Author Topic: Making a case for later D models  (Read 2874 times)

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
Re: Making a case for later D models
« Reply #15 on: September 16, 2013, 01:58:12 PM »
In that context AH is the biggest what-if. Following your own logic, how can you even stand flying in the MA?
Are you a lawyer?  You know what I meant and you are choosing to be pedantic.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Stampf

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11491
Re: Making a case for later D models
« Reply #16 on: September 16, 2013, 02:14:54 PM »
I hesitated to even post what I did, knowing this thread would digress.

Can't we just say...Wow...what a beauty.  Admire the aircraft for what it is/was.  I wish more saw action, but considering the chaos in Germany 1945, it wasn't to be.

No need to split hairs over the 'What if' term.  Obviously the plane existed and arguably meets AH standards for inclusion.  No need for Luftphobia from anyone...Turner is posting his hearts desire...this is the forum for that.

- Der Wander Zirkus -
- La Fabrica de Exitos -

Offline VonMessa

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11922
Re: Making a case for later D models
« Reply #17 on: September 16, 2013, 02:22:34 PM »
I hesitated to even post what I did, knowing this thread would digress.

Can't we just say...Wow...what a beauty.  Admire the aircraft for what it is/was.  I wish more saw action, but considering the chaos in Germany 1945, it wasn't to be.

No need to split hairs over the 'What if' term.  Obviously the plane existed and arguably meets AH standards for inclusion.  No need for Luftphobia from anyone...Turner is posting his hearts desire...this is the forum for that.



That sounds worse than Reefer Madness!!!

 :noid
Braümeister und Schmutziger Hund von JG11


We are all here because we are not all there.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
Re: Making a case for later D models
« Reply #18 on: September 16, 2013, 02:27:18 PM »
Luftphobia?

Is that where one wants Luftwaffe aircraft that were produced in large numbers to be added but thinks German aircraft produced in single digit/low double digit numbers ought to be at the bottom of any list along with American, British, Russian, Italian and Japanese aircraft produced in single digit/low double digit numbers?

Ok then.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline earl1937

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2290
Re: Making a case for later D models
« Reply #19 on: September 16, 2013, 02:31:53 PM »
Ok, so we have the D-9 in the game. Everyone are or at least should be quite well aware of it, what it can do etc and it is a fact that it is one of the more popular aircraft in the AH inventory. However there were three more main FW190D versions the D-11, D-12 and D-13. These types are all really the same aircraft as the D-9 with the main difference that it has the Junker Jumo 213E engine, instead of the 213A. It is the same engine that we have in AH already in the Ta152H.
Development of the FW190 line of a/c progressed much the same way the P47 designations did (P47D-11, D-25 and so on). Now, some 17 D-11s were manufactured, only three D-12s because it was cancelled in favor of the D-13 of which it is deemed probable 17 or more were manufactured but it is unknown if they saw combat. The only difference between the three types is armament otherwise they are identical. This makes for 30 or more manufactured, the D-11 did see combat that is confirmed as JV44s Platzschutzstaffel downed a P47 with one D-11.

The differences vs the much more common and well known D-9 are:
Larger air intake because of the Jumo 213E and flat cowling gun access panel since they were deleted (same nose as on the Ta152H) on all models.
D-11, 2 x inboard MG151/20 + 2 x outboard Mk108.
D-12, 2 x inboard MG151/20 + single Mk108 motorkanone (identical setup to the Ta152H we have).
D-13, 2 x inboard MG151/20 + single MG151/20 motorkanone.

The point is that these three are the same aircraft except in armament. It is also known that these armament modifications could be made in the field, so a D-11 could become a D-13 or D-12 simply by swapping cannons around. The most famous Dora today is a D-13, Yellow 10 of JG26 Kommodore Franz Götz now in the hands of the Flying Heritage Collection, in flyable condition yet never flown. As a sidenote they also own the only BMW801D powered FW190A remaining to this day.

Introduction of the later Dora models were not as if a unit received a new aircraft type, the new types were mixed with the more common D-9 for obvious reasons. It is the same aircraft with the only significant difference being the engine upgrade.

Now in light of the state of the game I know how this comes across. The discussion on late Luftwaffe planes seem to be never ending on these boards. However I think the addition should interest HTC in that it requires minimal work to include it, and the marketing aspect. This of course, without knowing what HTC is working on in terms of features and upgrades to strengthen the marketing position. However it is my take on it that most of the requested Luftwaffe rides that appear time and time again here require not only a new model, but also a flight model to be built without any data available, besides the fact that the requested type many times never saw combat. Personally I'm a huge fan of the 152 series and the C in particular, but I don't hope to see that one in AH any time soon. The later D models however are not a stretch, they are essentially identical to the D-9 but deserve a perk for the engine upgrade which is no small affair in terms of performance improvement over the D-9.

So I make a wish for any of the later D models to be included, but D-11 or D-13 would be most logical. I don't know if HTC see this as worthwhile but one thing is for sure, if it was added it would satisfy the Luftwaffe crowd in this game probably for a long time ahead.

To my peers, the addition in question would not be a super bomber killer, a D-13 would be worse off at altitude than the Ta152H heavier than the D-9 but faster. D-13 much the same as D-9 only faster so I guess it would be a pony killer, but I guess we have several pony killers in the game already such as the F4U-4. The historical rarity and performance does warrant a perk penalty, but that is all.


(Image removed from quote.)

Here is the only surviving and still airworthy Dora in the world. The D-13 of Franz Götz Geschwaderkommodore JG26. It is the same aircraft that was tested post-war in mock air combat against a Tempest V, for the occasion piloted by Major Heinz Lange (10 flights in a D-9) who was not informed it was a D-13 he was flying and not a D-9.
:rolleyes: What? More 190's to shoot down my bombers! Shame on you sir! BTW, great pic of 190, I have added it to my collection of over 350 aircraft!
Blue Skies and wind at my back and wish that for all!!!

Offline Butcher

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5323
Re: Making a case for later D models
« Reply #20 on: September 16, 2013, 03:14:52 PM »
Obviously the plane existed and arguably meets AH standards for inclusion.  No need for Luftphobia from anyone...Turner is posting his hearts desire...this is the forum for that.

I don't see anyone with Luftphobia, surely wouldn't be me since I posted this same topic years ago which I was given my first taste of "No its a prototype" - before then I had no books or material to read, rather speaking I am trying to find proof it was more then a prototype. To meet AH Standards it cannot be a prototype, after all we are discussing it right? If you would post for the Fw-190A3, A6 or A9  I could easily say YES! However If we allow something that didn't even get out of the prototype stage, this will open a can of worms of other aircrafts such as "On the way to the pacific theater, but did not fly a combat sortie".

Beautiful aircraft indeed, Tank's ability to design was amazing, I wish he was able to improve on the design especially the Dora - would of been interesting to see what happened in 1945 or 46.
JG 52

Offline 33Vortex

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4754
      • Dirac's equation (non truncated)
Re: Making a case for later D models
« Reply #21 on: September 16, 2013, 03:22:46 PM »
It was not a prototype, that is rubbish. So if the D-11, D-12, D-13 were all prototypes, what the F was the D-9?

Can you understand that the aircraft were identical to the D-9, which was fielded and saw combat in significant numbers. The modification in the Jumo 213E installation was NOT a big redesign, it was the same engine as the 213A only upgraded in performance. The D-12 was not awarded a production contract, for whatever reason, but the D-11 and D-13 were ordered to be manufactured in series of ~800 aircraft each.

Sounds much like a prototype to you?

GameID: Turner
Truth has no agenda.

Offline Butcher

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5323
Re: Making a case for later D models
« Reply #22 on: September 16, 2013, 03:42:40 PM »
It was not a prototype, that is rubbish. So if the D-11, D-12, D-13 were all prototypes, what the F was the D-9?

Well the Dora 9 was produced with around 700 built this is a fact, I have no information on any production aircraft beyond that - only that even in April 1945 the final batch of Dora 9s were handed to Jagddgeschwader 6 "Horst Wessel" with over 140 aircraft handed to them and only 4 at a time were flown into combat due to shortage of fuel since priority were given to Jets.
Gerhard Barkhorn was in charge of JG6 on April 1945, either he can't tell difference between aircraft or his standing orders were for 4 Dora 9s to be flown on Combat patrols? Why was he not given D-11s or D-13s if they were in production? why would the factories produce specifically Dora 9s on April 1945?
Perhaps he couldn't tell the difference, its a possibility as Heinz Lange, I am just trying to find information on the series not to be insulted or attacked over it, but you are offering no information to show proof they were in fact built?

Does anyone have information? I am not against the D-11 or D-13, but I have no proof they were built, this is after all a discussion board, can we not find the information together rather then just piss and argue for no reason?
« Last Edit: September 16, 2013, 03:45:32 PM by Butcher »
JG 52

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
Re: Making a case for later D models
« Reply #23 on: September 16, 2013, 03:46:29 PM »
It wasn't a prototype.  It was, however, completely irrelevant and would represent a new low in the level of bar needing to be leapt to get added.  Perhaps someday all of the much more significant aircraft will have been added and that bar height will be appropriate, but right now you have aircraft that would clear the bar with miles of air under them that still haven't been added.

Talking about the D-11, D-12 and D-13 in the Planes and Vehicles forum would net you a very different discussion than posting a thread titled "Making a case for later D models" in the Wishlist forum.  They are good looking fighters, no doubt.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Butcher

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5323
Re: Making a case for later D models
« Reply #24 on: September 16, 2013, 03:49:08 PM »
It wasn't a prototype.

So they were built and flown into combat then? I have a few books on the dora series but nothing givens me anything more then what changes they made - most start out "prototype blah blah" and thats it, no records or information on them.

Always been curious about them, but I just never got any information, in fact I only have one small book on the Ta-152 series and doesn't even mention the Dora.
JG 52

Offline Guppy35

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 20385
Re: Making a case for later D models
« Reply #25 on: September 16, 2013, 03:50:10 PM »
You can have them if I can have a Spitfire XII, Spitfire LF IX with Universal full span wing and a Seafire LFIII :)

The argument for my three is far stronger than your three as well :aok
Dan/CorkyJr
8th FS "Headhunters

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
Re: Making a case for later D models
« Reply #26 on: September 16, 2013, 03:52:30 PM »
So they were built and flown into combat then? I have a few books on the dora series but nothing givens me anything more then what changes they made - most start out "prototype blah blah" and thats it, no records or information on them.

Always been curious about them, but I just never got any information, in fact I only have one small book on the Ta-152 series and doesn't even mention the Dora.
I don't know if they were flown into combat, but that isn't what defines a prototype as a prototype.  If it was ordered into series production then it was out of prototype.  The Zero's successor was the A7M and Mitsubishi, reportedly, built all of 7 of them.  It never came close to seeing action, but it wasn't a prototype anymore either as it had been accepted by the IJN and ordered into production.

You can have them if I can have a Spitfire XII, Spitfire LF IX with Universal full span wing and a Seafire LFIII :)

The argument for my three is far stronger than your three as well :aok
You'd need to be asking for the Spitfire F.21 to be making an equivalent request.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline 33Vortex

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4754
      • Dirac's equation (non truncated)
Re: Making a case for later D models
« Reply #27 on: September 16, 2013, 03:56:06 PM »
You can have them if I can have a Spitfire XII, Spitfire LF IX with Universal full span wing and a Seafire LFIII :)

The argument for my three is far stronger than your three as well :aok

Yes, yes and yes, more flavor for everyone. This just happens to be my flavor.

Butcher the Platzschutzstaffel of JV44 downed a P47 with one of their D-11s. And they were not prototypes because they were contracted. I'll see if I can find a proper source on that, right now I'm busy with this...


GameID: Turner
Truth has no agenda.

Offline Stampf

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11491
Re: Making a case for later D models
« Reply #28 on: September 16, 2013, 03:57:24 PM »

Butcher,

I was wondering as well why you call the D-13 a prototype...when two known examples (WNr 350168 and 836017) posted above, of field deployed units are documented.  In case you did not know this, and I kind of think you do...when the Wrk order # changes for the same aircraft...it is because that aircraft has gone from testing to deployment.  The mere fact of that alone, coupled with the obvious deployment to Stab JG26...discounts prototype stage. 

Not all D-11's were prototypes either.  Obviously Red 4 of JV44 was kombat deployed...and two more have been found as well.

I am not arguing with your desire for earlier 190's...that's for sure...nor with anything you are saying except the prototype comment.  I am sure you,...like me truly hope more information is found/discovered some day....and likely it will, as more and more great stuff is uncovered seemingly daily.

<S>

Butcher....what would you like to know about the D-series?  I can help you. 



 

- Der Wander Zirkus -
- La Fabrica de Exitos -

Offline Butcher

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5323
Re: Making a case for later D models
« Reply #29 on: September 16, 2013, 03:58:08 PM »
Yes, yes and yes, more flavor for everyone. This just happens to be my flavor.

Butcher the Platzschutzstaffel of JV44 downed a P47 with one of their D-11s. And they were not prototypes because they were contracted. I'll see if I can find a proper source on that, right now I'm busy with this...

(Image removed from quote.)

Nice losses, I take it you are playing the Luftwaffe! I am on turn 85 of 700 as allies right now (First time as an Allied player for it). Make sure you crank out those Ta-152s :)
JG 52