Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Replicant on March 10, 2002, 02:44:08 PM
-
Check out the news - screenshots
109E-4
110G-2
NEXX
-
BTW What guns does the 110G-2 have???
Nexx
-
I think it has 2 X 20mm in the nose along with a 7.9mm and another 7.9mm in the tail.
Nim
-
Looks like it has some belly guns too... 2 x??
Nexx
-
Ummm, what armament did the G-2 have?
1200kg of bombs (with basic A2A armament).
or
37mm BK 3.7 (Flak 18) with 72 rounds.
or
Two 30mm Mk 108s with 135 rounds per gun coupled with two 20mm MG151/20 in the lower part of the fuselage.
The 110/R5 could hold the 37mm Bk 3.7 as well as the two 30mm.
There was also an option to install a GM1 (power boost) system, which required the removal of the ventral gunner position take accomodate the 1,400lb GM 1 system.
-
Yes there's 2x something hanging from the belly.
Had to browse my books, but couldn't find any other additional ventral tray weapons for G-2 than single 37mm flak cannon (G-2/R1).
OTOH, G-4/R3 had "Waffenwanne 151Z" ventral tray housing a pair of 20mm MG151 cannons...?
-
The belly guns are Waffenwanne 151Z ventral tray housing two forward firing 20mm MG 151 cannon. These were an option.
It should have two 30mm Mk 108 Cannon with 135 rounds per gun and two 20mm MG 151 Cannon with 300 rounds(port) and 350 rounds(starboard).
Plus two 7.92mm MG 81 in rear cockpit
or two 20mm MG 151 Cannon in Schrage Musik installation (Firing Obliquely forward)?
Do we get the Schrage Musik ? :)
-
There was also an option for two obliquely upward firing MG 151/20 cannons to use against bombers such as the Lancaster that had no defensive armament at the keel. This mod, however, was mostly used on the later versions of the G series 110; which were designed specifically for night-fighting. The G-2 was a pure day fighter.
According to the screenshot posted, our G-2 will also be able to carry 4x WGr. 21 210mm mortars. Unfortunatly at their present state in the game these mortars are virtually useless. As they are options for the 190 and 109.
-
Oh boy, this bird will give one heck of the punch! The ultimate HO machine! :)
-
this yellowwnosed 109 belongs to our squad, the Abbeville Kids / JG-26" :D ... happyness comes up :)
airmess
http://www.me109.net
-
Very nice......:)
-
Sim Hq Screens (http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/previews/ah109/)
Check the screens at SimHq.......
2 versions of the 110 for 1.09 :) ?
-
Originally posted by airmess
this yellowwnosed 109 belongs to our squad, the Abbeville Kids / JG-26" :D ... happyness comes up :)
airmess
http://www.me109.net
YEAAAAAAAHH 109 with JG26 heart :cool:
i have to try that one sometime :D
-
One for Scenario's (C variant) and another for Scenario's and Bomber killing Madness!!! Thank's HTC, is this the "something extra"??
-
The AH 110G-2 has 2 x 30mm and 2x20mm standard for forward firing armament. There is no option for 30 cal nose armament. In addition to drop tanks, you can either load a twin 20mm package or 2 x 250kg bombs under the fuselage and 4 x 50kg bombs or 2 or 4 21cm rockets on the wings.
AFAIK, the Schrage Musik installation was only used on the G-4.
The 21cm rockets in 1.09 will be different for better and worse. The better side is that they'll now launch in accordance with their upward mounted angle which will make them easier to aim. The worse side is that I found their weight when mounted on aircraft to be 100lbs too light so the new rockets will carry more of a performance detriment.
-
Nice Job to the HTC gang!
Hey Pyro,
What are the chances of adding a tailhook to the 190E and making a 109T for CV use?
-
Pyro do the rocket tubes jettison after firing, and is this represented in the FM? AFAIK they did in RL but I have heard conflicting reports about this in AH from both players and HTC staff.
-
AFAIK, the Schrage Musik installation was only used on the G-4.
it was but can ya blame for asking :)
S! looks great.........
-
Don't think it was possible to jettison the rocket tubes. The WGr. 21 systems were very primative and very little effort was spent to perfect it.
-
A reference to the use of explosive bolts for emergency jettisoning of the rocket tubes has circulated through a number of books. However, I've never found anything other than a vague statement about its existence. There is no concrete evidence on this that I have found or it would be easy, but here is the circumstantional evidence that I base my opinion on:
Was this just part of the plans for the weapon system that never actually found much use in the field, or was it actively used? It's fairly common for authors to find plans in their research that differs from what actually made it into use. Was it used in all aircraft that mounted the weapon system? If it was actively used to jettison tubes after firing, it would be counter to all anectdotal evidence on the matter that I've seen. Given that performance degradation is universally cited as a downside to this weapon system, isn't it odd that its never mentioned that the aircraft is completely free of this after the weapon is fired? 21cm rocket installation was not a factory mod, but rather a field mod. The installation of explosive bolts to jettison the tube might be a grand idea, but one that may be impractical due to problems in supply and maintenance.
The reference to such a system do cite it as being an emergency jettison, and if such a system was in place operationally, I do believe that is all it was used for. I would say that the emergency it was designed for was one of the nature of losing your engine on takeoff and needing to rid yourself of extra weight and explosive ordnance before you ditch rather than just cleaning up your airframe after you fire them off. The latter case is all it would be used for in AH and is why some people want it.
If the system was designed to be jettisoned after firing as a matter of procedure, why would explosive bolts be chosen as the means to accomplish that criteria? Can anybody name me another ordnance system that was designed to be dropped that used explosive bolts as the release mechanism? Does that really sound practical, especially in a situation where multiple sorties were flown daily and quick turnarounds were a necessity?
-
So the Hurri I, ME110, Me109E-4.
I wonder if we'll see slight modification to the Spit V for a Spit I/II?
BOB Planeset!!
-
Those really look great. Bf 110G is a SICK furball plane if you have a good gunner and are crafty. :)
Swager - they announced Spit I and Hurri I will be coming out too. They are also redoing all the Spit graphics in conjunction with the addition of the Spit I.
-
It's impossible to gun in a moving plane in AH because of the warps that attached (to the pilot's plane) see. But it's possible in Il-2.
-
Lemme get this right... 4 x 20mm? and 2 x 30mm?
-
Sorry for my ignorance, but only 2 250's ?? nothing larger?
SKurj
-
It's impossible to gun in a moving plane in AH because of the warps that attached (to the pilot's plane) see.
Tell that to the buff gunners. :)
-
Well, I dont know about you guys, but I just fell in love with the Bf 110.
-
Okay.. a dweeby post here.
Geez, I don't want to be blamed for being a LuftWhiner for a plane that isn't even out ( :D ).. but how will the 109E-4 perform?? (By the way.. I see HTC selected the E-4 instead of E-7.. :) heh.. fly to London in the Callais-Dover map and we have 20 minutes?? )
Here's a Little past thread on Aircraft & Vehicles Forum:
109E-4 performance? (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26375&highlight=109E)
I'm not sure, but if the general rule of aircraft evolution applies.. I think it's logical to assume a Spit MkI will turn better than a SpitV, and a SpitV turns better than a Spit9. (Hmm.. this brings up another question.. would SpitMkI be better than SpitV in sustained turns??) Currently, a 109F-4 can't keep up with a Spit9 in a sustained turn, in the long run. If a 109E turns better than a 109F, will it out-turn a Spit9? What about a SpitV? If a SpitMkIa turns better than a 109E-4, and it turns better than a SpitV.. what would it be like if its compared to a A6M5b ??
:D Open to suggestions and speculations.
-
Originally posted by Pyro
If the system was designed to be jettisoned after firing as a matter of procedure, why would explosive bolts be chosen as the means to accomplish that criteria? Can anybody name me another ordnance system that was designed to be dropped that used explosive bolts as the release mechanism? Does that really sound practical, especially in a situation where multiple sorties were flown daily and quick turnarounds were a necessity?
Well, IMO, explosive bolts are the cheapest and simplest way to jettison anything. It only needs the four bolts and a very simple electrical circuit. Ideal for a fied modification, instead of using a complex mechanical way via a factory mod. The bolts would be very "weak", just enough to force the jettison.
In the other hand, the tube itself is extremely simple, and much cheaper than the weapon it uses.
I agree with u that it was not desirable to jetisson the tubes cause it would increase the maintenance time once grounded, but when the plane integrity is in danger (need for speed), the value of these two tubes did mean nothing.
Looking for the safest procedure to get rid off the rockets, what is better, to fire the rockets of just to drop the tubes (rockets inside)? AFAIK, the rocket timers were armed just with the rocket ignition, so, once fired they were going to explode.
-
Vulcan Lemme get this right... 4 x 20mm? and 2 x 30mm?
Yes Vulcan. Me 110 G2/R3 had 2x30+2x20 on the nose+2x20 on the ventral tray(Waffenwanne), all forward-firing.
Detail's here (http://www.ophetweb.nl/ww2w/ww2htmls/messbf110.html)
-
Grunherz, think what Nath ment was to be a gunner in a plane that somebody else flies. The momements aren't smooth due to net lag, and it is more or less impossible for a gunner to aim when the pilot is manuvering even the slightest, try it your self and you'll see what I mean.
-
Pyro, couldn't the G2 carry 2x500kg instead of those 250 kg's?
Btw, will the 109 Flap problem be fixed for 1.09? ;)
Allso, is that G2 the surprise plane?
-
Pyro and Nate excellent work The Zerstoerer has arrived :D
The Ultimate Buffbuster is out for blood :mad:
-
how does the penultimate bomber killer handle at 175K ? ;)
-
Explosive bolts-I have never read a single account of the tubes being dumped.
Gunning from a manuvering bomber should be very difficult-impossible.
-
Pyro... *twiddles fingers* umm...
if you dont mind... *blink* ...
uuh.. can we have the cannon armament for the Ju88? Pleasse?
-
YEEEEEES TAC!
-
yes that would be cool make the ju88 a little more surviveable and maybe rack up a few more kills to
-
Why would gunning from a maneuvering bomber/Me 110 be so difficult? It is easily done for me in games like Il-2, but in AH the net lag makes it impossible. It's similar to viewing in someone's fighter, when the nose bounces all around and you can't tell wtf is going on.
IMO this should try to be reduced.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
it was but can ya blame for asking :)
S! looks great.........
Well, actually...