Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Waffle on February 23, 2018, 03:08:58 PM
-
Enjoy!
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=391916.0;attach=29257)
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=391916.0;attach=29259)
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=391916.0;attach=29261)
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=391916.0;attach=29263)
-
pt 2
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=391916.0;attach=29265)
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=391916.0;attach=29267)
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=391916.0;attach=29269)
-
Looks fantastic Waffle!
Coogan :joystick:
-
Incredible work Waffle and Greebo on the skin. WoW!!!! :aok
That is a prominent display of the new railroad track from the path tool. Is Hitech close to releasing that feature?
-
Nice! :aok
-
Wow! :x :rock
-
Beautiful :cheers:
-
And apparently it still has the rear guns.
-
...and is that a proper working rear periscope we see? :x
-
Looks great! :aok
-
And apparently it still has the rear guns.
And no gun pod. lol
-
Superb work.
-
Too bad they didn't remove the cannon from it, like it should have been.
-
Schwiiiinnnng!
-
Too bad they didn't remove the cannon from it, like it should have been.
To me the cannons are less of an issue than the ability to hang on to the RATO units to get an emergency speed boost. I'd like to see them separate automatically at speeds of over say 250 mph.
-
plane is well done.....train engine looks good too......nice......
-
Too bad they didn't remove the cannon from it, like it should have been.
:ahand
-
Looks Great however.
(http://i68.tinypic.com/dc9bmq.jpg)
(http://i67.tinypic.com/15nx4i8.jpg)
(http://i68.tinypic.com/10qmjo6.jpg)
(http://i65.tinypic.com/2gwx0k2.jpg)
(http://i65.tinypic.com/2rqnewz.jpg)
(http://i64.tinypic.com/dethq8.jpg)
-
Gun pod.
Pointing the right way :aok
(https://i.imgur.com/w6KscZP.jpg)
-
Looks awesome but should not have rear cannons. Is there any evidence proving that it did? Sure seems to be evidence that it didn't.
I want the 20mm cannon option in the F6F if this "coulda-woulda-shoulda" gun package is allowed in the game. It was designed to carry them but didn't, just like the Ar-234B.
But what is the pistol in the cockpit for? Flare gun or some weird way to eject the canopy?
-
But what is the pistol in the cockpit for? Flare gun or some weird way to eject the canopy?
Flare gun.
-
Very nice, looking forward to flying it! :aok
-
Is there any evidence proving that it did? Sure seems to be evidence that it didn't.
Contacted the Smithsonian some years back.
(http://i63.tinypic.com/2zp5pxy.jpg)
Actually there was two AR-234's with rear facing guns both prototypes.
Never have found a photo of a B model with any gun ports all the newer books only list two prototypes had rear facing guns and both were c models.
These are the only photos I have seen with gun ports.
(http://i67.tinypic.com/20a4ao4.jpg)
(http://i66.tinypic.com/2rcojnm.jpg)
(http://i65.tinypic.com/24org9d.jpg)
(http://i68.tinypic.com/33xc4ur.jpg)
-
Our German speaking friends can check the hand book fairly certain nothing in it about rear guns.
http://en.calameo.com/read/00344710398f622786f64
-
Our German speaking friends can check the hand book fairly certain nothing in it about rear guns.
http://en.calameo.com/read/00344710398f622786f64
Indeed, nothing about any guns.
Possibly the deleted section 8A was originally meant to describe guns. (entfällt = "no longer applicable")
I find the evidence very conclusive. The new Arado should not feature the rear guns anymore.
-
Indeed, nothing about any guns.
Possibly the deleted section 8A was originally meant to describe guns. (entfällt = "no longer applicable")
I find the evidence very conclusive. The new Arado should not feature the rear guns anymore.
Just to pile on some more and its not conclusive evidence regarding my email conversation but I do believe it helps my point.
Some years ago I contacted a former AR-234B ferrying pilot by the name of Mr Wilhelm Ludwig Kreissmann who happened to have flown the only surviving AR-234B left that is now at the Smithsonian.
His biography here.
http://kriessmann.carolynyeager.net/articles/life-wlk
"A few days later, I again escaped the furor of the marauding allied fighter planes. This time it was not in the air but on the ground. I received the order to pick up an AR 234 at the airport at Lübeck and had to take the train. Two Lightnings strafed the train. With all the other passengers, I ditched into the field. Luckily no one was hurt and the train remained intact. I landed with the F1+CA safely again in Kaltenkirchen. The same afternoon – April 30 – Sergeant Drew, 8th squadron, attacked with the F1 Soviet tanks east of Berlin. As it turned out, my flight the next day, May 1, 1945, from Kaltenkirchen to Leck-Flensburg with the F1+GR was my last “glorious” action as a Luftwaffen pilot. Three days later, the war was over. A Canadian tank division surrounded the airfield and the rest of our group moved into tents in the forest edging the airfield. On May 4th, before the armistice silenced all guns at 8 a.m., six of our AR 234s, amongst them three which I had ferried to KG 76, were ordered to fly to Stavanger Sola/Norway, to expect further directives from there. A very mysterious event."
From an interview he had done.
"The Arado had no weapons."
http://www.evanflys.com/willi_kriessmann
My questions to him.
(http://i64.tinypic.com/2d7huno.jpg)
His reply.
(http://i64.tinypic.com/wsaewy.jpg)
-
Mr Kriessmann also said the Arados he delivered lacked reconnaissance and bombing equipment so he was ferrying unfinished aircraft.
-
Mr Kriessmann also said the Arados he delivered lacked reconnaissance and bombing equipment so he was ferrying unfinished aircraft.
So you didn't understand the red text he delivered a AR 234b to KG 76 and the base was captured by Canadian tanks and a total of three planes he had flown to this combat group were taken by the allies.
-
Ok, I've searched all my references on the AR-234B. The defensive weapon system (copied from the Do-217) was meant to use with the periscope for rear firing. I cannot find anything that they indeed used this option on any combat operational Arado's. No photo's of it installed, no photo's of rear firing tests. No photo's of even the forward firing option - though I do have a picture of the nose radar on the glass but nothing else. No mention on any logs or pilot records of the Ar-234 of them firing any guns...other than to simply take-off, fly, bomb, fly back and avoid P-47 and P-51 stragglers looking for an easy kill on landing. We have no historical records available online to show the AR-234 had ever used them in any operational role.
Heck, I don't even think the Periscope was ever looked in...giving it's position in the cockpit, the average pilot would have to unbuckle himself and partly stand up just to look into it.
So, if someone feels inclined and wish to have them removed, they need to post in the wishlist that they want the AR-234 de-gunned.
I for one don't really give two farts. They're kinda useless. :p
-
So you didn't understand the red text he delivered a AR 234b to KG 76 and the base was captured by Canadian tanks and a total of three planes he had flown to this combat group were taken buy the allies..
Why do you think that?
-
Why do you think that?
Active combat groups stationed in Holland have no use for an aircraft with no BZA bombing computer periscope that worked with that computer bomb racks and the level flight bomb sight as well.
-
My question is why the heck are we debating it? It's a perk plane and few pilots can use the darn things anyway so whats the point.
-
My question is why the heck are we debating it? It's a perk plane and few pilots can use the darn things anyway so whats the point.
More to the point, what about the illegal perks NKL5 claimed, using an illegitimate 20 mm cannon? :x :bolt:
-
Active combat groups stationed in Holland have no use for an aircraft with no BZA bombing computer periscope that worked with that computer bomb racks and the level flight bomb sight as well.
That doesn't change the fact that he was a ferry pilot who said the aircraft were incomplete when he flew them. That's not saying he never flew anything else but he's careful ,just like the Smithsonian response, to only speak of the aircraft he had direct experience with.
Don't you suppose the mechanics could mount equipment?
If the pilots who received aircraft with cannons mounted had them removed after trying them once wouldn't that be a field mod? :devil
-
That doesn't change the fact that he was a ferry pilot who said the aircraft were incomplete when he flew them. That's not saying he never flew anything else but he's careful ,just like the Smithsonian response, to only speak of the aircraft he had direct experience with.
Don't you suppose the mechanics could mount equipment?
If the pilots who received aircraft with cannons mounted had them removed after trying them once wouldn't that be a field mod? :devil
Since you never did buy the books that I asked you to read from the other thread on this topic its pointless trying to explain who what and where things were done with these aircraft.
-
Lucky break. :D
-
(entfällt = "no longer applicable")
To me the cannons are less of an issue than the ability to hang on to the RATO units to get an emergency speed boost. I'd like to see them separate automatically at speeds of over say 250 mph.
Anything in the handbook regarding Greebo's point on the RATO Lusche?
-
This pretty much says it all. The 234 in AH is a fantasy aircraft that never existed in reality.
http://i63.tinypic.com/2zp5pxy.jpg
-
This pretty much says it all. The 234 in AH is a fantasy aircraft that never existed in reality.
http://i63.tinypic.com/2zp5pxy.jpg
That's not what it says. It just references the Smith and Creek book. Nothing new there.
-
I think there's bigger fish to fry than arguing about a perked bomber that has guns that only 3 people in the game know how to use. Not to mention it got heavily nerfed with the F3 mode change.
-
^^^^this.
I used them as get away devices following a VH strike.
-
My question is why the heck are we debating it? It's a perk plane and few pilots can use the darn things anyway so whats the point.
It's not about nerfing a plane. It's about the correct historic representation of a model. And when a model is redone, it's always a good moment to correct any errors found. It would not be the first time.
Anything in the handbook regarding Greebo's point on the RATO Lusche?
No. But then, it's just the handbook for the ground crew servicing the plane (that's also why there isn't any performance data included).
I would expect more information about flight parameters in the pilots handbook ("Bedienungsvorschrift/Fl")
-
It's not about nerfing a plane. It's about the correct historic representation of a model. And when a model is redone, it's always a good moment to correct any errors found. It would not be the first time.
In that case Lusche I want the Bendix lower turret on my B25. :D
-
No. But then, it's just the handbook for the ground crew servicing the plane (that's also why there isn't any performance data included).
I would expect more information about flight parameters in the pilots handbook ("Bedienungsvorschrift/Fl")
Only thing I have found is take off distances.
(http://i64.tinypic.com/2e1g7sx.jpg)
-
Doesn't look like a Beaufighter... :bolt:
-
More to the point, what about the illegal perks NKL5 claimed, using an illegitimate 20 mm cannon? :x :bolt:
I hereby surrender all said perks to you Max!
Have fun! ==<—O—O—>==
-
Another folly. That is in designing them so a player can keep them on at any speed and use them for a fantasy like get away instead of it's intended use of shorter take off distances.
-
Technically they could be used that way. Same as technically some planes can carry rockets AND bombs when historically they only ever chose one or the other -- Hitech allows the correct option even if the doctrine and decisions of the actual WW2 use were slightly different.
Or, did you think that B-25Hs were used to hunt lancasters with their big gun? That Tu2s dive-bombed carrier fleets and then turned to dogfight fighters with 20mm cannons? Do you think that LA-7 was ever found at 25K? Don't mistake actual capability with training and doctrine, which changed over time as priorities and knowledge changed as well.
-
Of course AH players use planes in ways they were not used in RL, because the MA environment is a game where allied nations' planes fight each other, ranges are much shorter and above all players don't die doing stupid stuff like they would have in RL. The planes however are fairly accurately modelled using real world data and with less of the game balancing/player pressure/national bias you get in some other games. Giving the Ar 234 abilities it lacked in RL like rear facing guns and an emergency speed boost hurts the game's reputation for accurate modelling.
I very much doubt hanging onto the pods would have been an acceptable option in RL. The reason for fitting them was to reduce take off distances, fitting them and not using them would have increased the take off distance even more. Even if a long enough runway could have been found then hauling all that weight up to alt and to the target would have greatly reduced the range which wasn't all that great to start with. The RATO pods' have an awful shape for high speed flight, is their compressibility and trim change at high Mach numbers modelled into AH? Was the structure designed to withstand the stress of high speed pod drag and vibration rather than thrust? I can't see how HTC can know this as Arado would have never bothered to do high Mach wind tunnel or stress testing with the pods so where would HTC get the data? I think they are just leaving it like this so the 234 gets some use but I'd rather they just got rid of the bogus modelling and removed or reduced the perk cost to compensate.
-
Maybe they could be made to 'break off' like many aircraft's landing gear does when airspeed reaches a certain point? That might preculde players from hanging on to them as 'getaway' boosters.
-
Greebo, from a gameplay standpoint I agree. From a technical standpoint, there was nothing stopping them from staying on the wings other than the weight and drag penalties. In reality they were taking off from rougher, shorter fields than we have in-game. So while WE have the runway length to build our speed with the additional drag/weight, they might not have had the option and HAD to use them or else hit the trees.
However, it was up to the pilot to trigger them.
In terms of gameplay and compromise for the greater good, I would suggest possibly making them automatically fire as soon as you hit 50mph airspeed. However, please note this WOULD be an arbitrary decision and not a historical limitation.
I think we also need to remove those tailguns ASAP. Total work of fiction and fantasy. Might as well put 20mms on P-40s. Adding a forward firing 2x20mm ventral gunpod would be icing on the cake.