Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: SFRT - Frenchy on November 29, 2001, 01:57:00 PM
-
Fixed a bug with the P-47D-30 that was causing it to not get its full WEP performance.
Hehehe tyvm Pyro ... finally ... a little step for humanity, a big step for Frenchy :D :D :D
Added new loadouts to the P-47D-25 and D-30 for larger drop tanks.
I know that Sancho bumped his head on the ceiling when he read that one.
Fixed a damage problem with the Panzer and Ostwind that made them explode easy.
Coupled to the ability to repair them w/C47s, maybe the ground war will come back again ... wohoo!
....plus all the other usefull stuff or/and ideas included in this patch :cool:
-
cod, frenchy got more WEP now. This is terrible :)
The P-38 tails strengthened woot!
-
Thanks for the continued updates. :)
ATC
(http://www.damned.org/images/ddemo1.gif)
-
This is most excellent!!
i wana go home from work now and play AH :D
*im fealing a lil ill boss (insert coughing)*
hehe
-
500 lb in Mossie bomb bay. :)
-
Attacker Sortie in Ki-61... :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
Thanks Pyro/HTC Staffs. ;)
Mitsu
-
Hey, I like the new map settings ... very practical, WTG! :D
-
yah. Add more drop tanks for the P47. We all know they lacked lots of ordnance options and was an urgent thing wich demanded instant fix, true? :rolleyes:.
Of course, and at the same time we all know the Fw190F8 has ALL and EVERY ordnance options it should, already. :(.
The P47D30 can load an ammount of weapons it could't historically, but the Fw190F8 has't even what it used ina normal basis. The plane lacks lots of ordnance options, including wing bombs, wing drop tanks and rockets.
Call this a whine, or take it in any way you want to take it. THe only thing that I know is I'm seriously pissed off.
[ 11-29-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]
-
RAM, rocket armament on F-8 was only ~115 planes and the special wing pylons for drop tanks or 250 kg bombs were not at all standard. The Fw 190F-8/U1 was supposed to be a replacement for the G-8 but production figures are unknown. Sure AH should have a Fw 190G-8 but don't mislead people that the G-8 wing pylons were standard on F-8. I've seen Glasses propogating this falsehood as well.
[ 11-29-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
Originally posted by funkedup:
RAM, rocket armament on F-8 was only ~115 planes and the special wing pylons for drop tanks or 250 kg bombs were not at all standard. The Fw 190F-8/U1 was supposed to be a replacement for the G-8 but production figures are unknown. Sure AH should have a Fw 190G-8 but don't try to fool people that the G-8 wing pylons were standard on F-8.
[ 11-29-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
I dunno, funked. All I know is that I have quite some photos of 190F8s with wing drop tanks, or with wing bombs, or with wing rockets.
show me ONE of a P47D30 with 2500lbs of bombs (one in center line, 2 of 1000lbs on the wings), 10 HVAR rockets, and 8MG with 425 rounds per gun), and I'll shut up.
In the meantime, you already know what I think.
[ 11-29-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]
-
Here comes da Jug! :)
-
Hey RAM, you're acting like a 12 year old again.
SOB
-
Bringing in historical figures to warrant what should be changed or added does not make any sense. We have American and Japanese planes taking off from same carrier, the LW is represented in the pacific area of ops.
What does make the difference when determining what gets done? Money does thats what. Sure a company may evendually get to the little guy but it's the majority who provides the means to do it get priority, they are what makes the company run
At least they would if I ran a company :)
Ya can't keep everyone happy all the time :D
Remember not only is it a game but a business aswell
[ 11-29-2001: Message edited by: Professor Fate ]
-
Originally posted by SOB:
Hey RAM, you're acting like a 12 year old again.
SOB
hum... because I say what I think instead of keeping my mouth shut and being a good (but silent guy)?.
Then I guess I'd be a 12-year-old forever. Guess is in my genes to say what I think. ;)
Prof. Fate:
Then why not model the P51 FM with more climbrate, acceleration and speeD?. After all, we have nikis and 109s winging in the MA, true? so why to get that historically right, too?.
I'm sure lots of americans would get really happy to see their mustang with a 109's acceleration. And, as it is a business, it would be good to do it so , right? :rolleyes:
More or less the same case we see here. A plane can take an unrealistic load and instead of fixing that, they even ADD more options to it. At the same time another plane lacks some of its historical options, and they do nothing in that regard.
in a business you dont get people pissed if you can avoid it...but dunno here.
PS: the italian fighters lack some bomb options too, yahknow :rolleyes:. But yes,add more DTs for the jugs, pleasE!
[ 11-29-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]
-
Waaaaaaahh..
mommy he got something and i didnt get anything!
-
bump for Rude :D
-
Yeah, no kidding Hornet. Geezus, what brand of tissues do you buy RAM?
I feel buying stock in it would be a terrific investment.
-SW
[ 11-29-2001: Message edited by: SWulfe ]
-
Originally cried by R4M:
[QB]
in a business you dont get people pissed if you can avoid it...but dunno here.
QB]
And just how could HTC not piss you off? That would be a benchmark in game developing history.
-
Originally posted by Creamo:
And just how could HTC not piss you off? That would be a benchmark in game developing history.
Creamo I'm not talking about HTC, I'm talking about this particular issue.
I've been pretty happy with AH lately, yet this has got me angry. A not very big black spot on a bright game, but a black spot anyway.
-
Originally posted by R4M:
hum... because I say what I think instead of keeping my mouth shut and being a good (but silent guy)?.
No, actually that's got nothing to do with it. There's a difference between voicing your concern about the lack of options on the 190, and squeaking and moaning to the BBS immediately after a patch has been completed because "their" plane got good stuff and "yours" didn't.
Originally posted by R4M:
Then I guess I'd be a 12-year-old forever. Guess is in my genes to say what I think. ;)
I kinda doubt it. Hopefully (for your sake) with age, you'll find that there are better ways to react to situations or decisions that you disagree with.
SOB
-
Havent found any pics yet, but heres some data from a few web pages for you R4M..
"The weight of the plane when empty was 10,998 pounds or 5 1/2 tons. It could carry a useful load of from 1 to 5 tons."
"Bomb Load: 2500 lb (1134 kg) including bombs and up to 8 rockets"
"Heavily armed with eight wing-mounted .50-inch machine guns, it could carry a bomb load of as much as 2,500 pounds (1,100 kg) and could carry 10 5-inch rockets beneath the wings."
"Armament:
Eight 12.7mm (0.5 in.) wing mounted machine guns. Up to 2500 lbs. of externally-mounted bombs, rockets, or other free-fall ordinance."
Just the first 4 web pages i found after doing a search for "p-47 load out". Dont need to post much more i hope, you should really do some research before starting a argument like this.
[ 11-29-2001: Message edited by: Am0n ]
-
Fixed a bug that would not allow you to decrease rpm if you ran out of fuel while WEP was
engaged.
May I point out that I was the one who posted this as a bug... Do I win anything for getting my bug fixed? Steak knives maybe? :cool:
WTG HTC, great patch.
-
Hate to admit it, but Ram has a point. We've pointed out over and over that the F8 is missing valuable loadout options. The quirks with the P47 were posted once, and BAM, they're fixed. I'm not whining about it, I just see where he's coming from.
Amon, you missed the point. A AH P47D30 can take a full load of 50cal ammo in addition to the other ordnance. That is an overload condition.
Anyways...if the Jug was wrong, I'm glad it got fixed. Not like its going to affect my flying one bit.
-
RAM,
The difference is, I think, that the changes you guys are asking for would require new graphics. None of the fixes in these patches require new artwork to be done.
The droptanks already exist, the 500lb bombs already exist.
The German rockets do not exist. They need to do new art for them.
If I were you, I'd focus on the 250kg bombs as they do exist.
-
WTG HTC! The big external fuel tanks were standard and I appreciate you including this in your update! And... We still see that RAM is still very much capable of "mommy I didnt get what I want" whines..all in the same stroke :) (personally, I knew he was still capable)
The whole update is just a picture of how much work you guys put into this sim :)
[ 11-29-2001: Message edited by: -ammo- ]
-
Originally posted by Am0n:
Havent found any pics yet, but heres some data from a few web pages for you R4M..
.
.
.
Just the first 4 web pages i found after doing a search for "p-47 load out". Dont need to post much more i hope, you should really do some research before starting a argument like this.
Am0n, yes, the P47 was able to load those things. But not all at the same time, tho.
Keep on searching. YOu may find pics of P47N5s (wich had a notably different wing) with that loadout, but none of a P47D30.
If you dont believe me, maybe I should read you the loadouts of the 190F8. believe me there were lots of them. Just not all of them carried at the same time :D
Ammo:
Coming from someone who was asking P51Ds to be perked, not so long ago (an given the tone of your posts in that thread ;)), the "crybaby" call you give me seems very funny :) Thanks for the laugh.
SOB:
I say what I think in the way I think it. Maybe what changes with age is the way I see the things, but I wont ever silence my opinion. :)
Karnak:
The 190F8 problem has been discussed for months. Is not exactly a late-hour issue. Anyway wing DTs don't require new artwork. 250kg wing bombs don't require new artwork. But the F8 still lacks both, when it could load them historically.
For the record, I simply think HTC has added something wich they should add (that DT was standard equipment for the P47s). But I simply thing there are some issues wich require to be revised ,too, and more urgently than the DTs for the P47. And I'm not talking about the 190F8 only. Of course I'm pissed because the F8 has been repeatedly ignored for months while the P47 has got its DTs almost instantly. But is not the only case, I repeat. More planes are lacking weapon loadouts, not just the F8.
And the P47D30 can take off with an unrealistic loadout. That has been, too, ignored for months.
[ 11-29-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]
-
No more CV dweebery.
-
Ram...
(http://perso.infonie.fr/elarger/CRA_EXT3.jpg)
This Focke Wulf FW 190F8 , was equiped with PB2 anti-tank rockets . This close view shows the metal fixing parts of the wooden rocket launcher . This feature is very interesting as it seems that the rocket launcher was intalled in the factory and not retro-fitted . The wing was also covered of aluminium patched to fill small caliber bullet holes .
Interesting info, the fact that the rocket launcher brackets where built into the 190F8 and not refitted.
As for bombs & droptanks on wing, ive never run across and info saying the 190F8 had these.. Still looking though.
Dog out......
-
R4M,
Why don't you post pictures of the F8 with rockets or 250kg wing bombs? A picture is worth a thousand words.
<<<I'm sure lots of americans would get really happy to see their mustang with a 109's acceleration>>>
Why do you think only Americans fly the P-51, and why do you think anyone who flys one type of plane doesn't fly any other, and why do you think anyone who flys only one type of plane wants the other types to be porked? Do you want planes you don't fly to be porked? I doubt it, so what makes you think your fellow AH'ers are less sportsmanlike than you?
You, and some others like you, come to this game with a weird sense of victimhood.
ra
-
Raubvogel
The point of my post was answering R4M's request for evidence that the P47 could in realality carry as much ord as it currently can in AH.
Since he's ignorant, i see he is still saying it cannot carry it all at once when in the last quote said "Up to 2500 lbs. of externally-mounted bombs, rockets, or other free-fall ordinance"
And you are correct in saying thats a "overload condition", if youve flown the jug under those condition you'll see its also true for AH.
-
RA. please. I wasn't saying that in a serious way. I'm glad the P51 is modelled as it should. I was just saying that if the business is the reason why the P47 is allowed to fly with an unrealistic loadout, then they could do other things too; wich they don't. So I have assume they DONT have business reason to allow an unrealistically loaded plane to be flown in the MA.
The P51 part was illustrative, not serious. And I do know that many american guys don't fly the P51. as I say is an Example, NOT serious :D
Wardog, nice piece of information! will look into it.
For your desire to see a Fw190F8 with wing bombs:
(http://laika.sputcorp.com/temp/190f8.jpg)
Can scan a couple of pics of an operationally deployed Fw190F8 with wing drop tanks too, if you want me to :)
More info in this thread:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=9&t=002839 (http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=9&t=002839)
[ 11-29-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]
-
Originally posted by Am0n:
Since he's ignorant, i see he is still saying it cannot carry it all at once when in the last quote said "Up to 2500 lbs. of externally-mounted bombs, rockets, or other free-fall ordinance"
Hum, yes I'm very ignorant, but in that quote I read a lot of comas, and one "Or".
Where is the "AND"? ;)
Oh, and Am0n, where's the pic? I dont see it...keep on searching :)
Once again, a P47D30 carrying wing 1000lb bombs COULDN't carry the 10 HVAR rockets. Neither it would get an overload MG loadout with all that much external weight anyway.
In AH you can get up in a P47 with two wing 1000lb bombs, 10 HVARs and eight overloaded-ammo Machineguns.Not to mention the center-line 500lb bomb. Quite realistic ;)
Get your fact straight. :)
[ 11-29-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]
-
Please note that plane has a 500Kg and 2 250kb bomb, both are modeled in AH as of today. I would think it quite easy to add the wing bombs very quickly.
-
Grunherz:
Don't forget the drop tanks :)
-
Ram..
This link list variants and production numbers for the p47. Also check out the specs for load outs..
2500lbs bombs or rockets, not both...
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p47.htm (http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p47.htm)
Dog out...
[ 11-29-2001: Message edited by: Wardog ]
-
Nice link! (and not just for the weapon information). I've read in several books that the 10 wing HVAR load wasn't compatible with wing bombs so that link just confirm my point :).
However I think that the tube-launched rockets (as the ones in the P47D25) could be loaded with wing bombs loaded too. I'm just not sure about the bomb size portable in that loadout. Think it was 500lbs, but could be 1000lbs too.
Thanks for the link, Wardog!. If you get links on the F8 rockets please share them too :)
-
Ram, thank you for hijacking a positive thread :cool:
I like this pic :
(http://home.att.net/~Historyzone/p-47d-27-re.JPG)
I think you should look at this one too:
(http://home.att.net/~Historyzone/348thFG.JPG)
:D
Ram, you need to be patient. HTC can't do everything at the same time. What do you think I felt when you guys were having the TA152, D9, F8 when my D30 was still missing the 300HP? I feel for the things you believe in Ram, but it doesn't give you the right to come storming "my thread". There is a "plane and vehicle" section for kindly expressing your thoughts :p
Olivier "Frenchy" Raunier
(http://home.cfl.rr.com/rauns/looking_for_trouble.jpg)
63rd FS, 56th FG
"Zemke's Wolfpack"
Ammo cannot stand to pay our P47s repair bill anymore ...
Santa even talked about awarding me the Iron Cross!!!
-
R4M,
Sorry, I guess I misunderstood about the P-51 thing. My bad. :) But if the P-51 were to be porked like that you can bet not everyone flying it would be American.
The picture you posted is in Green's 'Warplanes of the Third Reich'. It is described as a 190A-5 test airframe modified to the F8 convention with the addition of 13mm cowl guns. The next picture in the book shows the same plane with 8 SC 50 bombracks. In the section where it describes the F8 it says that 4 ETC 50 bomb racks under the wings was standard.
A lot of the goodies the F8 was intended to carry were first tested on A5 or A8 airframes. I've never seen evidence that most of them were ever used operationally on the F8. By that late in the war, LW units probably had enough to worry about without learning how to field and operate new weapons, or loading their planes like bombers.
Most of the pictures I've ever seen of an F8 didn't even have wing racks.
Frenchy,
That P-47D carried so much stuff they needed a train to bring the ord to the plane!
ra
[ 11-29-2001: Message edited by: ra ]
-
About the 1,000# bombs and the 10 rockets :
(http://home.cfl.rr.com/rauns/P-47N.jpg)
-
Frenchy,
This one looks like a P-47N.
ra
-
Yes it is indeed, what's the problem w/it?
Hehehe RA, rckts + 3 bombs ... you bet those rails were used for something :)
[ 11-29-2001: Message edited by: SFRT - Frenchy ]
-
What I am finding suggests the F-8 was a test bed, so virtually anything is possible. While that supports Ram's contentions to a point, it should be noted there doesn't seem to be much evidence of widespread usage of the combination of weapons suggested.
In any event it's too bad that good a good patch had to be slapped so vigorously on release, especially with the usual insinuation of bias.
-
(http://perso.wanadoo.fr/christophe.arribat/bogbomb.jpg)
P38 combat ready with 2X2K bombs.
(http://perso.wanadoo.fr/christophe.arribat/g1rocks1.jpg)
(http://perso.wanadoo.fr/christophe.arribat/g1guns.jpg)
Experimental...but a wet dream ;) :D
[ 11-29-2001: Message edited by: Tac ]
-
Frenchy the bombs on that P47 color photo are 2X 500lbs on wings and a single 250lbs under the fuselage.
In AH you can mount 2 1000lbs, 1 500lbs, 10 rockets and full, well actually, overload ammo. This was not done in real P47s, in AH this is a very big error.
[ 11-29-2001: Message edited by: GRUNHERZ ]
-
The 109s outaccelerate the P47s in dives.
This was not done in real P47s, in AH this is a very big error.
Grun, we can spend the whole year arguing. Are you guys so desesperate that you need to argue with anything? Geez. :o
-
How can someone get so angry arguing about how many bombs a plane could carry.
Some people need to go outside, light a join, drink a beer, and get laid.
-
Originally posted by Animal:
(snip)...
Some people need to go outside, light a join, drink a beer, and get laid.
Is it ok if I stay in? It's cold and snowing. The rest sounds good tho. Thanks for the suggestion. :)
-
Ah, but Frenchy, that is the way it really happened, no? ;)
Hey, I can understand R4M's displeasure, though not to the degree he seems to be going. Heck, nothing in AH is perfect, nor will it ever be. There will always be someone griping or saying "this isn't right" or "that shouldn't be that way"....on all sides.
Frenchy, you and I BOTH know that if AH modeled the P47 to outdive the 109's and 190's the way both Axis and Allied pilots said it did, we would NEVER hear the end of it. :rolleyes: It isn't like the LW had ANY decent pilots left when the Jug started operation over the Continent, that is why the highest scoring USAAF aces in Europe flew Jugs, and also why the 56th FG was one of the highest scoring outfits in the USAAF ETO.
(Turns sarcasm mode OFF)
R4M, on a personal note, and not intended to flame or put you down........but.........
it would appear (at least to me) that each time HTC comes out with a patch, or a new version, or an idea, you are one of the first to look for flaws? Especially if it might be a "flaw" in a LW bird? You might be the king of all LW records, all LW data regarding WW2, but don't you think Pyro and the others are sitting on a pile of data too? I can tell you from just walking by his office when I visited there, the man has DATA, not just one or two book, not just a dozen.......hell, I DROOLED just thinking about all the info in that one room!
What do you want from Pyro and the HTC crew, every loadout that you can find a picture of or vague reference to? :confused:
If that is what you want, hey, more power to you.......but don't be surprised or offended if and when the same principle is applied to all the AH planeset, Allied and Axis both. What criteria they use to determine if a particular loadout is modeled I have not a clue, but I can assure they do their best to be "fair" about it.
[ 11-29-2001: Message edited by: eddiek ]
-
Ok... You post a picture thats supposed to show a P47 with 2 1000lbs bombs and a 500lb bomb ans rockets.
The picture obviously shows 2 500lbs and and 1 250lbs bombs.
I call you on it and you ridicule me, why do that?
If you dont care which bombs a plane carries why all the resistance to FW190 carrying more bombs or bigger bombs which it did carry.
Im not sure if you mean me animal im not angry, I barely ever JABO anyway so what bombs are on planes dont bother me that much.
What bothers me in general is that LW planes dont get their possible bombs while USA planes get impossible loads.
It bothers me that some people ask for changes to P47 FM and provide evidence on BBS, then only a few weeks later HTC gives a patch. toejam IIRC Pyro immedatly responded in this thread and said they would check out the data.
But when people ask for changes in FW190 and give evidence on BBS (The official speed charts for 190A5 that show the AH one is 15mph too slow on the deck, and no Funked the AH 190A5 doesnt model an underweight 190G anymore that was fixed in v1.04), they get ridiculed attacked and made fun of as whiners, and HTC ignores them.
And HTC doesnt fix it, or at least not yet.
HTC didnt even respond in that thread IIRC.
Im frustrated about that.
-
I had hoped we were progressing beyond this.
Guess not yet.
Six people. Wonderful game. CONSTANT updates. FIFTY CENTS A DAY... FIFTY CENTS A DAY!
Where else are you guys getting that kind of entertainment value?
Do you REALLY think these SIX highly competent and considerate people WON'T get to all these things you mention at sometime?
Do we have to have this constant nit-picking between the various player camps?
It does remind me of the "mommy, mommy.. Billy got a bigger piece of cake!" tantrums.
There's plenty of cake.. it's just not all on the table yet.
Breathe deep. Repeat: "This is a GREAT game.. especially for FIFTY CENTS A DAY.
Thank you, and good night.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ:
Ok... You post a picture thats supposed to show a P47 with 2 1000lbs bombs and a 500lb bomb ans rockets.
The picture obviously shows 2 500lbs and and 1 250lbs bombs.
I call you on it and you ridicule me, why do that?
If you dont care which bombs a plane carries why all the resistance to FW190 carrying more bombs or bigger bombs which it did carry.
What bothers me in general is that LW planes dont get their possible bombs while USA planes get impossible loads.
It bothers me that some people ask for changes to P47 FM and provide evidence on BBS, then only a few weeks later HTC gives a patch. toejam IIRC Pyro immedatly responded in this thread and said they would check out the data.
Im frustrated about that.
- Grun, please let me know where I said the bombs were 1000 lbs and 500lbs? I was answering to RAM who were talking about not flying with bombs AND rockets.
- I never offered any resistance to LW having whatever load out they want, there again, please show me a proof of what you acuse me of.
- I posted the 300HP bug on the 10-03-2000 11:30 AM ... The bug was fixed more than 1 year later!!! I don't see why you claim it was fixed right away in the next patch.
Those 3 points above may be part of the reasons I ridiculed you. When LW proposes something, I never ever "squeak about it", "Say it was impossible", "analyse the pictures with a loop in search of UFO", "ask to provide a proof".
I would appreciate to be treated with the same courtesie as I displayed toward LW guys. It's a basic educational concept, isn't it? :D
-
I haven't ever visited the HTC center or seen Pyro's office full of data, but I know these guys do a great job checking into historical accuracy. If I wanted to gripe and moan about something not being fixed, I can prove the B-17G is way undermodelled. But there's no need to here, and especially not like this. I'm pretty sure there's a forum dedicated to providing HTC with information regarding planes (loadouts, flight models, top speeds, whatever). This thread is for thanking HT and the crew for putting out another great patch and fixing problems as they can. Personally, I love what they've done with this sim over the last 2 years, and this patch is no different.
Thank you HT and gang, keep up the great work!
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ:
It bothers me that some people ask for changes to P47 FM and provide evidence on BBS, then only a few weeks later HTC gives a patch. toejam IIRC Pyro immedatly responded in this thread and said they would check out the data.
Actually, it has been over one year since this issue was first brought up:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum9/HTML/000849.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum9/HTML/000849.html)
<edit> Frenchy beat me to it. :)
[ 11-29-2001: Message edited by: Sancho ]
-
S!
Ok, time for a P-47 whine to balance out the Luftwobble whines... ;)
Ahem... (Takes a deep breath)
:( Where's my paddle blade prop on the D11?????? :( Where's my paddle blade prop on the D11???? :( Where's my paddle blade prop on the D11????? :( Where's my paddle blade prop on the D11????? (etc.)
Ok, karma balanced in the world... time to move on to the next series of whines... ;)
-
S!
By the way... you notice the Allied P-47's in BIG WEEK are 1943 era planes. Since we don't have the paddle blade option.
Bring the P-47D21 to ACES HIGH!
-
Thanks for the patch HTC.
Love the 500lbers in the Mossie's bomb bay. :D
-
Why on earth it's always between Luftwaffe and USAAF?
bring on Spitfire XIV !
.. or atleast faster IX...
......or something....
Talking about hijacking threads..
:p
Anyway, great to see jug with correctly modelled performance, gotta try it out!
Now we all have to check our 6 more often, there could be 56th FG with those nasty Runbolts!
:D
-vector
[ 11-30-2001: Message edited by: vector at work ]
-
Originally posted by SFRT - Frenchy:
About the 1,000# bombs and the 10 rockets :
(http://home.cfl.rr.com/rauns/P-47N.jpg)
wow...what a nice P47N5, frenchy. I thought we were talking about a P47D30?.
what?...why does it matter?...maybe because those two models had a ---completely--- different wing?...
just maybe? ;). NO, sir, indeed they had a different wing.
I've already said the P47D could take rockets and wing bombs at the same time. Just not 10 HVARS, you know. And I would think that no P47D ever took off with an overload for its machineguns, while carrying 2500lbs of bombs at the same time. Indeed very heavy jabos sometimes flew with just 6MGs...with a good reason I'd guess.
In AH you can take off with 2500lbs of bombs, 10HVARS and 8 overloaded machineguns-------->highly unrealistic.
About the 190F8 wing racks...they were quite used. One of the major production series, the U1, was dedicated to the long range/heavy jabo role, in wich took the place and role of the Fw190G8.
SO...all 190F8/U1s were fitted with wing ETC503 racks. BUT also several night jabo Rüsatze of the 190F8 ALSO carried the ETC503 rack. BUT also several day long range jabo versions of the Fw190A5 could ALSO carry the ETC503 racks (not to mention they could delete the cowl mounted MGs too). BUT also several day long range jabo versions of the Fw190A8 could carry the same racks (the A8 was not used with them operationally tho, AFAIK). BUT also, a whole series of the Fw190 (the G series) used those racks.
"prototype"?. Dont make me laugh. There were thousands of Fw190s with those racks. We don't have a G8 in AH, but we have an A5 and a F8. I dont have much problem with the lack of that equipment for the 190A5, if the F8 can carry it. But why do we lack the wing bombs for the F8?
They were used operationally. The 190F8/U1 was a quite big batch of the 190F8 production. It would be useful for the MA and CT, and would make a 190F8 a worthy election for jabo (right now the 190A8 is better jabo than the 190F8, wich is sad and shameful). yet we lack them.
The A&V forum is full of threads discussing this matter. Pyro has ---NEVER--- got into one of them to say why doesn't the F8 have that option (or the A5, for that matter).
For those who asked to a revision of the D30 FM, well, the FM needed a double check and seems that Pyro's test version did not have the bug. But he had already looked into it quite some time ago!. Read his answer in the thread in the Aircraft&Vehicles forum.
For those asking for a paddle prop for the D11, at least you have a reason (pyro has stated it several times). You can agree or disagree with that reason (I disagree with it), BUT AT LEAST HE HAS SAID SOMETHING ABOUT IT!.
But he's said not a word about the F8 wing loadouts, tho. Neither about the wing bombs for the Fw190A5, or for the italian fighters....etc etc etc. Nothing. Nil. Nada.
Great :(.
Yap, I'm pissed. But I'd think this time I have a point.
[ 11-30-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]
-
Which patch will remove the highly unrealistic trim controls from the 109?
-
Originally posted by Seeker:
Which patch will remove the highly unrealistic trim controls from the 109?
we discussed it in the other forum not so long ago...
the answer is YES, just after they remove the highly unrealistic kommandogërat from all planes except the Fw190, and the highly unrealistic ammo counters from all planes except the german ones. :p
Personally, I'm all for removing the trim tabs wich were not usable during flight. But that'd require some modification in some plane's FM too (the Fw190 had fixed wing tabs for a quite GOOD reason ;))
[ 11-30-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]
-
Heh. Italian planes had ammo counters too, at least back to the C.200.
I would like to see the bombs added to the Fw190F-8, and in a future version have the artwork done and rockets added too.
I think, perhaps, that this subject has been over played and less frequent, gentler reminders might have more effect. I do sypathise with you though.
[ 11-30-2001: Message edited by: Karnak ]
-
Cheer up RAM, you got the 1 ping FW engine death fixed.
See, Pyro loves you too :D
-
we did?,thats nice ;)
-
Uf, yep...After some months of being called whiner by people in the forums ;) (just a tongue in cheek comment ;)).
Just dont take me wrong, Frenchy, I'm glad you got the WEP Fix and the historical DT options. :)
What I'm not glad is that the P47D30 still can fly in AH with an unhistorical loadout, while another planes still lack most of its weaponry. :(
[ 11-30-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]
-
P47 still lacks weapons :
Frag bombs:
(http://www.netherhall47.freeserve.co.uk/graphics/Raydon%20Photos/Thunderbolt%20with%)
And 20mm gun pod:
I can't find the pic no more, you are lucky I can't tease you to make you mad hehehe.
But because you have been bad, you have to put this beautifull piece of art as your desktop pic for 1 full week! You are punished Ram ... hop ... to purgatory! 1 Week of P47! (http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/URG/images/p47-2.jpg)
In your room, no soup.
[ 11-30-2001: Message edited by: SFRT - Frenchy ]
-
P47 SHOULD dive ALOT faster, shouldn't it?
I know the F4U sure models it's ability to do so very well. Kinda a characteristic I take into account fighting it in the Dora.
P47's however... don't think of anything but killing it with pleasure. It should have this distinct FM advantage, but it don't seem so from a opponents standpoint.
This advertisment paid for by "The Frenchy For the Advancement of the Jug Foundation Inc."
--
[ 11-30-2001: Message edited by: Creamo ]
-
Originally posted by R4M:
Hum, yes I'm very ignorant, but in that quote I read a lot of comas, and one "Or".
Where is the "AND"? ;)
Oh, and Am0n, where's the pic? I dont see it...keep on searching :)
Ok i wasnt the top student in school, as im sure you all can tell from my grammar in my multiple post.. BUT doesnt a comma equal a "and"?
R4M stop crying you are embarrasing your self.
heres a tissue.
BTW i dont browse the BBS when im not at work, i left work right after responding to your cry baby post.
-------
Helluva nice job fixing up the jug HTC, had good fun as always driving it last night.
Heck with 350 gallons of fuel and a full tank i think you could fly around for 3-4 hours. :D
[ 11-30-2001: Message edited by: Am0n ]
-
Originally posted by Am0n:
Ok i wasnt the top student in school, as im sure you all can tell from my grammar in my multiple post.. BUT doesnt a comma equal a "and"?
I start to see why people in offtopic forum says that US educational system sucks so bad ;)
Short answer: no.
R4M stop crying you are embarrasing your self.
After you have showed you dont know how to read and interpretate properly a phrase, I'm not sure who's embarrasing who in this thread... ;)
Anyway you've got a nice link (read wardog's post) wich clearly (I mean, using not just commas for readers as bright as you ;)) says that the 10HVAR+wing bomb load couldn't be used in a P47D30.
-
Frenchy:
1-I like P47s and have used in MA quite some. Take a look at my stats for last 5 or 6 months. Your "penalty" won't hurt me a bit. :p
2- If you start calling for underwing gun pods rarely used in the P47D30 I'll start to ask for the torpedo/bomb of the 190F8, or maybe about those nice vertical recoiless cannons to kill tanks, or the twin Mk103 30mm cannon pods...etc etc etc ;)
3-Frag bombs, delayed fuse bombs, cluster bombs, even napalm, and all that stuff is not just lacked by the American inventory, didn't yahknow? ;).
4- DOnt try to distract attention with funny comments ;). What matters here (apart of the F8 loads we lack :D) is that no P47D30 could carry 10 HVARs and 2000lbs of underwing bomgs; and the overload condition for the MGs was not used when the Jugs were in Jabo role.
:)
Creamo:
Last time I had to dive away from a 109G10 in a P47D25 (wich is the model I most use because the D30's unrealistic loads) at the start of the dive (at around 10-12K) he was 500yards away and closing. AFter I dived, he had to run with me for two sectors (50 wooping miles) to catch with me again.
The P47 dives outstandingly in my experience; and while I'm no hot-shot in it and neither I use it too much; in my limited experience I always have put a lot of space in a dive between me and anything else...and when fighting vs jugs, I always saw them moving away in dives.
Maybe is something you dont agree with me, but at least is my experience.
[ 11-30-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]
-
The Bf109 had cockpit in-flight adjustable elevator trim in the form of a variable incidence h-stab. In fact this trim was used to pull out of high speed dives, it was very capable. Since all the other trims are useless you can get rid of them.
-
Events to this point....
1. HTC posts update that includes mods to P-47.
2. P-47 proponents are overjoyed, 300 more horsepower!
3. Ram throws fit- weapons loadout possibly inaccurate.
4. Ram continues tirade by insinuating another pro-American bias.
5. People flame Ram for his outburst.
6. The possible validity of his original argument (loadout inaccuracies) is lost in the endless drone of "if they get this we should get that!"
7. People prod Ram some more.
8. Thread successfully hijacked into yet another tired and endless discussion of Luftwaffe field conversions and plane features.
More updates as events warrant...
-
Damnit
I always arrive at the party on the wind down :(
-
Im officaly done with this thread. Im not going to argue with some forieng idiot who is stupid enough to bring in ones nationality in to the conversation.
What company made your computer? What companies made the parts in them? Who made the OS for that computer? Who invented the plat form of that PC? Who made this game? Who poineered the internet? This list could go on forever and i would like to ask, where are all those countries based out of? (not there factories)
Im not a biggot such as your self, i would rather not get into a nationality war of whos country is better. You always want to come off as a victim of some "Merican" propaganda.
IF your so victimised buy us, stop using our technoligies.. Also write a letter to your goverment asking them to stop using our equipment to supply your military, and for us to stop training your military.
Stop using our economic system while your at it, and also stop accepting AID from our counrty as well when your in need.
--
So friggin lame that some cry baby bellybutton hole can get so jealous over some one else enjoying them selves.
--
Again WTG HTC, keep the updates commin!
-
^
|
|
|
This guy can't be this "clever"...I refuse to think he's written all that stuff seriously! :D
LOL Am0n get a clue (and some sense of humor too in the meantime...tho I must admit your answer was extremely -even when unwanted- funny! :D).
[ 11-30-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]
-
Originally posted by Kieran:
Events to this point.......
Lets see :)
1. HTC posts update that includes mods to P-47. - aye
2. P-47 proponents are overjoyed, 300 more horsepower! wich they lacked and they deserved to see in their plane. Aye and great! :)
3. Ram throws fit- weapons loadout possibly inaccurate. - no. Weapons loadout added is accurate (drop tanks). Which is NOT accurate is the rockets+bombs thing we've been discussing for months. A vacuum in the loadout option was filled, but an unrealistic loadout combination was not erased. That's one of the points in my original post.
4. Ram continues tirade by insinuating another pro-American bias. - Again, not. Where?. THe only ones talking about that bias were the ones who answered me on the "its a business" grounds. What I find difficult to understand is the lack of ANY answers from HTC to the 190F8 weapon loadout petitions. That would hint that I'm suggesting an anti-german bias; wich I'm not saying there is, but for sure the facts don't help to support the opposite.
5. People flame Ram for his outburst. -as usual, regardless if I have a point or not :). I'm used to it, go and read the 190A5 SL speed thread in A&V forum to see that even with factory charts posted the flames are exactly the same :).
6. The possible validity of his original argument (loadout inaccuracies) is lost in the endless drone of "if they get this we should get that!" - Ahhhh. Now I dont have a reason to say that the P47 loadout is innacurate, and that the Fw190F8 lacks most of its ordnance, why?.
Because I DARED to say that is quite unfair to see a plane with more options instead of seeing the innacurate ones fixed first?. And that I feel angry because that plane is allowed to fly with unrealistic loadouts while others dont have even the historical ones?. Wow.
7. People prod Ram some more. - Read 5 :D
8. Thread successfully hijacked into yet another tired and endless discussion of Luftwaffe field conversions and plane features. - I linked a thread in the A&V forum for people to post there. Not my fault they decided to keep on posting here.
More updates as events warrant - now you can add that some poor humor-less tard got offended because I made a tongue in cheek comment about a matter wich is critized by american guys themselfs on the Offtopic forum :D
-
Isn't it time for someone to quit again? :eek:
:D
-
Pse nifty. It's been a long time ago since I learned not to take AH so seriously as to really mess into my life and get me angry away from my computer. That was one of the reasons I left the times I did.
Now I still get pissed now and then, and I'd really like to have any reason to fly a Fw190F8 instead a Fw190A8 for jabo...But I dont go out with a couple of friends with an angry expression in my face because the hispanos are megaturbolasers or because the buffs are lazer ackstars (t-i-ch ;)).
It may sound funny, but sad as it is there was a time that it happened just that way. It took me almost 1 year of AH to learn not to take it this seriously. As I said, sometimes, now and then, I see things that really get me pissed -like this thing-. But usually when I have a well and clear point only (as this time, of course! :D).
But now when I leave the computer,I go out and take some laugh with my friends and live my life. Rarely, if ever, I recall anything from AH when I'm out of home. This game is now a now part of my daily entertainment. Not of my daily life,but the same couldn't be said one year ago. In fact, prolly 1 year ago I'd have started yet another thread with a topic like "P47vsFw190F8 loadout". Sad isnt it? :). I'm glad I learned to get over that :)
Maybe I was addicted, maybe not. But If I wasn't, I was in the verge of being. I did some shameful shows of "I QUIT" (well I did some shameful shows of many other things too, I still recall those threads with renfield kissing and huggin each other by a fediddlein HO, LOL), but I give those shows as good employed if I now I am not that stupid anymore :D
Now, as I said, this is just a black spot on an otherwise bright game. Right now the (little) time I'm flying I'm having a quite good and fun time. :)
[ 11-30-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]
-
hehe, good to hear.
Tell ya what. Gather all the evidence you have and make a nice document about it. Include various pictures of the F8 with the loadouts and links to your sources. No "whining" in the document, just a completely objective basis for your argument. Present that to the board and HTC. If it doesn't get addressed in an update or two, I'll whine right along with you. :)
-
Not that this will do any good, but...
yah. Add more drop tanks for the P47. We all know they lacked lots of ordnance options and was an urgent thing wich demanded instant fix, true? .
Who first drew the comparison to LW aircraft?
A plane can take an unrealistic load and instead of fixing that, they even ADD more options to it. At the same time another plane lacks some of its historical options, and they do nothing in that regard.
I dunno, you seem to be discussing inaccurate loadout options to me. Maybe I don't read English that well. ;)
Of course I'm pissed because the F8 has been repeatedly ignored for months while the P47 has got its DTs almost instantly.
Doesn't this suggest a bias to you?
The A&V forum is full of threads discussing this matter. Pyro has ---NEVER--- got into one of them to say why doesn't the F8 have that option (or the A5, for that matter).
As does this?
I'd be the first to say I don't want inaccurate loadouts on any plane. Notice I can do this without bringing any other country or aircraft into it? As SOB alluded, it isn't your message but your delivery that gets you every time.
-
Originally posted by R4M:
4- DOnt try to distract attention with funny comments ;). What matters here is that no P47D30 could carry 10 HVARs and 2000lbs of underwing bomgs; and the overload condition for the MGs was not used when the Jugs were in Jabo role.
You have a reference for that? I have severeral book and I dont see anything of what you have mentioned.
For all those that actually believe RAM ( bad mistake believing RAM following RAM, truth and his name are definately NOT synonymous), You would be wise to wait for some evidence first.
The community ges an awesome update that shows how much work the HTC team have put into this game and RAM posts a whine about the FW190F8 didnt get what it needs. He then goes onto say that its not a LW vs allies thing for him...<spit on my monoito>. He also would have you think he has the best wishes of others at heart...<choke, cough, cleans off the monitior again>.
Here is a little humor for you RAM, You are a numb skull.
-
The P47 doesn't out-accelerate the german planes in the initial dives in AH Ram. She does however has an outstanding high speed control.
That's a major FM question mark for me, but hey, you don't see me squeaking about it. I'm using the plane the best I can so far, maybe 1 day the FM will change.
As you said, don't get me wrong, whatever you want on the FW, I don't care. Have a twin 50mm pod AND 2 4,000lbs bombs if you want :cool: What I didn't appreciated is your lack of education to come storming into this thread, squeak at HTC and keep the same behavior for "80 posts". Looks like you take pride/pleasure in confrontation, whatever floats your boat.
You think that "funny comments" are a defensive behavior? I was just trying to be nice. Contrary to you, I'm not confronting and trying to be a smart ass. I respect any ideas and thoughts, as long as they are brought with consideration toward HTC staff and our comunauty.
-
<<<SO...all 190F8/U1s were fitted with wing ETC503 racks.>>>
R4M,
If I can convince you that the FW 190F8/U1 was a two seat trainer, not a Jabo, would that change your stance on this issue? Probably not so I won't bother, but your facts are just plain wrong.
I fly the 190 too and I would love 3x250kg bombs, but I don't think that configuration ever saw combat.
ra
-
Ra, the two seat FW190 trainers were the FW190S series, S for Schulflugzeug.
-
Kieren, you have mistaken several of the parts of my message. But I see no good in explaining them again, so we'll leave at that to not keeping an unfruitful discussion up.
Ammo: I dont know wich books you have. All I know is that ALL and EVERY reference I've read regarding HVAR rockets in late D-series say that it was impossible to load the 10 rockets and the wing bombs at the same time.
And read this: http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p47.htm (http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p47.htm)
I will let the personal remarks aside as I simply think is not worth getting into the mud :p
RA, the Fw190F8/U1 was a long range jagdbomber designed to be the sucessor of the G series. There may be a mix of denominations (a similar thing happens with teh 109G6/R2, for instance, wich depending on the source is a reconaissance version or a fighter bomber version -and both sources would be right). But in any reliable source about Fw190s, the F8/U1 is listed as a long range jabo.
The Fw190 two seat trainers were the Fw190S series. I'm positive about that. Maybe there was a F8/U1 modified for two seats, or even there was a denomination for a prototype. But the OFFICIAL and OPERATIONAL F8/U1 was fitted with ETC503 wing racks.
Frenchy; I posted some 50 posts avobe this one a link to a thread in the Aircraft forum to keep the discussion about the F8. The answers were posted HERE, not there.
So dont blame me on hijacking. I've posted where the answers were posted :)
[ 11-30-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]
-
RA, I tried that one. RAM claims the U1 is something else.
However in my books it lists the Fw-190F8/U1 as a two seat trainer- of which none were built.
The U2 and U3 were modified to carry torpedo bombs.
It lists later models as having the bombs that RAM claims the U1 carried. I think it was U8 or maybe even U11.
-SW
[ 11-30-2001: Message edited by: SWulfe ]
-
SW, maybe you think you know more than Joe Baughter?
taken from http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/fw190.html#RTFToC16 (http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/fw190.html#RTFToC16)
Fw 190F-8/U1 - long range fighter-bomber (provided as replacement for the Fw 190G-8 withdrawn from production). The plane had underwing pylons installed from the Bf 110 V.Mitt-Schloss (Verkleidetes Messerschmitt Schloss) for mounting two 300 liter fuel tanks and additional fuel pumps inside the wings. Some planes had ETC 503 bomb racks in place of the pylons that gave the capability of carrying two additional 250 kg bombs (in this case the fuel tank was mounted under the fuselage) on ETC 501 racks. It was possible was to mount bombs on all points (2x250 kg and 1x500 kg), this reduced range but made the Fw 190 a dangerous plane carrying 1000 kg of bombs.
More Fw190s with underwing racks able to take 250Kg bombs or DTs:
Fw 190F-8/U4 - night fighter-bomber powered by a BMW 801 TS engine with exhaust flames dampers. Standard equipment was: PKS 12 autopilot device, FuG 101 radio altimeter, TSA 2A sight system and other devices to aid night navigation and flight. Armament consisted of aerial torpedoes and bombs that could be carried on two underwing ETC 503 bomb racks. Other armament was reduced to two MG 151/20 E cannons in wings. Probably only one plane built (W.Nr. 586596). Admittedly, NSGr 20 used numerous Fw 190F-8 with flame dumpers and underwing mounted bomb racks but it was not a F-8/U4 but rather field adapted, standard G-8 or F-8/U1 planes.
Fw 190A-5/U3 - fighter-bomber with the ETC 501 bomb rack and without MG FF cannons. After a change of designation this was serially produced as Fw 190F-2. There was also a desert variant with dust filters designated as A-5/U3/tp (F-2tp).
I could go on quoting but almost all 109Gs had it and lots of early F versions had it too.
The point is that the F8/U1 WAS a long range jabo with ability to take DTs or 250kg bombs if they were needed.
-
SW, maybe you think you know more than Joe Baughter?
taken from http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/fw190.html#RTFToC16 (http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/fw190.html#RTFToC16)
Fw 190F-8/U1 - long range fighter-bomber (provided as replacement for the Fw 190G-8 withdrawn from production). The plane had underwing pylons installed from the Bf 110 V.Mitt-Schloss (Verkleidetes Messerschmitt Schloss) for mounting two 300 liter fuel tanks and additional fuel pumps inside the wings. Some planes had ETC 503 bomb racks in place of the pylons that gave the capability of carrying two additional 250 kg bombs (in this case the fuel tank was mounted under the fuselage) on ETC 501 racks. It was possible was to mount bombs on all points (2x250 kg and 1x500 kg), this reduced range but made the Fw 190 a dangerous plane carrying 1000 kg of bombs.
More Fw190s with underwing racks able to take 250Kg bombs or DTs:
Fw 190F-8/U4 - night fighter-bomber powered by a BMW 801 TS engine with exhaust flames dampers. Standard equipment was: PKS 12 autopilot device, FuG 101 radio altimeter, TSA 2A sight system and other devices to aid night navigation and flight. Armament consisted of aerial torpedoes and bombs that could be carried on two underwing ETC 503 bomb racks. Other armament was reduced to two MG 151/20 E cannons in wings. Probably only one plane built (W.Nr. 586596). Admittedly, NSGr 20 used numerous Fw 190F-8 with flame dumpers and underwing mounted bomb racks but it was not a F-8/U4 but rather field adapted, standard G-8 or F-8/U1 planes.
Ohhhhhh??? "Standard G-8 or F8/U1?"...
strange :D
Fw 190A-5/U3 - fighter-bomber with the ETC 501 bomb rack and without MG FF cannons. After a change of designation this was serially produced as Fw 190F-2. There was also a desert variant with dust filters designated as A-5/U3/tp (F-2tp).
I could go on quoting but almost all 109Gs had it and lots of early F versions had it too.
The point is that the F8/U1 WAS a long range jabo with ability to take DTs or 250kg bombs if they were needed.
-
So you are using one source, while I got mine from multiple?
No, I don't think I know more than Joe Baughter- I've never heard of him before.
Point still stands, I got my information from more than one source.
-SW
-
The Great Book of WWII Airplanes pg. 509 says...
"The F8 was proposed for 3 diffrent models of factory installed conversions. The first, the Fw 190F-8/U1. was similiar in design to the basic Fw 190/A-8/U1 in that it was a 2 seat training aircraft; however, it was never built."
It details all the options for the 190F8 but I really don't know what is being questioned here so I can't tell you the info. Regardless, it looked like very few at all had any of the mods.
--
[ 11-30-2001: Message edited by: Creamo ]
-
Me neither. all the books I have wich list the Umrust-Bausatze of the Fw190F8 list the U1 as a long range jabo. I just put a link where it is clearly explained in a thorough way.
Now, go to an online translator and translate this:
Fw 190 F-8/F-17
Lo Fw 190F-8, sviluppato su base A-8, é la sottoversione della seria F costruita nel maggior numero di esemplari (tra F-8 e F-9 ne furono prodotti circa 385). Come per l'A-8, le due MG 17 sul motore erano state sostituite da due MG 131 da 13mm. Alle radici alari rimanevano i due MG 151 da 20mm. Dal gennaio del 1945 vennero adottati i piloni ETC 71 in luogo degli ETC 50.
Anche per il Fw 190A-4 vennero prodotti kit di conversione 'Umrüst-Bausätze' :
L'F-8/U1 da attacco a lungo raggio con due serbatoi supplementari da 300 litri o due bombe SC250 sotto piloni alari ETC 503.
L'F-8/U2 silurante a lungo raggio, armato con un siluro BT 200, 400 o 700 sotto un pilone ETC 501 o ETC 502 in fusoliera e due serbatoi supplementari alari da 300 litri sotto piloni ETC 503. Servì da base per gli Fw 190F-8/R16.
L'F-8/U3 silurante, armato con siluri BT 1000, 1400 e 1850. Servì da base per gli Fw 190F-8/R15.
L'F-8/U4 da attacco a lungo raggio notturno, simile all'F-8/R13.
L'F-8/U5 silurante.
its in italian :) http://digilander.iol.it/novotny/versioni14.htm (http://digilander.iol.it/novotny/versioni14.htm)
(great page of the Fw190, just wish they did one in english :D)
Oh...and just to give you a little heads up about rockets in the Fw190F8:
http://www.raf303.org/funked/panzerblitz1.jpg (http://www.raf303.org/funked/panzerblitz1.jpg)
http://www.raf303.org/funked/panzerblitz2.jpg (http://www.raf303.org/funked/panzerblitz2.jpg)
(with funked's permission, of course) :D
[ 11-30-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]
-
from http://www.214th.com/ww2/germany/fw190/ (http://www.214th.com/ww2/germany/fw190/) :
FOCKE-WULF 190 S
In connection with the reorganization of diving bomber units into fighter-bomber units and the need to retrain Ju 87 pilots on Fw 190 Fighters the Luftwaffe ordered a two-place training version of the Fw 190 Fighter. In the spring of 1944, one A-8 airframe was modified to this standard and received the additional designation U1. The second cockpit was placed just after the first in the place used for the MW 50 installation. This device was not installed in training planes. The back part of cockpit canopy was also modified. It had a three part, sides opening canopy (similarly to the Bf 109 G-12) ended with a duralumin superstructure in the upper rear fuselage. Three planes were modified and designed as a masters for serial fighter planes modification. To this should be added the damaged planes removed from frontline units and modified by field repair stores. For this reason, it is difficult to find a precise number of A-5 and A-8 planes modified to the two place version. It was a relatively small number and planes were designated Fw 190 S-5 and S-8 (S = Schulflugzeug - training plane) respectively
There you go, the U1 thing. I told you it was a mess up of denominations.
The F8/U1 was a long range jabo.
-
Also:
(talking about the Fw190G8):
Next, and the last production series of the G version, was the Fw 190G-8 plane (G-4 to G-7 variant designated small modifications that were not realized). Basis for this version was the A-8 airframe. It included all modification applied to this version and the enlarged cockpit canopy from the Fw 190F-8. Some G-8 planes also got flame dampers (version G-8/N adapted for night operation). Despite the fact that the plane did not have fuselage mounted machine guns, the G-8 got new, enlarged upper covers forward of the cockpit, adapted for MG 131 machine gun mounting. For transportation of additional fuel tanks and bombs the new ETC 503 bomb racks were used. To widen Fw 190G-8 operational use, the following Rustsatz kits were provided:
.
.
.
(snipped for brevity)
.
.
.
Fw 190G-8/R5 - had four underwing ETC 50 (or ETC 70) bomb racks in place of two ETC 503. Production of G-8 version continued from September 1943 to February 1944, when production of the Fw 190G-8 was abandoned in favor of modified F-8 series planes. This was connected with the tendency to simplify the production process. In the late series G-8 planes (from February 1944), the autopilot device was not used . In the late Fw 190G-8 (after mounting MG 131 machine guns) there were no longer differences between this version and the Fw 190F-8 attack aircraft type ------(G-8 = F-8/U1 in the version with ETC 503 bomb racks, and G-8/R5 = F-8/R1 also).-- In an emergency, single Fw 190G planes were adapted for the transportation of high weight bombs under the fuselage (1000, 1600 and 1800 kg). In this modification, the shock absorber leg was strengthened and wheels with strengthened tires were used. Also used were special bomb racks (Schlos 1000 or 2000) in place of the ETC 501 bomb rack. The Fw 190G planes with these higher bomb loads needed as long as 1200-1300 m of runway for takeoff
Still any doubts left?
[ 11-30-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]
-
Let's stay with the F-8, which is what all the fuss is about, right?
Same source as Creamo, page 509, second paragraph, column one:
The basic Fw 190F was envisioned to incorporate a center fuselage mounted ETC 501 bomb rack to accept either a single 500 kg (1,100lb) bomb or, with an adapter linkage, four 50 kg (110lb) bombs, and optional ETC 501 wing racks for single 250kg (550lb) bombs or, with adapters, a pair of 50kg (110lb) bombs.
Paragraph six, column one:
The Fw 190F series continued with the F-8, F-9, and F-10 variants, all of which made use of the Fw 190A-8 airframe. The primary differences in the newer F varieant were the incorporation of the A-8 variant's 13-mm MG 131 machineguns in the fuselage in place of the ealier model 7.9 mm MG 17's, a pair of ETC 50 wing bomb racks under each wing as standard, and an improved bomb release system network for quicker and more accurate response to the pilot's commands.
-
In regards to the U1 designation for the 2 seat trainers:
I believe the misunderstanding comes from the fact that the first 2-seater was a modified A8 that was redesignated as U1. Later planes modified or damaged planes rebuilt as 2-seat trainer were designated as Fw 190 S-5 and S-8 (S = Schulflugzeug - training plane)
EDIT-
Oops, I just reiterated what R4M already stated.
F.
[ 11-30-2001: Message edited by: Furious ]
-
Kieren, Creamo's source is the one wich says that the 190A4 had MW50 fitted, right?.
And the same one wich lists Fw190D9's topspeed at 426mph with 2250hp of power, right?.
And, not sure but I'd say that also lists the 109K4 with MG151 15mm cannons on cowl, isnt it?.
Better look for a more reliable source ;)
-
R4M
Just beacuse a plane is certified to only carry a certian load, doesnt mean it couldn't carry more. Do you think noone's ever flown an overloaded, out of center of gravity aircraft successfully? The aircraft has attach points and pylons for the weapons, so they could have all been loaded onto the aircraft at one time. The performance and handling would suck, but it COULD have been done. I agree that it might not have been a historical loadout, but if it could have been technically done, why not? Let the pilot decide how to load his plane.
Also, I agree with you on your point about more options for the F-8. The more options we can get, the better, but imagine how you would feel if you just released a patch to your own software and people started ranting and raving about how pissed off they are that the other person's planes got fixed and theirs did not. amazinhunk is the word that comes to mind. Just please stop being an amazinhunk. It's not only HTC that has to see it, it's everyone else in the community too. It scares people away, and then HTC has even less money to hire people to fix your Luftwaffe.
For what it's worth...
-
Not that I really want to wade into this, but I have this info:
Fw190F-8
Number produced: 385
Photos in book with:
Fw190F-8/R1 with 300 litre droptank under the fuselage and two ETC 50 racks under each wing, each holding a 50kg bomb (4 racks and 4 bombs total)
Fw190F-8/R1 ground attack plane was armed with two supplemental 130-round Mk 103/30 cannons in addition to two MG 17s and two MG 151s.
Fw190F-8/R1 with four ETC 50 bomb racks beneath the wings (two each) and an ETC 250 rack under the fuselage, occupied by a 250kg bomb.
In a table titled:
Fw 190A, F and G Umrüst-Bausatz Factory Conversion Sets*
U1 Fw190A-8/U1 - two seater for conversion training, also known as Fw190S
U1 Fw190F-8 conversion for use as Jabo-Rei long-range fighter-bomber
U1 Temporary fitting of BMW 801C in place of -D(A-4 only)
Then it moves on to the U2 specs, ect.
There are many more intersting specs listed here and I will post them later if I have time.
The source:
The History of German Aviation
KURT TANK:
FOCKE-WULF's DESIGNER
AND TEST PILOT
by Wolfgang Wagner
Publised by Schiffer Military History
ISBN: 0-7643-0644-8
My conclusion is that RAM is correct as to the U1 designation, and I continue to believe that the Fw190F-8 should have many more options.
-
R4M,
Here is a German webpage which shows a picture of a 190F8/U1 in an RAF museum. http://www.bingo-ev.de/~eb2948/Museum/Hendon6.html (http://www.bingo-ev.de/~eb2948/Museum/Hendon6.html)
If you are right and it is a Jabo, it must have been able to carry a hell of a lot a bombs. They even put a bombardier behind the pilot.
I don't speak German, what does 'Zweisitzer' mean? Maybe it means 'two big bombs under wings'.
I've seen the Baugher site, I have know idea who he is, or why he thinks the U1 was your dream Jabo.
ra
-
I guess the other links I've posted are also done by stupids, RA. And Karnak's source is also idiotic, I guess...
I've told you once and I tell you again, it wont be the first time a same designation is used for different planes. Such is the case of teh 109G6/R2. And such seems to be the case of the Fw190A8/U1 with the Fw190S.
-
It's incredible the effort people put up to disprove something that has been backed up with countless sources. :rolleyes:
The trainer was the 190S, the prototype for the trainer was designated U-1. numerous F8s were equipped to carry 2 drop tanks or 250kg bombs underwing in addition to the centerline tank or bomb. These were fielded as the replacements for the 190Gs. I've seen this in numerous sources, guess it's time to make a trip to the military library...maybe we need to do a seance and get Miss Cleo to channel Kurt Tank to convince everyone.
-
Ram, you do realize the source I quoted supports your viewpoint, right? You do realize this means that, despite me agreeing with you, you appear to wish to continue to argue with me about it?
I'm wondering if you are reading everyone's posts completely or not?
-
I was thinking the same thing.
My interest was almost nil, now none.
Carry on.
-
Originally posted by Kieran:
Ram, you do realize the source I quoted supports your viewpoint, right? You do realize this means that, despite me agreeing with you, you appear to wish to continue to argue with me about it?
I'm wondering if you are reading everyone's posts completely or not?
Kieren, just because it was supporting my view point, I said what I said. That book is not reliable to extract conclussions. I didnt say a thing after creamo's post for a good reason (to not make people think I'm discrediting sources just because they dont agree with my points). Note that I said NOTHING of what I said in my answer to you, in the posts I made after Creamo. For a good reason.
Then you came in with that part wich supported what I said, and I posted about my thoughts about the source. That book is not really reliable as source of information. Just wanted to say it in a way it shows I really think that honestly and not because a bias :)
hope is better understood now :)
[ 11-30-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]
-
Wasn't this thread about a patch to AH?
Doesn't all the esoteric stuff about how many rivets were on the aileron trim tab.. for those who actually care how many... go in another thread or something?
Common sense, common courtesy.
-
Tell ya what, Ram. Think what you will. Wouldn't matter what source I put up there, you aren't going to settle down anyway. If I can't agree with you and make you happy, well... kiss my butt. You are now arguing just for argument's sake. :rolleyes:
-
Does anybody else here suffer from chronic tinnitus(ringing in your ears)? I've abused my ears since I was a kid through firearms, music, and working in aviation. I now suffer chronic tinnitus and high frequency hearing loss. My ears are always ringing, it's not an occasional state. Yet I rarely notice it. It's only when I think about it that I notice it. For the most part, I'm successful in ignoring this irritating and chronic condition that has driven some people to suicide. I am often amazed at my inherent ability to filter this nuisance out. Once I think about it, it just amazes me that just a moment before I didn't even notice it when now it is a din in my ears. It's weird. I've come to the conclusion that I have a pretty good low-pass filter built into my brain. I also think this ability extends beyond filtering out audible sensations. What I've been recently wondering about is whether other tinnitus sufferers have similar abilities. I read this thread and I realize how much other stuff I filter on a day to day basis and wonder if it's related to suffering from tinnitus.
-
Ouch :)
-
Nice one, Pyro!
Funk, don't worry... it'll go right over his head. :D
-
We were always told it makes you blind, not deaf......
-
Ram reads pyro's post and wonders what that had to do with FW's and P-47's.
LOL, I got aggravated myself :) Shame on me for breaking my own rule.
-
I have that condition too, Pyro, though I didn't know the name for it. Sorry to have been part of bringing your attention back to the "din".
-
Get a big cotton swab... and push ;)
"the highly unrealistic ammo counters from all planes except the german ones"
I agree, I'd love this option. Makes people not spray and pray knowing their ammo to the last bullet. Or if they spray and pray, they will suddenly hear the click-o-youintroublebuddy sound.
-
Kieren: Was not to argue with you. Was to give my opinion on creamo's source reliability. See the smilie at the end of my post answering you.
Had I posted that answer to creamo, then I'd be a LWhiner because I think that any source not backing my points is not reliable. Had I posted that answer to you (when you were in fact backing my point), then is that I dont read other's posts.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't <G>.
Think whatever you want. In fact is what you do isnt it? :)
Originally posted by Toad:
Nice one, Pyro!
Funk, don't worry... it'll go right over his head. :D
Nah, Toad. in fact I have extracted some sad consequences from this thread.
Once again :)
What amazes myself is that just some months ago I'd have felt sad and even unhappy by that answer.Now I simply don't mind, and it really surprises me :).
I have learnt some lessons about HTC today, too. Not good lessons, but I'll keep those thoughts to myself. (another thing wich I'd not have done just 6 months ago :D ;))
-
Here's a thought for you; did it ever occur to you that all references have errors, and what one should do is to collect references from as many as possible to build an argument? To automatically refute all information from a book because some of the information is erroneous is about as invalid as taking one book as the end-all, be-all source.
FWIW, I never said the book was the definitive source, only that I found a reference to that which you were defending. BTW, do you know what a Pyrrhic victory is? ;)
-
Your ping ponging back and forth on so many topics, good grief.
You have to stay on topic or start 5 new threads.
Your between actually being really pissed about HTC developing planes before others, 190F8 variants not complete or properly represented, which books concerning this are correct, which are not, which are not correct and agree with you, which are correct and agree with you but not others, etc…
Then there’s why you can’t answer me because it’s a super clever ploy by you to avoid a Lwiner moniker, and now your switching to play the “Poor ‘Ol me card” to include what a better person you are today, and because of it you can take the abusive online AH community led by that mean ‘Ol ringleader Pyro who as we all know pipes in on every thread just to pick on the innocents.
One can only speculate what bad lessons HTC teaches you and all the bad cards they play only you.
When important things in reality and life hit like the day you get a job and your first tax bill, Pyro’s won’t be the only ears ringing from the screaming. I personally can’t wait.
-
well said by creamo. He's got you down to a tee. Basically R4M is full of crap.
[ 12-01-2001: Message edited by: -ammo- ]
-
Ram,
Maybe you got the message he intended for the entire community (IMO) but I doubt it.
The very fact that you apparently think he aimed directly and only at you makes me wonder if you did.
-
Toad.
I was not referring to Pyro's message itself, But about his long and complete silence about the topic in discussion...He has done just the same in the A&V forum, too. For months. He has posted several times there to answer several questions and explain many things about other planes, FMs, etc. AFAIK, he uses to give some good input when questions and suggestions are made in that forum.
Yet.. I can't recall ONE post from Pyro talking about the Fw190F8 loadouts. See, there have been quite many threads in the Aircraft forums, all of them quite well documented...but nothing from him. And here, once again, he comes into the discussion and ignores COMPLETELY the F8 matter...
He has also kept a complete silence about the Fw190A5 speed chart also in the A&V forum. He posted a couple of days ago in the A&V forum, when that thread was up... but je ignored that thread... And that was what I was referring to when I talked about "the lesson HTC has teached me". They ignore some topics on purpose: there is not another explanation to such a complete silence on certain matters, for such a looooooooong time.
When the P47 FM was put into doubt he came to say it was OK (granted, in his test version it was OK, not in the user's version -wich lead to a long time before a fix, but he took the time to there and say he had looked into it.). When the Paddle prop for the D11 was discussed he came there and explained why it wasnt modelled. When the P38 FM was discussed, several times he has posted about it. Same about the DM of some planes (including, yes, the Fw190's engine problem). And a long etcetera.
All those things made me think Pyro was quite fair and explanative, and that he gave quite good information in the forums when he was asked. Any information, about anything.
But he has given no answer about the F8 loadouts. Nothing...so what I thought about him is not true. That is the lesson I learnt. :)
Its OK...this is HTC's game; Pyro is the man who models planes FMs ,DMs and gunnery models. And of course he's absolutely free to post about what he wants and to dont say a word about what he doesn't. But what it happens, is that I just thought different from HTC. :)
But anyway, yes,I took his message as more or less aimed at me. Maybe it was directed for the whole community but yes, I took especially for me. As for the reason why I took it that way, I'd say that he has posted in -this- thread, where I get so heavily involved...Not in other thread. and there have been quite MANY threads with complains lately...this at least has had some good technical discussion about the Fw190F8...but you'll tell me which good had the Mindanao threads.
Yet he posted here. Reason?. Me ,I guess. I may be wrong?. Sure...but is the way I took it.
Anyway I don't mind . If that is what he thinks about me, then I'm sorry...there's not much I can do at this stage, right? :).
[ 12-01-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]
-
P.S: and just for the sake of clarity. I know perfectly that Pyro or HT could be completely silent about their FMs, DMs, etc. In the current software industry this is pretty usual, yet they are very communicative and tend to be "near the community".
So dont take me wrong, I dont say that I think that HTC suddenly sucks ;). I still think they rock in many ways, and that they are some of the best developers around (if not the best). Just now I feel a bit dissapointed about a couple of matters I didnt felt that way before.
[ 12-01-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]