Jump to content
LF_Gallahad

The Me 410 hype thread

Recommended Posts

59 minutes ago, Asgar said:

Did Brown ever have any love for a German plane other than the Ju-88? I can't recall of seeing him anything postive. He's more part of the propganda department than of actualy testing in my opinion

 

You should really read some of Brown's books.  He flew in combat and did extensive flight testing both during and after the war.  He was VERY complimentary of a number of Luftwaffe aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

Yes.

He was pretty fond of the 189, 190 and 200; as well as the 262 and 162 in general. And certainly the 234 was rated pretty highly.

He liked the general handling caracteristics of the 163, too. That's just off my mind and without looking it up.

 

He's just not jumping onto the same hype-train, the many Luftwaffles like to.

 

Knowing that he reported on the 189 and the 162 makes me want to track this down!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Eric Brown's criticism was primarily twofold: poor single engine characteristics on takeoff and landing (below 150 mph) and poor control harmony between elevators, ailerons and rudder. This he said created a condition if you made a mistake there were little margin for error.

 

What to expect?

 

Cons: (from RAF and USAAF reports)

- Poor handling compared to Me-110 - no dogfighting S/E fighters - heavy elevators (nothing new here for LW pilots)

 - Sharp stalling, wing drop if pulled too tightly in a sharp turn (think twin-engine FW-190 stall here)

 - If you lose an engine with combat damage - single engine landing should be a real handful - Eric Brown said under 150 mph the live engine would pull the airplane into a turn and then you can spin in. So you will have high torque against the dead engine and a high single engine landing speed ("a real knife-edger")

 

Pros:

 

- Very high acceleration and response from the monster DB-603, especially in a dive (this could also turn out bad if you let it get away from you)

- High cruising speed - RAF got 330mph at 1.2 ata and USAAF evaluation got basically the same: 335 mph cruising speed.

- It will vaporize any bomber it gets close to.

- It's got a rear gunner with 13mm.

- Good fast attack bomber/intruder with fast ingress and egress, hard to intercept especially if escorted.

 

So it's typical LW aircraft - poor maneuverability with sharp FW-190 like stall with heavy controls,  but fast and a very heavy hitter. It really has the chance to have a lot of character in the FM and be very interesting to fly. It will reward those who learn it - but punish severely most of those who wont.

 

*Another note on maneuverability with the 410:

 

It was evaluated in Russia extensively by NII VVS and found to be more maneuverable than both Pe-2 and Tu-2.

 

I fully expect the same guys that excel in the 110 and the Duck to roll it out with a light fuel load - proceed to wreck fools online with it - followed by the inevitable crying and complaining on the forums that it's overperforming.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by CUJO_1970
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CUJO_1970 said:

I fully expect the same guys that excel in the 110 and the Duck to roll it out with a light fuel load - proceed to wreck fools online with it - followed by the inevitable crying and complaining on the forums that it's overperforming.

 

I don't think there's going to be any complaints about overperforming.

Those two MG 131s, though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

I don't think there's going to be any complaints about overperforming.

Those two MG 131s, though...

 

The first night intruder victory by a 410 was done by flying along next to a Lancaster of 97 Sqn and the rear gunner of the 410 shooting it down with the MG131s.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Avimimus said:

 

Oh, please do not torment me with mention of my unrequited love, sir!

 

The Wellington in CloD 5.0 is as close as we're going to get for a while, I feel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, CUJO_1970 said:

 

I fully expect the same guys that excel in the 110 and the Duck to roll it out with a light fuel load - proceed to wreck fools online with it - followed by the inevitable crying and complaining on the forums that it's overperforming.

 

 

 

This ^^^ :biggrin:  I seriously cannot wait for this aircraft! This is my most anticipated release in the new plane set.

 

My only complaint is that it's being released so late in the development cycle. :lol::dash:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It do bring an extra motivation flying axis and two engine planes. But I gonna have a priority problem with the plane set we receive. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Mosquito, for the win.

you are wrong, and not wanted here. This is the Hornisse hype tread, please leave the premises now of i'll have to have security escort you out :P

  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Asgar said:

you are wrong, and not wanted here. This is the Hornisse hype tread, please leave the premises now of i'll have to have security escort you out :P

 

Hornissecurity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a question:

 

If you were given the option of a '45 single-seat conversion: In other words, the option to delete the weight of the rear gunner, the gunsights, and the guns - would you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldnt, there is almost nothing to gain by that, and it will certainly not turn a 8-9 ton plane into a ballerina, just toothless.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Avimimus said:

Here is a question:

 

If you were given the option of a '45 single-seat conversion: In other words, the option to delete the weight of the rear gunner, the gunsights, and the guns - would you?

 
This very thing was done before 1945 and the pilots didn’t like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Avimimus said:

Here is a question:

 

If you were given the option of a '45 single-seat conversion: In other words, the option to delete the weight of the rear gunner, the gunsights, and the guns - would you?

If the gunners only could warn in time they would be worth while

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...