Hs 129 impressions

[Cybermat47]

I./ZG1_Panzerbar

Maybe you don't know but kurks did not last one day. Anyway i don't see point in talking to russian fanboy who thinks katyn massacre was made by germans.

A Russian fanboy in a German themed squadron, with a German aircraft as his avatar, a German language username, and a German aircraft in his signature?

 

Also, can we just keep the war crimes discussion out of this?

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Source tells me Panzerbär is a partisan who teamkills and rats out German positions online to the Soviet side. This is secret info, Cybermat. It stays between us.

[InProgress]

Unfunny joke that looks more like taunting.. yea super fun.

 

"Four squadrons of nine aircraft each were launched against the Soviet force. Between these attacks by the Group's Hs-129 aircraft, FW-190's attacked the supporting infantry with fragmentation bombs. In one hour's action, the Luftwaffe succeeded in destroying 50 of the 60 tanks and totally stopping the Soviet counterattack"

http://www.allworldwars.com/Battlefield-Air-Interdiction-by-the-Luftwaffe-at-the-battle-of-Kursk-1943-by-Dalecky.html

200 if from book about hs129 not in english.

 

50 tanks in one 1h, 200 during entire battle is super insane number that you makes joke of, kk.

FFS_Cybermat47

And what it has to do with anything? Would like to know more? Ask space ghost.

Edited August 30, 2017 by InProgress

[LukeFF]

Not to stray too far off-topic, but it has been well-proven that claims of tanks destroyed by aircraft during the war were far higher than reality. Mortain is a good example of that:

 

During Operation Goodwood (18th to 21st July) the 2nd Tactical Air Force and 9th USAAF claimed 257 and 134 tanks, respectively, as destroyed. Of these, 222 were claimed by Typhoon pilots using RPs (Rocket Projectiles).

 

During the German counterattack at Mortain (7th to 10th August) the 2nd Tactical Air Force and 9th USAAF claimed to have destroyed 140 and 112 tanks, respectively.

 

Unfortunately for air force pilots, there is a small unit usually entitled Research and Analysis which enters a combat area once it is secured. This is and was common in most armies, and the British Army was no different. The job of The Office of Research and Analysis was to look at the results of the tactics and weapons employed during the battle in order to determine their effectiveness (with the objective of improving future tactics and weapons).

 

They found that the air force’s claims did not match the reality at all. In the Goodwood area a total of 456 German heavily armoured vehicles were counted, and 301 were examined in detail. They found only 10 could be attributed to Typhoons using RPs (less than 3% of those claimed). Even worse, only 3 out of 87 APC examined could be attributed to air lunched RPs. The story at Mortain was even worse. It turns out that only 177 German tanks and assault guns participated in the attack, which is 75 less tanks than claimed as destroyed! Of these 177 tanks, 46 were lost and only 9 were lost to aircraft attack. This is again around 4% of those claimed. When the results of the various Normandy operations are compiled, it turns out that no more than 100 German tanks were lost in the entire campaign from hits by aircraft launched ordnance.

https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/myth-of-combat-aircraft-destroying-tanks.27496/

[Asgar]

how about you guys all take a step back and cool down 

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Here's the problem with tank kills: how do you accurately spot, from the window of a plane flying at 300 km/h some 500m above the battlefield, that a tank has been destroyed? What's the criteria? In battles where you win, your troops walk about the battlefield and count the abandoned hulls, easy peasy. But what if you don't have control of the battlefield? Is it how many you attacked, how many stopped moving, how many started smoking, how many exploded and caught fire?

 

Most of the time you don't have the luxury of roaming about counting so I'd venture they managed to score repeated direct hits on 200 tanks and went home. It's a similar thing to air combat - you rarely see the aircraft crashing so it's possible to overclaim even with the best intentions (not to mention bad ones).

 

Optimistically they could have damaged 100 tanks in total but due to the nature of the damage caused by medium caliber cannons this damage is usually fixed in a few minutes on the field so few actual losses happened. You don't count an aircraft destroyed if you caused a fuel leak.

[InProgress]

You dont magical say "I destroyed 100 tanks, count it as my kills and give me iroc cross" there must be others to confirm it. Just like snipers, all kills had to be confirmed.

 

Don't know but speculating, first pilot shoots at tanks, tanks stops, maybe smoke, dont move, other pilots behind him see that. Kill confirmed.

[Cybermat47]

You dont magical say "I destroyed 100 tanks, count it as my kills and give me iroc cross" there must be others to confirm it. Just like snipers, all kills had to be confirmed.

Don't know but speculating, first pilot shoots at tanks, tanks stops, maybe smoke, dont move, other pilots behind him see that. Kill confirmed.

Then the tank crew puts out the fire, waits for a recovery vehicle, and the tank is back in action within weeks.

[Asgar]

Then the tank crew puts out the fire, waits for a recovery vehicle, and the tank is back in action within weeks.

burning tanks generally didn't get recovered all that often in WW2

[InProgress]

So? I never said that's not how it works, actually I even said that's how it works... tank may be rescued or finished by infantry. But that's how they get "kills" and they were higher than in reality. But still, tank is out of action, repair will take long time or won't be possible. Crew could be dead. Nobody knows, but if there is no way to be 100% sure you just count it as kill.

 

 

It was not easy as well. Also if russians would abandon tank that is no burned they could be considered cowards who ran away and left tank and welcome penalty battalion

Edited August 30, 2017 by InProgress

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

It appears that the mg103 is not fitted with tungsten rounds? (or has no option to). That leaves the basic AP rounds which have miserable penetration and indeed are only useful to engage from the rear of some of the tanks.

 

It does have them as it can penetrate KV's armor. Full caliber steel AP 30mm ammo wouldn't be able to penetrate the KV-1, even the rear 60mm would cause problems to it maybe it could do it but at point blank range.

 

What kind of AP ammo was model for the 30mm cannons? Is it steel core ammo or the tungsten core ammo introduced in 1942? The turet is 90mm both rear and top. I was not able to penetrate the turret yet

 

Afaik it had steel full caliber AP, then tungsten core APCR (and the later one was the one used for AT job against decently armored targets). Also you might want to check out the version of the KV-1. The earlier ones with the welded turret had 75mm, then you have ones with thicker 90mm. Finally the version with the cast turret (you can see it's more rounded instead of boxy) had more than 100mm! (1941 model with 105mm and 1942 model up to 120mm I think) The 1942 model one is in Battle of Stalingad. Don't know if Battle of Moscow have the earlier KV-1.

 

Kind of cute how people want those silly 30mm shells to destroy tanks which usually required 88mm guns to destroy reliably.

 

It's all about the penetration. At 10 meters the German 37mm APCR had around same penetration than AP from the long 75mm KwK 40 in the Panzer IV. Of course with distance and angle the 37mm fell in penetration considerably below the 75mm (thanks to the low weight and shape design of the APCR round). Also planes have the advantage of engaging targets in situations tanks wouldn't normally be (100m / 200m away and rather close to perpendicular angles if firing at the side).

 

About penetration discussion: You can't really go by the strict numbers and say something like "The penetration is listed as Xmm, then X+1mm can't be penetrated" In reality penetration was taken from an average in a testing with multiple rounds fired, and there is variability to it (when approaching the penetration limit, identical rounds would perform slightly different than others. Also you have to take into account how the different countries made their penetration standards (when do I consider the round to penetrate? which value do I write in the technical chart?).

 

This graph from the WW2 Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery book has an interesting chart about penetration probability with the US penetration system (which was based in 50% of succesful penetrations I think).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So for example you can have a US tested gun listed as having 90mm of penetration, but in 10% of the cases it would be able to go through a 100mm target, and at the same time around 10% of the cases it wouldn't be able to go through a 80mm target. With the MK 103 being so close to the KV-1's side armor I think it would be possible to a certain degree.

Edited August 31, 2017 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[PatrickAWlson]

Then the tank crew puts out the fire, waits for a recovery vehicle, and the tank is back in action within weeks.

 

I think it's fair to say that disabled counted as killed for purposes of accreditation.  Didn't have to be brewed up.  Track knocked off and crew abandoned is good enough.

 

Having said that, kills both air and ground in WWII were pretty wildly over claimed on all sides and by all unit types.

[[_FLAPS_]Grim]

I think its totaly fine to count a disabled tank as destroyed in game terms for Il2.

[LLv24_Zami]

I think its totaly fine to count a disabled tank as destroyed in game terms for Il2.

I agree.

[LLv24_Zami]

how about you guys all take a step back and cool down

I recommend this too.

 

As pointed here, tank kills by aircraft were exaggerated by all sides. But it doesnt mean it didn't happen. I haven't had time to shoot tanks after the release but I would imagine that Mk101 should be able to disable the KV-1 at least when shot behind to the engine block. And I count it mission accomplished in game terms. If it is recoverable, doesn't matter. 

And if 'stories' from one side are regarded as unrelieable, I don't think the 'stories' from other side should be treated as a source either

 

Edit: When in future the MK101&103 can be fired separately, thing probably improve a bit when more accurate shots can be made against all targets. Let`s not focus solely on the KV-1 only, there`s a lot more to shoot at and leave KV mainly to the AT guns 

Edited August 31, 2017 by Zami

[707shap_Srbin]

"Four squadrons of nine aircraft each were launched against the Soviet force. Between these attacks by the Group's Hs-129 aircraft, FW-190's attacked the supporting infantry with fragmentation bombs.

In one hour's action, the Luftwaffe succeeded in destroying 50 of the 60 tanks and totally stopping the Soviet counterattack"

200 if from book about hs129 not in english. 50 tanks in one 1h, 200 during entire battle is super insane number that you makes joke of, kk.

 

This is the description of Hs129B actions on 8 July 1943.

 

 

Tageseinsätze 8.7.1943

 

a/ VIII. Fl.Korps

 

Schwerpunkt vor Pz.AOK 4. Erstmalig erfolgreicher Einsatz der Panzerjägerstaffeln.

Erfolge: 84 Panzer (davon 11 brennend) vernichtet, 5 Geschütze, 2 Salvengeschütze, 2 Flakgeschütze und etwa 40 mot. Fahrzeuge zerstört, 21 Panzer und 2 Salvengeschütze beschädigt.

Abschüße: 43 Feindflugzeuge im Luftkampf.

Verluste: 1 Fw 190, 2 Hs 129, 1 Ju 87 durch Flak (RK-Träger Hptm. Wutka), 1 Ju 87 durch Jäger (RK-Träger Oblt. Fitzner).

 

Bemerkungen: Der erste Einsatz der Panzerjägerstaffeln erwies sich als wirksam. Wenn auch brennende Panzer nicht gemeldet wurden, so muß damit gerechnet werden, daß eine größere Anzahl wirksam beschossen wurde (mehr als 6 Treffer). Besonders in der Abwehr des in späten Nachmittagstunden von Nordosten gegen SS-Das Reich anlaufenden Panzerangriffs konnte nach Einsatz der Panzerjäger festgestellt werden, daß die Russen abdrehten und sich zurückzogen .

 

Now, larger description of that deployment:

 

The Soviet II Guards Tank Corps had a combat group deployed near Gostishchevo, in that gap north-east of Belgorod into which General Kempf's divisions had not yet advanced. It had been placed there to stop Kempf's thrust. But now, at this moment of emergency, Vatutin moved it over to the west. In a small wood east of the village sixty T-34s and several rifle battalions were assembled. About noon the armada moved off. It moved off against the deep flank of Hasueer's unsuspecting corps, against the Belgorod-Oboyan highway, against the supply route of SS Panzer Corps.

Only one pair of German eyes spotted the approaching disaster. Captian Bruno Meyer was leading a formation of three tank-buster aircraft on a reconnaissance mission over the wooded region of Gostishchevo in the morning of 8th July. He knew that in this diffucult terrain the flank of the SS Panzer corps had to be guarded from the air unless the ground forces were to run into some unpleasant surprises. Meyer's eyes swept over clearings and little valleys. Over there! sure that is...

Meyer banked low, hard over the tree-tops. There was not long any doubt: emerging from the cover of the wood were infantry columns. Behind them rumbled tanks. Ten of them. Twenty. Thirty. More and more of them were coming out out of the wood, forming up into a broad wedge and moving off in a westerly direction. From the conferences he had attended at VIII Air Corps HQ Captian Meyer was acquinted with the situation. He instantly realized the threat of this Soviet advance towards the deep flank of SS Panzer Corps. And Meyer also realized that this was his hour.

He commanded the IV (tank-buster) Gruppe of 9th Ground-Support Geschwader based near Mikoyanovka. On its fields stood 68 brand-new Henschel Hs-129 armoured ground-support aircraft. Each of these machines was fitted, in addition to its machine-gun, with a 3-cm cannon. They were the flying anti-tank guns of Operation Citadel. Here now was an opportunity to test the new weapon. By radio Meyer alerted the ground control of his Gruppe and ordered take-off by seperate Staffels--formations of nine machines.

As the first Staffel came zooming up, Meyer instructed the pilots by radiotelphony. Then began a historic battle--for the first time in military history a large armoured formation was opposed from the air alone. The aircraft attacked from low level. Like hawks they pounced on the Russian tanks from behind and from the side. The cannon flashed and barked. Once, twice, three times. Direct hit. Explosion. Fire. In flames the stricken T-34s were careening over the battlefield. In between the low-level attacks by the Henschel tank-buster aircraft, Major Druschel's Focke-Wulf Ground-support Gruppe attacked the Russian infantry columns and the hastily positioned flak guns with high-fragmentation bombs. It was a battle of machines. The Russian tanks were unable to cope with this unaccustomed attack. They drove across each other's paths, got mixed up with one another, and fell an easy prey to Meyer's flying tank-busters.

After an hour the Soviet brigade was smashed. Fifty tanks littered the battlefield, burnt out or heavily damaged. The deadly threat to Hausser's deep flank was averted even before SS Panzer Corps and Fourth Panzer Army had become aware of it.

 

The Soviet losses

The 26th Tank Brigade as of 07:00 July 8th has 26 T-34s and 15 T-70s.

The attack also included one regiment from the 4th Guards Motorized Brigade, which may have included up to 20 Bren Gun Carriers. It was also supported by infantry from a Rifle Division.

The Corps reported losing 8 T-34s and 3 T-70s for the day, with effectively only two of its brigades engaged.

The 26th Tank Brigade at 07:00 July 10 reported having 22 T-34s and 12 T-70s. The Corps reports only losing Churchills on the 9th.

 

From 07:00 on the 8th to 07:00 on the 10th, the 26th Guards Tank Brigade shows a decline in ready-for action tanks of 4 T-34s and 3 T-70s, while the 4th Guards Tank Brigade shows a decline of 2 T-34s and 2 T-70s. The 25th Guards Tank Brigade's strength actually increases during this time. The Corps did have a coprs reserve of 20 T-34s and 10 T-70s located in Bubnovo on the 8th. This unit is no longer mentioned and may have been used on the 10th or 11th.

 

As the 4th Guards Tank Brigade clearly took casualties, this all points to the actual losses of the 26th Guards Tank Brigade being around nine tanks. Assuming that some were lost to German armor, antitank guns and infantry (both during the attack and during the German counterattack) then it would appear that the claim by the VIII Air Corps of "more than 6 hits" may in fact be high. The claim of 40 tanks killed appears to be off by an order of magnitude.

 

=====================================

 

So, as You can see, in this particulary day, Luftwaffe Hs129 claims were exagerrated to almost 1:10 ratio. If You are interested, You may continue Your research. When starting to work with an archive documents from both sides, each and every time a 100 claimed destroyed tanks were evolving into 10-15 really damaged tanks, with only feiw of them could be actually counted as a total write-off (i.e. destroyed).

[LukeFF]

About attacking Soviet tanks:

 

 

We would normally open fire at a distance from the target of between 45 and 60 meters, and from such a close range the 30 to 40 degree firing angle brought the aircraft dangerously close to its target.

 

-Hauptmann Franz Oswald

 

 

 

My Staffel attacked in relays and the enemy suffered heavy losses. Our pilots could see the panic-stricken response of the Russian tank crews and the retreating armor presented splendid targets for us. Each pilot made his run-in at low level and fired his armor-piercing shell at just the right instant, just like on a firing range. When we went in for the kill, a steady approach and a well aimed shot were vital to knock out a tank - I would say that it was a real art.

 

-Oberleutnant Georg Dornemann

Edited August 31, 2017 by LukeFF

[JtD]

"dass eine größere Anzahl wirksam beschossen wurde (mehr als 6 Treffer)" = "that a larger number was shot to effect (more than 6 hits)".

 

It doesn't say more than 6 kills or anything, it simply states that several tanks are expected to have been hit with more than 6 shots. And that 7+ hits are to be expected to leave some impression...

 

Seeing you mention reserve, how would that be used? Did Soviet occasionally use it to replace individual losses in front line units or were they considered a reserve unit on its own?

Edited August 31, 2017 by JtD

[HagarTheHorrible]

You guys are being far to particular when it comes to recognizing what constitutes a tank kill.

 

For the purposes of a battle all that counts is that it becomes "hors de combat" and that could mean literally anything. Sure we all like to see a tank brew up but reality just isn't that simple.

 

Penetration, according to my wife at least, is not the be all and end all. Literally anything that is observed to stop moving might be considered as out of action and therefore a kill.

 

A tank may stop for any number of reasons, when attacked, from mechanical breakdown to ditching to critical equipment destruction ( there's not much point going on if the barrel has a big hole in it) to crew injury or abandonment. A crew can bug out of a tank that is being attacked but then return after, crew moral being an important consideration or with regard to penetration, scabing and spall are just as likely, if not more so, to stop a tank but ultimately not prevent it's ultimate repair and reusability.

 

Tank destruction, or more accurately combat losses, are far more likely if an enemy is defeated and is no longer in control of the field. A tank that is abandoned because it's track is blown off, or even just comes off in Wild manoevering, when being attacked is easy to repair but only if you have access to it after the shooting stops. If aircraft blunt an enemy attack that ultimately leads to a failed attack and withdrawal then for all intense and purposes abandoned tanks, even if still combat capable are "destroyed".

 

To win a battle you don't need to kill all of your enemy, you just need to make them lose interest, it doesn't matter if you kill one or ten thousand it only matters that they bugger off and leave you alone. I confess It is nice to be able to wonder around and collect souvenirs though, although how you would snaffle a tank away in your backpack is beyond me.

 

This is a problem with armchair Generals, they take things far to literally. There's a lot more squishyness in war than pure statistics allow for. Consider this, the difference between BoX and reality, if you attacked an aircraft and left it spewing smoke and fluids but ultimately lost contact, in reality you might well think "job well done, a kill, or at least a probable" it would be doubtful if the damaged aircraft would continue the fight, but not in IL2, the A.I and players fight far beyond reality or personnel safety.

Edited August 31, 2017 by HagarTheHorrible

[Monostripezebra]

On the lighthearted side of the Henschel:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7o-D1O1130

[TP_Silk]

My problem so far is that even if I remember to manually set the fuel mixture after starting engines and somehow keep them alive, I end up flying around with the engine in boosted mode for the rest of the flight unless I drop down to around 0.8 ATA or less. There must be a way to exit that boosted take-off mode but I'm yet to find it. Usually my engines start and the mixture gets set back to 33% and then somehow someone or something turns the mixture to 0% and the engines die because I'm not quick enough (this could have something to do with me looking around so much during start-up in VR).

So what I gather is... Engine Start procedure => Immediately on completion set mixture to 100% => Taxi and take off => fumble around with the settings a lot and get annoyed => escape and finish flight.

[Zippy-do-dar]

When I try to take off I end up in a ground loop? What should I do to avoid that?

 

I've found dabbing the brake opposite to the swing works for me, i know i should use the rudder but i just can't catch the swing in time and then over compensate

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

For takeoff your checklist is as follow:

 

1. Set prop pitch to manual and adjust it to max fine pitch (0%)

2. Set mixture to 'Reich' / rich (100% is for startup only)

3. Enable boost (ctrl+b by default) to unlock takeoff power (1.5 ata / 1 min)

4. Trim it halfway to full tailheavy depending on load

5. Rudder trim should be neutral

6. Set flaps to takeoff with a single press of the flaps button (they extend automaticly to takeoff position)

 

When you're ready to go quickly apply full throttle to increase the rudder efficiency. Its sometimes required to counteract any breakout tendencies with quick brake action and differential throttle.

Holding the brakes to let the engines rev up before rolling can also help to keep the aircraft straight on takeoff.

 

For climbing after Takeoff:

 

1. Enable auto Prop Pitch to maintain combat and climb power RPM (2750)

2. Disable boost

3. Full throttle (1.25 ata)

 

For Cruise:

 

1. Disable auto Prop Pitch and adjust it to 2350 (at this point it's a manually adjusted variable pitch prop)

2. Reduce power to 1.1 ata

3. Reduce Mixture to Normal

 

For Combat:

 

1. Enable auto Prop Pitch

2. Full throttle (1.25 ata)

3. Set Mixture to 'Reich' / Rich

 

Some info on the aircraft systems:

The constant speed propellor unit: It's intendet only for climb and combat whereas under all other circumstances the pilot is supposed to manually adjust the propellor pitch himself.

 

The mixture unit works the same as in the P40 meaning that the pilot does not adjust the mixture manually but selects the mixture mode (Lean - Normal - Rich - Ultra Rich). Each setting is chosen by adjusting the lever to a certain %.

Edited September 13, 2017 by 6./ZG26_5tuka

[JaffaCake]

I still wonder if hs129 gets tungsten or plain AP rounds for the mk103. The mk101 used steel core rounds iirc, so the historical records for that gun are difficult to apply to mk103 with tungsten.

 

Here I was hoping LW would get a decent tank buster. I guess I'll just stick to the IL2 with VYA cannons if I want to wipe out entire columns of german tanks.

[216th_Jordan]

I still wonder if hs129 gets tungsten or plain AP rounds for the mk103. The mk101 used steel core rounds iirc, so the historical records for that gun are difficult to apply to mk103 with tungsten.

 

Here I was hoping LW would get a decent tank buster. I guess I'll just stick to the IL2 with VYA cannons if I want to wipe out entire columns of german tanks.

A question for developers question

 

Btw: Have you tried attacking german tanks with the Hs129? I would like to know how it compares to Il-2.

[TP_Silk]

 

For takeoff your checklist is as follow:

 

<CLIPPED>

 

 

thanks mate - will give it a go when I get in later

[HagarTheHorrible]

Surely the Hs 129 should have any incipient swing. The engines rotate in different directions . If it does swing then just keep the tail on the ground for a bit longer.

[Shepherd]

Can anyone tell me why the engine turns off after a few seconds anytime I switch to prop feathering mode?

 

And second question, I understand the oil cooler can not be operated manually, but what about the air cooling system? These French engines have no inlet or outlet cowl shutters, is that correct?

 

I always like new planes although I doubt, it will have a big influence in multiplayer. Yesterday I flew about 60 min without firing a single round about the beautiful countryside of the Kuban map and really enjoyed it...

[Feathered_IV]

I'm having trouble working out which keys switch me to manual prop pitch. I thought it would be Rt Shift-+ or something. However I usually have pitch mapped to the throttle lever on my MS FFB, but nothing happens. Still works on other types though.

[TG-55Panthercules]

Can anyone tell me why the engine turns off after a few seconds anytime I switch to prop feathering mode?

 

It doesn't surprise me that the engine would turn off if you set it to feather prop mode, but shouldn't the engine already be off before you try to feather the prop?

[LLv24_Zami]

I'm having trouble working out which keys switch me to manual prop pitch. I thought it would be Rt Shift-+ or something. However I usually have pitch mapped to the throttle lever on my MS FFB, but nothing happens. Still works on other types though.

RSift+P to switch for manual control.

[Feathered_IV]

RSift+P to switch for manual control.

 

Ah yep, that's the one.  I'm away from my PC today so I was going from memory.

I can normally control manual prop pitch in the Soviet aircraft and others with the little lever on my stick, but in the '129 It is unresponsive.  Also, if I use the -/+ keys in the Henschel, the pitch seems reversed.  0% is full pitch, whereas every other aircraft measures it as 100%. 

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

No, it's correctly modeled. 0% is the minimum pitch angle setting which will give you the highest RPM while on aircraft with adjustable constant speed units (alias all russian aircraft) you controll the RPM directly. Hence you have 2 different controlls.

 

To adjust the prop pitch on the Hs129 you need to bind the 'increase prop pitch' and 'decrease prop pitch' buttons used for the Bf 109.

Edited September 1, 2017 by 6./ZG26_5tuka

[Irgendjemand]

 

For takeoff your checklist is as follow:

 

1. Set prop pitch to manual and adjust it to max fine pitch (0%)

2. Set mixture to 'Reich' / rich (100% is for startup only)

3. Enable boost (ctrl+b by default) to unlock takeoff power (1.5 ata / 1 min)

4. Trim it halfway to full tailheavy depending on load

5. Rudder trim should be neutral

6. Set flaps to takeoff with a single press of the flaps button (they extend automaticly to takeoff position)

 

When you're ready to go quickly apply full throttle to increase the rudder efficiency. Its sometimes required to counteract any breakout tendencies with quick brake action and differential throttle.

Holding the brakes to let the engines rev up before rolling can also help to keep the aircraft straight on takeoff.

 

For climbing after Takeoff:

 

1. Enable auto Prop Pitch to maintain combat and climb power RPM (2750)

2. Disable boost

3. Full throttle (1.25 ata)

 

For Cruise:

 

1. Disable auto Prop Pitch and adjust it to 2350 (at this point it's a manually adjusted variable pitch prop)

2. Reduce power to 1.1 ata

3. Reduce Mixture to Normal

 

For Combat:

 

1. Enable auto Prop Pitch

2. Full throttle (1.25 ata)

3. Set Mixture to 'Reich' / Rich

 

Some info on the aircraft systems:

The constant speed propellor unit: It's intendet only for climb and combat whereas under all other circumstances the pilot is supposed to manually adjust the propellor pitch himself.

 

The mixture unit works the same as in the P40 meaning that the pilot does not adjust the mixture manually but selects the mixture mode (Lean - Normal - Rich - Extra Rich). Each setting is chosen by adjusting the lever to a certain %.

 

 

 Thats exactly what I was looking for. THANKS!

[Feathered_IV]

Thanks 5tuka.  I'm still getting a feel for how it behaves, sounds and handles.  Enjoying it immensely though, and your assistance is very much appreciated. 

[RAY-EU]

T34 Tanks : number build 84.000 tanks

 

Panzer III : 5774 build , Panzer IV : 8000 build , Panzer v : 6000 build Panzer VI Tiguer I : 1345 build

& Panzer VII: 492 = total number build 21.611 Tanks

Edited September 2, 2017 by RAY-EU

[LukeFF]

T34 Tanks : number build 84.000 tanks

 

Panzer III : 5774 build , Panzer IV : 8000 build , Panzer v : 6000 build Panzer VI Tiguer I : 1345 build

& Panzer VII: 492 = total number build 21.611 Tanks

 

...and your point is...?

[RAY-EU]

Russia send more than 100.000 tanks form East vs 20.000 axis tanks meanwhile Allies bomb axis factories from West .

 

= Russia coquer Germany meanwhile Allies(EEUU) destroyed germany by air .

Edited September 2, 2017 by RAY-EU

[RAY-EU]

My point ? : We need more Tanks and many Big Heavy Bombers . And Infantry

Totally off topic and derails the topic in hand. Do not do that, thanks.

2012 update has Inproved the Simulator in a very Good level Way . Thanks very much !
For The Best Simulator !

Edited September 3, 2017 by SYN_Haashashin

[LukeFF]

Congratulations, you've managed to take a thread about the Hs 129 and mangled it with ramblings about heavy bombers, tank production numbers...and that hideous Red Tails movie.