PDA

View Full Version : Can we get Ju-87 G-2?



Plelv44_Mangrov
07-06-2004, 08:59 AM
Ju-87 G-2 was same as G-1, but with D-5's wings

http://koti.mbnet.fi/~jjuvonen/planes/stuka.html

"No enemy plane will fly over the reich territory"
Herman G├┬Âring

Plelv44_Mangrov
07-06-2004, 08:59 AM
Ju-87 G-2 was same as G-1, but with D-5's wings

http://koti.mbnet.fi/~jjuvonen/planes/stuka.html

"No enemy plane will fly over the reich territory"
Herman G├┬Âring

Jippo01
07-06-2004, 12:20 PM
But why???

It wouldn't add anything meaningful to the game!


-jippo

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
www.ju88.de.tf (http://www.ju88.de.tf)

BlakJakOfSpades
07-06-2004, 12:27 PM
yeah seems like we already got enough stukas, no need for another variant thats only slightly better. if it had like 2 75mm tank guns on it id say go 4 it, but dont seem like itd b that much of an improvement over say the tempest which im still drooling over from last night when i checked out the pics of it.

NN_EnigmuS
07-06-2004, 12:51 PM
yup prefer correct FM for D5,it seems it's the same as D3 lol

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/enigmus.gif

Plelv44_Mangrov
07-06-2004, 02:21 PM
Ok, can we get then JU-87R (long range and anti-shipping) or He-111 H-16? These are easy to modified and they were massproducted.

"No enemy plane will fly over the reich territory"
Herman G├┬Âring

BlakJakOfSpades
07-06-2004, 03:27 PM
those sound pretty cool, or what about that ju-88 with the big ol cannon on it. not like im requestin em, jsut would b cool to see although i think they already have their entire lineup for AEP picked out. but who knows, not me, later

p1ngu666
07-06-2004, 04:14 PM
it MIGHT be in my stuka book a breakdown of differences.
there was also D7/9 i think, had a jumo from 190D, and normal wings or longer ones

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
<123_GWood_JG123> NO SPAM!

Plelv44_Mangrov
07-07-2004, 01:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlakJakOfSpades:
those sound pretty cool, or what about that ju-88 with the big ol cannon on it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You possibly mean Ju-88P -series, P-1 had 75mm cannon, two 37mm in P-2 and one 50mm in P-3

http://www.luftarchiv.info/bordgerate/bk75.jpg

http://www.luftarchiv.info/bordgerate/bk75.gif

"No enemy plane will fly over the reich territory"
Herman G├┬Âring

p1ngu666
07-07-2004, 02:06 AM
didnt the 75mm crack the propellers or sumin ?
hence hardly used..

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

Waldo.Pepper
07-07-2004, 02:41 AM
If I ever get to fly THAT plane (The Ju88 with the 75mm panzerknacker) I will feel so inadequade for the rest of my life. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Plelv44_Mangrov
07-07-2004, 03:12 AM
Ju-87R-1 would be really simple to model, only add fuel tanks to the wings. The range will be twice times more than ordinary
Ju-87B

http://users.belgacom.net/airimg1/avion1/17801.jpe

http://users.belgacom.net/airimg1/avion1/17798.jpe

A Ju-87 of the I./St.G 3 above Sicily in the spring of 1941. The additional fuel tank underwings are clearly visible on the picture

"No enemy plane will fly over the reich territory"
Herman G├┬Âring

LEXX_Luthor
07-07-2004, 10:47 AM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The additional fuel tank underwings are clearly visible on the picture<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thanks, I missed that http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Jippo01
07-07-2004, 10:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
didnt the 75mm crack the propellers or sumin ?
hence hardly used..

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only prototype. The muzzle break was changed to rectify the problem.

I have pretty much all the data to make a Ju 88 P, but I will not do it as about 1/3 - 1/2 of the cockpit of A-4 needs to be changed. Too much work for not important plane.

Also there is no time anymore.


-jippo

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
www.ju88.de.tf (http://www.ju88.de.tf)

Willey
07-07-2004, 02:42 PM
Who needs 2 droptanks on the Stuka? In FB, it's range is more than enough. I'd rather like another FM for the D-5. With more wing, it should have more lift affecting climb, turn, low speed handling and other things. The same story goes for the Spitfires... CW don't roll any better than NW in AEP http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

jeroen_R90S
07-08-2004, 11:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Willey:
Who needs 2 droptanks on the Stuka? In FB, it's range is more than enough. ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was thinking the same, you can fly around for ages with the current fuel load...

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif @ LEXX!

Jeroen

==============================
Ah you LaGG, my lightened LaGG,
why don't you wish to fly?
Over the wild Black Sea water
your cockpit you made me leave.

Prof.Wizard
07-08-2004, 03:13 PM
http://www.luftarchiv.info/bordgerate/bk75.gif

What about THIS flyable?
We already have the FM, just add a cockpit and more accurate physics. Probably the most powerful tank-buster of WW2. Could even take on a IS-2! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

-----------------------------

Me-163's HWK 109-509 Rocket Engine
http://www.mihailidis.com/images/HWK109509.jpg

Gibbage1
07-08-2004, 03:25 PM
We WILL have a flying 75MM. B-25H. It will have a 75MM plus a bunch of 50's AND 3500lb of bombs. I would rather have that then JUST a 75MM.

Prof.Wizard
07-08-2004, 03:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
We WILL have a flying 75MM. B-25H. It will have a 75MM plus a bunch of 50's AND 3500lb of bombs. I would rather have that then JUST a 75MM.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Wow, if I recall correctly you called me Luftwhiner for asking for a working Do-335.

Seems that you are a Ameriwhiner yourself too... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif
If we get a flyable 75mm-cannon Allied plane I don't understand why we shouldn't have the Hs-129. Afterall, it's one of the few German planes that really approached the Sturmovik in characteristics.

-----------------------------

Me-163's HWK 109-509 Rocket Engine
http://www.mihailidis.com/images/HWK109509.jpg

Gibbage1
07-08-2004, 03:52 PM
Please tell me how stating that we will get the B-25H makes me an Ameriwhiner? Its rather puzzling.

Im not saying anything AGAINST the Hs-129. I would love to fly it also!!! But as you WELL know, the cockpit has been in many differant hands and is still not complete. I doubt it ever will be. Its a loss.

But again, it only had a 75MM gun, and no defenses. B-25H also had a 75MM gun, 8 forward firing .50's, and 6 defensive .50's. Not only that, bt a 3500lb bomb load. And it WILL be flyable. I guess its a consolation for not having the Hs-129.

Besides. The Hs-129 had French engines. You dont want that anyways. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Prof.Wizard:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
We WILL have a flying 75MM. B-25H. It will have a 75MM plus a bunch of 50's AND 3500lb of bombs. I would rather have that then JUST a 75MM.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Wow, if I recall correctly you called me Luftwhiner for asking for a working Do-335.

Seems that you are a Ameriwhiner yourself too... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif
If we get a flyable 75mm-cannon Allied plane I don't understand why we shouldn't have the Hs-129. Afterall, it's one of the few German planes that really approached the Sturmovik in characteristics.

-----------------------------

Me-163's HWK 109-509 Rocket Engine
http://www.mihailidis.com/images/HWK109509.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

p1ngu666
07-08-2004, 03:58 PM
the cockpit is being made http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

Gibbage1
07-08-2004, 04:09 PM
ITs been worked on for a few YEARS now. Being made and getting done are two differant things http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Prof.Wizard
07-08-2004, 04:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
But again, it only had a 75MM gun, and no defenses.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No worries! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
It also had 20mm guns. And of course a cockpit could be used for its other, bombing versions as well.

@pingu, good to know that mate.

-----------------------------

Me-163's HWK 109-509 Rocket Engine
http://www.mihailidis.com/images/HWK109509.jpg

p1ngu666
07-08-2004, 04:20 PM
well, the guys is doing his/their best. cant ask for more than that http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
be a cool dogfight plane with that gun too http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

jagdmailer
07-08-2004, 04:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Prof.Wizard:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
But again, it only had a 75MM gun, and no defenses.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No worries! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
It also had 20mm guns. And of course a cockpit could be used for its other, bombing versions as well.

@pingu, good to know that mate.

-----------------------------

Me-163's HWK 109-509 Rocket Engine
http://www.mihailidis.com/images/HWK109509.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would rather have a flyable Hs 129B-3 Wa for FB than the B-25H. Kind of different role aircrafts altogether, but the Hs 129's Pak 75 derived Bk 7.5 was a way better gun than B-25H T3 gun. Bk 7.5 automaticly-loaded, 40 rpm, could usually fire a burst of about 4-5 rounds in a typical pass on a tank or group of tanks. Bk 7.5 long-barreled High muzzle velocity gun would ensure a one round kill for any tanks in service in WWII. B-25's was manually loaded by the "navigator"....B-25H will be better for PF.

If we are comparing apples to apples in any event, I would take a Ju 188A-2 any day over a B-25 any variant. Faster, almost double the payload, better range, 30% + better ceiling, and styling to boot. Only B-25 had better defensive weaponry, but if you are slow and can't get beyond 25,000 ft, then obviously you need it.

Don't get me wrong, I am glad we are getting a flyable B-25, but........

Cheers,

Jagd

Gibbage1
07-08-2004, 04:36 PM
From what I remmeber (correct me if I am wrong) the 75MM armed Hs-129 did not have the 20MM's. Only the 75MM. With only two 650HP engines, the poor aircraft could barely lift the 75MM!!!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Prof.Wizard:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
But again, it only had a 75MM gun, and no defenses.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No worries! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
It also had 20mm guns. And of course a cockpit could be used for its other, bombing versions as well.

@pingu, good to know that mate.

-----------------------------

Me-163's HWK 109-509 Rocket Engine
http://www.mihailidis.com/images/HWK109509.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gibbage1
07-08-2004, 04:57 PM
I have my doubts that the Hs could fire off 5-6 rounds in a row at any good rate of fire. Simply this. the 75MM on the B-25 would slow it down quite a bit. B-25 had two 1700-1800HP engines and was a good 35,000lb's. The Hs-129 on the other hand had 2 650HP engines and 11,265. I cant even emagin the kinda slowdown firing that 75MM would of caused to the Hs-129! I would say 1-2 shots at max per pass. At a maximum speed of 250MPH, its not like it had an overhead of speed it could loose http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But you are correct. The B-25H was an anti-shipping aircraft. IT was aslo a much bigger target. I dont think it would of served well over fields of tanks. The VVS was sent a bunch of B-25 G and H's though so it does have its place. I dont know how the VVS used there B-25's with 75MM.

But even though the 75MM on the Hs-129 was better, the B-25 still had all the .50's for straifing troops and light armor, and lots of bombs for other targets. It was more versitile, were the Hs-129 was only a tank attacker.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jagdmailer:
I would rather have a flyable Hs 129B-3 Wa for FB than the B-25H. Kind of different role aircrafts altogether, but the Hs 129's Pak 75 derived Bk 7.5 was a way better gun than B-25H T3 gun. Bk 7.5 automaticly-loaded, 40 rpm, could usually fire a burst of about 4-5 rounds in a typical pass on a tank or group of tanks. Bk 7.5 long-barreled High muzzle velocity gun would ensure a one round kill for any tanks in service in WWII. B-25's was manually loaded by the "navigator"....B-25H will be better for PF.

If we are comparing apples to apples in any event, I would take a Ju 188A-2 any day over a B-25 any variant. Faster, almost double the payload, better range, 30% + better ceiling, and styling to boot. Only B-25 had better defensive weaponry, but if you are slow and can't get beyond 25,000 ft, then obviously you need it.

Don't get me wrong, I am glad we are getting a flyable B-25, but........

Cheers,

Jagd<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

jagdmailer
07-08-2004, 05:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I have my doubts that the Hs could fire off 5-6 rounds in a row at any good rate of fire. Simply this. the 75MM on the B-25 would slow it down quite a bit. B-25 had two 1700-1800HP engines and was a good 35,000lb's. The Hs-129 on the other hand had 2 650HP engines and 11,265. I cant even emagin the kinda slowdown firing that 75MM would of caused to the Hs-129! I would say 1-2 shots at max per pass. At a maximum speed of 250MPH, its not like it had an overhead of speed it could loose http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But you are correct. The B-25H was an anti-shipping aircraft. IT was aslo a much bigger target. I dont think it would of served well over fields of tanks. The VVS was sent a bunch of B-25 G and H's though so it does have its place. I dont know how the VVS used there B-25's with 75MM.

But even though the 75MM on the Hs-129 was better, the B-25 still had all the .50's for straifing troops and light armor, and lots of bombs for other targets. It was more versitile, were the Hs-129 was only a tank attacker.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jagdmailer:
I would rather have a flyable Hs 129B-3 Wa for FB than the B-25H. Kind of different role aircrafts altogether, but the Hs 129's Pak 75 derived Bk 7.5 was a way better gun than B-25H T3 gun. Bk 7.5 automaticly-loaded, 40 rpm, could usually fire a burst of about 4-5 rounds in a typical pass on a tank or group of tanks. Bk 7.5 long-barreled High muzzle velocity gun would ensure a one round kill for any tanks in service in WWII. B-25's was manually loaded by the "navigator"....B-25H will be better for PF.

If we are comparing apples to apples in any event, I would take a Ju 188A-2 any day over a B-25 any variant. Faster, almost double the payload, better range, 30% + better ceiling, and styling to boot. Only B-25 had better defensive weaponry, but if you are slow and can't get beyond 25,000 ft, then obviously you need it.

Don't get me wrong, I am glad we are getting a flyable B-25, but........

Cheers,

Jagd<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hs 129B had 690Hp engines, not 650. Not much more I will agree but I just wanted to set the record straight. C variant was planned with 2 of the Fiat radial @ 840hp similar to the Fiat G-50 and Macchi Mc 200, but Italy's surrender and it's poor industrial capacity did not allow for that in the end.

Hs 129 Bk7.5 with auto-loader had a 21 round capacity (if I remember correctly http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

It could fire 40 rpm, although the practical rate of fire would no doubt have been much less than that I concur. The Hs 129B-3 Wa with Bk 7.5 could fire 3-5 rounds on a particular target in a single pass on a tank or group of tanks from about 1000 meters. The Bk 7.5 could destroy or take out of action any tank in operation during WWII with a single round hit.

And yes, on the Hs 129B-3 Wa Bk 7.5, the MG151/20 cannons were removed to save weight.

Cheers,

Jagd

VOL_Hans
07-08-2004, 05:34 PM
As for the other weapons that the HS-129/WA carried, I thought that the 20mm's were removed for weight, and the MG's used as it's other weapons?

http://www.altitude.us/missions/The%20Volunteers/hanssig.jpg

Gibbage1
07-08-2004, 06:02 PM
OK. Thanks for the correction on the engines. My quick web search had conflicting numbers. Some said 650, some said 700. I also had read it had 16 shots. But we all know you need to talk research off the web with a grain of salt.

The B-25H started firing at 3 miles out of its target, of course it was a BIG ship and had a radar range finder for very high accuracy. It could get about 3 shots off (depending on the loader) before it had to brake off. They also used the .50's to "clear the deck" and surpress AA. Again, I wonder how the VVS used the B-25 G's that were sold to them. I asked Oleg and he did not reply. Anyone know?

Gib

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jagdmailer:

Hs 129B had 690Hp engines, not 650. Not much more I will agree but I just wanted to set the record straight. C variant was planned with 2 of the Fiat radial @ 840hp similar to the Fiat G-50 and Macchi Mc 200, but Italy's surrender and it's poor industrial capacity did not allow for that in the end.

Hs 129 Bk7.5 with auto-loader had a 21 round capacity (if I remember correctly http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

It could fire 40 rpm, although the practical rate of fire would no doubt have been much less than that I concur. The Hs 129B-3 Wa with Bk 7.5 could fire 3-5 rounds on a particular target in a single pass on a tank or group of tanks from about 1000 meters. The Bk 7.5 could destroy or take out of action any tank in operation during WWII with a single round hit.

And yes, on the Hs 129B-3 Wa Bk 7.5, the MG151/20 cannons were removed to save weight.

Cheers,

Jagd<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gibbage1
07-08-2004, 06:08 PM
It had many configs.

Armament:
Hs 129B-1/R1 & Hs 129B-1/R-4:
Two 7.92mm MG 17 Machine Guns in nose.
Two 20mm MG 151/20 cannon in nose.

Hs 129B-1/R2:
Two 7.92mm MG 17 Machine Guns in nose.
Two 20mm MG 151/20 cannon in nose.
One 30mm Mk 101 cannon mounted under fuselage.

Hs 129B-1/R3:
Two 7.92mm MG 17 Machine Guns in nose.
Two 20mm MG 151/20 cannon in nose.
Four 7.92mm MG 17 Machine Guns in ventral box.

Hs 129B-2 Series:
Two 13mm MG 131 Machine Guns in nose.
Two 20mm MG 151/20 cannon in nose.
Various weapons were fitted inclusding 37mm BK 3.7 and 75mm BK 7.5. An interesting weapon was a battery of six 75mm smoothbore recoiless rifles that fired downawrds and to the rear. This system was fired by an automatic magnetic trigger that fired when the aircraft flew over metal objects. This system was reported to be quite successful.

Payload:
Hs 129B-1/R1:
Fuselage racks for two 110 lb. or 48 fragmentation bombs.

Hs 129B-1/R4:
Fuselage racks for up to 551 lb. of bombs.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VOL_Hans:
As for the other weapons that the HS-129/WA carried, I thought that the 20mm's were removed for weight, and the MG's used as it's other weapons?

http://www.altitude.us/missions/The%20Volunteers/hanssig.jpg
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

PunicaDUSK
07-08-2004, 07:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:

An interesting weapon was a battery of six 75mm smoothbore recoiless rifles that fired downawrds and to the rear. This system was fired by an automatic magnetic trigger that fired when the aircraft flew over metal objects. This system was reported to be quite successful.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was called "F├┬Ârstersonde" and according to http://www.focke-wulf190.com the hit percentage was about 60%.
Very interesting weapon, just like the "Zellendusche" that consisted of 6 mk103 mounted on a fw190 firing when underflying another plane.

Gibbage1
07-08-2004, 08:14 PM
Me-163 also had vertical rockets in the wing with an electric eye. When it passed under the bomber, the shadow would trigger the rockets. Very inventive! I heard very effective. Also very desperate.. I dont want to be the pilot hunder a bomber who he just hit with a rocket...

Gib

Prof.Wizard
07-09-2004, 01:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VOL_Hans:
As for the other weapons that the HS-129/WA carried, I thought that the 20mm's were removed for weight, and the MG's used as it's other weapons?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The HS-129 B-2 had both 13mm and 20mm MGs. At B-3 version "Waffentraeger" one of the two was removed with the addition of the BK 7.5 cannon. I think the 13mm were removed.

At least this is how it is depicted in the simulation. I was wondering Gibbage1 and others, have you seen the plane in the sim (it's already there) before saying there is no auxiliary gun?

Look here:
http://www.il2sturmovik.com/games_elts/pop-up/planepop.php?planeid=hs-129b-3

-----------------------------

Me-163's HWK 109-509 Rocket Engine
http://www.mihailidis.com/images/HWK109509.jpg

Prof.Wizard
07-09-2004, 01:17 AM
Ah, and let me add that when I play online on fun servers I use small bursts of the 20mm machine guns to bear the 75mm cannon versus landed planes (oh what a vulcher I am!) or scenery buildings/vehicles.

On direct hit nothing survives... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif

And just to be back on topic, yes bring us the G-2 Stuka as well as Hs-129 cockpits since this sim is much need of effective ground attack aircrafts for the Axis side. Many Allied planes can take air-to-ground rockets (P47, P38) which can do hell of a damage, the Germans/Italians not. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

-----------------------------

Me-163's HWK 109-509 Rocket Engine
http://www.mihailidis.com/images/HWK109509.jpg

p1ngu666
07-09-2004, 07:52 PM
last time i flew it it was really fast.
shame they never stuck 2 engines off 190A on it.

chose 2 crapish engines on purpose http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

jagdmailer
07-09-2004, 08:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Prof.Wizard:
Ah, and let me add that when I play online on fun servers I use small bursts of the 20mm machine guns to bear the 75mm cannon versus landed planes (oh what a vulcher I am!) or scenery buildings/vehicles.

On direct hit nothing survives... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif

And just to be back on topic, yes bring us the G-2 Stuka as well as Hs-129 cockpits since this sim is much need of effective ground attack aircrafts for the Axis side. Many Allied planes can take air-to-ground rockets (P47, P38) which can do hell of a damage, the Germans/Italians not. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

-----------------------------

Me-163's HWK 109-509 Rocket Engine
http://www.mihailidis.com/images/HWK109509.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good drawings of the Bk 7.5.

http://www.luft46.com/images/hs129b3b.gif

And that is the Mk 108's big brother.....55mm http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif OMFG!!

Weight: 271 kg (597 lbs) Length: 2012 mm (6' 6")
Rate of Fire: 300 rounds/min
Muzzle Velocity: 600 m/second (1969 ft/second)

http://www.luft46.com/images/mk112-2.gif

Jagd

Prof.Wizard
07-10-2004, 01:07 AM
Never heard of the MK112 before. Was it installed on any aircraft?

-----------------------------

Me-163's HWK 109-509 Rocket Engine
http://www.mihailidis.com/images/HWK109509.jpg

Prof.Wizard
07-10-2004, 02:24 AM
On some tests I ran offline the Hs-129 B-2 with the 37mm BK 3.7 cannon in a gondola wasn't able to crack T34s on the field.

Is this normal?!
(the BK 3.7 is the same gun mounted on the Ju-G)

-----------------------------

Me-163's HWK 109-509 Rocket Engine
http://www.mihailidis.com/images/HWK109509.jpg

Aaron_GT
07-10-2004, 07:35 AM
"yeah seems like we already got enough stukas, no need for another variant thats only slightly better. if it had like 2 75mm tank guns on it id say go 4 it,"

You're thinking of that late 1930s Russian plane that looked a little like an I-16 but had two 76.2mm guns on it :-)

WereSnowleopard
07-10-2004, 08:12 AM
Still wish that Hs-129 to be flyable in next patch!

jagdmailer
07-10-2004, 09:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Prof.Wizard:
Never heard of the MK112 before. Was it installed on any aircraft?

-----------------------------

Me-163's HWK 109-509 Rocket Engine
http://www.mihailidis.com/images/HWK109509.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think so. They were working on development and only a few prototypes were built by war's end. It's basically a much larger Mk 108. Weight actually about 4 times more @ 273Kg. Higher muzzle velocity as well (600m/s) than Mk 108. ROF about half of Mk 108 @ 300-400 RPM. Weight of high explosive shell was 1480g - which is about 5 times the Mk 108's 30mm (330g).

There was also a long barrelled high-velocity version of it called Mk 114 55mm with twice the range at about 2000m, 1000m/s muzzle velocity but also 705 kg weight......which BTW is the same as Bk 7.5. However, Mk114 had 150RPM ROF and better muzzle velocity than Bk 7.5 (790m/s)

Cheers,

Jagd

jagdmailer
07-10-2004, 09:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Prof.Wizard:
Never heard of the MK112 before. Was it installed on any aircraft?

-----------------------------

Me-163's HWK 109-509 Rocket Engine
http://www.mihailidis.com/images/HWK109509.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think so. They were working on development and only a few prototypes were built by war's end. It's basically a much larger Mk 108. Weight actually about 4 times more @ 273Kg. Higher muzzle velocity as well (600m/s) than Mk 108. ROF about half of Mk 108 @ 300-400 RPM. Weight of high explosive shell was 1480g - which is about 5 times the Mk 108's 30mm (330g).

There was also a long barrelled high-velocity version of it called Mk 114 55mm with twice the range at about 2000m, 1000m/s muzzle velocity but also 705 kg weight......which BTW is the same as Bk 7.5. However, Mk114 had 150RPM ROF and better muzzle velocity than Bk 7.5 (790m/s)

Cheers,

Jagd

jagdmailer
07-10-2004, 10:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jagdmailer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I have my doubts that the Hs could fire off 5-6 rounds in a row at any good rate of fire. Simply this. the 75MM on the B-25 would slow it down quite a bit. B-25 had two 1700-1800HP engines and was a good 35,000lb's. The Hs-129 on the other hand had 2 650HP engines and 11,265. I cant even emagin the kinda slowdown firing that 75MM would of caused to the Hs-129! I would say 1-2 shots at max per pass. At a maximum speed of 250MPH, its not like it had an overhead of speed it could loose http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But you are correct. The B-25H was an anti-shipping aircraft. IT was aslo a much bigger target. I dont think it would of served well over fields of tanks. The VVS was sent a bunch of B-25 G and H's though so it does have its place. I dont know how the VVS used there B-25's with 75MM.

But even though the 75MM on the Hs-129 was better, the B-25 still had all the .50's for straifing troops and light armor, and lots of bombs for other targets. It was more versitile, were the Hs-129 was only a tank attacker.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jagdmailer:
I would rather have a flyable Hs 129B-3 Wa for FB than the B-25H. Kind of different role aircrafts altogether, but the Hs 129's Pak 75 derived Bk 7.5 was a way better gun than B-25H T3 gun. Bk 7.5 automaticly-loaded, 40 rpm, could usually fire a burst of about 4-5 rounds in a typical pass on a tank or group of tanks. Bk 7.5 long-barreled High muzzle velocity gun would ensure a one round kill for any tanks in service in WWII. B-25's was manually loaded by the "navigator"....B-25H will be better for PF.

If we are comparing apples to apples in any event, I would take a Ju 188A-2 any day over a B-25 any variant. Faster, almost double the payload, better range, 30% + better ceiling, and styling to boot. Only B-25 had better defensive weaponry, but if you are slow and can't get beyond 25,000 ft, then obviously you need it.

Don't get me wrong, I am glad we are getting a flyable B-25, but........

Cheers,

Jagd<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hs 129B had 690Hp engines, not 650. Not much more I will agree but I just wanted to set the record straight. C variant was planned with 2 of the Fiat radial @ 840hp similar to the Fiat G-50 and Macchi Mc 200, but Italy's surrender and it's poor industrial capacity did not allow for that in the end.

Hs 129 Bk7.5 with auto-loader had a 21 round capacity (if I remember correctly http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

It could fire 40 rpm, although the practical rate of fire would no doubt have been much less than that I concur. The Hs 129B-3 Wa with Bk 7.5 could fire 3-5 rounds on a particular target in a single pass on a tank or group of tanks from about 1000 meters. The Bk 7.5 could destroy or take out of action any tank in operation during WWII with a single round hit.

And yes, on the Hs 129B-3 Wa Bk 7.5, the MG151/20 cannons were removed to save weight.

Cheers,

Jagd<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Regarding the Hs 129C, there were indeed several prototypes made. However, I had made a wrong statement about the engine.....from memory I though it was a Fiat 840hp radial.

However, the Hs 129C was in fact fitted with Isotta-Fraschini Delta IV inverted V-12 engines @ 840hp, which offered an extra 380hp total over the 2 French radials of the B series. Problems with actual production and the factory in Italy being overun by the Allied in 1943 put a stop to the plans of large scale production for the Hs 129C.

Cheers,

Jagd

jagdmailer
07-10-2004, 11:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jagdmailer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jagdmailer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I have my doubts that the Hs could fire off 5-6 rounds in a row at any good rate of fire. Simply this. the 75MM on the B-25 would slow it down quite a bit. B-25 had two 1700-1800HP engines and was a good 35,000lb's. The Hs-129 on the other hand had 2 650HP engines and 11,265. I cant even emagin the kinda slowdown firing that 75MM would of caused to the Hs-129! I would say 1-2 shots at max per pass. At a maximum speed of 250MPH, its not like it had an overhead of speed it could loose http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But you are correct. The B-25H was an anti-shipping aircraft. IT was aslo a much bigger target. I dont think it would of served well over fields of tanks. The VVS was sent a bunch of B-25 G and H's though so it does have its place. I dont know how the VVS used there B-25's with 75MM.

But even though the 75MM on the Hs-129 was better, the B-25 still had all the .50's for straifing troops and light armor, and lots of bombs for other targets. It was more versitile, were the Hs-129 was only a tank attacker.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jagdmailer:
I would rather have a flyable Hs 129B-3 Wa for FB than the B-25H. Kind of different role aircrafts altogether, but the Hs 129's Pak 75 derived Bk 7.5 was a way better gun than B-25H T3 gun. Bk 7.5 automaticly-loaded, 40 rpm, could usually fire a burst of about 4-5 rounds in a typical pass on a tank or group of tanks. Bk 7.5 long-barreled High muzzle velocity gun would ensure a one round kill for any tanks in service in WWII. B-25's was manually loaded by the "navigator"....B-25H will be better for PF.

If we are comparing apples to apples in any event, I would take a Ju 188A-2 any day over a B-25 any variant. Faster, almost double the payload, better range, 30% + better ceiling, and styling to boot. Only B-25 had better defensive weaponry, but if you are slow and can't get beyond 25,000 ft, then obviously you need it.

Don't get me wrong, I am glad we are getting a flyable B-25, but........

Cheers,

Jagd<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hs 129B had 690Hp engines, not 650. Not much more I will agree but I just wanted to set the record straight. C variant was planned with 2 of the Fiat radial @ 840hp similar to the Fiat G-50 and Macchi Mc 200, but Italy's surrender and it's poor industrial capacity did not allow for that in the end.

Hs 129 Bk7.5 with auto-loader had a 21 round capacity (if I remember correctly http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

It could fire 40 rpm, although the practical rate of fire would no doubt have been much less than that I concur. The Hs 129B-3 Wa with Bk 7.5 could fire 3-5 rounds on a particular target in a single pass on a tank or group of tanks from about 1000 meters. The Bk 7.5 could destroy or take out of action any tank in operation during WWII with a single round hit.

And yes, on the Hs 129B-3 Wa Bk 7.5, the MG151/20 cannons were removed to save weight.

Cheers,

Jagd<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Regarding the Hs 129C, there were indeed several prototypes made. However, I had made a wrong statement about the engine.....from memory I though it was a Fiat 840hp radial.

However, the Hs 129C was in fact fitted with Isotta-Fraschini Delta IV inverted V-12 engines @ 840hp, which offered an extra 380hp total over the 2 French radials of the B series. Problems with actual production and the factory in Italy being overun by the Allied in 1943 put a stop to the plans of large scale production for the Hs 129C.

Cheers,

Jagd<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ooops, sorry for my math.....Isotta-Fraschini V12 engines of the proposed C series would have offered an extra 300hp combined over the set of Gnome-Rhones of the B series. (not 380hp)

Cheers,

Jagd

Willey
07-10-2004, 03:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
well, the guys is doing his/their best. cant ask for more than that http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
be a cool dogfight plane with that gun too http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I nailed a Pe-8 with that already http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Big Bang http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif