Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: GScholz on August 13, 2003, 03:29:59 PM
-
Now that all the planes are remodelled for AH2 I thought I'd comment on some of the things I find strange about the 110.
1. The 110 didn't have a retractable tailwheel, nor do we have one in AH. However if you extend the main gear and then fly too fast the tailweel is damaged aswell.
2. The 110 has two fuel tanks in each wing, both inside the engine. In AH they are listed as "inboard" and "outboard", and if the "inboard" fuel tank is leaking the vapour trail is modelled outside the engine.
3. The 110 has self sealing fueltanks. In AH 9 out of 10 times a fueltank is hit it starts burning. I've experienced burning tanks a lot more in the 110 than in other planes who just seem to leak fuel 9 out of 10 times.
4. The 110G2 had twin MG81's in the gunner position. In AH only one MG is listed in the hangar (I'm pretty sure there are two in the plane though ;)).
5. In AH the 110 is very unstable at very slow speeds and tend to go into a nose-up unrecoverable flat spin. Did the R/L 110 have these less than flattering stall characteristics?
Hope this helps.
EDIT:
To add to the list:
6. In the damage display the 110C-4b has four cannons listed, this should be two.
-
In regards to the fires, try flying a Mosquito for awhile. It catches on fire like nothing else. Puts the A6M to shame.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
3. The 110 has self sealing fueltanks. In AH 9 out of 10 times a fueltank is hit it starts burning. I've experienced burning tanks a lot more in the 110 than in other planes who just seem to leak fuel 9 out of 10 times.
Sounds like WWIIOL.....
I wonder how AH Bf110 handles smaller caliber MG rounds
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Sounds like WWIIOL.....
I wonder how AH Bf110 handles smaller caliber MG rounds
We could test that?
-
Originally posted by Karnak
In regards to the fires, try flying a Mosquito for awhile. It catches on fire like nothing else. Puts the A6M to shame.
I did for a while. I too noticed a tenency for fires, but not as frequent as in the 110. Just personal experience, they may both suffer from the same problem.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I did for a while. I too noticed a tenency for fires, but not as frequent as in the 110. Just personal experience, they may both suffer from the same problem.
Well, they both had fully protected fuel systems, for whatever it was worth.
-
The 110 catches fire like nobodies business. I've commented on it before, never got any kind of response. I assume it is historically accurate and the sobriquet "das Fliegenfeuerzeug " just hasn't been passed down to us through the history books.
-
i fly the 110 alot in missions , i have never caught fire, just saying.
love them cannon for strafing.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
4. The 110G2 had twin MG81's in the gunner position. In AH only one MG is listed in the hangar (I'm pretty sure there are two in the plane though ;)).
The 110G2 rear MG is a MG81Z.
Just like the Ju88's lower gun position.
Z is for Zwilling (sp?) which means twin or something like that.
-
the mosquito was made of wood
-
Originally posted by AVRO1
The 110G2 rear MG is a MG81Z.
Just like the Ju88's lower gun position.
Z is for Zwilling (sp?) which means twin or something like that.
Yup that is correct, but in the hangar the Ju87 is listed with two mg81's and the Ju88 is listed with 5 mg81's. It's nitpicking for sure, but if they are going to remodel everything why not be consistent about it this time around.
The tailwheel failure is a clear bug, but I'm more interested in the fuel fire issue, and the stability issue. From what I read the 110 was liked by its pilots because it was very sable handling, even with heavy ord/equipment mounted.
Hmm, maybe this should be in the "bug" forum.
-
Originally posted by MajBlood
the mosquito was made of wood
Which has nothing to do with fuel fires. Aluminum burns too you know. ;)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Yup that is correct, but in the hangar the Ju87 is listed with two mg81's and the Ju88 is listed with 5 mg81's. It's nitpicking for sure, but if they are going to remodel everything why not be consistent about it this time around.
Sorry I thought you meant that it was armed with only 1 MG in the hangar not thatit was written differently.
Carry on now nothing to see here!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
I think most AH planes don't catch fire often enough.
In AH, you're more likely to have a wing blown completly off than have a fire. From what I noticed in WWII footage is that many planes go down with fire but no visible catastophic damage. I'm thinking mostly about BoB footage. Assuming both the 109E and Spit 1 had self seeling tanks, the AH self sealing fuel tanks are overmodeled. In other sims, fires seem more common aswell.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Yup that is correct, but in the hangar the Ju87 is listed with two mg81's and the Ju88 is listed with 5 mg81's. It's nitpicking for sure, but if they are going to remodel everything why not be consistent about it this time around.
The tailwheel failure is a clear bug, but I'm more interested in the fuel fire issue, and the stability issue. From what I read the 110 was liked by its pilots because it was very sable handling, even with heavy ord/equipment mounted.
Hmm, maybe this should be in the "bug" forum.
Were MG81's the LW version of the MG34?
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Were MG81's the LW version of the MG34?
ack-ack
No. The MG81 was a Mauser design while the MG34 was a Rheinmetall design although it borrowed much from the Mauser designed MG30. The early war MG15 and MG17 used as aircraft weapons were closer to the MG34 since they also was derived from the MG30.
The MG81 was an outstanding weapon with its high rate of fire (1600 rpm) that became useful as an anti-aircraft MG for the German army after it was phased out of service with the LW.