Author Topic: HTC, DT and bombs for C.205 plz (Read 665 times)

xela · « **on:** January 30, 2000, 04:05:00 AM »

This was mentioned already once but no final answer was given, so.. this plane could carry both and probably did so also in RL. Even if not, this is not unballancing anything methinks but would make flying this plane even a greater pleasure. And if not possible to model, care to tell the reasons? Thx.

------------------
Ciao
Alex

xela, 4° Stormo Caccia

gatt · « **Reply #1 on:** January 30, 2000, 05:29:00 AM »

Ciao Alex, nice to read you here

As far as ext fuel tanks are concerned, IMHO we should look at it from another POV.

External tanks were usually mounted on recce a/c, with reduced armament (usually only 2x20mm).

So, HTC could model another C.205 variant, i.e. the "armed recon" one, with 1 central or 2 ext wing tanks. PYRO has all the data to do it.

IMHO this should be more historically accurate.

xela · « **Reply #2 on:** January 30, 2000, 07:27:00 AM »

Ciao Gatt

my point is this: the plane could carry them from a technical point of view. How in RL the plane was used and in what circumstances should be of no interest for AH.
Given the situation in 1943 it's probably true that only RF versions carried them, but probably simply because the normal autonomy of the C.205 was enough for the fights it faced. If that should be the reason for the lack of DTs for the C.205 in AH, it would be only fair to ask for low octane fuel for the N1K or late war German planes..
Same goes for the bombs, whether C.205s were used in RL as fighter bombers or not is pretty much irrelevant, the plane could carry 320 Kgs of bombs and that should be modeled in AH.

BTW, the 3 RF versions of the C.205 where:
-short range (500km)
2x 12,7mm and 2x 7.7mm, camera in place of fuel tank behind cockpit

-medium range (760 or 920km)
2x 12,7mm and 2x 7.7mm, camera in place of fuel tank behind cockpit, 2 wing mounted fuel tanks (100 or 150 lt)

-long range (920km or 1080km)
2x 20mm, camera in place of fuel tank behind cockpit, 1 180lt fuel tank in place of the 2 12,7mm MG, 2 wing mounted fuel tanks (100 or 150 lt)

ciao
Alex

Pongo · « **Reply #3 on:** January 30, 2000, 03:39:00 PM »

While i have no prob with the 205 getting wing tanks, allowing mods to planes based on your criteria would be detrimantal to the 205 in the end...
Many people say the 109g10 "could" carry an mk103 nose cannon...
The fw190 "could" carry the r4m rocket even some kind of air to air missle.
All american planes "could" be armed as the f4u1c was.
The b17 "could" be armed with about twice the defensive fire power..and still carry 4 500s to take down a field.
Either the b17 or the b26 "could" carry 10 paras.
Technically could is a big can of worms.

------------------
Pongo
Musketeer Escadrille

Jochen · « **Reply #4 on:** January 31, 2000, 02:19:00 AM »

I agree with pongo. Planes should be modeled as they were actually used.

------------------
jochen
Geschwaderkommodore
Jagdgeschwader 2 'Richthofen' (Warbirds)

If you ever get across the sea to England,
Then maybe at the closing of the day
The bars will all be serving German lager
Which means we won the war - hip hip hooray!

xela · « **Reply #5 on:** January 31, 2000, 01:09:00 PM »

Probably you are right not to judge just by "technical possible" Pongo, game balance and feasibility are part of the equation too (and player demands

). I think giving the C.205 DTs and bombs would not be unbalancing nor would it be unfeasible, while most what you mentioned would be either of both.
Actually, for me, it would increase gameplay greatly (the same why fuel quality is not of importance, why all planes have ammo counters, why spins and stalls are a piece of cake,...), as is it right now, I can't take the C.205 for deep penetrations or to bomb the last AAA of an airfiel and the "why" is pretty much elusive too me

------------------
Ciao
Alex

xela, 4° Stormo Caccia

v-twin · « **Reply #6 on:** February 01, 2000, 11:24:00 AM »

I agree with xela.
I think we can't take the historical conditions too seriously: the AH arena is all but historical.
I obviously agree with the fact that the plane must be modelled in the correct way, but to me doesn't make sense to waste time in modelling an AC when you can't fly it.
The 205 had the possibility to carry ext tanks, so I think adding the ext tanks doesn't mean to twist the plane.
Regards

Veetwin
4°Stormo Caccia

(I apologize 4 my bad english)

gatt · « **Reply #7 on:** February 01, 2000, 12:57:00 PM »

Hehe, funny thing to disagree with squad mates

Seriously, I think that accurate range will be very important during future scenarios.
HTC *can* model a recce C.205 with 2x20mm and enuff range to get well inside enemy territory. This way everyone will be happy with that. My 2 liras.

Gatt
4th Stormo CT

v-twin · « **Reply #8 on:** February 02, 2000, 02:09:00 PM »

Hi gatt, probably I wasn't able to explain my POV (sorry, I don't know well english).
I think the ext tanks could be added for the "main arena", but of course NOT for scenarios.
The problem with the 205 is that even if you fly to the nearest enemy field, you can barely grab a little of altitude & stay over the field for a couple of passes.
Then you have to rtbing in total fuel emergency...
Very often I had to land on a friendly field without engine due end of fuel, especially when I was compelled to take off from a far field.
The 205 was fitted for carrying ext tanks, so I think in MA only we can give the 205 the possibility to load more fuel: this would simply add more possibilities to fly it.
Ciao

Veetwin
4°Stormo Caccia

Author Topic: HTC, DT and bombs for C.205 plz (Read 665 times)

v-twin

v-twin