PDA

View Full Version : Go-229



Spinne_3.-JG51
01-22-2004, 09:06 AM
Here's a site to whet your appetite for the Aces Expansion Pack with some great info about the Go-229. I didn't know that there was a Go-229 prototype still in existance. I hope someone decides to restore it.

http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/1999/02/stuff_eng_detail_hoix.htm

http://www.student.richmond.edu/~vk5qa/images/forumsig.jpg

"Come on in, I'll treat you nice! I used to know your father."

Spinne_3.-JG51
01-22-2004, 09:06 AM
Here's a site to whet your appetite for the Aces Expansion Pack with some great info about the Go-229. I didn't know that there was a Go-229 prototype still in existance. I hope someone decides to restore it.

http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/1999/02/stuff_eng_detail_hoix.htm

http://www.student.richmond.edu/~vk5qa/images/forumsig.jpg

"Come on in, I'll treat you nice! I used to know your father."

nutt3r
01-22-2004, 09:11 AM
i wonder how much it would cost to restore it

http://img13.photobucket.com/albums/v38/nutter/5333a4bd.jpg (http://members.lycos.co.uk/hellsgazelles/)

gates123
01-22-2004, 09:54 AM
It costed $10 mill to restore "Glacier Girl" which was the p-38 they pulled out of the ice, I would assume depending on if they still have the drafts on this baby that it would be in the $15-20 mill range at least.

http://gr.fipu.krasnoyarsk.edu/camms/archive/ww2_fighters/0112/pics/0112_2_1.jpg
Did anyone see that or was it just me?

bhunter2112
01-22-2004, 10:51 AM
I love the German wonder weapon planes ! I believe that the HO 229 is in the storage at the Smithsonian (i could be wrong) I am reading David Myrah's Secret aircraft designs of the third reich. Good book.

MiloMorai
01-22-2004, 10:53 AM
Afaik it is only the centre section. No wooden wings. It is stored at the Paul Gerber(sp??) Centre of the NASM.



Long live the Horse Clans.

tagert
01-22-2004, 11:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MiloMorai:
Afaik it is only the centre section. No wooden wings. It is stored at the Paul Gerber(sp??) Centre of the NASM.

Long live the Horse Clans.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hey Milo! Are you sure? I thought I saw a few pictures where they just removed the wings, but that they were stacked right next to the body? Oh by the way, happy new year bud! Long time no type!

TAGERT

Spinne_3.-JG51
01-22-2004, 11:36 AM
The wings are right next to the fuselage. All the control surfaces have been removed and placed by the side. I'm guessing that since it's a wooden plane, it can't cost too much to restore, especially since they can use the same engine adaptation they've used in the Strumvogel 262s. Both used to fly on the Jumo004 engines after all.

http://www.student.richmond.edu/~vk5qa/images/forumsig.jpg

"Come on in, I'll treat you nice! I used to know your father."

tagert
01-22-2004, 01:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spinne_3.-JG51:
The wings are right next to the fuselage. All the control surfaces have been removed and placed by the side.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I thought I saw a picture of them... then I went to that link of yours and sure enough, there the wings were.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spinne_3.-JG51:
I'm guessing that since it's a wooden plane, it can't cost too much to restore,
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually the fact that it is wood will most likly mean it will cost more! In that all the typical meatl skin technics the restor guys are use to will not apply... That and I seem to recal that the Go229 has some special laminated wood with special glue.. If that special glues is anyting like the glue in my 98K Mauser.. it is probally still good to go, but will requrie special care... and special usallys mean more $ http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spinne_3.-JG51:
especially since they can use the same engine adaptation they've used in the Strumvogel 262s. Both used to fly on the Jumo004 engines after all.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well.. I also seem to recal that those "build from scratch" ie not restored Me262 had to deviate a bit in the motor houseings in that the modern engines were not the same... I think if you look at them you will notice that they are a bit longer then the actuall Me262.. but I could be wrong.. it has been awhile... One thing for sure is they WILL NOT restore this Go229 to fly it!! They may restore it to flying condition.. but never fly it!! Let alone modify it to accept modern engines.

On the topic of engines... I still get a good laugh at Microsofts CFS3.. In that they made a big deal about *real* sounds.. They made a video and went on and one about how they went to the first flight of the "build from scratch" Me262 and how they captured the sound of the engines... The one thing about them that was nothing like the orginal Me262.. They could have gone to a local airport and got the same sounds off of a modern comersial plane! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Microsoft... Ah well what did you expect! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT

MiloMorai
01-22-2004, 01:53 PM
Well I thought I remembered reading someplace that only the centre section was left, but it is good to know that it is all there.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Tagert, remember the glue that was used in the construction of the Ta154?http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Me bets that it was a simular glue used in the Horten.



Long live the Horse Clans.

tagert
01-22-2004, 02:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MiloMorai:
Well I thought I remembered reading someplace that only the centre section was left, but it is good to know that it is all there.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yup! Hey check out that link, then scroll down, they have some pic of the wings! Funny.. That Gibb.. I wondered why on his web sight he had a picture of the Go229 with the wings off in a side rack... He was simulating the Smitsonan! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MiloMorai:
Tagert, remember the glue that was used in the construction of the Ta154?http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Me bets that it was a simular glue used in the Horten.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That would be a good bet! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Jerry does not get much credit for his glue he devolped! One thing for sure... Ill bet it is harder to restore wood then aluminim.. I seem to recal that Howard Hughs Spruce Goose was a Beeeeyach... but mostly due to the rot.

TAGERT

VW-IceFire
01-22-2004, 02:42 PM
Apparently its going to be one of the hardest planes to fly in FB when we do finally get it.

- IceFire
http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/spit-sig.jpg

Oblt.Emann
01-22-2004, 04:23 PM
The Go-229 is currently stored at the NASM storage facility in Silver Hill, Maryland. They actually have a complete pair of wings, but they are stored in a rack. They beleive they were just used for static testing of the aircraft because they don't fit 100%.

Der Oberleutnant

MiloMorai
01-22-2004, 04:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tagert:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MiloMorai:
Well I thought I remembered reading someplace that only the centre section was left, but it is good to know that it is all there.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yup! Hey check out that link, then scroll down, they have some pic of the wings! Funny.. That Gibb.. I wondered why on his web sight he had a picture of the Go229 with the wings off in a side rack... He was simulating the Smitsonan! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MiloMorai:
Tagert, remember the glue that was used in the construction of the Ta154?http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Me bets that it was a simular glue used in the Horten.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That would be a good bet! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Jerry does not get much credit for his glue he devolped! One thing for sure... Ill bet it is harder to restore wood then aluminim.. I seem to recal that Howard Hughs Spruce Goose was a Beeeeyach... but mostly due to the rot.

TAGERT<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Went back and looked through the link - hence the statement "it is good to know that it is all there".http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The Ta154 fell apart in the air becuase the original glue factory had been destroyed (the irony, by Mosiquitos, iirc) and another glue substituted. it would have been this substitute glue that would have been used on the Horten.



Long live the Horse Clans.

Spinne_3.-JG51
01-22-2004, 06:08 PM
Well, it'll be fun to fly, thats for sure. Anyone knows what version we're getting? Can it be used as an interceptor, or are we getting the fighter-bomber varient. That thing about 1000-1000-1000 makes you glad for Titanium. The 262 using the same set of engines could barely lift 500 kgs of bombs into the air after having two Mk108s removed. The Go229 is designed to carry 1000kg of bombs and it's possible only because it's made of wood!

http://www.student.richmond.edu/~vk5qa/images/forumsig.jpg

"Come on in, I'll treat you nice! I used to know your father."

IcarusXP
01-22-2004, 07:01 PM
I expect the cost of material and labor would be around $20 million.

There are fery few aviation maintenance technitians left skilled in wood fabrications, but their out there. Wood takes longer to work than metal, and you can only use pure quarter saw samples with no knots, or pockets.

They might do better just useing aluminium, 1200 series, and some of the new newer nylon materials.

I'd love to work on just one piece, it would be an honor.

Send me the left aleron and call me in 10 years, LOL

"The only reason we liberated France was to get to Germany"
-Rush Limbaugh
http://trackpad.home.comcast.net

tagert
01-22-2004, 08:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MiloMorai:
The Ta154 fell apart in the air becuase the original glue factory had been destroyed (the irony, by Mosiquitos, iirc) and another glue substituted. it would have been this substitute glue that would have been used on the Horten.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ahhhhhhhh didnt know that! I did know that near the end of the war they had to switch the glue on thier 98K bolt action rifles... the laminated stocks that is.. I have one from 1942 and it has the GOOD red color glue.. the later BAD glue was a white color... and when restoring the stocks you dont want to get those wet because they tend to fall apart! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT

tagert
01-22-2004, 08:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spinne_3.-JG51:
The Go229 is designed to carry 1000kg of bombs and it's possible only because it's made of wood!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ahhh I wouldnt jump to that conclusion so quickly.. wood tends to be heaver.. My *guess* would be the wing span is what enabled the Go229 and lack of drag due to no body or tail.. Two are the two factors that played into Northrups flying wing bombers... The less drag was more of a distance thing.. But that would be my guess as to why the Go229 could *lift* more than the Me262.. more wing area.

TAGERT

Spinne_3.-JG51
01-22-2004, 11:47 PM
How do they intend modelling the Go229 in the add-on? Is it going to be a smooth,bugs-worked out,line-aircraft or a bug-ridden test aircraft pressed into line duty, i.e. will it a be a serious aircraft, or a curio that people will fly a few times but will never take into combat?

http://www.student.richmond.edu/~vk5qa/images/forumsig.jpg

"Come on in, I'll treat you nice! I used to know your father."

WUAF_Badsight
01-23-2004, 12:39 AM
planes in FB are not moddeled with operating problems

they are fresh perfectly constructed AC with no resemblance to wot flew in WW2 construction wise

ppl who read about WW2 planes on the web then test then in FB seem to fail to realise this

FB tests designs against each other

not historical operating records , but how well the design performed

VonShlagnoff
01-23-2004, 02:12 AM
Such a beutiful beast, so advanced yet so primitive, I bet allied pilots were glad the Luftwaffe were 18 months behind schedule on their advanced projects when they saw what was being designed and built in 44/45.

SUPERAEREO
01-23-2004, 02:56 AM
Interesting link, Spinne, thank you.

May I ask: where does the 1939 cartoon in your sig come from?

tagert
01-23-2004, 10:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spinne_3.-JG51:
How do they intend modelling the Go229 in the add-on? Is it going to be a smooth,bugs-worked out,line-aircraft or a bug-ridden test aircraft pressed into line duty, i.e. will it a be a serious aircraft, or a curio that people will fly a few times but will never take into combat?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I was wondering that myself.. in that how much test-flight data exists on this aircraft? As for general flight charterstics of ALL FLYING WING AIRCRAFT they could check out Northrups flying wing from 1940, the stall and spin of a FLYING WING are different.. They could call chino airport and get the name of the guy who flys the 1940 Northrups wing out there... But, Gibb is very hip to that Nortrup flying wing... and Gibb got Oleg to go out to Chino to see the aircraft there... So ill bet they did at least get the flying charterstics of a flying winig correct.. only question left is how did they figure out the performance?

TAGERT

tagert
01-23-2004, 10:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VonShlagnoff:
Such a beutiful beast, so advanced yet so primitive, I bet allied pilots were glad the Luftwaffe were 18 months behind schedule on their advanced projects when they saw what was being designed and built in 44/45.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>WOW 18 months behind? Didnt realise it was that much... Well considering the P80 was allready online at the end of the war Im sure that 18 months of fine tuning the P80 would have delt with anything the Germans had drawn up on a knapkin! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT

MiloMorai
01-23-2004, 11:09 AM
Even the Meteor was "fine tuned" to get over 900kph speeds(level).http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



Long live the Horse Clans.

Jirozaemon
01-23-2004, 11:27 AM
@target: You may be right, but remember that Nazi-Germany allready had jetfighters in active (combat)service. The P-80 was allowed to sneak around a few times in southern Italy and was not assigned to any operative duty. (Just testing, I guess). It never saw combat during WWII, but it is the same for the Go229. Beside that: have you ever compared the shape of the Go229 to the B2-Bomber ?

Greetings

Jiro

gates123
01-23-2004, 11:33 AM
I'm sure most of you have been here but for the ones that haven't....GREAT SITE!! I think if it wasn't for Hitler launching the "Battle of the Bulge" (among other reasons) alot of these planes would have been test flown.

http://www.luft46.com/

http://gr.fipu.krasnoyarsk.edu/camms/archive/ww2_fighters/0112/pics/0112_2_1.jpg
Did anyone see that or was it just me?

MiloMorai
01-23-2004, 11:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gates123:
I'm sure most of you have been here but for the ones that haven't....GREAT SITE!! I think if it wasn't for Hitler launching the "Battle of the Bulge" (among other reasons) alot of these planes would have been test flown.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes as paper cutouts. Even the Russians took 2-3 years to perfect the Ta183 into the combat capable MiG15 and look how close it was to a flying a/c.



Long live the Horse Clans.

tagert
01-23-2004, 11:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jirozaemon:
@target: You may be right,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jirozaemon:
but remember that Nazi-Germany allready had jetfighters in active (combat)service.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>How could I forget.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jirozaemon:
The P-80 was allowed to sneak around a few times in southern Italy and was not assigned to any operative duty. (Just testing, I guess).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactally... Operational.. which was WAY ahead of most if not all of those fanticy Luft 46 drawings ever got.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jirozaemon:
It never saw combat during WWII, but it is the same for the Go229.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Did the Go229 go into production? Did it get assigned to a unit? I think no on both counts..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jirozaemon:
Beside that: have you ever compared the shape of the Go229 to the B2-Bomber ?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes... so what is your point? Oh.. do you think that Northrup dissregarded or forgot they develped a flying wing in 1940s... and all those flying wings in the 1950s when they build the B2 in the 1990s? P L E A S E!

see Northrop N9M-B Flying Wing here

http://www.planesoffame.com/Special%20Features.htm#Northrop%20N9M-B%20Flying%20Wing

and

http://www.planesoffame.com/photo%20gallery/pages/visitor%20submissions/flyingwing-mjoy.htm

TAGERT

tagert
01-23-2004, 12:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gates123:
I'm sure most of you have been here but for the ones that haven't....GREAT SITE!! I think if it wasn't for Hitler launching the "Battle of the Bulge" (among other reasons) alot of these planes would have been test flown.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Most of those aircraft never made it off the knapkin to a blue print, let alone build.. It would have takn more than 18 months just to find a pilot willing to risk his life in some of those! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif But seriosly, Germany should be thankful that Hitler did much around in things and end the war sooner.. Had he not and the war lasted just 2 months more, one of them A-bombs sent to Japan would have been diverted to Germany.

TAGERT

Jirozaemon
01-23-2004, 12:09 PM
@target You are right, the Ho229 was not assigned to any unit, nor it entered (mass)production .
You seem to be very curious about mentioning advanced german planes (even if they were only prototypes or drafts). I was just saying that the other german jets (Me262, Me 163, and the Arado jetbomber) where operational and saw active (combat!) duty. IMHO there is a big difference between this and testflights far away from the "frontlines". I think that you can not compare the status of the P-80 to the German jets, which allready entered active service.

Greets

Jiro

P.S. Please relax, it`s just my opinion.

tagert
01-23-2004, 12:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jirozaemon:
@target You are right, the Ho229 was not assigned to any unit, nor it entered (mass)production <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jirozaemon:
You seem to be very curious about mentioning advanced german planes (even if they were only prototypes or drafts).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Mentioning? No just responding to VonShlagnoff statement about them and how the allied felt.. I simply pointed out that had the war lasted another 18 months.. hard to belive what with the A-bomb and all... but assume that it did last that much longer the P80 would have dealt fine with the existing german jet arsenal and anything they could have whipped up in those 18 months... in that I firmly belive it would have taking much longer to get any of those Luft 46 napkin drawings up and flying in that amount of time

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jirozaemon:
I was just saying that the other german jets (Me262, Me 163, and the Arado jetbomber) where operational and saw active (combat!) duty. IMHO there is a big difference between this and testflights far away from the "frontlines". I think that you can not compare the status of the P-80 to the German jets, which all ready entered active service.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>My same argument for the P80 vs. Luft 46 aircraft.. Go229 included

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jirozaemon:
P.S. Please relax, it`s just my<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Relax? I'm fine.. but you seem a bit out of sorts.. in that you had no comment on the Northrup flying wing... Still think the B2 was based on Go229? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT

gates123
01-23-2004, 12:26 PM
Yeah true alot of those planes would've stayed on the knapkin, but some would've got'n some air time no doubt, and yes the a-bomb on berlin would've ended it.

http://www.luft46.com/mess/mep1101.html

http://www.luft46.com/fw/fwflitz.html

http://www.luft46.com/prototyp/go9.html

http://www.luft46.com/fw/ta183-i.html

http://www.luft46.com/prototyp/dfs228.html

http://gr.fipu.krasnoyarsk.edu/camms/archive/ww2_fighters/0112/pics/0112_2_1.jpg
Did anyone see that or was it just me?

Jirozaemon
01-23-2004, 12:29 PM
Quote: "Yes... so what is your point? Oh.. do you think that Northrup dissregarded or forgot they develped a flying wing in 1940s... and all those flying wings in the 1950s when they build the B2 in the 1990s? P L E A S E!"

Beside that the Northrop N9M-B Flying Wing was not a jetplane there is no point. Both, the N9M-B and the Ho229 are very similar to the shape of the B2. But I think the fact that two similar designs (which did not have the intention to avoid or reduce any trackable signature) existed at the same time is quite remarkable. Take it easy...

Jiro

[This message was edited by Jirozaemon on Fri January 23 2004 at 11:43 AM.]

tagert
01-23-2004, 12:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gates123:
Yeah true alot of those planes would've stayed on the knapkin, but some would've got'n some air time no doubt,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I doubt.. maybe MAYBE the p1101.. but I think even Bell Aerospace concluded after the war that it was an unstable aircraft... after YEARS of trying to make it work.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gates123:
and yes the a-bomb on berlin would've ended it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agreed 100%! They wouldnt have had 18 months to do anything.. The A-bomb.. like the P80 was ON LINE AND READY! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT

Jirozaemon
01-23-2004, 12:36 PM
I never mentioned the length of the war in any causality, so please be fair.
The allied pistondriven fighters were more than enough to bounce any German plane. So there is no need to compare the performance of a P-80 to the German jets. Such an encounter never occured. And indeed we are all happy that this was the case.

G*

tagert
01-23-2004, 12:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jirozaemon:
Beside that the Northrop N9M-B Flying Wing was not a jetplane there is no point.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nope, you just missed the point.. Your orginal question said nothing about the engines.. you asked.. and I quote

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jirozaemon:
have you ever compared the shape of the Go229 to the B2-Bomber
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>To which I simply pointed out that Northrup WING SHAPE is just like the B2 WING SHAPE and yes the Go229 WING SHAPE but you would have us belive that Northrup got the idea for the B2 WING SHAPE from the Go229 WING SHAPE instead of all the Northup flying wings WING SHAPES. Oh, and Northrup build a JET powered flying wing bomber in the 50s

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jirozaemon:
Both, the N9M-B and the Ho229 are very similar to the shape of the B2.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Flying wings are funny like that! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jirozaemon:
But I think the fact that two similar designs (which had not the intention to avoid any trackable signature) existed at the same time is quite remarkable.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yup... funny thing is no one remembers the work by Northrup... Just the German stuff

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jirozaemon:
Take it easy...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Take what easy?

TAGERT

Jirozaemon
01-23-2004, 12:47 PM
QUOTE]Take what easy?

I may be wrong, but your tone seems to be aggressive... That´s it.

tagert
01-23-2004, 12:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jirozaemon:
I may be wrong, but your tone seems to be so aggressive... That´s it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Aggressive? No just disappointed that so many people think Northrups B2 in the 1990s spawned from some captured technology from 1945... Selective history... Kind of funny sometimes

TAGERT

Jirozaemon
01-23-2004, 12:55 PM
[QUOTE]Aggressive? No just disappointed that so many people think Northrups B2 in the 1990s spawned from some captured technology from 1945... Selective history... Kind of funny sometimes

Then everything is fine...

SeaFireLIV
01-23-2004, 12:57 PM
What the heck is this Aces pack about? Is this the same as the paid addon expected in February?

SeaFireLIV...
Slowly mutating into a Hurricane Ordnance Whiner...

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/ijolly.jpg

Jirozaemon
01-23-2004, 01:24 PM
Another question, how did you get these pictures into yor profile ?

G*

Jiro

Gibbage1
01-23-2004, 01:31 PM
Just some insight. The Go-229 WAS in production. I have photo's of the production line of about 15 Go-229's in stagest of completion. The first 1 rolled off the assembly line just in time to be recieved by US soldiers. Thats whats at the Smithsonian. The only complete Go-229 V3. The rest were distroyed. Given another month, there could have been at least 10 Go-229's flying, but no matter how good it was or was not, 10 would do nothing.

Gib

MiloMorai
01-23-2004, 02:05 PM
Even though production orders to Gotha for 53 a/c and Klemm for 40 a/c Gib, I would not call a batch of prototypes, production a/c (V3 &gt; V8). The V8 was to be the third A-series prototype, with full operational equipment. The V4 and V5 were to be the 2 seat night fighter B-1s. The V7 was to be a trainer a/c. The production of the V6 was well advanced but was still a prototype.

The YP-80 can also be called a production a/c and it was flying. The YP-80 was closer to a production a/c than the Horten ever was.



Long live the Horse Clans.

tagert
01-23-2004, 03:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Just some insight. The Go-229 WAS in production. I have photo's of the production line of about 15 Go-229's in stagest of completion. The first 1 rolled off the assembly line just in time to be recieved by US soldiers. Thats whats at the Smithsonian. The only complete Go-229 V3. The rest were distroyed. Given another month, there could have been at least 10 Go-229's flying, but no matter how good it was or was not, 10 would do nothing.

Gib<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hey Gibb! Say, do you remember out at chino when you were talking to the B2 pilot.. Was it him, or that other pilot that flew the N9 that told us about the stall charterstics.. and if I remember right... didnt he say something about doing something oposite that of standard aircraft to recover from a stall... All in all my question is... if you can talk about it, will the Go299 have those same strange stall recovery techneqs? In the game that is

TAGERT

LeadSpitter_
01-23-2004, 04:08 PM
did it really cost 15m to restore the glaciergirl? Maybe because getting it out of the ice and shipping, If you look at the warbird market p38s are usually 5-6 mil mustangs 1m stormbirds has the me262s for 1.8 but they have replica GE engines which is a very good thing http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I would like to see a company reproduce replicas made with todays kit aircraft and actually look like the plane. I seen some really bad mustang kits out there

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)

Oblt.Emann
01-23-2004, 05:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Just some insight. The Go-229 WAS in production. I have photo's of the production line of about 15 Go-229's in stagest of completion. The first 1 rolled off the assembly line just in time to be recieved by US soldiers. Thats whats at the Smithsonian. The only complete Go-229 V3. The rest were distroyed. Given another month, there could have been at least 10 Go-229's flying, but no matter how good it was or was not, 10 would do nothing.

Gib<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Would it be possible to post the pics of the Gothaer production line? I've never seen photos of the entire line before, only of the V3 and some of the V5.

Der Oberleutnant

EPP-Gibbs
01-23-2004, 06:04 PM
This thread is amusing....Discussing aircraft that had no impact whatsoever on the air war in question, never saw frontline service, never shot anything down or dropped any bombs....and yet we get them as flyables in the add-on when at the same time the Me110 is still not available as flyable and we get only one variant of the Spitfire, and had to wait as long for that as for the silly fantasy aircraft.....figure that out! 110's and Spits were active on the Eastern front too, and still not included in this, the Eastern front Sim!

We get the P80 (did nothing in WW2) , and yet no Meteor, which did see active service.

It seems that the criteria for aircraft appearing is not what was historically accurate (in a sim that stakes it's reputation on accuracy, both historical and modelling) but on whatever the modellers fancy turning out.. Tie Fighter next?

If I had all the money I'd spent on drink..I'd spend it on drink!

Spinne_3.-JG51
01-23-2004, 06:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SUPERAEREO:
Interesting link, Spinne, thank you.

May I ask: where does the 1939 cartoon in your sig come from?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I got it off this terrific site. It has loads of other artwork, most of it hilarious.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWart.htm

Unfortunately, I don't remember the artist's name, but I'm pretty sure you'll find it easily.

http://www.student.richmond.edu/~vk5qa/images/forumsig.jpg

"Come on in, I'll treat you nice! I used to know your father."

Spinne_3.-JG51
01-23-2004, 06:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EPP-Gibbs:
This thread is amusing....Discussing aircraft that had no impact whatsoever on the air war in question, never saw frontline service, never shot anything down or dropped any bombs....and yet we get them as flyables in the add-on when at the same time the Me110 is still not available as flyable and we get only one variant of the Spitfire, and had to wait as long for that as for the silly fantasy aircraft.....figure that out! 110's and Spits were active on the Eastern front too, and still not included in this, the Eastern front Sim!

We get the P80 (did nothing in WW2) , and yet no Meteor, which did see active service.

It seems that the criteria for aircraft appearing is not what was historically accurate (in a sim that stakes it's reputation on accuracy, both historical and modelling) but on whatever the modellers fancy turning out.. Tie Fighter next?

If I had all the money I'd spent on drink..I'd spend it on drink!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In an ideal world, we'd have every single aircraft modelled as flyable, and that too to the n-th degree. I regret that we can't fly the Bf110 and Spitfire, but there's nothing I can do about it since I don't know the first thing about 3-D modelling.

http://www.student.richmond.edu/~vk5qa/images/forumsig.jpg

"Come on in, I'll treat you nice! I used to know your father."

Oblt.Emann
01-23-2004, 06:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EPP-Gibbs:
This thread is amusing....Discussing aircraft that had no impact whatsoever on the air war in question, never saw frontline service, never shot anything down or dropped any bombs....and yet we get them as flyables in the add-on when at the same time the Me110 is still not available as flyable and we get only one variant of the Spitfire, and had to wait as long for that as for the silly fantasy aircraft.....figure that out! 110's and Spits were active on the Eastern front too, and still not included in this, the Eastern front Sim!

We get the P80 (did nothing in WW2) , and yet no Meteor, which did see active service.

It seems that the criteria for aircraft appearing is not what was historically accurate (in a sim that stakes it's reputation on accuracy, both historical and modelling) but on whatever the modellers fancy turning out.. Tie Fighter next?

If I had all the money I'd spent on drink..I'd spend it on drink!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then why don't you go and model the damn aircraft instead of ragging on the modelers' hard work to further expand the content of this game. If you don't want it, don't fly it.

Der Oberleutnant

tagert
01-23-2004, 06:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EPP-Gibbs:
This thread is amusing....Discussing aircraft that had no impact whatsoever on the air war in question, never saw frontline service, never shot anything down or dropped any bombs....and yet we get them as flyables in the add-on when at the same time the Me110 is still not available as flyable and we get only one variant of the Spitfire, and had to wait as long for that as for the silly fantasy aircraft.....figure that out! 110's and Spits were active on the Eastern front too, and still not included in this, the Eastern front Sim!

We get the P80 (did nothing in WW2) , and yet no Meteor, which did see active service.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I feel your pain... but a wise man once said.. you can please some of the people some of the time... but you can not please all of the people all of the time.. No mater what AC they did decide to add.. someone like yourself would have a fav AC that didnt make the list... And it would be posted here.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EPP-Gibbs:
It seems that the criteria for aircraft appearing is not what was historically accurate (in a sim that stakes it's reputation on accuracy, both historical and modelling) but on whatever the modellers fancy turning out.. Tie Fighter next?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No it does seem that the criteria is that you dont realise that most of what we are getting in the addon was done by 3rd party (ie not Olegs team) people.. on thier free time and dime!! Oleg was nice enough to include that hard work and devote soem time to the flight models of these 3D works of art people did... Once again proving that no mater what AC they added... someone is not going to be happy... but to complain about something your getting for free... ie gift horse in the mouth.. well that does take a special person! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Oh, and before you point out the addon is not free, what I mean is the addon would have been short these aircraft (Go229, P80, etc) had these fine folks not drawn them.

TAGERT

EPP-Gibbs
01-23-2004, 07:00 PM
I appreciate what you're saying, Tagert, but I think you're missing my point, which is, it's not to do with what is or isn't my favorite aircraft, or slating the work of 3rd party modellers, who, lets face it, do it because they enjoy it. Because, if they're not getting paid, AND don't enjoy it either..there would be no extra A/C at all.

No, what I'm saying is that certain A/C should have been in there from the start, developed by 1C, because they were in the theatres for real. Right place, right time, made a significant contribution, but somehow got overlooked....and still are, in the case of the ME110. The Spitfires are finally coming along due to the splendid work being done by Gibbage et al, but they should have been in the original portfolio.

I'm not saying...hey guys....why have we got all these stupid crap planes and not my FAVORITE which is the Kawasaki XYZ Raisin MkIV turbo, or whatever. I'm merely trying to draw attention to a couple of ommissions that should be corrected for the sake of historical accuracy, which is what this whole sim bases it's reputation on. Wouldn't their undeniable talents be better utilised on aircraft that are more central to the theme of this sim than on the 'oddities'? How many more people would appreciate a flyable Me110 and a few Spitfire models that they would the Go229.....mistel bomber...various other experimental/prototype/ too-late-for-the-war machines

I think the ME110 should definitely be there as a flyable. It was ONLY the Luftwaffe's principal nightfighter, after all!...and yet it is by no means my 'favorite' plane.

I have nothing but respect for the people that model these aircraft, but that shouldn't mean that I can't try and point out what I see as a couple of basic flaws in the roster of flyable aircraft in the hope that it might be addressed.

Back to my original thread, let me ask you a question.....what would be the valid reason based on the values of realism and historical accuracy in the Eastern European Theatre that this Sim seeks to uphold that would cause the developers to give us the Go229, P80, or Zero, instead of the ME110? I would have said Spitfire too, but we're finally getting (only)one model, I think.

I can't think of one...so it must be because they just WANTED to, which is what I originally said.

If I had all the money I'd spent on drink..I'd spend it on drink!

[This message was edited by EPP-Gibbs on Fri January 23 2004 at 06:17 PM.]

adlabs6
01-23-2004, 07:02 PM
I have been seriously thinking of skipping the Aces addon, simply because I've really become bored with dogfighting. But... seeing some of the planes in action, like the P-38 loaded out with bombs and rockets, and the Go-229 as well, It kind of draws me in abit. If the B-25 makes it flyable, I'm even more attracted.

I'd be sorry to see jets banned "as usual" on most every server you see, especially considering that this is a nice sim to enjoy them in. I would honestly like to see some servers setup that run jets, we've got 4, the Me262, the Go-229, the P-80 and the BI-1 (a rocket of course, but I've killed a few 262's in it, so it's more than capable.) Lots of host are building maps last I checked, that allowed mudmovers to have a good time, and that's really great.

And on the matter of accuracy, I can't really buy into that. While there are alot of areas in FB that simulate these planes accurately enough to enjoy some combat, there are plenty of corners cut in FB code that rule it out as a really "accurate" flight sim. This stuff is common knowledge.

Accuracy on the front of "theater" is another matter. I can't really get bugged here either since once you get online, usually it all boils down to flying a fighter that is competitive with what the enemy is in, and the later year the better, as always. Typically only a specialist will fly a plane considered "sub-par" and make good use of it. Tactics as well, are usually a lone wolf fight to the death, rather than a "realistic" group making a hit and run, working together to survive, as well as win where they can.

What I'm saying is the more the better in terms of planes, and this goes hand in hand with needing great hosts to allow us to make use of the planes we are given. FB can be great fun online, and in a sim as nice as FB on the whole, am happy to see more and more use being made of it on all fronts, from "historically based" for those who set it up that way, to just having a good time with some cool planes and great players online.

That incredible flexibility is what will draw in new players, and keep people like me here for another year or so.

http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/bin/sigUBI.GIF
My FB/FS2004 Pages (http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/) | IL2skins (http://www.il2skins.com) | OMEGASQUADRON (http://777avg.com/omegasquad/)

EPP-Gibbs
01-23-2004, 07:28 PM
Agreed, it's good to have both sides of the coin represented. The fun/wierd crowd are getting mistel bombers, Go229, I-16's slung beneath the wings of bombers, and already have the B1 space shuttle. Can't those that like historical accuracy have the ME110 and the landmark versions of the Spitfire now?

If I had all the money I'd spent on drink..I'd spend it on drink!

LEXX_Luthor
01-23-2004, 07:31 PM
Don't forget Komet and if we get 162 then we get 6 jets over the FB for the Rocket Servers.

The FB jetset will allow a dynamic campaign to simulate a WAR to 1946 with the implied possibility of Germany winning the WAR.

Been wondering about Gibbage's hate mail about P~80. I think maybe the LuftWhiners don't want P~80 because they don't want to sim a possibility of Germany lasting into 1946 or even winning the WAR. From my UBI readings, LuftWhiners HATE the Luftwaffe and its aircrew. From purely socio~behavior observations, one can see that LuftWhiners are USA simmers.

__________________
RUSSIAN lexx website http://www.lexx.ufo.ru/members.shtml
Stanly is a moron, kai is a walking dead beet, Xev just want sex.

tagert
01-23-2004, 07:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EPP-Gibbs:
I appreciate what you're saying, Tagert, but I think you're missing my point, which is, it's not to do with what is or isn't my favorite aircraft, or slating the work of 3rd party modellers, who, lets face it, do it because they enjoy it. Because, if they're not getting paid, AND don't enjoy it either..there would be no extra A/C at all.

No, what I'm saying is that certain A/C should have been in there from the start, developed by 1C, because they were in the theatres for real. Right place, right time, made a significant contribution, but somehow got overlooked....and still are, in the case of the ME110. The Spitfires are finally coming along due to the splendid work being done by Gibbage et al, but they should have been in the original portfolio.

I'm not saying...hey guys....why have we got all these stupid crap planes and not my FAVORITE which is the Kawasaki XYZ Raisin MkIV turbo, or whatever. I'm merely trying to draw attention to a couple of ommissions that should be corrected for the sake of historical accuracy, which is what this whole sim bases it's reputation on. Wouldn't their undeniable talents be better utilised on aircraft that are more central to the theme of this sim than on the 'oddities'? How many more people would appreciate a flyable Me110 and a few Spitfire models that they would the Go229.....mistel bomber...various other experimental/prototype/ too-late-for-the-war machines

I think the ME110 should definitely be there as a flyable. It was ONLY the Luftwaffe's principal nightfighter, after all!...and yet it is by no means my 'favorite' plane.

I have nothing but respect for the people that model these aircraft, but that shouldn't mean that I can't try and point out what I see as a couple of basic flaws in the roster of flyable aircraft in the hope that it might be addressed.

Back to my original thread, let me ask you a question.....what would be the valid reason based on the values of realism and historical accuracy in the Eastern European Theatre that this Sim seeks to uphold that would cause the developers to give us the Go229, P80, or Zero, instead of the ME110? I would have said Spitfire too, but we're finally getting (only)one model, I think.

I can't think of one...so it must be because they just WANTED to, which is what I originally said.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ok.. I see where your comming from.. not so much a Fav.. but an ac that you feel should have been in there by now... And I agree with you on those AC!! But even there the "not everyone will be happy" thing applys.. That and initally the sim was made in light of NO ONE ever doing the Eastern front.. So it was very none allied in that sense... As a mater of fact if I rememeber right.. even the inital P47 was a 3rd party addon... I dont know about the actuall numbers... P39 vs Spitfire.. so I cant say which *deserves* to be in there more.. but I sure do wish the Spitfire was in there.. that and the Bf110... But I dont think it is a bias as much as economic.. I mean if it was a bias we would have had a good mid size russian bomber by now! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT

LEXX_Luthor
01-23-2004, 07:45 PM
Tagert:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>...if it was a bias we would have had a good mid size russian bomber by now! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well Said Tag.

Maybe the modders are working to see their favorite plane over the FB. This could explain their enthusiasm. This is Awsum stuff. Do You wanna see Your favorite plane in the best flight sim ever made? Fine. Volunteer your time and Moscow will do FM and DM. Sounds like a Deal. That way, you don't have to write your own flight sim at home...anyway Oleg makes a better flight sim than any of us here could working by ourselves alone at home. So just make your favorite plane for the FB. Awsum!

The nice thing is that we all get the new planes too. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Look at what a modder is modding and you know the modder's personal favorite plane in the WW2 era.

__________________
RUSSIAN lexx website http://www.lexx.ufo.ru/members.shtml
Stanly is a moron, kai is a walking dead beet, Xev just want sex.

EPP-Gibbs
01-23-2004, 07:49 PM
Well, that's straight now http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

There were more P39's but I don't know the actual figure. As to the Spitfire, the VVS had about 1,500 of them, ie about 5% of total Spitfire production.

If I had all the money I'd spent on drink..I'd spend it on drink!

WUAF_Badsight
01-24-2004, 02:38 AM
EPP Gibs has nothingto complain about

Bf-110 & 3 models of spitfire are coming to FB

the P-80 was finished first

the GO-229 was finished first

the 3D model is 10% of the work required to get a plane into FB

the Spit & Bf-110 were too late in coming to make this add-on that also contains the P-80 & GO-229

to make any more planes flyable prior to FB's release would have stretched back FB's release

if you yourself had worked on IL2 Sturmovik & had realised how long that game took from news launch to actual game launch you also would have wanted FB released as soon as possible

Jirozaemon
01-24-2004, 05:30 AM
I agree to what has been said about the priority of the YP-80 and the Ho229. It would have been better If they had included some Spitfire and Me 110 (perhaps even Me 210, or 410) versions. The Tyhpoon and Tempest are missing as well, as the Avro Lancaster.

Anyway, you have to praise the energy and the skill of the 3rd-party "engineers". Thank you !

Jiro

SUPERAEREO
01-24-2004, 06:19 AM
Thank you Spinne, I love old war posters/cartoons!

S!

ElAurens
01-24-2004, 07:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by adlabs6:
I'd be sorry to see jets banned "as usual" on most every server you see, especially considering that this is a nice sim to enjoy them in. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Adlabs...I will be making a DF map for the jets.

Maybe also one based on the early stages of the Korean war.
P80/P51D vs. Bi1/La7/Il2

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

BlitzPig_EL

Spinne_3.-JG51
01-24-2004, 01:22 PM
Well, if you really want to go into what's missing in FB, I'd like to bring up the Mosquito. I agree that there are certain omissions in FB, but aside from pointing these omissions out to the more gifted amongst us(i.e. 3-D modellers), there's nothing we can do about it. Of course, if you really are hell bent on seeing a particular aircraft in FB, you could comission a 3-D modeller to do the plane for you http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif.
I am glad we have the Go-229 mainly because it was designed to be a multipurpose aircraft. It's true that the FW190 and P-47 were used as multi-purpose aircraft, but they really weren't designed as ground pounders. Varients of the Go-229 were envisioned as a medium bomber (1000kg), a high speed bomber interceptor/day fighter (two Mk108 cannons in the wing roots) and also as a night fighter. Furthermore, it was supposed to have been painted over with a primitive RAM paint. You se all these fetures in current frontline aircraft. So the Go-229 is of tremendous intrest simply as the father of the modern multirole fighter. Multirole fighters serve as the backbone of every modern airforces. Pure air-superiority fighters such as the F-22 or Su27/30 are usually operated in smaller numbers than their cheaper, more-versatile F-16 and Mig29 cousins. The Go-229 is a curio because I'm not sure if Luftwaffe command had matured to the point where it would have developed this sort of strategy. So why did they adoopt the Go-229 for production when there were more conventional designs avaiable? Questions like these are what make me look forward to seeing the Go-229 fly.

http://www.student.richmond.edu/~vk5qa/images/forumsig.jpg

"Come on in, I'll treat you nice! I used to know your father."

tagert
01-24-2004, 03:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spinne_3.-JG51:
Well, if you really want to go into what's missing in FB, I'd like to bring up the Mosquito. I agree that there are certain omissions in FB, but aside from pointing these omissions out to the more gifted amongst us(i.e. 3-D modellers), there's nothing we can do about it. Of course, if you really are hell bent on seeing a particular aircraft in FB, you could comission a 3-D modeller to do the plane for you http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif.
I am glad we have the Go-229 mainly because it was designed to be a multipurpose aircraft. It's true that the FW190 and P-47 were used as multi-purpose aircraft, but they really weren't designed as ground pounders. Varients of the Go-229 were envisioned as a medium bomber (1000kg), a high speed bomber interceptor/day fighter (two Mk108 cannons in the wing roots) and also as a night fighter. Furthermore, it was supposed to have been painted over with a primitive RAM paint. You se all these fetures in current frontline aircraft. So the Go-229 is of tremendous intrest simply as the father of the modern multirole fighter. Multirole fighters serve as the backbone of every modern airforces. Pure air-superiority fighters such as the F-22 or Su27/30 are usually operated in smaller numbers than their cheaper, more-versatile F-16 and Mig29 cousins. The Go-229 is a curio because I'm not sure if Luftwaffe command had matured to the point where it would have developed this sort of strategy. So why did they adoopt the Go-229 for production when there were more conventional designs avaiable? Questions like these are what make me look forward to seeing the Go-229 fly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I cant wait either... to see how it differs from a Me262... Once I lite it up with my 0.50cals from my P80... Do you think the WOOD and RAM paint will make the smoke a different color? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT

ElAurens
01-24-2004, 03:25 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

BlitzPig_EL

darkhorizon11
01-24-2004, 03:33 PM
Pretty amazing stuff its hard to believe the Germans flew a jet flying wing in Feb. 1945. Thankfully the Germans never got to use it in combat.
Heres two sites that will quench your thirst for knowledge.

www.luft46.com (http://www.luft46.com)

www.nurflugel.com (http://www.nurflugel.com)

The first one, Luft46 is quite popular, the second one isn't. Nurflugel is German for flying wing, although the site isn't just dedicated to the Hortons. There stuff on their from Northrop, Lippisch, Fauvel, and Markse. Its work a visit!

D@mn now where is my gratuity check for that plug!!??!?!

tagert
01-24-2004, 05:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
Pretty amazing stuff its hard to believe the Germans flew a jet flying wing in Feb. 1945. Thankfully the Germans never got to use it in combat.
Heres two sites that will quench your thirst for knowledge.

http://www.luft46.com

http://www.nurflugel.com

The first one, Luft46 is quite popular, the second one isn't. Nurflugel is German for flying wing, although the site isn't just dedicated to the Hortons. There stuff on their from Northrop, Lippisch, Fauvel, and Markse. Its work a visit!

D@mn now where is my gratuity check for that plug!!??!?!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>WOW very cool 2nd link there, Thank you very much!!

TAGERT

Spinne_3.-JG51
01-26-2004, 10:34 PM
Dude,
I'd be happy to let you try to shoot my Go229 up if you can, but I think it'd be better if I just turned over a sample to you, it'd save you a few months chasing me all over the sky! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Seriously, I'm pretty glad we're getting this bird, and the link totally explain's Gibb's 3-D shots of the plane with it's wings off.
Onto more serous stuff, here's a cool link I found while at work. It's a pretty comprehesive site, though the webmaster's left out a few of the most famous aces, notably Hartmann. Still, here's the link - http://www.luftwaffe.cz/
Happy surfing!

http://www.student.richmond.edu/~vk5qa/images/forumsig.jpg

"Come on in, I'll treat you nice! I used to know your father."