PDA

View Full Version : AR234



JG26Red
01-30-2004, 02:10 PM
you think this plane would have been made before the GO and BF109Z things... ??? eh? i know most of these planes where 3rd party, but comon? what good is a 109Z gonna be other than a nice big target?

JG26Red
01-30-2004, 02:10 PM
you think this plane would have been made before the GO and BF109Z things... ??? eh? i know most of these planes where 3rd party, but comon? what good is a 109Z gonna be other than a nice big target?

VW-IceFire
01-30-2004, 02:42 PM
AR234 was the German jet bomber that saw some limited use against the Allies (and presumably the Russians?) right?

That'd be a neat aircraft to have...I've kinda been wishing I had this plane as a target on a few missions. You got to intercept from a higher position or you'll never catch them.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
The New IL2 Database is Coming Soon!

JG26Red
01-30-2004, 02:58 PM
the B was catchable as it ran mid 400s... but the C, had 4 BMW engines i believe and was over 540mph... rather hard to catch it, better be diving lol... but B possible to maybe catch in straight line..

the AR saw more action than the GO and 109Z lol, umm alot more as they never did... oh well

Huckebein_FW
01-30-2004, 09:22 PM
Ar234 was the most exciting bomber ever: the pilot had to do all the functions by himself: beside flying he also had to do the navigation, radio operations, level and dive bombing and to man the rear guns through a periscope (though the guns were fixed, you still can put some nice deflection shooting using the periscope!). Just enjoy the speed and from your helicopter-like view, watch the pointless efforts of your pursuiters, shot down one or two.

I can't understand how can this plane remain not modeled.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

Huckebein_FW
01-30-2004, 09:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG26Red:
the B was catchable as it ran mid 400s... but the C, had 4 BMW engines i believe and was over 540mph... rather hard to catch it, better be diving lol... but B possible to maybe catch in straight line..

the AR saw more action than the GO and 109Z lol, umm alot more as they never did... oh well<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

An observation. Ar234B was not catchable even if it's max speeds were comparable with those of the latest and fastest piston interceptor. Ar234B fast cruise regime was the same with max speed of interceptors (there was little difference in speed between max cruise and combat power regimes on Jumo 004). That basically means that it could not be intercepted - it could be catched only by patroling fighters nearby the Ar234's target, but that did not happend (or if it happen is not mentioned because it was very rare). Though I also think that C variant was better, better engines, better range, more payload.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

MiloMorai
01-30-2004, 10:17 PM
The Ar234C was overpowered and that extra power could not be used. (statemant by Ludwig Dambach)

For a good book on the Ar234 see the Monogram Monarch #1 by Smith and Creek. ISBN 0-914144-51-0

An interesting side note is that the HP Victor's cresent wing was pioneered by Kosin and Lehmann while doing research for improving the Ar234.

On March 2 1945, 21 Ar 234s attack Allied troops in the Aachen-Julich area. Even the Me109s of JG27(8 lost) failed to protect the Ars and 2 were lost, 1 to a Spit XIV(41 Sqd) and the other to a Tempest(222 Sqd)



Long live the Horse Clans.

Huckebein_FW
01-30-2004, 10:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MiloMorai:
The Ar234C was overpowered and that extra power could not be used. (statemant by Ludwig Dambach)

For a good book on the Ar234 see the _Monogram Monarch #1_ by Smith and Creek. ISBN 0-914144-51-0

An interesting side note is that the HP Victor's cresent wing was pioneered by Kosin and Lehmann while doing research for improving the Ar234.

On March 2 1945, 21 Ar 234s attack Allied troops in the Aachen-Julich area. Even the Me109s of JG27(8 lost) failed to protect the Ars and 2 were lost, 1 to a Spit XIV(41 Sqd) and the other to a Tempest(222 Sqd)

Long live the Horse Clans.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No early jet was "overpowered"(what that means MM?). Ar234C could not use max power at high speed because it would have entered in compressibility. Ar234 did not use a symetric thin airfoil, this is the major reason why Ar234B was significantly slower than Me-262 though they used the same engines.

4 engines on Ar234 were very useful at take-off and maneuvers, cutting the lenghty take-off of the early jets (no need for RATO packs either). It's important to mention that Ar234 was aerobatic even on 2 engines, I wonder how performant was in climb or turn with 4 engines (probably quite close to Me-262, though with a much larger payload and range).

What a beauty!
http://www.kitreview.com/kitreviews/images/ar234creviewbg_1.jpg

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

necrobaron
01-30-2004, 11:13 PM
I'd love to get an Ar-234 in FB,but people would complain to no end that we're getting "another jet".... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Heaven forbid WWII-era jets making it into FB,a WWII flight sim..... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

"Not all who wander are lost."

MiloMorai
01-30-2004, 11:24 PM
Yes Huck we all know that LW a/c were so uber. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

"Ar234C could not use max power at high speed because it would have entered in compressibility."

So one can't use that extra power to escape.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif ergo, overpowered and can't be used.

Did you know that the a/c must reduce its speed to 136mph/220kph for the pilot to bailout. (from the POI)

The C-3 had less than 1/2 the range of the B-2.

Just so you don't think I am knocking the Ar, Werner Muffey flew 3-4 sorties over England with impunity. Another recon pilot, Hans Feld, commander of 1.(F)/123 was shot down over Rheine after returning from a photo mission over GB by a Tempest(234 Sqd). This was the 1st Ar to be shot down.



Long live the Horse Clans.

JG53-Falkster
01-31-2004, 02:43 AM
I ask me always how can people diskuss over such a great theme, even when they don't have read any serious books with serious sources.

http://www.buch-steiner.de/cover_neu/112/11226766N.jpg

I read this books, one of the best about the Arado. Nearly everything what's posted in this thread is uncorrect....

I haven't the disire to explain everything.

But something i would like to say, the most pilots did fly not with full power, they flown for example with 300km/h, because they didn't have a lot of fuel, so they could made more reconmissions, everyone knows that a plane with low speed use less fuel.....So even a "rata" can shoot down a arado.

a nice story about a recon mission:
a arado pilot did fly a recon mission suddenly he saw a C-47 formation with 3 or 4 planes, so he tought i go in formation with those C-47 so i can fly slow and i am save........

With full throttle NO allied plane did have a chance to follow.........
The most plane have been shot down during landing "sequenz"......

Im sure jet planes are great in il2FB but it seems that oleg is not able to make a normal FM even for a me262.......

LEXX_Luthor
01-31-2004, 05:19 AM
arato

arata


__________________
RUSSIAN lexx website http://www.lexx.ufo.ru/members.shtml
Stanly is a moron, kai is a walking dead beet, Xev just want sex.
:
you will still have FB , you will lose nothing ~WUAF_Badsight

BerkshireHunt
01-31-2004, 06:40 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by JG53-Falkster:

With full throttle NO allied plane did have a chance to follow.........


The Arado 234B2 had a slower maximum speed than the Meteor III, of which 150 were in service before the end of the war (look it up- you'll see that I'm right). Between 15,000 and 20,000 ft there was little to choose between the two.

BerkshireHunt
01-31-2004, 06:47 AM
And the four- engined C series never entered production. About 20 prototypes were made but they were never issued to an operational unit. Good looking though.

avimimus
01-31-2004, 08:03 AM
There was an external that was at about 50%. The guy got busy and no one was willing to take over the project.

MiloMorai
01-31-2004, 08:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG53-Falkster:
I ask me always how can people diskuss over such a great theme, even when they don't have read any serious books with serious sources.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Smith and Creek book is a serious book.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Besides the history of development and use, it goes into future versions of the Ar234, as well as listing all the W.Nr. and the fate of the a/c. Includes a POI and the operations of KG76 with the Ar234.

PS. The book is 264pgs, 12" x 9".

Long live the Horse Clans.

[This message was edited by MiloMorai on Sat January 31 2004 at 08:14 AM.]

jeroen_R90S
01-31-2004, 08:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MiloMorai:
{snip, snap}

On March 2 1945, 21 Ar 234s attack Allied troops in the Aachen-Julich area. Even the Me109s of JG27(8 lost) failed to protect the Ars and 2 were lost, 1 to a Spit XIV(41 Sqd) and the other to a Tempest(222 Sqd)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's an important point: bombing. Bombs were mounted externally, slowing it down enough to be able to intercept it.
Recce versions were faster and thus harder to intercept.

BTW, even in the old Aces of Europe (where you could fly the 234), I was shot down when armed with (a) bomb(s), when extending away from the target you could easily outrun the enemy fighters. Not bad for an such and old game...!

Falkster, do you have an ISBN for that book?

Jeroen

Aaron_GT
01-31-2004, 09:04 AM
You can fly the Ar234 (without cockpit)
in Janes WW2F. Or you can shoot them down.
How accurate the FMs are is another matter.
(I can't remember if I have Jane's patched
up to the maximum FM changes).

Aaron_GT
01-31-2004, 09:04 AM
P.S. As far as I remember the Janes WW2F
versions are bomber versions without the
two rear firing MG151/20s. (not all bombers
were fitted with these).

MiloMorai
01-31-2004, 09:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
P.S. As far as I remember the Janes WW2F
versions are bomber versions without the
two rear firing MG151/20s. (not all bombers
were fitted with these).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 234 book says the rear firing 20mm were never installed in the B-2.(pg60) The C was to have them but only the V21 had them installed.



Long live the Horse Clans.

LeadSpitter_
01-31-2004, 10:19 AM
yeah the 109z is such a joke, at least the p82 actually seen service.

Planes like the voss, bf108, do217, and others that flew on the eastern front are needed flyable, but i guess just mirroring two 109s was an very easy thing to do, I dont know why they didnt put the he111 cockpit in oneside of the he111z makes no sense and an easier thing to make then the 109z. It would be much better then having the 109z.

Im greatful we are getting it and will probally try it off line once then ban it from online games. Seems it was just thrown in as an easy way to make the payware pack seem like it has more.

I would like to know if we are getting new maps in this addon pack too it says 3 unexplored terrains but then says normandie ardennes and pacific map which we have already. Its seems like 6-7 completely new flyables the rest are version upgrades and same model, kinda seems expensive for not much, the whole game was 29.

and if the modelers say its worth more then the 30 bucks, i agree the models are worth more then 30 but 30 x 4000-8000 copies is alot, and you guys save alot by not printing a manual but make a pdf on the cd which keeps very low printing cost.

Hopefully it brings more people to il2fb online

http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LSIG.txt
VIEW MY PAINTSCHEMES HERE (http://www.il2skins.com/?planeidfilter=all&planefamilyfilter=all&screenshotfilter=allskins&countryidfilter=all&authoridfilter=%3ALeadspitter%3A&historicalidfilter=all&Submit=+++Apply+filters++&action=list&ts=1072257400)

[This message was edited by LeadSpitter_ on Sat January 31 2004 at 09:31 AM.]

[This message was edited by LeadSpitter_ on Sat January 31 2004 at 09:34 AM.]

FW190fan
01-31-2004, 10:24 AM
Alfred Price has a good summary of Arado 234 operations after the Normandy landings in his "Last Year of the Luftwaffe".

It seems the most valuable service the Arado gave in it's early deployment was recon, which it did with impunity over the Allied aircraft infested skies of Normandy while flying the world's first jet recon mission.

To hide the location of their bases, Arados would fly at low altitude until some distance from home and then begin climbing to altitude.

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

Huckebein_FW
01-31-2004, 04:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Yes Huck we all know that LW a/c were so uber.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good, that's my point too.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"Ar234C could not use max power at high speed because it would have entered in compressibility."

So one can't use that extra power to escape. ergo, overpowered and can't be used. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For any situation except going at past 850km/h, the power of 4 engines was very useful. But I like that thing with Ar234C trying to escape from somebody. You have plenty of imagination Milo.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Did you know that the a/c must reduce its speed to 136mph/220kph for the pilot to bailout. (from the POI)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I didn't know that. Pilot usualy have very little respect for planes from which they cannot bail-out, like Hs-129, usually trying to hide their fears with belittling comments about performance (Hs-129 could be crashlanded, since it operated strictly at tree tops level, this was the standard procedure FARR - FAAR lost only 3!! Hs-129 to soviet fighters though it used more than 200 on Eastern Front for 2 years in very difficult conditions). Is not the case with Ar-234, for which everybody spoke highly of. Maybe you're not reading correctly the POI, or the translation is not right. Post the POI page.

The C-3 had less than 1/2 the range of the B-2.
This could not have come from POI, it's only your erroneous interpretation of the fact that BMW 003 had similar fuel consumption with Jumo 004, but used 4 intead of 2 in C variant compared with the B variant. Nothing further from the true. Basically at 2000kg load 234C had a range with 100km more than 234B at 1500kg load, and clean with around 500km better range.

MiloMorai
01-31-2004, 05:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
Yes Huck we all know that LW a/c were so uber.

Good, that's my point too.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You left off the http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif, so let me post a few more, so irony is not lost on you, this time. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"Ar234C could not use max power at high speed because it would have entered in compressibility."

So one can't use that extra power to escape. ergo, overpowered and can't be used.

For any situation except going at past 850km/h, the power of 4 engines was very useful. But I like that thing with Ar234C trying to escape from somebody. You have plenty of imagination Milo.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well if the recon version can be caught and shot down what makes the C any better? Again you try to tell the forum that the C was so fast, but that is when it has no bombload, which it had to drop to escape from Allied fighters.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Now what use is a bomber that can't drop its bombs on a target since it had to drop the load prematurily to escape from enemy fighters?

It should be noted that the B-2 with 1000kg bomb on the centre rack had only 230+30L of fuel in its tanks.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Did you know that the a/c must reduce its speed to 136mph/220kph for the pilot to bailout. (from the POI)

No, I didn't know that. Pilot usualy have very little respect for planes from which they cannot bail-out, like Hs-129, usually trying to hide their fears with belittling comments about performance (Hs-129 could be crashlanded, since it operated strictly at tree tops level, this was the standard procedure FARR - FAAR lost only 3!! Hs-129 to soviet fighters though it used more than 200 on Eastern Front for 2 years in very difficult conditions). Is not the case with Ar-234, for which everybody spoke highly of. Maybe you're not reading correctly the POI, or the translation is not right. Post the POI page.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No Huckie, it is in EOI section, sub-section 5.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The C-3 had less than 1/2 the range of the B-2.

This could not have come from POI, it's only your erroneous interpretation of the fact that BMW 003 had similar fuel consumption with Jumo 004, but used 4 intead of 2 in C variant compared with the B variant. Nothing further from the true. Basically at 2000kg load 234C had a range with 100km more than 234B at 1500kg load, and clean with around 500km better range.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again you have some reading problems, for I did not say the range data came from the POI. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif
Gee Huck, with both models having the same physical dimensions, where did the C hide the extra fuel? Even if the BMW engines only had a consumtion rate 1/2 of what the Jumos did they still would have the same range. Since the BMWs did not comsume 1/2 of what the Jumos did there is NO WAY the the C could have a longer range.



Long live the Horse Clans.

Huckebein_FW
02-01-2004, 02:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MiloMorai:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
_Yes Huck we all know that LW a/c were so uber._

Good, that's my point too.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You left off the http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif, so let me post a few more, so irony is not lost on you, this time. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, something else was lost here, namely your humor.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Well if the recon version can be caught and shot down what makes the C any better? Again you try to tell the forum that the C was so fast, but that is when it has _no bombload_, which it had to drop to escape from Allied fighters.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Now what use is a bomber that can't drop its bombs on a target since it had to drop the load prematurily to escape from enemy fighters?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ar234B had an economical cruise speed of 500 to 600km/h, depending on altitude, and a max cruise of 540km/h loaded (on external racks) at best altitude, therefore a lucky fighter pilot could catch it when Arado was cruising, but only if Arado pilot was not watching, because max speed was 740km/h clean to 670km/h loaded (at best altitude, but certainly over 600km/h at sea level, loaded). Since at sea level Ar234B was as fast as the fastest allied fighters then if the bomber pilot notices that he is under attack, he is impossible to catch. Ar234C has much better max speed, difference is even higher when loaded. BMW 003 could not be fully throttled at max speed remember, but if the plane was loaded, they certainly could.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It should be noted that the B-2 with 1000kg bomb on the centre rack had only 230+30L of fuel in its tanks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You mean external tanks. Yes. But internal load is 3800l fuel, regardless of external load.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>No Huckie, it is in EOI section, sub-section 5.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not convinced at all. Post the original in german.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Again you have some reading problems, for I did not say the range data came from the POI. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif
Gee Huck, with both models having the same physical dimensions, where did the C hide the extra fuel? Even if the BMW engines only had a consumtion rate 1/2 of what the Jumos did they still would have the same range. Since the BMWs did not comsume 1/2 of what the Jumos did there is NO WAY the the C could have a longer range.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, it could not be from POI because it is incorrect. The difference between between Jumo and BMW was that BMW could be throttled on a larger RPM range without risking compressor stalls and flame outs. BMW 003 took longer to develop, but when it was mounted on serial aicraft it was a better engine than Jumo 004.

Now what does that mean to fuel efficiency? Let's look at the Jumo 004: it cruises in 8000-7500 RPM range. At 7500 RPM it produces only 380 kg thrust (aprox), almost 2,5 times less than at 8700 RPM. At this RPM Me-262 reaches best range, and most probably Ar234B also. We know that TSFC (specific fuel consumption in lb/hr/lb, less is better) for Jumo at take off power is 1.4, at max power is 1.8 and at cruise around 1.3. At 6000 RPM TSFC is probably more than at cruise power, but less than at take-off power. So you can put 4 Jumos on a Ar234 and get similar fuel consumption at 6000-6500 RPM with an Ar234 having 2 Jumos throttled at 7500RPM. This what they did with BMW 003, and it was easier to do than with Jumos because BMW 003 was a better throttleable engine, it kept the same TFSC on a larger RPM range. Keep in mind that BMW was also more fuel efficient than Jumo (better TSFC). Now you can see why it had a better range on the same fuel load.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

[This message was edited by Huckebein_FW on Sun February 01 2004 at 01:28 AM.]

Huckebein_FW
02-01-2004, 02:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MiloMorai:

The 234 book says the rear firing 20mm were never installed in the B-2.(pg60) The C was to have them but only the V21 had them installed.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is hard to tell. Many books also claim that the periscope was mounted only on some prototypes, but I have it in almost all my photos. The periscope was to be used together with the rear firing guns. Generally the info about late war German planes is not of highest quality because most of the original documents concerning the last months of war were deliberately destroyed.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

MiloMorai
02-01-2004, 02:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:

No, something else was lost here, namely your humor.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Since when have you been anything but serious with your claim of the uber LW and its a/c. You must try to improve your humour presentation. Cndr Data does a better job of it than you.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I'm not convinced at all. Post the original in german.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope, you will have to high-jack your Ar234 POI from someone else. You have the location where the statement came from.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



Long live the Horse Clans.

MiloMorai
02-01-2004, 03:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:

This is hard to tell. Many books also claim that the periscope was mounted only on some prototypes, but I have it in almost all my photos. The periscope was to be used together with the rear firing guns.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Depends on the quality of the book, Huck.

Since you have so many photos, produce one of a B-2 that has the rear facing cannons.

The periscope was like the rear-view mirror in you car &gt; only for looking/checking to the rear.

The V1 &gt; 6, V8, V9, V21 did not have periscopes mounted. So is that "some" or "almost"?



Long live the Horse Clans.

Huckebein_FW
02-01-2004, 03:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BerkshireHunt:
The Arado 234B2 had a slower maximum speed than the Meteor III, of which 150 were in service before the end of the war (look it up- you'll see that I'm right). Between 15,000 and 20,000 ft there was little to choose between the two.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is incorrect. Meteor Mark III was still a very slow airplane, max speed around 710-720km/h, it was slower than Ar234B (clean). It was powered by 2 Derwent I engines at 2000lb thrust each, that were just a little bit more powerful than the Wellands that Mark I had (1700lb thrust each). It was much slower than the Meteor F.4 that followed Mark III, powered by Derwent V producing almost twice the thrust available to Mark III. F.4 also had clipped wings to improve speed and lessen the wing stress (that caused accidents) which Mark III didn't (F.4 was not a ww2 aircraft).

Generally Meteors remained inferior fighters throughout their service life. They were extremely draggy (more than 150km/h slower than the similarly powered Me-262), they did not have symetric airfoil which caused severe compressibility effects at jet speeds, they had weak wings due to engine placement inside wing - first series were not allowed for aerobatic flight due to this - Mark III had deliberately heavy ailerons in order to protect the wing from stress, which made maneuvers very tiresome (this is a good place to mention that P-80 also had similarly heavy controls, this time heavy elevators, deliberately made this way in order to keep pilots from overstressing the airframe). Cockpit of the early marks were filled with notices warning the pilot that the plane should not be flown aerobaticaly. Meteors suffered from snaking at high speed making aiming difficult.

Though some Mark III were shipped to Holland in Jan '45 they were forbidden to engage in air combat. The confidence in Meteors was too low. At no point Meteors were a threat to Ar234.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

Huckebein_FW
02-01-2004, 03:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MiloMorai:
Since when have you been anything but serious with your claim of the uber LW and its a/c. You must try to improve your humour presentation. Cndr Data does a better job of it than you.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure he does. It fits your taste wellhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Nope, you will have to high-jack your Ar234 POI from someone else. You have the location where the statement came from.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not convinced that you have a good translation. If you don't want to scan it, you can type the original paragraph in German here. That will be good enough.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

Huckebein_FW
02-01-2004, 04:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MiloMorai:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:

This is hard to tell. Many books also claim that the periscope was mounted only on some prototypes, but I have it in almost all my photos. The periscope was to be used together with the rear firing guns.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Depends on the quality of the book, Huck.

Since you have so many photos, produce one of a B-2 that has the rear facing cannons.

The periscope was like the rear-view mirror in you car &gt; only for looking/checking to the rear.

The V1 &gt; 6, V8, V9, V21 did not have periscopes mounted. So is that "some" or "almost"?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Almost all my photos" means that an important number of Ar234 them had the periscope installed. I don't think I stumbled upon all the pictures of Ar234 with mounted periscope.

A periscope was NOT a rear view mirror, they did not need a marked periscope just for looking behind. For that they could use very well ... a mirror, instead of cluttering the cockpit with the bulky periscope mount.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

MiloMorai
02-01-2004, 04:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MiloMorai:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:

This is hard to tell. Many books also claim that the periscope was mounted only on some prototypes, but I have it in almost all my photos. The periscope was to be used together with the rear firing guns.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Depends on the quality of the book, Huck.

Since you have so many photos, produce one of a B-2 that has the rear facing cannons.

The periscope was like the rear-view mirror in you car &gt; only for looking/checking to the rear.

The V1 &gt; 6, V8, V9, V21 did not have periscopes mounted. So is that "some" or "almost"?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Almost all my photos" means that an important number of Ar234 them had the periscope installed. I don't think I stumbled upon all the pictures of Ar234 with mounted periscope.

A periscope was NOT a rear view mirror, they did not need a marked periscope just for looking behind. For that they could use very well ... a mirror, instead of cluttering the cockpit with the bulky periscope mount. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Huck &gt; you said prototypes. So what is this switch to Ar234s?

Well it depends on which periscope was installed.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The B used the bomber type RF2C which could be trained forward or aft. The RF2B type only 'looked' to the rear. Since this was used on the recon version and the cameras were located where the cannons/ammo were to be be this could not be used for "firing" the non-existant cannons.

Cluttering the cockpit? Now Huck, it was not that 'bulky' and how was the pilot to drop his bomb(s)? Use the Mk 1 Eyeball?


It is hard to get 220kph translated incorrectly.



Long live the Horse Clans.

JG54_Lukas
02-01-2004, 07:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jeroen_R90S:

Falkster, do you have an ISBN for that book?

Jeroen<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

3613022877 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

CH_D-Fender
02-01-2004, 07:56 AM
The Arado was also the first plane that gave
the German High Command the first pics from the
beaches of Normandy, some 6 week after the
invasion.

D_Fender

BerkshireHunt
02-01-2004, 09:03 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
."Meteor Mark III was still a very slow airplane, max speed around 710-720km/h, it was slower than Ar234B (clean)".
---------------
This is not correct. The Meteor III had a higher max. speed at its rated altitude than the Ar234B2 and was not inferior in speed to the German design at any height.
Meteor III max speed at sea level: 458mph
[Max speed at rated altitude (30,000ft): 493mph]

Arado 234C max speed at sea level: (let's be charitable and say 450mph)
Max speed at rated altitude (19685ft): 461 mph
(which fell to 373 mph with 3300lb bomb load).

-----------------
"Generally Meteors remained inferior fighters throughout their service life. They were extremely draggy (more than 150km/h slower than the similarly powered Me-262),"
------------------
Like all those with a masturbatory Luftwaffe obsession you neglect to mention which mark of Meteor you are referring to. Your comments apply to the Mark I only- which was sent to squadrons so that the RAF could gain experience of operating jet fighters.
I would not argue that the Meteor I was as refined an airframe as the Me262 (or Arado 234 for that matter). But you are totally wrong to cast aspersions on its suitability for combat. The MkI was credited with the destruction of 13 V1s over England and was used for ground attack purposes on many occasions on continental Europe by 616 Sqn (on one sortie destroying 46 German transports). It is known that a section of four Meteor MkIs would have engaged some Fw190s if it hadn't been forced to break off due to being misidentified by some Tempests as Me262s.
On 2nd May 1945 a lone Meteor destroyed a Fieseler Storch.
So it was used in combat. And if it was such a terrible design it's strange that it should have continued in service with many airforces for another 15 years and seen service in Korea. It was a simple, robust airframe which operated from grass airstrips in Germany and elsewhere without problems.
Yes, it did suffer from directional snaking but so did the Arado 234B2 (see Eric Brown's account) and the Me 262. This is not modelled in FB.
With regard to the airframe's ultimate capabilities I would have to agree that it was of the past not the future, because it did not have swept wings (neither did the Ar234), but I would point out that the fastest post war Meteor reached 623 mph- which is a lot faster than any Arado 234 or Me262 ever achieved.

------------------
"Though some Mark III were shipped to Holland in Jan '45 they were forbidden to engage in air combat. The confidence in Meteors was too low. At no point Meteors were a threat to Ar234."
--------------------
The faster Meteor III arrived in early 1945 with 504 Sqn. You know (I am sure) that the Meteor I was temporarily banned from combat because of 'security reasons' (ie officialdom did not want the Nimonic alloys and austenitic steel used in construction of the engines to be analysed by the Germans). This ban was swiftly lifted, however. I should like to know why you say the Meteor III was banned from combat since its predecessor had not been. I suspect you made this up.

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

[I must close now to continue my reading of 'The War Diary of Helmut Lipfert.' I've just reached the bit where he describes how he used his 109G6 to strafe retreating Romanian troops who had just betrayed Germany by switching sides and allying with Russia ("Befehl ist befehl"). The Romanian airforce attacked German forces evacuating the Crimea- 109s against 109s. It's a very enlightening read- recommended).

[This message was edited by BerkshireHunt on Sun February 01 2004 at 08:16 AM.]

Samu_OFP
02-01-2004, 11:31 AM
Hi guys!

If you want to see a great video about the Blitz, go to the bottom of the linked page and download it!! (8 minuts of Real Player video). It's absolutely amazing!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://aerostories.free.fr/events/juvin/page2.html

And there is the complete history of the plane: http://www.vectorsite.net/avar234.html

Nazi_Boy_USA
02-01-2004, 07:01 PM
Huck is right, Milo is wrong.

Germany rules, Germany is ueber (correct spelling) and last but not least;

God Bless Germany! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

jeroen_R90S
02-01-2004, 11:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG54_Lukas:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jeroen_R90S:

Falkster, do you have an ISBN for that book?

Jeroen<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

3613022877 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Many thanks! I've been looking for a decent book on the 234 for quite some time; hopefully this is the one!

Jeroen

Huckebein_FW
02-02-2004, 01:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MiloMorai:
Huck &gt; you said _prototypes_. So what is this switch to Ar234s?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I said:
"This is hard to tell. Many books also claim that the periscope was mounted only on some prototypes, but I have it in almost all my photos. The periscope was to be used together with the rear firing guns."

Do you think that I have pictures only with prototypes? How clear should I put it for you to understand? Most of Ar234B pictures I have are not prototypes, but they have the periscope installed.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Well it depends on which periscope was installed.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The B used the bomber type RF2C which could be trained forward or aft. The RF2B type only 'looked' to the rear. Since this was used on the recon version and the cameras were located where the cannons/ammo were to be be this could not be used for "firing" the non-existant cannons.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is true, the rear firing guns were mounted only on planes that did not have the cameras fitted. They sat in the same place. So not many had the rear guns (but not many Ar234 were produced anyway). Important is that the rear firing guns were mounted on real planes, it wasn't just a planned development. The planes intended for bombing missions had the guns, but a majority of Ar234 had the cameras, because Ar234 did mostly recce missions.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Cluttering the cockpit? Now Huck, it was not that 'bulky' and how was the pilot to drop his bomb(s)? Use the Mk 1 Eyeball?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was talking about the periscope mount comming from the ceiling. The bombsight was below the control wheel, it wasn't taking important space.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It is hard to get 220kph translated incorrectly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I saw poor translations from German made by NACA, so don't be so full of yourself. Post the paragraph, otherwise it's just a claim of yours among many.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

Huckebein_FW
02-02-2004, 03:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BerkshireHunt:
."Meteor Mark III was still a very slow airplane, max speed around 710-720km/h, it was slower than Ar234B (clean)".
---------------
This is not correct. The Meteor III had a higher max. speed at its rated altitude than the Ar234B2 and was not inferior in speed to the German design at any height.
Meteor III max speed at sea level: 458mph
[Max speed at rated altitude (30,000ft): 493mph]

Arado 234C max speed at sea level: (let's be charitable and say 450mph)
Max speed at rated altitude (19685ft): 461 mph
(which fell to 373 mph with 3300lb bomb load).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The speeds you gave here for Meteor III are for modified postwar batches with elongated nacelles, that were 50 mph faster at high altitude (less at smaller altitudes). Do not confuse them.

You can easily estimate max speeds from Mk I to Mk III since there were no significant aerodynamic improvements (new cockpit canopy improved the view not the aerodynamics). For that we can also ignore the induced drag and wave drag (since speeds are over 650km/h but below 0.7 M):

thrust1/thrust2 ~ (speed1/speed2)^2 =&gt; speed1 ~ (sqrt(thrust1/thrust2))*thrust2
= sqrt(2000/1700)*420 ~ 455mph (this is the higher limit because we ignored the wave drag from which Meteor was seriosly suffering).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
-----------------
"Generally Meteors remained inferior fighters throughout their service life. They were extremely draggy (more than 150km/h slower than the similarly powered Me-262),"
------------------
Like all those with a masturbatory Luftwaffe obsession you neglect to mention which mark of Meteor you are referring to. Your comments apply to the Mark I only- which was sent to squadrons so that the RAF could gain experience of operating jet fighters.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you can't have a discussion without resorting to insults you'd better stop now. It seems that everybody comming to this forum cannot tolerate criticism towards their favorite plane. Because they lack proofs they instantly resort to insults. There are prominent figures on this forum, that should have been banned a long time ago, that after the first post they made on a thread, immediately after they resort to slander. Milo here, is a very good example. Since this behaviour is tolerated by the mods, it is highly contagious. You are a recent victim of this pattern of behaviour. I hope that you'll find the force to overcome it.

If you read the phrase more carefuly you can identify the Meteor variant easily: I said similarly powered with Me-262, that means Derwent I engines, which is the Mark III variant. ww2 Mark III variant was 150km/h slower than Me-262, though it was similarly powered.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I would not argue that the Meteor I was as refined an airframe as the Me262 (or Arado 234 for that matter). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"I would not argue that the Meteor I was as refined an airframe as the Me262" that's a nice way too put it. But I suggest you to look at the picture below. British engineers surely put a lot of thought into this jet wing design, hard to do another more inefficient. But perhaps you can come with other suggestions, I don't know much about british aicrafts.
http://www.vflintham.demon.co.uk/aircraft/meteor/met4a.jpg

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
But you are totally wrong to cast aspersions on its suitability for combat. The MkI was credited with the destruction of 13 V1s over England and was used for ground attack purposes on many occasions on continental Europe by 616 Sqn (on one sortie destroying 46 German transports). It is known that a section of four Meteor MkIs would have engaged some Fw190s if it hadn't been forced to break off due to being misidentified by some Tempests as Me262s.
On 2nd May 1945 a lone Meteor destroyed a Fieseler Storch.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am baffled. 13 V1s downed, some Fw190 that fled and one Storch that passed-out - Meteor was the world's greatest predator since T-Rex. It's a shame that not many know about this.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
So it was used in combat. And if it was such a terrible design it's strange that it should have continued in service with many airforces for another 15 years and seen service in Korea. It was a simple, robust airframe which operated from grass airstrips in Germany and elsewhere without problems.
Yes, it did suffer from directional snaking but so did the Arado 234B2 (see Eric Brown's account) and the Me 262. This is not modelled in FB.
With regard to the airframe's ultimate capabilities I would have to agree that it was of the past not the future, because it did not have swept wings (neither did the Ar234), but I would point out that the fastest post war Meteor reached 623 mph- which is a lot faster than any Arado 234 or Me262 ever achieved.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, it was used for many years by 3rd world countries with poor results in air to air combat all the time. But we can add this to Meteor's great resume.
That max speed value you gave here was obtained by a non-operational, stripped down, clipped wing Meteor. It was also twice as powerful compared to Me-262 and Ar-234. Meaningful comparison, right?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
------------------
"Though some Mark III were shipped to Holland in Jan '45 they were forbidden to engage in air combat. The confidence in Meteors was too low. At no point Meteors were a threat to Ar234."
--------------------
The faster Meteor III arrived in early 1945 with 504 Sqn. You know (I am sure) that the Meteor I was temporarily banned from combat because of 'security reasons' (ie officialdom did not want the Nimonic alloys and austenitic steel used in construction of the engines to be analysed by the Germans). This ban was swiftly lifted, however. I should like to know why you say the Meteor III was banned from combat since its predecessor had not been. I suspect you made this up.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I did not say it did not fly missions, I said (maybe not too clear) that it was not allowed to engage other planes. But perhaps you'll come with another perplexing combat record for Mark III also.
The best way to describe the Meteor operations in ww2 are "combat trials" or "operational trials". The plane was not fully operational. But this is not something unusual for new planes developed during the war, or early jets: Me-262 stayed in trials for 8 months, P-80 for 17 months.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
[I must close now to continue my reading of 'The War Diary of Helmut Lipfert.' I've just reached the bit where he describes how he used his 109G6 to strafe retreating Romanian troops who had just betrayed Germany by switching sides and allying with Russia ("Befehl ist befehl"). The Romanian airforce attacked German forces evacuating the Crimea- 109s against 109s. It's a very enlightening read- recommended).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is completely off-topic, and was clearly aimed at me. I hope that you'll not repeat such personal attacks or I'll be forced to alert the mods. Perhaps you should read the rules for posting, you can find them in GD.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

[This message was edited by Huckebein_FW on Mon February 02 2004 at 02:53 AM.]

blabla0001
02-02-2004, 03:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nazi_Boy_USA:
Huck is right, Milo is wrong.

Germany rules, Germany is ueber (correct spelling) and last but not least;

God Bless Germany! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I saw how right Huck was with his Bf109 vs Spitfire turn rate debate, lmao.

Huckebein_FW
02-02-2004, 04:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cappadocian_317:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nazi_Boy_USA:
Huck is right, Milo is wrong.

Germany rules, Germany is ueber (correct spelling) and last but not least;

God Bless Germany! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I saw how right Huck was with his Bf109 vs Spitfire turn rate debate, lmao.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You mean by that what?

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

blabla0001
02-02-2004, 04:51 AM
This Huck:

"Kind of like your turn rate debate between the Spitfire and the Bf109.

You said that there wasn't that much difference between a Bf109 and a Spitfire and that the tests that where done in the UK was with a bad Bf109, then you come here and say that the Tempest V was a good turner and that it was only slightly worse then a Bf109 but the trails in the UK with the Tempest and the Spitfire showed clearly that the Tempest couldn't even dream to compete with a Spitfire in the turn rate department.

So with this logic I am really wondering where your info comes from.

The only thing I can come up with is that the Brits messed up their tests or sabotaged the Tempest to make the Spitfire look good.

That or your talking out of your neck."

MiloMorai
02-02-2004, 05:05 AM
Huck don't be so cheap. If you want to read the POI, buy the Remp He219 book.

Still waiting for the pics of some operational 219s with the rear mounted cannon. You have lots of pics so some must show them.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



Long live the Horse Clans.

MiloMorai
02-02-2004, 06:07 AM
Huck, 2 methods for bombing were used. One was was to release the bombs in a shallow dive using the PV1B periscope sighting head tied into the BZA bombing computer. The other was to engage the auto-pilot, swing the control column out of the way, bend over the lofte 7K and steer the a/c so the cross-hairs were over the target. Bombs released automatically. Though considerable accuracy was obtained with the 7K combination, the combination was difficult to calibrate.



Long live the Horse Clans.

USsoldiersRweak
02-03-2004, 02:50 PM
God Bless the German Bomber! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/icon_twisted.gif

tagert
02-03-2004, 04:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by USsoldiersRweak:
God Bless the German Bomber! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/icon_twisted.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/yawnme.jpg

TAGERT