ME-262 - not sure if this has been mentioned...

[PuppetZ]

From what I've gathered, the R4M would not badly unbalance gameplay. Since it's an unguided rocket, a simple change of course will defeat the firing solution, save a few lucky shots here and there. Let's look at the facts, the R4M had a 1175 mph projectile speed, about 500yds/s. A salvo fired from 2000yds away would take roughly 4 seconds to get to target. Only the unwary or AFK buff pilot, or one you catch in the bomb sight, would be threatened by it. A battery of R4M constited of 24 rockets, salvoed 6 at a time at 0.07s interval, filling a box 15m X 30m(40ft high X 78ft wide). I'd have no problem with ading them. I suspect they would not be game breaker in any way.

 

[33Vortex]

Because in the end, This is a game. And what happens in the game does not always go by what happened in WW2.

WWII Had massive allied bomber Hordes performing numerous raids a day Which called for the 262 to need rockets to deal with it all.

AH bomber strength comes no wheres close to justifieng their inclusion. Do we have bomber raids? Sure. In scenarios, etc, and in the MA once in a blue moon, But even those raids arent big enough to warrent the R4M rocket inclusion.

One day, when the numbers are large enough, and we have a dedicated bomber force that is launching massive raids in-game that consist of atleast 100+ buffs in a single run, Then sure. bring the R4M rockets in. But right now it seems the 262 pilots want the R4m rockets just so they can down a buff without having to put their precious perked' ride in danger of defencive fire.

Somehow, I don't believe your opinion on the matter represents what HTC think of it. Their criteria is, did the equipment see action during WW2 in at least squadron strength? In this case that would be a very clear yes. Furthermore, last time I checked, Aces High II aspire to be more than just a game of action and entertainment. It is also a simulation of WW2 air (ground and sea to some extent) combat, and not only that... this game does it to a very high standard of realism when it comes to simulating physics, aircraft handling and historical accuracy. So I believe you are venturing out on thin ice as you argue the way you do. If any one weapon system and/or aircraft threaten to disrupt gameplay (in the MA, mind you) it will be perked. End of story, that's it. See the B29 and Me262 if you don't believe me.

How can you argue with this?  

It's also a established fact and expressed opinion from HTC that they do want to develop their game, and continually do as we see every other month or so. How can this be missed by a paying customer who check in more-or-less regularly to the HTC site? Their problem is more of the nature... difficulty to choose which equipment to add, because there is a vast selection to choose from that has not yet been added. Considering their limited staff, this is a problem they have, allocating resources so that they can expand on their product in the most efficient way continually adding content that their customers can appreciate add value to the experience.

You seem to be of the opinion that this particular addition would not add value to the game, however you seem to be a minority. Many here also seem to disagree with your logic, which means it is not factually based but solely your own opinion on the matter. Well we all have opinons, doesn't mean we are right to impose those opinions on others.

[FLOTSOM]

the GV'ers defence is air support.  the 262 can get the job done against the limited buff "hordes" in here with its 4 30mms. no need for the R4M rockets to make it an even easier job for them.

well if air support is good enough for the gv'ers then why should the bombers receive any special treatment or protective measures? they have alt and lazer targeted .50's for their protection, and a 51 can chase down a 262 at any alt making his setting up the shot against escorted bombers a very risky maneuver.

face it your arguments hold no reasonable supporting argument. 262's are rare to start with, i am certain that a 262 with 24 rockets would suffer a dramatic performance hit making it an easier target to everyone (even after the rockets were deployed the pods remain) making them undeseriable to those few who would up a 262, thus 262's being rare and an additional loss of performance would translate into a 262 loaded with rockets would be the rarest of the rare.

your arguments dont add up to game changing, the just add up to fear of potentionally losing your easy points..........

[Debrody]

The in-game 262 can run with ~520 mph at usual combat altitudes, 0-12K, and can climb 2800-3200 feet/min depending on the amount of fuel you have on board.
Its a very clean airframe, with minimal drag. Also its jet engines are weak, producing only a limited amount of thrust.
With one flapnotch open, it cant exceed 370mph. I "guess" the rockets would result about the same amount of extra drag, reducing its speed to about 420-450mph, what is pretty much catchable by a high pony.
Here goes your tyranny.
Even tho i wouldnt really fly that configuration, i can see no point why i shouldnt be added.

[FLOTSOM]

The in-game 262 can run with ~520 mph at usual combat altitudes, 0-12K, and can climb 2800-3200 feet/min depending on the amount of fuel you have on board.
Its a very clean airframe, with minimal drag. Also its jet engines are weak, producing only a limited amount of thrust.
With one flapnotch open, it cant exceed 370mph. I "guess" the rockets would result about the same amount of extra drag, reducing its speed to about 420-450mph, what is pretty much catchable by a high pony.
Here goes your tyranny.
Even tho i wouldnt really fly that configuration, i can see no point why i shouldnt be added.

one more thought on this is look how easy it is to rip the wings off the clean winged version of the 262, how much easier would it be with rocket pods mounted to the wings??? how much further would they restrict the high speed dive capabilities of the 262? or high speed turning?

[33Vortex]

The main performance impact would be drag I would think, but sure structural resonance is changed as you add mass to it and if not properly analyzed and tested the effects can be very negative. I do not know what the specifics were in this case but all things considered it is a possibility that it was a factor in this combination as the germans fielded more and more desperate measures as the situation deteriorated.

[Krusty]

R4Ms added almost no drag and were in very flush wooden racks under the wings.

[FLOTSOM]

R4Ms added almost no drag and were in very flush wooden racks under the wings.

do you have any documentaion on this, that is in english that is

[Krusty]

Personally, no, but this is an old old old topic, and folks have posted the data previously. The R4Ms produce almost no ill side effects when mounted, is the concensus.

[VonMessa]

There were also ground attack versions of the R4M, as well 

[FLOTSOM]

Personally, no, but this is an old old old topic, and folks have posted the data previously. The R4Ms produce almost no ill side effects when mounted, is the concensus.

well that would be a surprisingly cool thing!

i would think that in the light of some of our plane sets loss of performance to bomb and fuel tank mounts even after the bomb or tank had been ejected that the empty rocket launcher pods would cause drag. although flat the 262 rocket launchers are still taller and much wider than the standard bomb or fuel tank mounts.

i would think also that the additional weight of the luanchers and the rockets (estimated at 150 plus pounds per wing), being located to the far side of the engine on the wing, would be cause for worry until all of the rockets had been fired. this part of the 262 wing seems the most vulnerable point of the wing and tends to snap off very easily......

well i guess we shall have to wait and see what it turns into after (if ever) it is modeled.

[EagleDNY]

one more thought on this is look how easy it is to rip the wings off the clean winged version of the 262, how much easier would it be with rocket pods mounted to the wings??? how much further would they restrict the high speed dive capabilities of the 262? or high speed turning?

^ what he said!  Slow the 262 down, and add weight to the wings that can already be snapped off - go for it.  I fly plenty of buffs, and I somehow doubt that many 262 drivers are going to be able to hit the broadside of a barn at 2K out.  Slowing them down for the escorts and making them paranoid about high G maneuvers is OK by me. 

Frankly, I'd rather have the bomb racks myself but I doubt many people will want to jeopardize their precious 262s doing jabo work either.

[Karnak]

Get an Me262 up to top speed, bring up your E6B and watch the speed when you pull the trigger.  It doesn't take much to drop 20-30mph off of an Me262's top speed.

[TheRhino]

one more thought on this is look how easy it is to rip the wings off the clean winged version of the 262, how much easier would it be with rocket pods mounted to the wings??? how much further would they restrict the high speed dive capabilities of the 262? or high speed turning?

lol your starting to put me off of the R4Ms   

[Krusty]

Since they nerfed the elevator authority I haven't even come CLOSE to ripping my wingtips off in a 262. I've even tried, especially tight turns that would used full elevator deflection (still about HALF what it used to be) and nothing... (done offline, naturally).


IMO it might reduce roll rate, but this plane rolls okay as-is. It may add a couple hundred pounds (maybe? I haven't looked it up) but this is on a 15,000 lb airframe. I didn't mean there would be NO impact. Just no impact significant enough to worry about. Like bomb racks after you drop the DT, where they only remove 3mph or so (to make up an example).