PDA

View Full Version : Me 264.



major_setback
04-24-2007, 08:27 AM
I only just found out about this plane. 'Just thought I'd show it to others that may have missed it. What a beautiful piece of metal http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

http://www.luft46.com/prototyp/me264.html

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/images/lrg0067.jpg

http://www.luft46.com/prototyp/264-1.jpg

Deadmeat313
04-24-2007, 08:44 AM
Oh God in heaven we need one of those. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


T.

tigertalon
04-24-2007, 02:21 PM
"Amerika Bomber". Range to bomb NY. After take off it jetissoned some wheels, coz they were not needed on landing (much lighter plane) thus unnecessary weight.

Range is truly impressive:
http://www.luft46.com/prototyp/264-6.jpg

There was a skin or two for this beast (B29 hack) on flying legends IIRC.

Jaws2002
04-24-2007, 02:28 PM
Beautiful looking bomber. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

leitmotiv
04-24-2007, 02:41 PM
Yeah, but would have been minced by U.S.-based P-47 intercepters. The Germans realized it was just an experimental. Only the Americans built a truly serious inter-continental bomber, the B-36, which was designed to attack Germany in the event Britain fell. It was able to fly at altitudes which even put jets at a disadvantage in the early 1950's, and was defended by batteries of 20mm cannon. Only a monster such as this had a chance.

XyZspineZyX
04-24-2007, 03:21 PM
Ugly sumb!tch, ain't it?

I wouldn't put a cargo of rubber doggie-poo in that ogrish contraption. It's an insult to novelty doo-doo to surround it with such a nightmarish carcass. I can practicaly see the aluminum and perspex crying in shame! The only reason that rattle trap held it's shape is probably due to the fact that misery needs company and the component parts were scared to be alone! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

MarkSynthesis
04-24-2007, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by BBB462cid:
Ugly sumb!tch, ain't it?

I wouldn't put a cargo of rubber doggie-poo in that ogrish contraption. It's an insult to novelty doo-doo to surround it with such a nightmarish carcass. I can practicaly see the aluminum and perspex crying in shame! The only reason that rattle trap held it's shape is probably due to the fact that misery needs company and the component parts were scared to be alone! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Well, they say beauty is relative, right?

Personally, I don't think it looks very nice. Then again, I think the famed B-29 looks like *** as well. The real question is...would this be as satisfying to shoot down, being a smaller target? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

major_setback
04-24-2007, 03:43 PM
It's not pretty. It's sexy! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

woofiedog
04-25-2007, 02:49 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://www.airpages.ru/img/lw/ta400.gif

The range was to be 4800 km (2981 miles) with a bomb load (see table below for possible bomb loads) of 10000 kg (22000 lbs).


Links:
http://www.luft46.com/fw/fwta400.html
http://books.google.com/books?id=hrsi2rH28NQC&pg=PA58&l...O2vHS9HrzdQ#PPA58,M1 (http://books.google.com/books?id=hrsi2rH28NQC&pg=PA58&lpg=PA58&dq=fw+ta+400&source=web&ots=QuP55wqLET&sig=okn5_XubVH6wTktgO2vHS9HrzdQ#PPA58,M1)

Treetop64
04-25-2007, 04:22 AM
Originally posted by major_setback:
I only just found out about this plane. 'Just thought I'd show it to others that may have missed it. What a beautiful piece of metal http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

http://www.luft46.com/prototyp/me264.html

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/images/lrg0067.jpg

http://www.luft46.com/prototyp/264-1.jpg

Hmmm...
Looks strangely similar to a B-29, except with a shoulder-mounted wing instead of a mid-mounted wing of the '29. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

...and of course the twin tail arrangement.

Aaron_GT
04-25-2007, 06:09 AM
The range was to be 4800 km (2981 miles) with a bomb load (see table below for possible bomb loads) of 10000 kg (22000 lbs).

And I counted a defensive armament of 12 20mm cannon!

ptg101
04-25-2007, 07:13 AM
"Ugly sumb!tch, ain't it?

I wouldn't put a cargo of rubber doggie-poo in that ogrish contraption. It's an insult to novelty doo-doo to surround it with such a nightmarish carcass. I can practicaly see the aluminum and perspex crying in shame! The only reason that rattle trap held it's shape is probably due to the fact that misery needs company and the component parts were scared to be alone!"

Nice diatribe, and doubtless ripped from somewhere, but not appilcable to this a/c - usual German efficiency. Quite nice looking. Clean.

AKA_TAGERT
04-25-2007, 07:16 AM
At the rate this sim is going.. Sadly if we get any heavy bombers it will probably be this ONE that I think they build TWO of instead of the B17 or B29.

ploughman
04-25-2007, 07:31 AM
Hmmm.

Snow_Wolf_
04-25-2007, 08:54 AM
http://www.luft46.com/junkers/juef100-1.gif
http://www.luft46.com/junkers/juef100-1.jpg

http://www.kheichhorn.de/assets/images/1edc9300.gif
http://hsfeatures.com/features04/images/ju390mk_title.jpg

I like the JU EF100 better or the Ju-390

Bewolf
04-25-2007, 09:09 AM
The Ju, though impressive, is one ugly monster and afaik more of a transport plane then a bomber. The Me though is just beautiful. A pity the prototypes got destroyed.

cawimmer430
04-25-2007, 09:11 AM
Yep, the "Amerika Bomber". God I wish we had this in IL-2 1946. Even better, would be cool if we could fly it! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

ploughman
04-25-2007, 09:16 AM
Hmmm.

Vike
04-25-2007, 09:17 AM
- Here - (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/45410763/m/8751027584?r=8751027584#8751027584) for the B29 hack to get a "Me264-like" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Great plane indeed. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

@+

XyZspineZyX
04-25-2007, 09:44 AM
Originally posted by ptg101:
"Ugly sumb!tch, ain't it?

I wouldn't put a cargo of rubber doggie-poo in that ogrish contraption. It's an insult to novelty doo-doo to surround it with such a nightmarish carcass. I can practicaly see the aluminum and perspex crying in shame! The only reason that rattle trap held it's shape is probably due to the fact that misery needs company and the component parts were scared to be alone!"

Nice diatribe, and doubtless ripped from somewhere, but not appilcable to this a/c - usual German efficiency. Quite nice looking. Clean.

100% my original words, and obviously laid on thickly, don't you think?

"diatribe" indeed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

woofiedog
04-25-2007, 10:26 PM
Vike... Thanks for the link.

http://www.7bwb-36assn.org/xb36_b29.jpg

In 1941, the fall of Britain to a German invasion seemed imminent. If the United States joined the war against the Axis Powers, the fall of Britain would leave no bases in Europe from which the United States Army Air Corps (AAC) could bomb Germany. This possibility led to AAC to seek a bomber of truly intercontinental range. On 1941 April 11, the AAC issued a design competition for an aircraft with a 275 mph (445 km/h) cruising speed, a service ceiling of 45,000 ft (14,000 m), capable of delivering 10,000 lb (4,500 kg) of bombs to targets 5,000 miles (8,000 km) away. At the time, these requirements far exceeded the best technology available.

Following the surrender of Germany and the end of the war in Europe, aircraft production contracts were drastically cut back. However, the contract for the B-36 was untouched. The enormous losses suffered in seizing island bases in the Pacific convinced that USAAF that there was still a definite need for a long-range bomber. In addition, the forthcoming atomic bomb would require a long-range delivery vehicle capable of retaliating against an enemy without the need for faraway forward bases. On August 6, 1945, General Arnold accepted the Air Staff's recommendation to keep the B-36 contract for a hundred planes intact. Funds from the cancelled B-32 program were transferred to the B-36 project. On August 9, an Air Staff conference recommended that four B-36 groups be included in the postwar USAAF.

Work on the XB-36 continued even after the Japanese surrender. By 1945, Convair was still having problems with the high weight of the Pratt & Whitney R-4360-25 engines. The need to add nose guns required an extensive rearrangement of the forward crew compartment. A mockup of the new nose section had been approved in late 1944. This new nose would be too late for the first prototype, but would be fitted to the second XB-36. The radio and radar equipment in the new nose promised to add considerable weight.

Labor strikes at Convair in October 1945 and February 1946 delayed the B-36 program by several months. On March 25, 1946, General Thomas Power indicated that structural limitations of the forthcoming XB-36 might actually make it useless.

The B-36 was to have been provided with the Sperry-built K-1 bombing system, which consisted of an AN/APQ-23 radar and A-1 electromechanical bombing computer. The AN/APQ-23 was essentially an APQ-13 search radar combined with a CP-16 computer. The system supplied range, azimuth, distance, and drift information to the crew. The AN/APQ-23 was eventually succeeded by the AN/APQ-24.

The first XB-36 (42-13570) was rolled out of the Fort Worth factory on September 8, 1945. It sat on massive single 110-inch diameter main wheels, which restricted it to only three runways in the USA which had sufficiently thick concrete to support the weight of the aircraft.

Abbuzze
04-26-2007, 05:44 AM
Originally posted by Treetop64:

Hmmm...
Looks strangely similar to a B-29, except with a shoulder-mounted wing instead of a mid-mounted wing of the '29. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

...and of course the twin tail arrangement.

First flight of the B29, 21st September and 23rd Dezember for the ME, both in 1942. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif