« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10   Go Down

Author Topic: the BF110G2  (Read 5256 times)

Offline Wulfmen

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 68
      • http://www.Blackadders.de
the BF110G2
« Reply #75 on: March 16, 2002, 10:22:59 AM »
data from G2
Modell:               Bf 110G2

Dimensions
Span               16.30 m (53 ft 5 in)
Length            12.10 m (39 ft 8 in)
Height              4.13 m (13 ft 6.5 in)
Wing Area      38.50sq m (4,144 sq ft)

Powerplant
Type                     DB 605 B
Cubic Capacity     35.7 liters (2,068 cu in)
Cylinders              Inverted V12 cylinder
Horsepower         1,475 hp

Weights and Loads
Empty weight        5,700 kg 4,111 lb
Gross weight        7,300 kg 4,526 lbs

Performance
Maximum speed    595 kph at 6,100 m     (370 mph at 20,013 ft)
Cruising speed      450 kph at 9,000 m     (280 mph at 29,527 ft)
Service ceiling        11,000 m ( 36,089 ft)
Range (internal)      1,000 km (621 miles)

this are datas from the normal G2 w 4x7,9 MG15
think the G2R4 what we have have the same datas.
greeeeeeeets
Logged

Offline SageFIN

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 176
the BF110G2
« Reply #76 on: March 16, 2002, 10:57:30 AM »
I'd bet that Pyro has seen data to support both ~340 mph as well as ~370 mph for max speed. Apparently he concluded that the 370 mph figure was correct. Perhaps you guys should ask Pyro the reason for that, if you believe that the 340 figure is the correct one?
Logged

Offline mora

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2351
the BF110G2
« Reply #77 on: March 16, 2002, 11:01:16 AM »
According to Verms data the G2 shouldn't be any faster than C4. I find that a little hard to believe.
Logged

Offline Vermillion

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4012
the BF110G2
« Reply #78 on: March 16, 2002, 11:08:52 AM »
Actually Mora, no. :)

The Me110 in Action source, lists the Me110C3 (which should be lighter and slightly faster than the C4) as a max speed of 336mph at 19,865 ft.

Which means that (at least according to the Signal Pubications book) both of the 110's in AH are too fast ;)

But I readily admitt that I don't have any really high quality data on the 110 series, and it would be interesting to see what data Pyro is using for that plane.

Wulfmen, whats your source for that data?
« Last Edit: March 16, 2002, 11:11:51 AM by Vermillion »
Logged

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
the BF110G2
« Reply #79 on: March 16, 2002, 11:43:07 AM »
"No, I believe that the Bf110G-2 climbs significantly faster than it should."


Well you whiners allready got HTC to add a ton of weight and drag to the 110, certainly you will get everything else you ask for.  :rolleyes:

Damn luft(allied)whiners.......
Logged

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
the BF110G2
« Reply #80 on: March 16, 2002, 11:49:33 AM »
The G4 is is no way comparable to the G2.

G4 had over and above G2:

Schrage Musik!
Huge radar antlers!
Heavy radar sets inside!
Very heavy and high drag flame dampers!
Very heavy and high drag underfuselage pod!
More weight due to other night fighting devices!

You cant compare them except to say G2 will fly better in every way......
Logged

Offline Vector

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 534
the BF110G2
« Reply #81 on: March 16, 2002, 12:40:07 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by SageFIN
Perhaps you guys should ask Pyro the reason for that, if you believe that the 340 figure is the correct one?


Who ever said anything about 340 being the correct figure?
There just seems to be great differences between different sources, which is strange.
:)
Logged

Offline J_A_B

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3012
the BF110G2
« Reply #82 on: March 16, 2002, 12:56:07 PM »
Not strange all.  Lots of planes have wildly different performance figures depending on which source you use.  

J_A_B
Logged

Offline Wilbus

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4472
the BF110G2
« Reply #83 on: March 16, 2002, 02:50:24 PM »
CC Grunherz, like I said in some posts above, only you made it short ;)

Wulfmen, that Data can't be trusted in any way what so ever, sorry, I allso found it on inetnet, probarly same page.

Take this for example
 
Quote

Weights and Loads
Empty weight  5,700 kg 4,111 lb
Gross weight 7,300 kg 4,526 lbs


7,300kg is NOT 4,526lbs, it is about 16,000 lbs, don't dare to trust anything else in that :(

Verm, the two books I have with 110 Info in indicates that the C4 has a speed of 349mph at 22,965 feet.
Logged
Rasmus "Wilbus" Mattsson

Liberating Livestock since 1998, recently returned from a 5 year Sheep-care training camp.

Offline Wilbus

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4472
the BF110G2
« Reply #84 on: March 16, 2002, 02:52:16 PM »
Quote
Dashe, if Ammo tested 110G's speed 379mph and books and other information says it should be aroung 343 mph, then it is not matter of not being able to fight against it, but indeed there could be something wrong in the modelling.


Well, all books and charts say that the TA152 had a top speed of 472mph at 41,000 feet but nothing has been done about that...
Logged
Rasmus "Wilbus" Mattsson

Liberating Livestock since 1998, recently returned from a 5 year Sheep-care training camp.

Offline Soviet

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 586
      • http://flanker2.8m.net
the BF110G2
« Reply #85 on: March 16, 2002, 03:09:53 PM »
STOP WHINING!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The G-2 is fine in the game, you got some weight/drag added to it.  Plus it's an easy enough kill.  You want to make it even more easy to kill? god.

Just because it isn't a total easy kill as you suspected don't whine that it should be made easier to kill.  Just kill it where it's weak. I've had spits, nik2s... outturn me.  I've outturnked nik2s, it all depends on the pilot.  The truth is a lot of people who fly the 110 are experienced and good pilots.
Logged

Offline EvilDingo

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 135
      • http://www.mp3.com/einsteinband
the BF110G2
« Reply #86 on: March 16, 2002, 04:54:10 PM »
Hey SKurj,

Laugh! I apologize. I only skimmed over the first billion or so replies and had come to the assumption you meant the K/D was overly good. Either way, good or bad, it's early to say. :)



Dingo
Logged

Offline Wilbus

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4472
the BF110G2
« Reply #87 on: March 16, 2002, 07:58:18 PM »
Allso, the 110 suffers from the "glass tail" syndrome like the P38, hope we get that changed too.
Logged
Rasmus "Wilbus" Mattsson

Liberating Livestock since 1998, recently returned from a 5 year Sheep-care training camp.

Offline Staga

  • Parolee
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5334
      • http://www.nohomersclub.com/
the BF110G2
« Reply #88 on: March 16, 2002, 08:26:56 PM »
Actually every plane suffers about glass made tails. I'm quite sure we all have seen gun-cam footages from ww2 but right now I don't remember any film where tail drops off from fighter.

Punt for more realistic damage model :)
Logged

Offline J_A_B

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3012
the BF110G2
« Reply #89 on: March 16, 2002, 10:09:38 PM »
"I'm quite sure we all have seen gun-cam footages from ww2 but right now I don't remember any film where tail drops off from fighter. "

True, but one thing AH doesn't model and cannot model is a human's desire to LIVE.  A computer game damage model has to be programmed in such a way as to render the "losing" plane totally unable to fight and/or escape.  AH's "break off" system, while it may or may not be 100% true to life (this is debatable), performs this task.

Do you really want to have people flying around in smoking gliders trying to face-shoot each other?  I've been there, done that, and it REALLY SUCKS.

If AH were to make fire/engine damage the main cause of destruction, then it must also make the so-damaged plane unable to effectively control itself; thick black smoke in the cockpit or junk on the windshield would accomplish this task (like the scene of the damaged "109" in the Battle of Britain film).

J_A_B
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10   Go Up
« previous next »