually 100kg bombs
-
Like I thought, absolutely no proof at all. It's funny how myself and others have no problems taking down bombers like the A-20, B-26 and others in a single pass, but others like you seem are incapable of it and blame the bomber for being 'too tough'.
Kind of reminds me of the whine you posted awhile back crying about how tough B-17s were to shoot down and actually posted a wish to nerf the guns on the B-17 to make it easier to kill. Maybe you should look at the tactics you're using and maybe work on improving your terrible gunnery skills if you're having troubles shooting down an A-20.
ack-ack
I did some tests on the A-20G and, given its size, it is much tougher than one would expect. Reasonably it should be a bit tougher than the big fighters, but it is much, much tougher. I'd have to test it again to get the numbers, but I recall something like four times the durability of the Mossie.
I have no worries about the Tu-2 and I think the A-20G is likely to be "fixed" when it is updated.
-
Tu-2 Bomber!!!!......Whooooohoo lets go Falcor :uhoh :uhoh
(http://cdn.destructoid.com//ul/251279-NeverEndingStory.jpg)
-
Very nice, finally a Soviet bomber!
Hopefully Pe-2 will follow someday.
Every good source that I've read on the TU-2 shows that 8300lbs simply won't fit to the aircraft. My guess is that the 8300lbs is a mistake by one author which then got copied over and over again to many "mainstream" "aircraft of WWII-books".
Here's a Soviet source which lists 1000kg as the "normal" and 3000kg as the maximum payload:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/TU_30.jpg)
(It also mentions that the forward firing cannons have 150rpg.)
http://ww2warbirds.net/ww2htmls/tupotu2.html
http://www.tu-2.info/
http://ctrl-c.liu.se/misc/ram/tu-2.html
What's being referred to is an overload configuration.
"Bomb load was 1000kg inside the fuselage and 1000kg externally. Tu-2 was often used in overload configuration, carrying up to 4000kg (over 8800 lbs) of bombs."
Empty weight: 7,601 kg (16,757 lb)
Loaded weight: 10,538 kg (23,232 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 11,768 kg (25,944 lb)
23,232 lbs minus 16,727 lbs would equal 6475 lbs
25,994 lbs minus 16,757 lbs would equal 9,187 lbs
-
Excellent. Way to go, HTC! I can't wait to shoot one down...should have plenty of targets over the next few weeks. Everyone will have a fever for the new ride. More cowbell!! ;)
-
23,232 lbs minus 16,727 lbs would equal 6475 lbs
25,994 lbs minus 16,757 lbs would equal 9,187 lbs
How much of that 6475lbs or 9187lbs is fuel, ammo and crew?
-
How much of that 6475lbs or 9187lbs is fuel, ammo and crew?
Isn't it conceivable that in overload config they may not take on full fuel?
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWWfam0tw_Y#t=65
Russian training film.
-
Like I thought, absolutely no proof at all. It's funny how myself and others have no problems taking down bombers like the A-20, B-26 and others in a single pass, but others like you seem are incapable of it and blame the bomber for being 'too tough'.
ack-ack
If you fly enough sorties, there are tricks to bring down the A-20 and B-26 much easier. I kinda got a snicker at bringing down a B-26 - one of the easiest bombers to bring down with little or no ammo. An a20 however, just get a front quarter pass and its toast, just don't let the lasers shoot back though.
-
http://ww2warbirds.net/ww2htmls/tupotu2.html
http://www.tu-2.info/
http://ctrl-c.liu.se/misc/ram/tu-2.html
What's being referred to is an overload configuration.
"Bomb load was 1000kg inside the fuselage and 1000kg externally. Tu-2 was often used in overload configuration, carrying up to 4000kg (over 8800 lbs) of bombs."
Empty weight: 7,601 kg (16,757 lb)
Loaded weight: 10,538 kg (23,232 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 11,768 kg (25,944 lb)
23,232 lbs minus 16,727 lbs would equal 6475 lbs
25,994 lbs minus 16,757 lbs would equal 9,187 lbs
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,328373.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,328373.0.html)
-
http://ww2warbirds.net/ww2htmls/tupotu2.html
http://www.tu-2.info/
http://ctrl-c.liu.se/misc/ram/tu-2.html
What's being referred to is an overload configuration.
"Bomb load was 1000kg inside the fuselage and 1000kg externally. Tu-2 was often used in overload configuration, carrying up to 4000kg (over 8800 lbs) of bombs."
Empty weight: 7,601 kg (16,757 lb)
Loaded weight: 10,538 kg (23,232 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 11,768 kg (25,944 lb)
23,232 lbs minus 16,727 lbs would equal 6475 lbs
25,994 lbs minus 16,757 lbs would equal 9,187 lbs
I guess you forgot this: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,316230.msg4620458.html#msg4620458 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,316230.msg4620458.html#msg4620458)
There's no place for the extra 1000kg, nothing to mount it on. Quoting couple websites won't change that fact.
-
some real pics have 3 props some 4 whats the difference?
In latest batches three-bladed propeller AV-5-167A was replaced with four-bladed with distinctive clipped blade tips
-
Offensive armament included two fixed forward-firing 20 millimeter ShVAK cannon, one in each wing root, with 200 rounds per gun, plus 1,000 kilograms (2,200 pounds) of bombs in the bombbay and racks for 2,000 kilograms (4,400 pounds) more under the wings inboard of the engines.
http://www.airvectors.net/avtu2.html#m3 (http://www.airvectors.net/avtu2.html#m3)
-
I guess you forgot this: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,316230.msg4620458.html#msg4620458 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,316230.msg4620458.html#msg4620458)
There's no place for the extra 1000kg, nothing to mount it on. Quoting couple websites won't change that fact.
Picture Might?
http://en.calameo.com/read/0013529282e1647366c4e
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/TU-2WINGSLUNGBOMBS_zpse7cb4e71.jpg) (http://s1002.photobucket.com/user/barneybolac/media/TU-2WINGSLUNGBOMBS_zpse7cb4e71.jpg.html)
-
Picture Might?
http://en.calameo.com/read/0013529282e1647366c4e
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/TU-2WINGSLUNGBOMBS_zpse7cb4e71.jpg) (http://s1002.photobucket.com/user/barneybolac/media/TU-2WINGSLUNGBOMBS_zpse7cb4e71.jpg.html)
Can you see 4000kg of bombs loaded to the plane anywhere in that pic? I don't.
-
was one of my favourite bombers back in FA good loadout and cannons to kill with. tough as nuts. Suits the late war arena just great.
great work on the skins Kazan!
-
Can you see 4000kg of bombs loaded to the plane anywhere in that pic? I don't.
No on 4000kG. :aok
I was looking at your comment of 1000Kg's you mentioned & no place to hang them.
I know those are not that big but there is a place were they possibly could be hung though?
-
I was looking at your comment of 1000Kg's you mentioned & no place to hang them.
I know those are not that big but there is a place were they possibly could be hung though?
I meant that there's no place to hang four 1000kgs.
Yep, basically the only way to reach the maximum quoted load of 3000kg is to have one 1000kg in the bomb bay and two 1000kgs in the external wing root hard points. And I haven't seen a single pic of such load. I'm 95% sure that the operational use of 3000kg maximum load was practically non-existent.
-
....is to have one 1000kg in the bomb bay...
Do you mean a single 1000kg bomb in the bay?
-
Wow I wanted this plane so much, according to the specs:
1. It is very fast - 325mph puts it to the same category as Ki-67 or Boston
2. It climbs well 1,600 ft/m - again similar to Ki-67 and Boston
3. It has much heavier bomb load: 1,500kg bombs internal = 3306 lb and around 5000lb external - i.e. with internal bombs only it has better payload than both Boston and Ki-67 and with external is has similar bomb-load to B-17 being much faster and climbing much better.
Fast, Climbs Well and has ~B-17 bombload
:x :x :x
It would be great addition especially for a players who don't want spend ages in climbing to ~20K
-
Do you mean a single 1000kg bomb in the bay?
Yep
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/TU_13.jpg)
-
Woo Hoo a new ride with 2 Engines :x :x :aok :aok
-
Looks like Latrobe and I will have a new heavy fighter to play with.
-
Thanks, Hitech, all i have been wishing for will be in the upcoming patch, Tu-2, terrain update, i give it a :aok :aok :aok :aok
-
Yep
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/TU_13.jpg)
If you look at the picture Lyric posted you'll see it could also take four 250kg bombs in the bay for a total of 1000kg internal load. Also, in the lower photo that looks like two 1000kg bombs externally.
-
Also, in the lower photo that looks like two 1000kg bombs externally.
I think I read 500kg in the caption for that.
-
I think I read 500kg in the caption for that.
That's the caption for the photo above. The lower photo clearly has bigger bombs, but the caption is unfortunately cut out.
-
I think I called it. :aok
-
nice addition..
-
That's the caption for the photo above. The lower photo clearly has bigger bombs, but the caption is unfortunately cut out.
If you click on the link Lyric provided you can read the whole book, including the cropped caption of this picture. It's AB-500 bombs hanging there externally, the bombs in the bomb bay are AB-250.
(Which makes the total load 4x250kg+2x500kg=2000kg=4400lbs)
-
I think its time to come back to the game. :rock
I am curious why people jumped to the conclusion that this is a hangar queen?
Because they know nothing about the aircraft.
-
If you look at the picture Lyric posted you'll see it could also take four 250kg bombs in the bay for a total of 1000kg internal load.
Yes. I'm well aware of that, been all along. I didn't meant that a single 1000kg bomb would be the only option for the bomb bay. In the preview screenshots the plane is loaded with 9xFAB-100s in the bomb bay.
Also, in the lower photo that looks like two 1000kg bombs externally.
They are FAB-500s, 500kg bombs.
-
I can hear the tigers crying already :P
-
Yes. I'm well aware of that, been all along. I didn't meant that a single 1000kg bomb would be the only option for the bomb bay. In the preview screenshots the plane is loaded with 9xFAB-100s in the bomb bay.
They are FAB-500s, 500kg bombs.
I have photos showing possibly a Fab 2000 centerline, was that possible?
-
I have photos showing possibly a Fab 2000 centerline, was that possible?
Anything's possible (or is it?). *ShruG*
Wmaker cites a standard load while many sources refer to the 'common practice' of 'overloading.' (The Tu-2c, specifically.)
Various descriptions include:
1,500 kg (3,300 lb) internally and 2,270 kg (5,000 lb) externally
4 × 2,204 lb FAB-1000 bomb, (supposing a 4 bomb load-out of this nature might be 2 internal and 2 external?)
8 × 1,102 lb FAB-500 bombs (4 and 4? 2 and 6? There were provisions made to carry ordinance on the outer side of the engine nacelles.)
A picture may make all the difference.
Granted, the weights sure make it sound like take-offs would require lots of flat land without trees.
-
The film the OP posted of some pretty large eggs being toted around ....about 5:58 my Russian is poor....2x1000 1x2000?
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/d361aee4-4b52-40f0-9bbc-6ec319d01f77_zps0fcceb5c.png)
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/9c47f9ca-ab83-44c6-8efd-c52fdb9fb4e6_zpsf9c4084b.png)
this version seemed a little more clear :old:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4nit8_toupolev-tu-2_tech (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4nit8_toupolev-tu-2_tech)
:cheers:
-
NICE with 1850hp engines and up to 8800lbs of bombs, 2 x 20mm cannons and 3 x 50 cals in the TU-2.......i guess the a20 will be the next hanger queen,lol
-
Tu-2Sh
Experimental ground-attack versions. Two variants were tested in 1944: one with a 75mm (2.95 inches) centerline gun and another with a battery of 88 7.62mm (0.30 inches) PPSh-41 sub-machine guns fixed in the bomb bay, directed to fire ahead at a 30-degree angle. Another version under this designation was tested in 1946; this one had a frontal armament consisting of with two NS-37 and two NS-45 autocannons.[6]
Hahahaha I want 88 sub machine guns !!
-
Wow I wanted this plane so much, according to the specs:
1. It is very fast - 325mph puts it to the same category as Ki-67 or Boston
2. It climbs well 1,600 ft/m - again similar to Ki-67 and Boston
3. It has much heavier bomb load: 1,500kg bombs internal = 3306 lb and around 5000lb external - i.e. with internal bombs only it has better payload than both Boston and Ki-67 and with external is has similar bomb-load to B-17 being much faster and climbing much better.
Fast, Climbs Well and has ~B-17 bombload
:x :x :x
It would be great addition especially for a players who don't want spend ages in climbing to ~20K
325mph? Geez...I'm not sure I'll be able to catch the thing in a 110G. :D
-
Tu-2Sh
Experimental ground-attack versions. Two variants were tested in 1944: one with a 75mm (2.95 inches) centerline gun and another with a battery of 88 7.62mm (0.30 inches) PPSh-41 sub-machine guns fixed in the bomb bay, directed to fire ahead at a 30-degree angle. Another version under this designation was tested in 1946; this one had a frontal armament consisting of with two NS-37 and two NS-45 autocannons.[6]
Hahahaha I want 88 sub machine guns !!
:lol
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2di5x08ZC1rs5kfgo1_500.jpg)
-
:lol
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2di5x08ZC1rs5kfgo1_500.jpg)
holy crap its like having the whole cosa nostra in your bomb bay :lol
-
Imagine what that would do to an aircraft. God, it would probably cause it to disintegrate in midair.
-
Ever since I first joined Ive been crowing for this plane. Now I can truly fly only Soviet.
First I have to rejoin tho, downloading now. ;)
-
I know there are many of you who want to be the first in this aircraft.
1st to fly it.
1st to get an air to air kill in it.
1st to get an air to ground kill in it.
1st to bomb in it.
1st to hit the strats in it.
I would like to help you out and make sure you are also:
First to get shot down at 30K by Zoney in it.
Yeah, I'm a team player.
Nice addition to the stable, I expect this to be used quite a bit.
-
I know there are many of you who want to be the first in this aircraft.
1st to fly it.
1st to get an air to air kill in it.
1st to get an air to ground kill in it.
1st to bomb in it.
1st to hit the strats in it.
I would like to help you out and make sure you are also:
First to get shot down at 30K by Zoney in it.
Yeah, I'm a team player.
Nice addition to the stable, I expect this to be used quite a bit.
30k? Yeesh!
-
30k? Yeesh!
Yeah, I know..................I'll have to descend a bit to get em !
:O
-
Imagine what that would do to an aircraft. God, it would probably cause it to disintegrate in midair.
It would be interesting... Very very small bullets not going all that fast and a 950rof. I think the weight of all those bullets would bring you down before plane ever really took a critical hit lol
-
It would be interesting... Very very small bullets not going all that fast and a 950rof. I think the weight of all those bullets would bring you down before plane ever really took a critical hit lol
:lol
-
Troops running to the map room you say?
-
Wmaker cites a standard load while many sources refer to the 'common practice' of 'overloading.' (The Tu-2c, specifically.)
No I didn't. What did I say?
I said:
Here's a Soviet source which lists 1000kg as the "normal" and 3000kg as the maximum payload:
...'Common practice' was actually to carry a lot less. Average load during the war was 1200-1350kg*.
(Gordon & Khazanov)*
I have photos showing possibly a Fab 2000 centerline, was that possible?
Interesting. I would have to see that photo before commenting.
Really would like to see those photos no matter what bomb is in question.
-
It would be interesting... Very very small bullets not going all that fast and a 950rof. I think the weight of all those bullets would bring you down before plane ever really took a critical hit lol
I'm thinking it would be more loss of lift, since the wings would be essentially swiss cheese. I can't imagine a plane is too well armored over non-critical components.
With the sheer volume of fire, cut control cables and/or hydraulic lines would be a very serious issue.
-
You can cut through the skin of most aircraft with a knife.
-
You can cut through the skin of most aircraft with a knife.
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/Tu2_Kn_zps4db94633.png)
-
WTF? :lol
-
:x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x
-
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/Tu2_Kn_zps4db94633.png)
Ramming speed!
-
in japan the foot is sharper than the knife
-
in japan the foot is sharper than the knife
...unless its q Ginsu knife....cuts through a soda can!
-
I'm now curious if the landing gears will clip through the doors when they are raising/lowering, or if they will be proper like on the B-25's.... :headscratch:
-
hi
how fast will be this bird?
with this load out and the guns in the front it looks like it will be my ju88 variant i ever wanted lol.
cu christian
-
325 mph or thereabouts...
-
How high is the wingloading of this bird (loaded/without ords)
-
Tu-2 vs Ki-67
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/tupovsmitsu_zpsc928bfa7.jpg)
The nominal range of 2360miles gives the Ki-67 an endurance of 85minutes at AH fuelburn 2.0. The Tu-2 has only about half that range while generally flying at comparable speeds, so it probably end up with having a relatively small flight endurance in AH, maybe 45 minutes?
-
Usually the bomb loads were:
light: 9x100 kg (internal)
medium: 4 x 250 kg (internal) + 2 x 250 kg (external)
high: 1 x 1000 kg (internal) + 2 x 500 kg (external)
max: 1 x 1000 kg (internal) + 2 x 1000 kg (external) (was only used for short range raids)
(https://thumb5.wuala.com/previewImage/-aper-/AH/temp/Tu-2_bomb_load.png)
-
Thank you aper!
I hadn't seen these schematics. Do you know which publication they are from?
-
Looks like there was a torpedo version of this plane as well. :aok
http://en.calameo.com/read/001352928a3c282141da1
-
Looks like there was a torpedo version of this plane as well. :aok
http://en.calameo.com/read/001352928a3c282141da1
And if it's a formation bird, it may kick the Ju-88 to the curb for both that and solo torp runs.
-
Usually the bomb loads were:
light: 9x100 kg (internal)
medium: 4 x 250 kg (internal) + 2 x 250 kg (external)
high: 1 x 1000 kg (internal) + 2 x 500 kg (external)
max: 1 x 1000 kg (internal) + 2 x 1000 kg (external) (was only used for short range raids)
(https://thumb5.wuala.com/previewImage/-aper-/AH/temp/Tu-2_bomb_load.png)
Pretty good illustrations. Does the source mention 'overloads' at all? There are still loading points outboard the nacelles (5 each side we know capable of bombs or rockets).
-
I think its going to be the premier non-perked strike bomber and raider and will be an outstanding addition to the game.
We need some kind of Eastern Front scenario to welcome it into the game. Think of the possibilities now?
-
And if it's a formation bird, it may kick the Ju-88 to the curb for both that and solo torp runs.
Tu-2T was tested during the war but didn't go to production.
-
Thank you aper!
I hadn't seen these schematics. Do you know which publication they are from?
This is from the following book about Tu-2:
https://content.wuala.com/contents/-aper-/AH/Tu-2%20Bomber.pdf/?dl=1 (https://content.wuala.com/contents/-aper-/AH/Tu-2%20Bomber.pdf/?dl=1)
-
I'm happy to see a Russian bomber in the game finally. :aok
-
http://www.ww2warbirds.net/ww2htmls/tupotu2.html
Apparently 8 500Ib bombs and 4 2000Ib bombs.
With 2 20mms......
Woooow......... THAT, is a GV hunter.
-
http://www.ww2warbirds.net/ww2htmls/tupotu2.html
Apparently 8 500Ib bombs and 4 2000Ib bombs.
With 2 20mms......
Woooow......... THAT, is a GV hunter.
At least it should be a nice easy target for ack.
-
This thing could be a Deacker with 8 500's on board to hit the GV's... one tiny burst of cannon per Ack.
And it has two LA7 motors.... DAYMN this thing will be a BEAST.
-
I think the canopy is raised too high, it looks like it needs to be lowered an inch or 3.
-
Will this be available in all arenas?
-
Will this be available in all arenas?
Should be available in MW and LW
-
Should be available in MW and LW
I wouldn't put it to MW. Its operational use before summer of 1944 was basically combat trials in a very small scale.
-
I wouldn't put it to MW. Its operational use before summer of 1944 was basically combat trials in a very small scale.
Actually it was in service since 1942 but it was a little bit different version than in AH
The AH version looks like going to be Tu-2S with 1,380 kW (1,850 hp) Shvetsov ASh-82FN engines that were more powerful and had better payload but were bigger and thus increased the drag actually reducing the maximal speed of Tu-2S in comparison to the original Tu-2 (see some specs in the thread above).
-
Actually it was in service since 1942 but it was a little bit different version than in AH
Like I said, it saw service trials before summer of 1944 (starting from September 1942, this initial service trial was only 25 sorties, more followed later). The initial Tu-2 production run was only 80 aircraft.
As said, TU-2S is 1944 aircraft.
The AH version looks like going to be Tu-2S with 1,380 kW (1,850 hp) Shvetsov ASh-82FN engines that were more powerful and had better payload but were bigger and thus increased the drag actually reducing the maximal speed of Tu-2S in comparison to the original Tu-2 (see some specs in the thread above).
AFAIK the basic dimensions of M-82 and M82FN are identical, M-82FN has fuel injection and could be run with higher boost pressures and therefore had more power. More power meant that Tu-2S was actually the one that was faster.
-
I concur that it is a late war only airplane.
That said, given the cutoff for mid war seems to be January 1, 1944 and that the P-51B entered service in December of 1943 and is in the mid war arena, I can see arguments that the trial usage prior to 1944 mean it should be available in the mid war area have some validity.
-
I concur that it is a late war only airplane.
That said, given the cutoff for mid war seems to be January 1, 1944 and that the P-51B entered service in December of 1943 and is in the mid war arena, I can see arguments that the trial usage prior to 1944 mean it should be available in the mid war area have some validity.
Mid war perked?
-
Our FW-190A (EW) and P-51B (MW) were the planes I had in mind. Tu-2 enabled in MW (perked?) would follow their example.
That being said, I would not complain if HTC would decide to allow it in LW only.
-
Well, it would certainly push the "midwar" date roughly 5 months further...
-
Were the Ki-84's service trials in 1943? If so there is an example of an aircraft with service trials in 1943 that is only available in the LWA.
-
Well, it would certainly push the "midwar" date roughly 5 months further...
What do you mean? The Tu-2S entered service in 1943.
-
What do you mean? The Tu-2S entered service in 1943.
Actually it did not. First few aircraft were received by 47th Recon Regiment in the beginning of 1944. AFAIK the first bombing raid was the bombing of Vyborg railway terminal in 17th of June '44.
(source: Gordon & Khazanov)
-
I don't think it'll matter much. It wouldn't be used for perk farming in the MW. Make it nothin' but an LW bird. It'll have a spot in events.
-
Actually it did not. First few aircraft were received by 47th Recon Regiment in the beginning of 1944. AFAIK the first bombing raid was the bombing of Vyborg railway terminal in 17th of June '44.
(source: Gordon & Khazanov)
From the pictures we will get the 3-bladed prop ASh 82 early version (ANT 60) that entered production in late-1942, 80 aircraft built. The 1944 version (ANT 61) with the uprated ASh 82FN had a 4-bladed prop.
-
From the pictures we will get the 3-bladed prop ASh 82 early version (ANT 60) that entered production in late-1942, 80 aircraft built. The 1944 version (ANT 61) with the uprated ASh 82FN had a 4-bladed prop.
Nope.
AH is getting Tu-2S and is by definition a 1944 variant of the bomber. Tu-2S featured both 3-bladed and 4-bladed props during its production.
-
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/Tu2_1_zps56d69537.png)
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/Tu2_2_zpscf2a3e90.png)
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/Tu2_3_zps8f6eac7c.png)
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/Tu2_4_zpsffdde14f.png)
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/Tu2_5_zps65a38113.png)
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/Tu2_6_zps1e21669d.png)
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/Tu2_7_zps785f7658.png)
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/Tu2_8_zps9faf1b3f.png)
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/Tu2_9_zps40312d8f.png)
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/Tu2_10_zpsd4af79c2.png)
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/Tu2_11_zpse92bc09e.png)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/119084646/Gordon-Y-and-Khazanov-D-1999-Soviet-Combat-Aircraft-of-the-Second-World-War-Volume-2-Twin-Engined-Fighters-Attack-Aircraft-and-Bombers (http://www.scribd.com/doc/119084646/Gordon-Y-and-Khazanov-D-1999-Soviet-Combat-Aircraft-of-the-Second-World-War-Volume-2-Twin-Engined-Fighters-Attack-Aircraft-and-Bombers)
(source: Gordon & Khazanov)
:salute Wmaker
-
AH is getting Tu-2S and is by definition a 1944 variant of the bomber. Tu-2S featured both 3-bladed and 4-bladed props during its production.
And EW features a perked FW 190A5, which AFAIK entered production in late 42 only...
-
And EW features a perked FW 190A5, which AFAIK entered production in late 42 only...
Yeh, I guess it depends on the definition of what is considered early war.
I personally don't care either way in regards of the Tu-2S inclusion to the MW. Both EW and MW and practically empty most of the time anyway. If it was my decision I wouldn't include it due to the reasons above.
-
And EW features a perked FW 190A5, which AFAIK entered production in late 42 only...
I suppose it represents earlier A-3s and A-4s.
-
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/Tu2_1_zps56d69537.png)
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/Tu2_2_zpscf2a3e90.png)
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/Tu2_3_zps8f6eac7c.png)
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/Tu2_4_zpsffdde14f.png)
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/Tu2_5_zps65a38113.png)
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/Tu2_6_zps1e21669d.png)
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/Tu2_7_zps785f7658.png)
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/Tu2_8_zps9faf1b3f.png)
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/Tu2_9_zps40312d8f.png)
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/Tu2_10_zpsd4af79c2.png)
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/Tu2_11_zpse92bc09e.png)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/119084646/Gordon-Y-and-Khazanov-D-1999-Soviet-Combat-Aircraft-of-the-Second-World-War-Volume-2-Twin-Engined-Fighters-Attack-Aircraft-and-Bombers (http://www.scribd.com/doc/119084646/Gordon-Y-and-Khazanov-D-1999-Soviet-Combat-Aircraft-of-the-Second-World-War-Volume-2-Twin-Engined-Fighters-Attack-Aircraft-and-Bombers)
(source: Gordon & Khazanov)
:salute Wmaker
Just like to add this :D
"In 1942, Tupolev constructed the first ANT-61s, or Samolet 103S. Based on the 103V, it differed only in details which would allow it to become a production aircraft. This was the first aircraft to be designated Tu-2 by the VVS, and three early production examples were tested from 13 September until 28 October 1942 and then delivered to an Air Force front-line bomber unit near Kalinin (now Tver) where they were enthusiastically received by commanders and aircrew. So the government ordered the Tu-2 back into production at Omsk."
The shortage of materials and components forced Tupolev to make modifications yet again. But at least the more powerful ASh-82FN, rated between 1,460 and 1,850hp, was now available. Now called the Tu-2S, this version made its first flight on 26 August 1943 and the first examples began arriving with squadrons in spring 1944. Some 1,111 examples were delivered by the end of the war, although the VVS could happily have used many more. The fuel-injected engines of the Tu-2S gave it a speed of 530kph/329mph and its range was2,100km/l,304miles. Its standard bomb load was one tonne.
Other Tu-2S versions included:
Tu-2S4: A two-seat version equipped with two 45mm cannons and two of 37mm installed in the nose." :O
Tu-2SDV, or ANT 63: Only two examples of this high speed day bomber were built; the first flew on 21 May 1944 on its maiden flight,
piloted by Aleksei Pereliot.
It was fitted with in-line AM-39s which offered 1,500 to l,870hp, and reached 645kph/401mph. The second, fitted with AM-39F engines, had a crew of three, one more than the earlier example; it reached a speed of 640kph/398mph. It first flew on 14 October 1944 piloted by Mikhail Nukhtikov.
(http://emoty.blox.pl/resource/th_cooking.gif)
-
Our FW-190A (EW) and P-51B (MW) were the planes I had in mind. Tu-2 enabled in MW (perked?) would follow their example.
That being said, I would not complain if HTC would decide to allow it in LW only.
Really??? our 190a is the early war variant? and still has a 25 eny? Can you earn the early war plane achievements with it too?
-
Really??? our 190a is the early war variant? and still has a 25 eny? Can you earn the early war plane achievements with it too?
No, yes, no.
-
No, yes, no.
Interesting and thank you for the response.
-
Thanks Widow. Im having problems finding material on the TU2.
-
Thanks Widow. Im having problems finding material on the TU2.
You might find this interesting: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,328373.msg4299722.html#msg4299722 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,328373.msg4299722.html#msg4299722)
-
Really??? our 190a is the early war variant?
A proper early war variant like the A-3 would probably have lower ENY than the A-5. The A-3 had the same guns and engine, but weighed about 600 lbs less.
-
The A3 normally had 1.35 ata, the A5 was cleared first to 1.42ata (AH2), and later to 1.57 ata so in effect it should be faster.
-
A-3 and the A-5 would be cleared for the same boost at the same time. They literally have the exact same engine.
In 1942 the Fw 190A-3 was doing 335 mph at sea level.
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a3-sheet-26-11-42.jpg)
-
I wonder why HTC haven't made different boost levels available for many aircraft, like Il-2FB did back in the day. Like a 1944 P-51D and a 1945 P-51D with 100/150 avgas. The Fw 190A series would have different boost levels from 1941 to 1944 (A-3 was still in service in secondary roles like jabo). Seems like such a simple thing to add...
-
Btw. AH's A-5 matches the performance of ~1.35 ATA. At 1.42 ATA the A-5 would do 415 mph at best altitude and 354 mph at sea level.
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/190a5-level-20-10-43.jpg)
-
This thing looks kinda fragile with all the glass in the front. I'd rather have a different twin engine ground attack aircraft. (P-61 Black Widow)
-
You'd feel more protected by a sheet of aluminum foil?
The Tu-2 is a bomber, not a ground attacker. It should be compared to planes like the Ju-88, B-25, B-26 etc.
-
This thing looks kinda fragile with all the glass in the front. I'd rather have a different twin engine ground attack aircraft. (P-61 Black Widow)
The P-61 is not a ground attack aircraft. It was pressed into that role, but it is a night fighter and armored as such.
-
Remember... many thought the Me410 would dominate the bomber hunting/killing aspect of AH too. It doesn't.
I'd wait-n-see before making any judgements on the plane. It may fly like a brick and be as tricky as the B25 in low level maneuvers. It could be as fragile as an egg, too.
On the same note, don't be surprised if the B26 is not the same. Me thinks when HTC updates a plane the flight models become more accurate and in many cases it is "worse" that the original model. If that is the case with the B26 I anticipate a chorus a crying similar to coyotes in the middle of winter. We'll see once the update arrives.
-
the B26B had the nerfbat coming since the 1.00 :D
-
Me thinks when HTC updates a plane the flight models become more accurate and in many cases it is "worse" that the original model. If that is the case with the B26 I anticipate a chorus a crying similar to coyotes in the middle of winter. We'll see once the update arrives.
There are several updated planes that didn't have their flight models changed, Zekes and Yaks for example. It depends on whether Pyro thinks if new/updated flight model is needed.
-
I'd wait-n-see before making any judgements on the plane. It may fly like a brick and be as tricky as the B25 in low level maneuvers. It could be as fragile as an egg, too.
Obviously we don't know, but comments from those who flew it wouldn't support such. Its wing loading is about the same as a Mossie's, not sure if that is loaded or bombs gone, so those expecting an A-20G agile bomber are likely to be disappointed, but it was supposed to be tough. It doesn't look like it has much, or any, armor from the front for the pilot so I am wondering how vulnerable he will be.
On the same note, don't be surprised if the B26 is not the same. Me thinks when HTC updates a plane the flight models become more accurate and in many cases it is "worse" that the original model. If that is the case with the B26 I anticipate a chorus a crying similar to coyotes in the middle of winter. We'll see once the update arrives.
The damage model is where I suspect the B-26 might take the hit. There is also always the issue of visibility from the guns and gun arcs.
-
You might find this interesting: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,328373.msg4299722.html#msg4299722 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,328373.msg4299722.html#msg4299722)
Right, I remember that original post.
In the design pictures I see ample effort to protect the crew. Perhaps others can comment more on the state of Soviet canopy glass and other armor plating. Also how protected was the TU-2S from fire in its design.
It looks lean, mean, and efficient does it not?
-
It looks lean, mean, and efficient does it not?
Very much so. I fully expect it to be one of the most common bombers in the MA.
And I look forward to putting it through its paces. I have long had a space reserved for it on my fighter-bomber performance spreadsheet.
-
Any idea how much ammo its gun positions had? The Il-2's rear gun is seriously ammo limited and if the Tu-2S has the same 250 rounds per position that is going to be an issue.
-
Any idea how much ammo its gun positions had? The Il-2's rear gun is seriously ammo limited and if the Tu-2S has the same 250 rounds per position that is going to be an issue.
Add to that the limited firing arcs. These are no turrets, so despite the relatively high speed I personally don't expect the Tu-2, when flown conventionally with formation, being that much of a problem to attack like the B-26 or Ki-67
-
Add to that the limited firing arcs. These are no turrets, so despite the relatively high speed I personally don't expect the Tu-2, when flown conventionally with formation, being that much of a problem to attack like the B-26 or Ki-67
Fortunately the direct 6 approach seems fairly well covered by three 12.7mm guns.
That ought to defend it effectively against about two thirds of attacks mounted on it. :p
-
Fortunately the direct 6 approach seems fairly well covered by three 12.7mm guns.
That ought to defend it effectively against about two thirds of attacks mounted on it. :p
:D That's why I wrote 'personally'. :old:
This weekend with a lot of strats defense I was again and again flabbergastedseeing how players were using their 400+ mph fighter to stay on the six of a 250mph bomber :bhead
-
So, Lusche, do you know if it is 250rpg for the defensive positions? Or were they more liberal with the ammo than for the smaller Il-2?
-
So, Lusche, do you know if it is 250rpg for the defensive positions? Or were they more liberal with the ammo than for the smaller Il-2?
Russian bombers are not known for their liberal positions :lol
don't mind me, go on... :bolt:
-
So, Lusche, do you know if it is 250rpg for the defensive positions? Or were they more liberal with the ammo than for the smaller Il-2?
I only have read about the 12.7 UBT's having 250-270 rounds per gun.
-
Russian bombers are not known for their liberal positions :lol
:rofl :aok
-
Russian bombers are not known for their liberal positions :lol
don't mind me, go on... :bolt:
Oh jesus Nuke..... you owe me a new PC screen AND keyboard.... and pay my doctors fee for choking on CocaCola
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Oh jesus Nuke..... you owe me a new PC screen AND keyboard.... and pay my doctors fee for choking on CocaCola
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
i didn't get it even though i think i should
-
i didn't get it even though i think i should
I got it when I posted it. I just wondered how long it would take somebody to bite.
-
Any idea how much ammo its gun positions had? The Il-2's rear gun is seriously ammo limited and if the Tu-2S has the same 250 rounds per position that is going to be an issue.
I posted this earlier in this thread, it lists the ammo per gun:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/TU_30.jpg)
top: 190
middle: 250
bottom: 350
-
I posted this earlier in this thread, it lists the ammo per gun:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/TU_30.jpg)
top: 190
middle: 250
bottom: 350
Odd. I'd have expected uniform quantities.
-
The rof of the UBT is given as 800-1050 rounds per minute. So at an assume 900 rpm, the ammo would last for
top: 12.5 seconds
middle 16.5 seconds
bottom 23 seconds
in comparison, the (in my opinion) dreadfully short clip of the Lancasters .50 tailguns has a firing time of 25 seconds, the Ki-67 rear 12.7mm have 27 seconds (400 rpg) and the top 20mm (250 rpg) has 21 seconds of cannon fire.
The current incarnation of the B-26 has a rear turret firing time of just over 1 full minute...
-
Yes, this is definitely a weakness for the Tu-2S.
The limited .50 ammo on the Lancaster's makes me take the quad .303s for their plentiful supply of weaker ammo.
-
Odd. I'd have expected uniform quantities.
I'm sure it has to do with the limited space. Looking at some of the drawings of the gunner positions, it for example would have made the maneuvering the gun rather awkward in the top most position if the ammo box would have been any bigger.
-
I'm sure it has to do with the limited space. Looking at some of the drawings of the gunner positions, it for example would have made the maneuvering the gun rather awkward in the top most position if the ammo box would have been any bigger.
If I were the gunner I'd be trying to find places to stash additional ammo boxes that I could change out in flight if need be.
-
If I were the gunner I'd be trying to find places to stash additional ammo boxes that I could change out in flight if need be.
I could imagine many have, but that would be 'unofficial'
-
I could imagine many have, but that would be 'unofficial'
Indeed. Unless there was a place to store additional ammo boxes as on the 20mm cannon drums for the G4M and H8K.
-
What kind of bomb sight did it use?
ack-ack
-
What kind of bomb sight did it use?
ack-ack
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/TU_17.jpg)
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/TU_27.jpg)
-
Remember... many thought the Me410 would dominate the bomber hunting/killing aspect of AH too. It doesn't.
I'd wait-n-see before making any judgements on the plane. It may fly like a brick and be as tricky as the B25 in low level maneuvers. It could be as fragile as an egg, too.
On the same note, don't be surprised if the B26 is not the same. Me thinks when HTC updates a plane the flight models become more accurate and in many cases it is "worse" that the original model. If that is the case with the B26 I anticipate a chorus a crying similar to coyotes in the middle of winter. We'll see once the update arrives.
To put it in perspective, it will have a wing loading of around 45 lbs/sqft when loaded. IIRC, the Me 410 has a wing loading of around 39lbs when on 25% fuel with base armament and no ordnance. Its certianly not going to be very capable of dog-fighting; nothing even close to the A-20.
-
Add to that the limited firing arcs. These are no turrets, so despite the relatively high speed I personally don't expect the Tu-2, when flown conventionally with formation, being that much of a problem to attack like the B-26 or Ki-67
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/TU2_gun_angles_zps0d559579.png)
-
To put it in perspective, it will have a wing loading of around 45 lbs/sqft when loaded. IIRC, the Me 410 has a wing loading of around 39lbs when on 25% fuel with base armament and no ordnance. Its certianly not going to be very capable of dog-fighting; nothing even close to the A-20.
Well, to put that in perspective a fully laden Me410 had a wing loading of 60.8lbs/sq.ft. 45lbs/sq.ft when loaded isn't that bad and light on fuel, bombs gone it may not be too far off of the A-20G.
-
Well, to put that in perspective a fully laden Me410 had a wing loading of 60.8lbs/sq.ft. 45lbs/sq.ft when loaded isn't that bad and light on fuel, bombs gone it may not be too far off of the A-20G.
The only thing is that a "light" Me 410 is still quite a pig. Easy meat for anything thats anywhere CLOSE to co-E.
Now it might make a decent ground-attack plane, but I'm thinking thats going to be primarily because of its large number of bombs, 20mm cannons for deacking, as opposed to the A-20 which has a large number of bombs, and can take care of itself in some measure.
-
Well, to put that in perspective a fully laden Me410 had a wing loading of 60.8lbs/sq.ft. 45lbs/sq.ft when loaded isn't that bad and light on fuel, bombs gone it may not be too far off of the A-20G.
I saw the wingloading and it varied from 45 LBs down to 23 lbs which is a rather low wingloading,even id it's in the mid 30's it should be a fairly manuverable A/C. From all reports I read the pilots really liked it and praised it's speed and handling.
It should be a great ground pounder and I think the GV whines will be epic!!
:salute
-
One thing I noticed from the screenshots are dive brakes. The initial production versions had them but the mass produced Tu-2S did not.
No idea if they are just a graphical element of the skin or actually functional.
-
I saw the wingloading and it varied from 45 LBs down to 23 lbs which is a rather low wingloading,even id it's in the mid 30's it should be a fairly manuverable A/C. From all reports I read the pilots really liked it and praised it's speed and handling.
It should be a great ground pounder and I think the GV whines will be epic!!
:salute
That should say down to 32 lbs..... wish I could make my fingers work! :o
:salute
-
I see it becoming a dangerous CV killer.
-
Horrible thing. Looks like a Praying Mantis' ovipositor.
-
Found the pilots handbook it is all in Russian of course.
Some interesting pictures they show how to dive bomb in it as well.
After you translate the link just hit the paper version you can read it for free.
107 pages in all. :aok
http://bookre.org/reader?file=540598&pg=1
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Tu%202/tu-2gunsight_zps178d72db.jpg) (http://s1002.photobucket.com/user/barneybolac/media/Tu%202/tu-2gunsight_zps178d72db.jpg.html)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Tu%202/tu-2gunsighta_zpsf302fe94.jpg) (http://s1002.photobucket.com/user/barneybolac/media/Tu%202/tu-2gunsighta_zpsf302fe94.jpg.html)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Tu%202/tu-2gunsightb_zps33bcaf61.jpg) (http://s1002.photobucket.com/user/barneybolac/media/Tu%202/tu-2gunsightb_zps33bcaf61.jpg.html)
This was not from the manual just something I found on a Russian site I thought might be interesting.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Tu%202/tu-2gun_zpsd47bf1f2.jpg) (http://s1002.photobucket.com/user/barneybolac/media/Tu%202/tu-2gun_zpsd47bf1f2.jpg.html)
-
Thank you aper!
I hadn't seen these schematics. Do you know which publication they are from?
These look to be the actual blue prints for the bomb loads that Aper posted the picture of in this Russian link I found.
http://nacekomie.ru/forum/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=3125&start=40
Also has a lot of detailed drawings in a post in the above thread.
http://walkarounds.scalemodels.ru/v/manuals/UTB-2/
A number of profiles as well on the first page.
http://nacekomie.ru/forum/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=3125
-
Found the pilots handbook it is all in Russian of course.
Some interesting pictures they show how to dive bomb in it as well.
After you translate the link just hit the paper version you can read it for free.
107 pages in all. :aok
http://bookre.org/reader?file=540598&pg=1
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Tu%202/tu-2gunsight_zps178d72db.jpg) (http://s1002.photobucket.com/user/barneybolac/media/Tu%202/tu-2gunsight_zps178d72db.jpg.html)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Tu%202/tu-2gunsighta_zpsf302fe94.jpg) (http://s1002.photobucket.com/user/barneybolac/media/Tu%202/tu-2gunsighta_zpsf302fe94.jpg.html)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Tu%202/tu-2gunsightb_zps33bcaf61.jpg) (http://s1002.photobucket.com/user/barneybolac/media/Tu%202/tu-2gunsightb_zps33bcaf61.jpg.html)
This was not from the manual just something I found on a Russian site I thought might be interesting.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Tu%202/tu-2gun_zpsd47bf1f2.jpg) (http://s1002.photobucket.com/user/barneybolac/media/Tu%202/tu-2gun_zpsd47bf1f2.jpg.html)
Found a link for a pdf if any one wants to save the file.
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/other-mechanical-systems-tech/tu-2-a-5135.html
-
Cool stuff. Im really looking forward to this plane.
-
Lyric,
Have you ever been able to find an I-16 pilots handbook?
I spent 4 hours searching for: Пилот Поликарпова Ай-16 руководство
Found the factory construction manual. Was the I-16's flap(s) actually under the fuselage extending between the inboard edges of the ailerons?
-
I thought the I-16 had flaperons.
-
Lyric,
Have you ever been able to find an I-16 pilots handbook?
I spent 4 hours searching for: Пилот Поликарпова Ай-16 руководство
Found the factory construction manual. Was the I-16's flap(s) actually under the fuselage extending between the inboard edges of the ailerons?
I will take a look & see what I can find.
Is this what you found?
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/other-mechanical-systems-tech/polikarpov-i-16-technical-description-24448.html
-
Here is the center section of the wing and you can see an allowance for a center body flap that edges to the ailerons. In the next illustration you see a separation of aileron units and center body flap unit. The flaperons as is now, are a death trap when you drop them.
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/800x600q90/20/al00.jpg)
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/800x600q90/855/jsm6.jpg)
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/800x600q90/513/8hxd.jpg)
-
Something else I found on the I-16.
The second link is the same as one of the others I posted.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/116574543/%D0%98-16-%D1%81-%D0%9C-25-%D0%BA%D0%BD-1
http://www.scribd.com/doc/75192753/%D0%A5%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2-%D0%93-%D0%9A-%D0%A2%D0%B5%D1%85%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B5-%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5-%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B0-%D0%98-16-%D1%81-%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BC-%D0%9C-63-1941
-
I-16 Type 10
In 1937 the next major version was developed. Initialy it was powered by 1 × Svhetsov M-25A, but soon it was powered by a Shvetsov M-25V for high altitude. Apart from the engine also armament was enhanced. Two 0.3 inch (7,62 mm) ShKAS guns were already in the wings, but two more were additionally placed in the nose above the engine. Some aircraft also received a Cannon in the nose to augment the I-16's armament. Flaps were added to reduce landing speed and run, and for the first time a retractable landing ski was used as well.
This and the strengthening of the airframe in some places added weight, and it rose to more than 3,747 lb (1.700 kg). Nevertheless performance was more or less equal to the I-16 Type 5.
Number built: unknown out of 7.364+
Caption under this illustration translates: trailing edge
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/800x600q90/42/4ubz.jpg)
Trailing edge flaps separate of ailerons, inboard and under fuselage.
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/800x600q90/823/9sl2.jpg)
-
The rof of the UBT is given as 800-1050 rounds per minute. So at an assume 900 rpm, the ammo would last for
top: 12.5 seconds
middle 16.5 seconds
bottom 23 seconds
in comparison, the (in my opinion) dreadfully short clip of the Lancasters .50 tailguns has a firing time of 25 seconds, the Ki-67 rear 12.7mm have 27 seconds (400 rpg) and the top 20mm (250 rpg) has 21 seconds of cannon fire.
The current incarnation of the B-26 has a rear turret firing time of just over 1 full minute...
Actual in game firing times:
Rear Canopy (190): 11 seconds
Dorsal (250): 14 seconds
Ventral (350): 21 seconds
That's a very short firing time... you'd better hit the fighters cockpit with your opening burst... :uhoh
-
Ok, the Tu-2S does not have formation option.
Which to me does not make much sense at all. It was used a regular bomber, and is equipped as such in AH with a regular bombsight. If we can now only effectively fly it like a close support aircraft, why didn't we get the 10x more produced Pe-2 instead? :headscratch:
-
Ok, the Tu-2S does not have formation option.
Which to me does not make much sense at all. It was used a regular bomber, and is equipped as such in AH with a regular bombsight. If we can now only effectively fly it like a close support aircraft, why didn't we get the 10x more produced Pe-2 instead? :headscratch:
Agreed. Other formation bombers have fixed forward guns (B-26B, Boston Mk III, Ju88A-4). It seems to me that the Tu-2S' advantage over the Pe-2 lay in being an actual level bomber.
-
It might warrant a mild perking if it got formations.
I mean ~310 on the deck, and 5k of bombs....
-
It might warrant a mild perking if it got formations.
I mean ~310 on the deck, and 5k of bombs....
I'd rather it lightly perked and be consistent than no formations.
I am at work. What loadout options does it have?
-
Internal: 1x1000kg or 2x500kg or 4x250kg or 9x100kg
External: 2x1000kg or 2x500kg or 2x250kg
I don't even think it would have to be perked with formations. 310 on the deck is still much slower than the most common MA fighters, and the defensive armament is significantly hampered by a very short firing time.
But I still agree: Rather lightly perked than being inconsistent.
-
Ok, the Tu-2S does not have formation option.
Which to me does not make much sense at all. It was used a regular bomber, and is equipped as such in AH with a regular bombsight. If we can now only effectively fly it like a close support aircraft, why didn't we get the 10x more produced Pe-2 instead? :headscratch:
This is an OOOPPPS, I should be able to enable them online.
Dale
-
Ok, the Tu-2S does not have formation option.
Which to me does not make much sense at all.
I'm almost certain that it's just an oversight that will be corrected in the first patch of the new version. If not, well, I'll be really really surprised.
EDT/Ahh, HT beat me to it. :)/EDIT
-
I'm almost certain that it's just an oversight
I was certain of it too, that's why I initially made a post in the bugs forum only. But then someone posted in there that Skuzzy had said it will not get formation, so I escalated it a bit :devil
-
I am just a messenger.
-
It kinda sounds like its OTW very soon? :pray
-
It kinda sounds like its OTW very soon? :pray
Given that players are talking about it I'd say it has arrived. Just no patch post yet.
-
Given that players are talking about it I'd say it has arrived. Just no patch post yet.
Seriously? :x
-
Yep, v-232 available for download but no upgrade patch yet. :cheers:
-
Seriously? :x
I can't see how Lusche'd be posting bugs and talking about the lack of formations for it otherwise.
-
Tu-2S climb profile at max loadout:
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/tu2profile3k100_zpsab26c5ee.jpg)
(WEP used at takeoff until it ran out)
-
Can you compare that to a similar climbing airplane?
-
In a few minutes, after dinner! :old:
-
Tu-2S climb profile at max loadout:
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/tu2profile3k100_zpsab26c5ee.jpg)
(WEP used at takeoff until it ran out)
Looks like ~20,000ft is about as high as you'd want to take it. 12,500 to 17,500 look like the best target altitudes, balancing time to altitude and safety by having altitude.
I'd love to play with it, but I am doing a 07:30 to 21:00 shift today and then back tomorrow for another 07:30 start and tomorrow is my son's 1st birthday, so I'll definitely be busy with family stuff after getting off at 15:30.
-
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/comparison_zps27929f17.jpg)
All planes at 100% fuel. Data is for the 'old' B-26, haven't checked yet if the new model has different performance.
-
I say perk it lightly. 2 perks maybe?
I'd say they're probably going to significantly impact the usage of everything but the Lancaster and B-17.
-
I was certain of it too, that's why I initially made a post in the bugs forum only.
Ahh, hadn't read that forum for a while.
-
I say perk it lightly. 2 perks maybe?
I'd say they're probably going to significantly impact the usage of everything but the Lancaster and B-17.
Impacting the usage is fine. Demolishing it is not. We'll have to wait to see where it comes out.
-
Given that its markedly superior in just about every way to the B-26, B-25, Ju-88, BostonIII, He-111, Ki-67, and G4M, I would not be at all surprised if useage plummeted for them. The B-24 only has 2k more ordnance (although admittedly spread out better), though it is likely to be less survivable, given that the Tu-2's speed will likely leave many fighters struggling up the 6.
I foresee a significant drop in A-20 usage as well, given that it looks to be more effective in the GV bombing realm, given the two 1000kg bombs the damn thing can strap on. Not to mention the 9 100kg bombs, if you're a good aim. And the 4 250kg bombs.
-
Given that its markedly superior in just about every way to the B-26
It's not. It carries more ords than the 26, but doesn't climb to alt much faster. It's faster in level flight, but not as much as giving the most common fighters a real problem to catch it. And most importantly, it's defensive armament is very limited while the 26 has impressive firepower.
There were already several players voicing their disappointment with the Tu-2's performance in the MA ;)
-
What is its top speed with the 1000kg external bombs? With no external stores?
-
Unless I'm misreading your chart, the Tu-2S climbs a bit better than the B-26 (with the old modeling, anyway).
As for people voicing their disappointment, I suspect they're being rather..... incautious with it. Once the excitement wears off, and people set out to use it seriously, rather than to test its capabilities, I fully expect it to supplant most medium bombers.
-
Unless I'm misreading your chart, the Tu-2S climbs a bit better than the B-26 (with the old modeling, anyway).
But not making a big difference, tactically. Tu-2 climbs to 15k in about 13 minutes, B-26 in about 15. The difference in firepower between the two is much more significant. More guns, all round coverage, way more ammo.
-
What is its top speed with the 1000kg external bombs? With no external stores?
From the speed charts in hangar it seems best mil top speed is at about 16k. At that alt, 50% fuel and..
... 1000kg internal: 338 mph
... 1000kg internal + 2000kg external: 314 mph
-
From the speed charts in hangar it seems best mil top speed is at about 16k. At that alt, 50% fuel and..
... 1000kg internal: 338 mph
... 1000kg internal + 2000kg external: 314 mph
Thanks, Lusche.
Seems HTC went with the 341mph max rather than the 325mph commonly quoted. (I bet the 338mph changes to about 341mph when empty)
-
(I bet the 338mph changes to about 341mph when empty)
It does :)
-
SPASIBA!!
(http://i.imgur.com/xqG0QP3.gif)
:rofl :rofl
I nearly fell of my chair :rofl
-
Cant select a gunsight for defensive gunner positions, which is weird. (http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/gunnersight_zps2f0b1a21.jpg)
I changed the primary sight to a dive bombing one when I first entered the arena, "dont know if thats the reason why". I have no problem changing the pilots sight but cant get a gunners one to show. Theres only one sight listed in preferences and I dont know what the default sight was.
-
Cant select a gunsight for defensive gunner positions, which is weird. (http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/gunnersight_zps2f0b1a21.jpg)
I changed the primary sight to a dive bombing one when I first entered the arena, "dont know if thats the reason why". I have no problem changing the pilots sight but cant get a gunners one to show. Theres only one sight listed in preferences and I dont know what the default sight was.
The default sight is called default.bmp, the Tu-2 has indeed just one slot in the gunsight options list and the not showing gunsight on the gunners position is a bug on your end.
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/gunstu2_zps4a2df94c.jpg)
-
Thank you. Ill try it again. Nope, for some reason that default sight has never worked for me in this game. It just shows up empty in the sight. :bhead
-
It's not. It carries more ords than the 26, but doesn't climb to alt much faster. It's faster in level flight, but not as much as giving the most common fighters a real problem to catch it. And most importantly, it's defensive armament is very limited while the 26 has impressive firepower.
^ This
It has too many angles to attack it where there is no defensive fire.
-
After killing the first Tu2 in the formation, the commie got me with a pilot wound and oil hit in the span of one second. After barrel rolling on his long 6, to test out how long the ammo lasts, I blacked out at about 800 out and put my D11 in autoclimb. Turns out the guns last long enough, as he took both wings off before the pilot woke up. Think I'll treat these the same as every other bomber from now on.
-
Loadout combinations and actual destructive power
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/tu2loadouts_zps7409c49b.jpg)
Computed for single bomber, triple destructive power for formation :old:
-
Loadout combinations and actual destructive power
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/tu2loadouts_zps7409c49b.jpg)
Computed for single bomber, triple destructive power for formation :old:
Which loadouts look most viable to in in AH terms?
The two 1000kg or 500kg under the wings and then either two 500kg bombs or four 250kg bombs internally look like the loadouts I'd most often use. The nine 100kg bombs could be nice for radar smashing.
-
Current K/D ratio is .51 to 1. That is very high for a free bomber, but well below the B-29A's.
-
Current K/D ratio is .51 to 1. That is very high for a free bomber, but well below the B-29A's.
Also bear in mind that its still in the "NEW :x :x :x :x :x :x" phase, when nobody really has had much stick time in it, people are using it stupid to test its limits, and about half the bombers you see are the Tu-2.
-
I do think it is going to be a very potent GV killer.
-
First attack run... killed a Tiger i
First formation bomber run... sunk a CV
First strat run... killed 2 Me 262
I should stop flying it now, it can only go downhill from here :noid
-
Some quick performance test data....
Speed at sea level, clean, no ordnance, 25% fuel: 315 mph WEP
Speed at 7k clean, no ordnance, 25% fuel: 336 mph
Turn radius, clean, no ord, 25% fuel, full flaps: 515 feet (81 mph stall speed)
Corner Speed as configured above: 199 mph
Climb, clean, no ord, 25% fuel, WEP. About 3.1k at SL, 2.9k @ 5k. Didn't test this, just general obervations.
Conclusions: Reasonably fast at low level, with good climb rate below 10k. Good low speed turning ability, clean and with flaps. Slow roll rate. Above 350 mph, controls are extremely sluggish. Watch your speed dive bombing or you'll be making holes in the ground. To maneuver for combat, you have to get it slowed down. It behaves very much like a Boston in that respect. Below 200 mph, maneuvering is great, except for that very slow roll rate. Better outward vision than A-20G, but the A-20 handles better above 200 mph.
-
Tu-2 has bombs? :confused:
-
I like it a lot from first impression. :aok
-
Conclusion is that its darn fast, out-turns an FW190a8 with full bomb load in it below 250mph, and with 2*20mm forward firing. Just another better armed (forward), and faster A20, and it also can do so in a formation. :rock
How much damage does it soak up compared with the legendary led-sponge A20 ?
-
the Tu-2 has indeed just one slot in the gunsight options list and the not showing gunsight on the gunners position is a bug on your end.
The big is that they didnt make gunner positions separate in preferences/gunsights like as in every other airplane/vehicle in the game with more then one gunner position.
Thats the only bug I can see.
-
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/TU2_gun_angles_zps0d559579.png)
Does it seam that the guns on the TU-2 do not line up with these number? It looks like the top guns can depress ether side of the body, but atm it feels like a flat plan as you traverse them.
-
The big is that they didnt make gunner positions separate in preferences/gunsights like as in every other airplane/vehicle in the game with more then one gunner position.
Thats the only bug I can see.
So not being able to see the default gunsight in gunners position while others players do is none? :)
-
So not being able to see the default gunsight in gunners position while others players do is none? :)
Well I have no problem seeing the B26s in exterior views while on the runway. :D
-
F3 views not working. Did HTC managed to make a bomber with F3 disabled?
Somehow I was able to deack an entire v base with this one without taking a hit. I my mossie gets anywhere within auto back range I start losing coolant oil and blood almost instantly. Perhaps just luck.
-
F3 views not working. Did HTC managed to make a bomber with F3 disabled?
It's rolling from the fighter hangar at the moment, that's why ;)
-
Tu-2S vs Ki-67
A direct comparison at almost same loadout and fuel endurance:
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/kivstu_zps371eca34.jpg)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=58&p2=133&pw=0>ype=0&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
Of course, the Tu-2 will probably rarely actually flown with such a light bomb load, while the Ki-67 can greatly extend its range (+~20minutes) by taking 100% fuel with only a minor reduction in climb rate. The Ki-67 has also better defensive capabilities.
-
It's rolling from the fighter hangar at the moment, that's why ;)
Ah OK, Skuzzy had said would be fixed in next patch.
-
F3 views not working. Did HTC managed to make a bomber with F3 disabled?
Somehow I was able to deack an entire v base with this one without taking a hit. I my mossie gets anywhere within auto back range I start losing coolant oil and blood almost instantly. Perhaps just luck.
I think it is connected to the difference between 2 liquid cooled engines and two radial engines + the difference between the wooden plane and metal one.
Now, if
Mosquito VI - twice the spitfire
Than Tu-2S is twice the LaLa... :aok
I have a feeling I'm going to love this plane, according to the charts its performance (climb speed) is very close to Boston and little bit better than K-67, but it has much more defensive power then Boston and it has a much higher bomb load than both of these planes.
Flew it one sortie, managed to do some damage to airfield and than escape a Spit-9 that managed to do only one pass and than stayed behind...
-
The Japanese didn't seem to keen on heavy bomb loads, even for bombers that clearly had the power and lift to carry much, much heavier loads.
-
I have a feeling I'm going to love this plane, according to the charts its performance (climb speed) is very close to Boston and little bit better than K-67, but it has much more defensive power then Boston and it has a much higher bomb load than both of these planes.
Thats why Ive been screaming for it for years. Yesterday I had one hold together at 450 mph in a dive. Can any of its contemporaries match that?
And its a beautiful bird as well. I think. Course for sheer two engined beauty nothing comes close to a Mossie.
-
Thats why Ive been screaming for it for years. Yesterday I had one hold together at 450 mph in a dive. Can any of its contemporaries match that?
And its a beautiful bird as well. I think. Course for sheer two engined beauty nothing comes close to a Mossie.
Mitsubishi Ki-46-III is the prettiest twin engined aircraft of WWII. Mossie is good looking too, but not as much.
-
The Japanese didn't seem to keen on heavy bomb loads, even for bombers that clearly had the power and lift to carry much, much heavier loads.
B17s did not carry the max load that we have in the game to Berlin. Long ranges required smaller payloads. I think the Japanese bombers we have carry the bomb load that correspond to the typical long ranges they flew.
-
B17s did not carry the max load that we have in the game to Berlin. Long ranges required smaller payloads. I think the Japanese bombers we have carry the bomb load that correspond to the typical long ranges they flew.
The IJA's design specifications for the Ki-67 are for an 800kg bomb load. Mitsubishi complied, even though its 1800hp engines and size would have easily allowed a 4-6k load for shorter flights.
-
B17s did not carry the max load that we have in the game to Berlin. Long ranges required smaller payloads. I think the Japanese bombers we have carry the bomb load that correspond to the typical long ranges they flew.
I don't know, was it because the Japanese planes were just not made for overload bomb loadouts, or that the US pushed their planes to the limit during testing and documented it?
-
i love it. The planes speed and weapon loadout make it a nice attack vehicle. :cheers:
I feel its most ideally suited for fast hanger and cv destruction with a superb cannon fire time for deack work. Not to mention effective pork runs, gv suppersion, decent maneuverability, and deadly cannons. :joystick:
:airplane:
-
After all the testing and charts stuff, time for my subjective assessment.
Nice plane with some unique features. But will it replace my three mainstay medium bombers: B-26, G4M, Ki-67? No not really.
At least not in the true medium bomber role. I find the speed and flexibility of the bomb loadout really nice (especially the 2x1000kg + 4x250kg combination), but the defensive capabilities when flying a formation at altitude leave much to be desired - and it's not fast enough to make up for it. The B-26 is, in my view, the more balanced plane and better suited for tactical targets which require several passes at more than just light defense.
What I see as a role for the Tu-2 in my future arsenal is the single plane close support attacker mission (should do great in that) and (with formation) as a CV killer.
-
The loadouts do seem nicely versatile. The lack of versatility is something I dislike about the Mosquito Mk XVI.
-
What I see as a role for the Tu-2 in my future arsenal is the single plane close support attacker mission (should do great in that) and (with formation) as a CV killer.
agreed, I think people will up a formation just for the extra lives, and stay low in attack mode
-
...the Tu-2 in my future arsenal is the single plane close support attacker mission (should do great in that) and (with formation) as a CV killer.
Great, just what the MA needs, another formation of level bombers that can hit a CV while dropping ords at 300mph and can't be hit by CV ack.
It's nice to have a Russian bomber in the game for events.
It's just sad that it's primary use in the MA will be the exploitation of a game flaw that is a personal pet peeve of mine (that is, virtually unstoppable one-pass sinking of CVs in level bombers).
<S>
-
Great, just what the MA needs, another formation of level bombers that can hit a CV while dropping ords at 300mph and can't be hit by CV ack.
Well, auto CV puffy doesn't really kill the bombers we already have anyway, so that's not worse in that aspect at least :noid :bolt:
-
Does it have any outer wing ord options, like rockets?
-
On thing I find a bit peculiar is the empty weight of the Tu-2S. "Tu-2S-test mule", S/N 100716 had an empty weight of 7474kg*.
In AH, without fuel, bombs or ammo the aircraft weighs 7142kg and still has for example four crew members on board...
(*Gordon & Khazanov)
-
After all the testing and charts stuff, time for my subjective assessment.
Nice plane with some unique features. But will it replace my three mainstay medium bombers: B-26, G4M, Ki-67? No not really.
At least not in the true medium bomber role. I find the speed and flexibility of the bomb loadout really nice (especially the 2x1000kg + 4x250kg combination), but the defensive capabilities when flying a formation at altitude leave much to be desired - and it's not fast enough to make up for it. The B-26 is, in my view, the more balanced plane and better suited for tactical targets which require several passes at more than just light defense.
What I see as a role for the Tu-2 in my future arsenal is the single plane close support attacker mission (should do great in that) and (with formation) as a CV killer.
I would say the B26 has more the aspects of a heavy bomber and the TU more a "raider". Its pretty unique. I was able to hit 300 mph at 2k yesterday with a good bombload. I wasnt able to climb it high but I'd like to see how fast it is at 20,000k with its 200 lbs bombs and 2 500 lbs on the wings. Thats a pretty useful porking bombload and I would never turn my back on speed, which was the KI-67s strong point.
-
I wasnt able to climb it high but I'd like to see how fast it is at 20,000k with its 200 lbs bombs and 2 500 lbs on the wings. Thats a pretty useful porking bombload and I would never turn my back on speed, which was the KI-67s strong point.
I was. :)
The Tu-2s is quite fast, yet it is still not fast enough to prevent interception. I have repeatedly been caught with easy by several fighters at altitudes from 15-22k. And then you will face the problem of limited number of guns, gun arcs and most particularly very limited ammo. The 190 rounds in the top station are gone very quickly.
Similar to (even worse in this regard) bombers like B-25C or Boston III, you better plan your flight so that the chance of interception is low to begin with.
The Ki-67 can defend itself better with the twin tail guns, 20mm top turret and more ammo. The Tu-2S has also a somewhat annoying blind spot from gunners position on the 6 o clock line.
-
Lol, I bet the TU ends up being the premier GV dive killer. The 3 1,000 kg loadout almost automatically give you 3 GV kills.
The KI-67 will still be used. for the reasons you state. If I want to drop ords at a base AND live to make it home probably nothing will be able to take its place.
-
Tonight, I had an hour to burn, so I logged into the MA and took a Tu-2 out for the first time (I've flown it offline to learn it's habits).Climbed out to 16k and flew to where to opposing V-bases were. I dropped on and knocked down a VH, and killed an M-18. I spiraled down and headed to the spawns between the bases. I mostly did spotting for friendly GVs, usually marking the enemy tanks with tracers (ended it up with 4 assists doing that). I spot an enemy 190 (later found to be a Dora) and an F4U. The Corsair stays distant, worried about a friendly fighter. The Dora heads for my Tupolev. I turn into the 190 and we merge clean (I expected an HO). I reverse off the merge instantly, in a climbing turn. The 190 began a turn, saw that I was already around and thought better of it. He extends to almost 2k, and turns back. He didn't extend enough, as I carried more E than he judged. I took a snap shot about 40 degrees off the Dora's nose, getting a few hits. The Dora took an oil hit (and at least two other hits). Watching me over his shoulder, the 190 driver gets too close to our V-base, and drawing a lot of fire. Seeing this, he breaks hard right. The big Tupolev easily turns inside of the 190. At about 30 off his six, I pull what looks like enough lead and fire. His wing is shot off and he goes in. With a turn radius a bit tighter than a Yak-9U (with and without flaps), out turning the Dora was no problem whatsoever.
The Tu-2 is going to be fun.....
-
Lol, I bet the TU ends up being the premier GV dive killer. The 3 1,000 kg loadout almost automatically give you 3 GV kills.
I did that tonight, and felt using 1000kg is like cheating. Two Panther and a Jagdpanther in one sortie without any real effort. No accuracy necessary, just sloppily lob the eggs into the general direction and an estimated 75 perks are gone.
HT, it's about time for a perked ords system ... or no perk tank will ever leave the concrete again :old:
-
I did that tonight, and felt using 1000kg is like cheating. Two Panther and a Jagdpanther in one sortie without any real effort. No accuracy necessary, just sloppily lob the eggs into the general direction and an estimated 75 perks are gone.
HT, it's about time for a perked ords system ... or no perk tank will ever leave the concrete again :old:
And I happened to be the Jagdpanther :cry. This is why I usually up either an M3 with the 75 or an M18. What's the point in upping a heavily perked tank only to get bombed?
#S#
Josh
-
And I happened to be the Jagdpanther :cry.
I'm sorry :(
I usually refrain from bombing tank battles like that, but I had to test the new toy somewhere. You died in the name of science :old:
-
I'm sorry :(
I usually refrain from bombing tank battles like that, but I had to test the new toy somewhere. You died in the name of science :old:
:lol
-
I'm sorry :(
I usually refrain from bombing tank battles like that, but I had to test the new toy somewhere. You died in the name of science :old:
That's what I said I never took you as a bomb**** :)
I guess it makes it ok knowing that I was a test dummy. But that was only the second time I'd ever upped one :cry. Oh well...my M3 of Doom will get those perks back :rock
-
Well its turned out to be everything I expected it to be over the years of whining for it.
The speed of an attacker/destroyer. The bombload approaching that of the heavies. Better then average handling and versatility. And "Built in the MotherLand tough".
I couldnt be more thrilled with it. Nice job by Aces High.
-
How much damage does it soak up compared with the legendary led-sponge A20 ?
Judge for yourself.
http://www.mediafire.com/download/4cvkt70yl8x4z49/first%20TU-2%20kill_0003.ahf
-
Well its turned out to be everything I expected it to be over the years of whining for it.
The speed of an attacker/destroyer. Better then average handling and versatility. And "Built in the MotherLand tough".
I couldnt be more thrilled with it. Nice job by Aces High.
Took it up for the first time last night on a fighter sortie.....had a ton of fun...killed an Jug and a 109 first run.... handled pretty well....started to get very unresponsive the faster I got..... so controlling speed in a dive was critical. Its an extremely stable gun platform....Cant wait to climb back into it. :aok
Oh wait, were supposed to bomb with it? But it has 2 engines, i just assumed HTC just added another real fighter :D
Thanks HTC :cheers:
-
Downloaded the game and tested this plane offline. This thing can turn and climb like a better fighter.
-
Downloaded the game and tested this plane offline. This thing can turn and climb like a better fighter.
It's an amazing heavy fighter. I managed to shoot down two n1k's in about ten seconds earlier.
-
I flew it off line and found in is pretty fast and can turn well and I had some success with the hammerhead. Not much of a bomb carrier with half the bomb load as a P-51D. Still new planes are always cool.
-
Not much of a bomb carrier with half the bomb load as a P-51D. Still new planes are always cool.
Are you sure it was the Tu-2 you were trying? ;)
-
Great addition , but seems to be very weak for a bomber, burns and disintegrates like paper plane; i vaporized a set easy from his 6 o'clock , only 1 pass in fwD9, ( 2x 20mm); the 2nd set i attacked in K-4 got 2 bombers in 1 pass and he smoked my motor; :lol ; maybe I'm wrong but this is my first impression;
-
I flew it off line and found in is pretty fast and can turn well and I had some success with the hammerhead. Not much of a bomb carrier with half the bomb load as a P-51D. Still new planes are always cool.
6,600+ pounds of bombs is less than half of that of a P-51D? I took four 500 kilo bombs last night, just improve the climb rate. That's still more than double what the Mustang can haul......
-
6,600+ pounds of bombs is less than half of that of a P-51D? I took four 500 kilo bombs last night, just improve the climb rate. That's still more than double what the Mustang can haul......
yep, 3000 kg x 2.2 (lb/kg)=6,600 lbs; more than B17s and faster
-
And the 1,000 kgs really make a bang when they go off. Forgetaboutit if your in a GV, I'd bet one sally of 3 would take out both the bomber and the fighter hangar. And CVs have a serious problem now unless there is a CAP flying over it.
-
TU2 enters compression around 505 TAS and breaks at 510 TAS,ailerons seem to depart first. Rudder isn't very effective,it's ok but I thought it would have more authority.
It also has a viscious stall,much like the 110C but it is easy to recover from.
Wep seems to have a bug as it seems to run forever,could be I mistaken on my time but it ran for over 5mins when I shut it down.
:salute
-
Wep seems to have a bug as it seems to run forever,could be I mistaken on my time but it ran for over 5mins when I shut it down.
Has the same engine as the La-7, which has 10 minutes of WEP
-
Has the same engine as the La-7, which has 10 minutes of WEP
Ah thx snailman! I was sure I let it run past 5 mins and shut it down thinking it might be a bug,I guess I should have just let it run out and I would have known!
Defensively all you need do is lower nose and most fighters will only be able to hang on the 6. I was at 20K did a 2000 fpm dive and was going 485 TAS in no time,I pushed it over to find compression speed and then waited to see if anything would break,the ailerons both departed but I was able to slow it,straighten it out and even land it without those parts.... seems unnecessary and unlike Uncle Joe to allow parts to be put on an airplane if they arent really needed..... :devil
:salute
-
Has the same engine as the La-7, which has 10 minutes of WEP
Also over 8k it virtually does not matter - it does not change performance above 8K
-
TU2 enters compression around 505 TAS and breaks at 510 TAS,ailerons seem to depart first. Rudder isn't very effective,it's ok but I thought it would have more authority.
It also has a viscious stall,much like the 110C but it is easy to recover from.
At those speeds half the fighters in the set will not be able to run it down and others just barely, not to mention that the rear gunners are fully functional to shoot at fighters closing at 505+1 mph. It can probably maintain this speed in a shallow dive of 3000 fpm? so starting from 15-16 kft it has 5 minutes of immunity from a chasing fighter. I suppose it also keeps the formation at those speeds?
HTC seems to be very generous in the speed and G limitation for the bombers. I'd love to know if real B17s, B26s and Lancasters could dive at 500 mph and pull 6G into a blackout. Also I want to know what the crew inside were screaming.
I tried it. If you ditch the formation it is a decent fighter as long as the speeds are not above 300 mph, so as a single plane its best defense it to fight the fighters if it cannot dive away from them - at least long enough to get help from friendlies. If formations are excluded, it is the best non-perked bomber in the game. Period.
The stall is typical to all the twins in the game. P-38 has it a little less vicious due to the zero torque. I think this has to do with the fact that for twins the ratio of wingspan to length is much larger than in single fighters and this makes them less stable when departing controlled flight. Also, the placing of the engines far from the center of gravity increase their roll and yaw inertia significantly - once you get them tumbling and spinning it is harder to stop.
-
Bozon, I didnt use formations so I cant say if you keep them or not! As for the amount of G's I was unable to produce a blackout at any speeds,maybe I wasnt tryi ng hard enough but I had combat trim enabled so that might have also effected the amount of G's you can pull.
The only thing I found it really lacking in was roll rate,whether fast or slow it just doesnt want to roll,but it is a bomber so I dont think the crew would like it to roll any faster than it does...... :devil I could see empty vodka bottles being thrown at the pilot if he tried too..... :O
:salute
-
No its not a roller. I'd bet of all the 2 engined bombers it rolls the worst. "Sluggish" best describes its roll.
-
It flies well enough for something that looks like an insectoid reproductive organ.
-
I'll be trying it online shortly. Had to rewrite my TM Cougar profile as the old one seems to have been lost. I suspect I junked it or overwrote it accidentally.
I've been working on getting its numbers into my fighter-bomber spreadsheet. Since this was fighter-bomber data (minimum of 1000lbs of damage from ordnance) I found that I completely lacked Russian weapon damage and also 100kg and 2000kg bomb damage because none of the German or Japanese fighter-bombers carried 100kg bombs and no other aircraft I consider a potential fighter-bomber carries either class of weapon. It turns out that, by about the damage of a single .303, the two 1000kg bombs and nine 100kg bombs do the most damage. Including the 1044lbs of damage from its 300 rounds of cannon ammo, that load totals 7300.2lbs of damage. Taking the two 1000kg bombs and the four 250kg bombs totals 7300lbs of damage. The Tu-2S is also the only aircraft on my fighter-bomber list that has an actual bomb sight.
Basically it seems to me that the Tu-2S is actually what the RAF in the pre-war years thought they had in the Handley-Page Hamden, what they called a fighting bomber that was so agile it would be able to dogfight so they gave the pilot a fixed .303 machine gun. Hampdens got hacked out of the sky by the Germans. It looks like the Russians got it right with the Tu-2S.
-
They seem to be fast too.
-
They are fast. And they soak up a fair amount of damage. Nor are they totally defenseless. As you see the 12.7mm UB compares very favorably to its Yank counterpart. Getting hit by 6 from a formation should not be taken lightly.
(http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/planeammo-2_zps4c65cc48.jpg)
-
They are fast. And they soak up a fair amount of damage. Nor are they totally defenseless. As you see the 12.7mm UB compares very favorably to its Yank counterpart. Getting hit by 6 from a formation should not be taken lightly.
(http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/planeammo-2_zps4c65cc48.jpg)
Where does that chart come from? Just curious.
-
My impressions so far, based on flying it offline and fighting it in the LWMA: Good medium bomber, fast, climbs and turns well, horrid roll rate.
The first night the TU was released I upped a 110 and killed two by coming up underneath both. Another TU was able to keep me on its dead six a bit longer than I would have liked due to it's speed. I took a little damage but it died from a tater overdose. I would not want to turn fight one slow in a heavy twin-engined fighter like the 410 or Mosquito.
I think the TU is a quality addition to the AH plane set. Well done HTC. :salute
-
Are you sure it was the Tu-2 you were trying? ;)
That depend on if the P-51D could carry both 2000 pounds of bombs and rockets at the same time. Then yes the P-51D carries a larger bomb load at least in our game. Without looking again I think the Tu-2 only carries 2000 pounds.
-
Without looking again I think the Tu-2 only carries 2000 pounds.
6600lb
-
Where does that chart come from? Just curious.
The Russian ammunition page tho Im having trouble finding the exact link. I'll post it later when I get home. http://www.russianammo.org/Russian_Ammunition_Page_145mm.html
-
Where does that chart come from? Just curious.
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm
-
Where does that chart come from? Just curious.
Here it is http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm
-
I guess I feel satisfied enough to state that I find the Tu-2S to be a bit better than the A-20G in the anti-armor role. The main advantage is the lethality of the Tu-2's bomb load. Three 1,000 kilo bombs almost assures 3 kills. Four 500 kg bombs will usually get 4 kills. You simply don't require the precision needed with the A-20's 500 lb bombs. You can toss a 1,000 kg bomb near a Wirble and kill it, as opposed to having to put a 500 pounder close. Thus, you can drop from greater heights, reducing risk.
Air to air, it's probably a wash. The Tu-2 turns smaller circles, whereas the A-20G rolls much better. However, the A-20 can rip off wings much easier, and can't come close the Tu-2's dive speeds. In contrast, the A-20G is more maneuverable at medium speeds, because the Tu-2's controls really stiffen up above 300 mph. The A-20's concentrated 6 fifties are very effective against aircraft, nearly as effective as the Tu-2's two 20mm cannon. The greater firing duration of the A-20G means you can fighter longer. One must pay more attention to ammo use with with the Tu-2. I won't compare defensive guns, because I'll never fly either of these in a manner that would have me using the defensive guns. Both are vastly better served by maneuvering and dogfighting. That doesn't mean I won't use the Tu-2 for level bombing. It means that I'll never fly formations. At over 6,600 pounds of bombs (same as a Ju 88, but far faster and more maneuverable), a single Tu-2 carries more weight of bombs than a formation of Bostons, Bettys, or Ki-67s. That means it can kill a Cruiser, and still get 50% of the bomb total needed to sink a CV in one pass. After that, it can go to fighter mode and give a very good account of itself.
The Tu-2S is a great addition to the plane set....
-
6600lb
You are correct I was going on memory from one 15 minute look at it off line. I will go monkey around with it some more today. ;)
-
Here it is http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm
I thought I recognized it.
Just be wary that the chart you presented and what AH actually is are two different things. ;)
-
I guess I feel satisfied enough to state that I find the Tu-2S to be a bit better than the A-20G in the anti-armor role. The main advantage is the lethality of the Tu-2's bomb load. Three 1,000 kilo bombs almost assures 3 kills. Four 500 kg bombs will usually get 4 kills. You simply don't require the precision needed with the A-20's 500 lb bombs. You can toss a 1,000 kg bomb near a Wirble and kill it, as opposed to having to put a 500 pounder close. Thus, you can drop from greater heights, reducing risk.
Air to air, it's probably a wash. The Tu-2 turns smaller circles, whereas the A-20G rolls much better. However, the A-20 can rip off wings much easier, and can't come close the Tu-2's dive speeds. In contrast, the A-20G is more maneuverable at medium speeds, because the Tu-2's controls really stiffen up above 300 mph. The A-20's concentrated 6 fifties are very effective against aircraft, nearly as effective as the Tu-2's two 20mm cannon. The greater firing duration of the A-20G means you can fighter longer. One must pay more attention to ammo use with with the Tu-2. I won't compare defensive guns, because I'll never fly either of these in a manner that would have me using the defensive guns. Both are vastly better served by maneuvering and dogfighting. That doesn't mean I won't use the Tu-2 for level bombing. It means that I'll never fly formations. At over 6,600 pounds of bombs (same as a Ju 88, but far faster and more maneuverable), a single Tu-2 carries more weight of bombs than a formation of Bostons, Bettys, or Ki-67s. That means it can kill a Cruiser, and still get 50% of the bomb total needed to sink a CV in one pass. After that, it can go to fighter mode and give a very good account of itself.
The Tu-2S is a great addition to the plane set....
What I like about your evaluations of aircraft in AH, Widewing, is how devoid of nationalism they are. You report what the aircraft in the game actually does and how it actually compares with others with no favoritism. Doesn't matter if it is Russian or American, German or Japanese.
-
I guess I feel satisfied enough to state that I find the Tu-2S to be a bit better than the A-20G in the anti-armor role. The main advantage is the lethality of the Tu-2's bomb load. Three 1,000 kilo bombs almost assures 3 kills. Four 500 kg bombs will usually get 4 kills. You simply don't require the precision needed with the A-20's 500 lb bombs. You can toss a 1,000 kg bomb near a Wirble and kill it, as opposed to having to put a 500 pounder close. Thus, you can drop from greater heights, reducing risk.
Air to air, it's probably a wash. The Tu-2 turns smaller circles, whereas the A-20G rolls much better. However, the A-20 can rip off wings much easier, and can't come close the Tu-2's dive speeds. In contrast, the A-20G is more maneuverable at medium speeds, because the Tu-2's controls really stiffen up above 300 mph. The A-20's concentrated 6 fifties are very effective against aircraft, nearly as effective as the Tu-2's two 20mm cannon. The greater firing duration of the A-20G means you can fighter longer. One must pay more attention to ammo use with with the Tu-2. I won't compare defensive guns, because I'll never fly either of these in a manner that would have me using the defensive guns. Both are vastly better served by maneuvering and dogfighting. That doesn't mean I won't use the Tu-2 for level bombing. It means that I'll never fly formations. At over 6,600 pounds of bombs (same as a Ju 88, but far faster and more maneuverable), a single Tu-2 carries more weight of bombs than a formation of Bostons, Bettys, or Ki-67s. That means it can kill a Cruiser, and still get 50% of the bomb total needed to sink a CV in one pass. After that, it can go to fighter mode and give a very good account of itself.
The Tu-2S is a great addition to the plane set....
You are right about lethality, 1000kg bomb=2200lbs, should kill any kind of gv, but are only 3 bombs; A20 can load 8x 500lbs , for this reason imop is still the best Gvs buster.
-
You are right about lethality, 1000kg bomb=2200lbs, should kill any kind of gv, but are only 3 bombs; A20 can load 8x 500lbs , for this reason imop is still the best Gvs buster.
Two 1000kg bombs and four 250kg bombs. That gets you six bombs, all of which are larger than the A-20G's, two of them very much larger.
-
3 x 1000kg bombs!!! Hehe let's cause some explosions!!!! :joystick: :x
-
The Tu-2S is a great addition to the plane set....
Just got a chance to roll the Tupolev for the first time yesterday...... and WOW, yeh, great job HTC.
Very good speed, seems to hold e well.... bagged an La-7 and a Brewster yesterday after delivering all the ords I had brought in on GVs. I was light and had plenty of alt on them, and was able to rope them up as they tried to climb for me. Ammo load is light, but no reason it should stop you from bagging a few kills, the same load of 20mm's is enough for 4 or 5 in an La-5, so the same should be true for the Tu-2.
turn performance is better than I expected, I easily gained a co-alt 190F8's 6-o'clock in a turnfight after 3 reversals, but didn't notice the 110g that came in to save him. :furious Roll is slow but manageable, not bad for such a large aircraft.
2x500 and 4x250 is enough to clear a camped spawn very quickly as well.
I think I have a new favorite twin engined killer. :devil
-
The TU-2 to me seems to be rather fragile from the attacker's perspective, for some reason I expected it to be able to take somewhat more punishment that it seems to be able to take. Of the ones I've shot down, it's only taken a single burst to either catch it on fire or to remove a wing or tail.
ack-ack
-
The TU-2 to me seems to be rather fragile from the attacker's perspective, for some reason I expected it to be able to take somewhat more punishment that it seems to be able to take. Of the ones I've shot down, it's only taken a single burst to either catch it on fire or to remove a wing or tail.
ack-ack
Quite possible its just your excellent aim. I got attacked by a 190D, and the idiot probably went through half his ammo trying to kill me. Only managed to bring me down when I jumped to the bombsight, and he got a chance to saddle up on my 6 without me killing him.
-
I'd say it was a tad undermodled damage-wise. I expected IL2 level damage. But...then again LW fighters with heavy cannon can take apart heavies pretty well so I dont think its a big issue. The TU2S really "feels" about right in all things.
-
A single tater to a wing will shatter it, a tater to the top of the tail area shatters it, and a tater to the center of the fuselage/wing root lights the tanks on fire.
-
A single tater to a wing will shatter it, a tater to the top of the tail area shatters it, and a tater to the center of the fuselage/wing root lights the tanks on fire.
Keep in mind how small it is. Empty it is only slightly heavier than a Mosquito.
-
Keep in mind how small it is. Empty it is only slightly heavier than a Mosquito.
Oh I'm well aware, and I'm certainly not complaining. The other day, I stumbled across an ET37 Tu-2 raid on A7 (I think?) on ndisles in my Ta-152. I had a 10k alt advantage, and bagged 7 Tu-2s and two others for a total of nine kills.
-
Oh I'm well aware, and I'm certainly not complaining. The other day, I stumbled across an ET37 Tu-2 raid on A7 (I think?) on ndisles in my Ta-152. I had a 10k alt advantage, and bagged 7 Tu-2s and two others for a total of nine kills.
To bad you didnt intercept the nit raid on our HQ last night. My first pass's in my K4 yielded squat until I realized I srill had my aux tank on :bhead my second got me two and some radiator damage. I think if I had my SB end out of my NB end, and was able to use my taters, I'd have had 5 or 6.
Gutsy raid by the Nits :salute And they dang near pulled it off. But they made a mistake by not flying close formation. A couple Yaks would have helped too.
-
I'd say it was a tad undermodled damage-wise. I expected IL2 level damage. But...then again LW fighters with heavy cannon can take apart heavies pretty well so I dont think its a big issue. The TU2S really "feels" about right in all things.
I didn't expect Il2 level of toughness but was surprised how fragile it seems in game. I would have thought for a Soviet plane, it would be a little more rugged.
ack-ack
-
I didn't expect Il2 level of toughness but was surprised how fragile it seems in game. I would have thought for a Soviet plane, it would be a little more rugged.
ack-ack
It is a good question why did HTC come to the conclusion that Tu-2 had fragile airframe, poor roll rate and poor handling at 350+mph speeds.
You know VVS refused to use Tu-2 as a dive bomber but it was due to too high (uncontrollable) engine's RPM in dive which caused oil leakages followed by engine failures. Though VVS asked for fixing these problems it was found out that the best way is to optimize M-82's reduction gear/propeller size for best level speeds and use the plane as a level bomber only.
If HTC wishes to model Tu-2 properly they should model oil leakages/engine failures at high speeds but bring airframe durability/handling back to normal.
-
I'm not sure HTC models things like roll rate as.... well, "roll rate". If I had to guess, they model the wings, the ailerons, the flaps, etc. and if let the physics engine take care of it.
I doubt Hitech sat down and said "I bet the Tu-2 had a s**ty roll rate. Pyro, make it so!!"
-
I'm not sure HTC models things like roll rate as.... well, "roll rate". If I had to guess, they model the wings, the ailerons, the flaps, etc. and if let the physics engine take care of it.
I doubt Hitech sat down and said "I bet the Tu-2 had a s**ty roll rate. Pyro, make it so!!"
He must have started with "Hey, brother..." ;)
Seriously, people sometimes make mistakes in their calculations. Nothing wrong with it. If the results contradict with common sense then it's time to double check the calculations.
-
The TU-2 to me seems to be rather fragile from the attacker's perspective, for some reason I expected it to be able to take somewhat more punishment that it seems to be able to take. Of the ones I've shot down, it's only taken a single burst to either catch it on fire or to remove a wing or tail.
ack-ack
It should be weak I believe. It's tail assembly has very little meat to it and wings are not that big and holding a lot of weight. 1 30mm in these areas break it and I'm fine with that. It's very powerful as it is and only has an 20eny so weakness being a trade off is perfect (for game play at least).
-
It should be weak I believe. It's tail assembly has very little meat to it and wings are not that big and holding a lot of weight. 1 30mm in these areas break it and I'm fine with that. It's very powerful as it is and only has an 20eny so weakness being a trade off is perfect (for game play at least).
The plane was originally designed as a dive bomber. It was actually a dive bomber with AM-37 engines (first series). It's airframe from the very beginning was designed to withstand high-G loadings contrary to airframes of Boston/A-20 or B-26 for example.
-
1 30mm in these areas break it and I'm fine with that.
so does a burst of 4x .50 caliber machine guns. That's why it had me wondering if it was this fragile in real life.
ack-ack