Jump to content

Bremspropeller

Members
  • Content Count

    1622
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1248 Excellent

About Bremspropeller

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Netter gag, aber wenn vitale Funktionen des Flugzeugs gar nicht mehr funktionieren, dann habe ich da wenig Verständnis für...
  2. Milo, I had to bite my tounge and not mention him.
  3. Priller's "Black 13 - + -" had the outer guns removed. It's claimed by Caldwell that removing the outer guns was common among I./JG 26 at the invasion front. There are pictures (not many, however) that back up this claim, but it's impossible to tell whether this concerned just a few airplanes (lack of footage altogether) or if it was indeed carried out generally. One has to take Caldwell's word here. It's also suggested that Stab JG 26 had several aircraft in that configuration (there's a series of pictures about an A-7 with the outer guns removed). I have found a few (not many) pictures of A-9s with the outer guns removed in Rodeike's book on the 190. Most notably at least one (maybe two or more) aircraft of 4./ JG 301 in November '44 and at least one aircraft of 3./JG 11 in February '45. I think Patrick is correct: At the time the A-8 was around, dealing with bombers was the main mission, so the outer guns were usually not removed. It was possible, but seldomly done. I think it should be an option in game.
  4. At first glance that hypothesis seems not to be backed by photographic evidence. I checked Jochen Prien's Volume two of Jagdgeschwader 1 and 11 unit-histories and other than Heinz Bär's aircraft (he supposedly had two different aircraft - one of them had a special, wooden propeller), there's a total of two aircraft that had their outer guns removed or the outer guns aren't really visible. Both (an A-7 and an A-8) were supposedly flown by 6. Staffel. I couldn't really check JG 2, as Eric Mombeek's history of JG 2 isn't out yet for 1944.
  5. Both Bühlingen and Bär were Geschwaderkommodores. Rank comes with privileges...
  6. Only with the F-8 modification. There weren't too many A-8s without outer guns, but the modification certainly was fielded. One example was Kurt Bühlingen's A-8, which also had the Erla drop-tank shackle.
  7. Kann es evtl. auch sein, dass der Korb nur mit dem Funkbefehl "Ready Pre-Contact" aktiv wird? Kann sein, dass ich den vergessen habe und do immer fein ins Leere geflogen bin 😅 Da wir eine "Late F-14A" bekommen, sollten die Triebwerke TF-30-P414 sein, die etwas weniger Stall-anfällig sind. Bin gespannt, wie sie die Mucken und Tücken des TF-30 in dieser Beziehung simulieren. Und natürlich bin ich auf die Forrestal gespannt... Und die neue Map.
  8. Gibt es eigentlich bei der Simulation des Tank-Korbs Unterschiede zwischen On- und Offline? In Onlinemissionen (oder Missionen aus dem Missionseditor heraus gestartet) ist das Einlochen einfacher. Fliegt man eine Schnellstart-Mission, muss man die Mitte des Korbes (10cmx10cm) genau treffen und der Korb ist komplett durchlässig 🤔
  9. True words! I have both. I mostly bought the Casa to help the developer so they can make the Mirage F1. The Casa comes with an ASM (Sea Eagle IIRC), which gives it a little more flexibility.
  10. Some very good points you're making! The main problem for Germany was it's make-or-break mindset. They HAD to go to war or else the bubble-economy would collapse under their butts. Then they planned their war like a bully would plan a bar-fight: Rely on the irrational assumption that everybody can be defeated by a quick blow and that there'll be nobody flooring you with a bar-stool that you hadn't been watching and considered as a minor threat. Their intelligence-services were bad and people that were ringing alarm-bells were cut-off. When the soviets re-shuffled their factories beyond the range of german tactical bombers, the numbers-game was up. They were designed with the same purpose: Fighter. Tank was far-sighted enough to implement his experience as soldier in the First World War and the requirements that were asked from equipment in the field. He knew that building "racehorses" (fast and performant at the cost of everything else) was not the right solution for service-aircraft*. He was right and and he was so far ahead with his thinking that it impressed everybody investigating a captured 190 (well, except for the Soviets, but they never grasped the concept of Air Power). If you have 100 190s, you can do more with them than having 100 109s. Flexibility is key - funny the RLM never recognized that when they were the idiots that required medium bombers to be divebombers as well. * The Hellcat vs Corsair debate is somewhat similar, even though the Corsair was a much better all-round fighter for the mission asked of it than the 109 ever was. In that debate, the Corsair tuned out to have greater growth-potential, though.
  11. I'm going with you, when talking about *CS 23 or even Annex 2 aircraft. *CS 25 is a different game, though. There's still lots of manual labor, but automation has become very common there, too. _____ For our brethren from across the pond: *EASA-lingo. For FAA lingo, exchange "CS" (Certification Specifications) with "Part". We use the term "Part", too. But in different parts of the regulations.
  12. No. Wilhelm Heinz, who used to fly the 109 "Rote 7" and now flies his own P-51D told me the 109 is about comparable to the handling of a Pitts S-1 on the ground, while the P-51 is a total pussycat. A handling like the Pitts is totally unacceptable for an airplane handed over to the average Joe military pilot. Even in peacetime conditions. The 109 being "different" is shared by pretty much anybody who has flown it - including warbird pilots of today. No, it blew butt. The fact that other, contemporary fighters were just as bad is no remedy. It's a direct consequence of it's design-principles (which were shared by the Spitfire, for example) of speed over anything else. They'd just mate the biggest V12 available to the smallest possible airframe concievable. The result is a hotrot with limited growth-potential and in the case of the 109, unacceptable handling on the ground. The 109 was not an interceptor, but a fighter in terms of supporting a tactical air war. It needed the range, when it counted: Across the Channel and over the vast steppes of the Soviet Union. The Spitfire is just as much an overrated airplane as the 109. The fact the both the 47 and 51 were newer designs, shows that the Luftwaffe would have been better off, sending the 109 to the scrapyard and procuring newer better aircraft. Notable pilots isn't what 99% of your fighter force consists of. If the weapon-load isn't enough for the average pilot, who'd have trouble hitting a barn-door if he tried, it blows butt. The Dora climbed almost as good as any late-war 109s, yet cruised faster and had much better range and loiter. It also retained the 190's much better high-speed performance. It also dived quicker and had a higher factual q-limit (none) than the 109. There are no reports of any 190 that I know of where the airframe failed by itself and on it's own. The 109, however... The 109 had elevator-force issues and couldn't roll with the P-51. The 51 couldn't climb quite fast enough, but with 10° of flaps could turn with the 109 with ease. It could leave any 109 standing still in a dive. It would also go much farther (project airpower) and have a higher ordnance-load (roughly double the 109's). The D-9 is faster than the G-14, about as fast as the G-10 and only slower than the K-4, because it lacks a proper high-alt supercharger. The D-13 (Jumo 213F) left any 109 standing in the dust. The plain-Jane D-13 went out to 730-740kph, while equipped with the Jumo 213EB (intercooler and better radiator for a flush cowl-flap setting) it would go out as far as 770kph. The DB603-powered 190s (as in the D-14 and D-15 versions) were better than the D-13 with the Jumo 213F. The A-9 and projected A-10 190s were actually pretty good. The BMW801F engine was about to give the Anton a very substantial performance boost (comparable to strapping a Jumo 213 onto it...) but only parts were ready for serial production by mid-late August. The lackluster performance of the Antons for most of 1944 was a direct result of not earmarking more capable engines (read: superchargers) to the 190-project early on. DB603 rial-aircraft (V13, V15 and V16) were pushing and exceeding 700kph in early-mid 1943. The 190 was actually preferred due to it's handling throughout the speed-range. It was a much nicer flying aircraft than the 109 with the exception of it's high-speed stall. That is a point, but proper planning in the earlier years, when production just slowly ramped up could have easily made up for that. It was the lack of forward thinking and arrogance by the RLM/ Goering that killed a valuable 109-successor - even without Willy's dirty tricks. DB would have been able to crank up DB603 production instead of building more 605s. When they actually considered, it was already too late. Both the 209 and 309 were lame ducks for the same reason as the 109: Small airframe, big engine, little consideration for anything else. The only aircraft worth looking into was the 209V5, which lost against the design(s) by Focke-Wulf fair and square. Then there was ole Willy building the contraption called Me 210 and it's successor, the 410, which then blocked DB603-procurement for airframes that needed them more. He also readily wasted ressources by B$-projects like the "Amerikabomber". He also played a side-role during the Starfighter-crisis. His protégée, Ludwig Bölkow, was a much better project-manager and engineer IMHO.
  13. That seems to be the general wisdom. It is, however painting with a much too broad brush: 1) When somewhat equalized in firepower, the Bf 109G "Kanonenboot" lost it's performance-edge over the 190, despite lacking a 20mm gun in comparison (3x20mm vs 4x20mm). The 109 was the fighter that couldn't do the job, so it was relegated to "escort" duties. A hypothetical "DB603 190" fielded in late 1943 would have killed the performance-edge of the P-51 pretty much entirely. 2a) There was an easy mod available to boost FTH by about 700m and enhance hi-altitude speeds (at the cost of lo altitude speeds) for the 190A. It was the introduction of a ram air inlet for the supercharger. A mod that could be done in-field in about 20mins. Some aircraft in JG 2 recieved the mod, but it didn't stick around. Probably due to lack of interest. 2b) A hi-altitude version of the Fw 190A (incorporating the above mod, stretched wings, less armament and armor) was planned and was to go about 700kph at 10000m. The overall engineering-effort was about equal to the 109G-1 which also lightened the airframe, but put a bulky pressurized cabin into the package. 3) The lesser 190 high-alt performance was of no concern to RLM and Luftwaffe-leadership, who spent most of 1942 and 1943 eyes wide shut in terms of improving performance and thinking out of the box when experimenting with both the DB603 and the Jumo 213. The DB603 version could have been fielded in 1943, but wasn't. Mostly because Goering thought american production-capabilities were a bluff and saw no urgency to act. This left the "european castle" without a roof. 4) While the 109 could just about fit the DB605 and reach it's max growth capability, the 190 could accept the larger DB603 with ease. The latter motor was earmarked for prestigious projects like the Me 410 (ole Willy striking again) and the hence underpowered He 219. I'm kind of wet-dreaming about what a Ta 154 with two 603s would have been able to do - another project that was killed by RLM not seeing the gravity of the night-fighter situation in '43 and '44 and allocating the right resources in time.
×
×
  • Create New...