PDA

View Full Version : Me262 HGII V-tail or...



Aymar_Mauri
10-10-2006, 07:43 AM
http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/6886/messerschmittme262hgiii3jetfighter1jr3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/7674/messerschmittme262hgiii3jetfighter2sb7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/78/messerschmittme262hgiii3jetfighter3tz9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Me262 HGIII Drawing 3

Which should be preferable in IL2 Sturmovik: 1946 ?

Vike
10-10-2006, 07:56 AM
I personnally would prefer the HG-II we're about to get in 46:

http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/134/me262hgii7wq.jpg

More conventional,more realistic...

Sharp shapes,reminding me,in a way,a knife ("ein Messer" would say our German friends http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif).

Like the Me109,I love it and i'm pretty sure it will fit me like a glove too! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

@+

darkhorizon11
10-10-2006, 08:56 AM
There was another series of 262s called the Helmutschutzer (models I, II, and III) that DID fly that I would have preferred.

They were interceptors designed to merge the rocket world of the Me-163 with the jet world. I can't remember what they all were but one had RATO pods under the wings, and Helmut III version had the Komets engine installed in the tail. The only downside was the rudder was smaller so there would be less yaw control.

Either way I feel this aircraft would be the most effective use of the 262 since interceptors are what Germany needed most.

JG53Frankyboy
10-10-2006, 09:18 AM
you mean the Me 262C "Heimatschützer"


http://www.walter-rockets.i12.com/ato/me262i.htm

Aymar_Mauri
10-10-2006, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by Vike:
I personnally would prefer the HG-II we're about to get in 46:

http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/134/me262hgii7wq.jpg

More conventional,more realistic...

Sharp shapes,reminding me,in a way,a knife ("ein Messer" would say our German friends http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif).

Like the Me109,I love it and i'm pretty sure it will fit me like a glove too! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

@+ More realistic? Well, both originate from the same development program. The HGII was just an interim for the HGIII...

Willy Messerschmitt's plans regarding the Me262 were to be fulfilled when the HGIII reached operational deployement, whatever the final design might be. In fact, the cockpit position and the turbine air intakes were the biggest point in issue regarding which HGIII design was to be adopted.

Aymar_Mauri
10-10-2006, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
There was another series of 262s called the Helmutschutzer (models I, II, and III) that DID fly that I would have preferred.

They were interceptors designed to merge the rocket world of the Me-163 with the jet world. I can't remember what they all were but one had RATO pods under the wings, and Helmut III version had the Komets engine installed in the tail. The only downside was the rudder was smaller so there would be less yaw control.

Either way I feel this aircraft would be the most effective use of the 262 since interceptors are what Germany needed most. Like JG53Frankyboy wrote, it's Heimatschützer.

Well, this was just an adaptation to the Me262A1a. It shouldn't have been very hard to do the exact same to any of the HG versions. There were surelly intentions of doing so, provided the Heimatschützer was a success.

PraetorHonoris
10-10-2006, 03:53 PM
Does the HGII have different engines, too? Or is it just aerodynamic improvement?

Anyway, it looks very sexy:

http://rrgstudios.com/img/1946/64_full.jpg
http://rrgstudios.com/img/1946/63_full.jpg

Willey
10-10-2006, 04:01 PM
Looks like the Heimatschützer is something like the La-7R - just with a rocket tail http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

BTW why don't we get Pe-2R. too? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

And, I'd love that HG III http://www.ubisoft.de/smileys/3.gif

johnnyB21990
10-10-2006, 06:03 PM
46 addon coming out november!
4.06 and 46 has bee merged to gether
herreey!!!!!

Philipscdrw
10-10-2006, 06:37 PM
I've just read a rather informative book on the Luftwaffe's fighter development program through the war - the Luftwaffe/RLM/manufacturers were expecting Allied jets to appear at some point in the war, and that they'd easily outperform the 262. They put a lot of effort into building jets that could match the (unknown at that time) P-80 and Vampire, none of which reached production.

Anyway, nevermind the jets. I want some of the petrol-engined pusher designs - the Blohm&Voss P.208, Dornier P.247/6, Focke-Wulf 'too good for project numbers' High-Performance Fighter With Jumo 222E/F.

The Arado Ar-234P-5 night-fighter with solid nose, four engines, radar operator in rear fuselage.

Dornier Do-435 - a Pfiel with a HeS-011 turbojet replacing the rear engine.

Focke-Wulf "Mixed Powerplant Night and All-Weather Fighter" with Do-335-style pusher tail, two BMW turbojets mounted on swept wings, and a crew of three in the nose.

Blohm und Voss P.215 nightfighter, a stubby tailless fuselage with two HeS011, five Mk108, a twin-MG151/20 barbette, and three crew, attached to a broad swept wing, with fins at the tips and a horizontal stabiliser extending from the fin...

Dornier P.252 - like a Pfiel but with both engines in the fuselage, driving a contra-rotating pusher prop, and with three crew in the nose.

ElAurens
10-10-2006, 07:19 PM
I want the Starship Enterprise.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Aymar_Mauri
10-10-2006, 07:26 PM
Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
Does the HGII have different engines, too? Or is it just aerodynamic improvement?
The HGI, HGII and HGIII were to have the most up-to-date version of the Junkers Jumo 004. The initial plan was to have Jumo 004D operational in one of these designs as soon as possible. The operational Me262 had the 004B.

The prototype HGII (similar to the plane we are getting in game), was actually flown by Karl Baur (chief test pilot at Messerschmitt) in January 1945 in the form of Me262 V9 (VI+AD, factory number 130004).

The last built prototype version of the HGIII (not the one with the tail cockpit), was tested by the British in the LFA wind tunnel at Volkenr¶de in November 1945. It had a standard Me262 tail unit but incorporated the 45º wing sweep and wing root engine placement of all the HGIII designs, as well as the low drag cannopy.

Aymar_Mauri
10-10-2006, 07:50 PM
Originally posted by Philipscdrw:
I've just read a rather informative book on the Luftwaffe's fighter development program through the war - the Luftwaffe/RLM/manufacturers were expecting Allied jets to appear at some point in the war, and that they'd easily outperform the 262. They put a lot of effort into building jets that could match the (unknown at that time) P-80 and Vampire, none of which reached production. Yes, the Me262 HG development was born preciselly out of that prevision.


Originally posted by Philipscdrw:
Anyway, nevermind the jets. I want some of the petrol-engined pusher designs - the Blohm&Voss P.208, Dornier P.247/6, Focke-Wulf 'too good for project numbers' High-Performance Fighter With Jumo 222E/F. Propeller projects? Maybe we should not just stick to 1946.

How about the Focke-Wulf with BMW 802, BMW 8011 and the one with BMW 803? Or the ones with Argus As413 projects? Or the Henschel P75?

Maybe we should talk about ground pounders like the B&V P.170, P.193 or the Henschel Hs132 that was about to fly when the war ended?

Anyhow, there are so many and we still don't have Ki-44, Helldiver or G3M... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


Originally posted by Philipscdrw:
The Arado Ar-234P-5 night-fighter with solid nose, four engines, radar operator in rear fuselage.

Dornier Do-435 - a Pfiel with a HeS-011 turbojet replacing the rear engine.

Focke-Wulf "Mixed Powerplant Night and All-Weather Fighter" with Do-335-style pusher tail, two BMW turbojets mounted on swept wings, and a crew of three in the nose.

Blohm und Voss P.215 nightfighter, a stubby tailless fuselage with two HeS011, five Mk108, a twin-MG151/20 barbette, and three crew, attached to a broad swept wing, with fins at the tips and a horizontal stabiliser extending from the fin...

Dornier P.252 - like a Pfiel but with both engines in the fuselage, driving a contra-rotating pusher prop, and with three crew in the nose. Yeah. They had bundles of interesting Nightfighter projects. Like the Arado Project I or the Go P.60. The Go229B should have taken little time to start test flights.

But since there is no radar system in IL2 it's a bit pointless.

wayno7777
10-10-2006, 08:35 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
I want the Starship Enterprise.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif
OK....
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v224/wayno77/Stuff/Makeitso_c.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v224/wayno77/Stuff/Makeitso_b.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v224/wayno77/Stuff/Makeitso_d.jpg
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Vike
10-11-2006, 01:28 AM
Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
The prototype HGII (similar to the plane we are getting in game), was actually flown by Karl Baur (chief test pilot at Messerschmitt) in January 1945 in the form of Me262 V9 (VI+AD, factory number 130004).

So it flew,that's really cool.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

The B&V P.215 would have been a good addition too in this add-on,though its design looks less conventional...

http://www.luft46.com/aoart/ao215-2.jpg

@+

Aymar_Mauri
10-11-2006, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by Vike:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
The prototype HGII (similar to the plane we are getting in game), was actually flown by Karl Baur (chief test pilot at Messerschmitt) in January 1945 in the form of Me262 V9 (VI+AD, factory number 130004).
So it flew,that's really cool.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, it did. But nothing came of it really since in the last months of the war the endorsement and/or continuance of development projects was in complete disarray.


Originally posted by Vike:
The B&V P.215 would have been a good addition too in this add-on,though its design looks less conventional...

http://www.luft46.com/aoart/ao215-2.jpg

@+ Yes, indeed. The whole series of unconventional tailess day/all-weather/night fighters by Blohm und Voss spanning the P.208, P.209, P.210, P.211, P.212 and P.215 was very interesting in aerodynamic concept. And way less speculative than the Lerche... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Vike
10-11-2006, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
Yes, indeed. The whole series of unconventional tailess day/all-weather/night fighters by Blohm und Voss spanning the P.208, P.209, P.210, P.211, P.212 and P.215 was very interesting in aerodynamic concept. And way less speculative than the Lerche...

I agree (btw Q&A,talking about the Lerche II modelling (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/2401080194) versus the real Lerche II characteristics http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif)

Concerning the HG-III with the rear positionned cockpit,don't you think this plane would have some very bad drawbacks?

I think about the Gs.
In general,WWII-fighter cockpits were positionned near,if not at,the center of gravity.

Thus,i would fear that the HG-III,in a turning combat,would have been a real roller coaster for the pilot... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Or was the HG-III specifically dedicated to bomber interception? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

EJGrOst_Caspar
10-11-2006, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by Vike:


The B&V P.215 would have been a good addition too in this add-on,though its design looks less conventional...

http://www.luft46.com/aoart/ao215-2.jpg

@+


Well I would have prefered this one:

Heinkel He P.1078A
http://www.luft46.com/ghart/gh078-1.jpg
http://www.luft46.com/ghart/gh078-3.jpg

Its quite conventional... IMHO. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


Edit: if any offense... sorry for the swastikas... its jsut taken from http://www.luft46.com/ and I don't feel responsible at all. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

Aymar_Mauri
10-11-2006, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by Vike:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
Yes, indeed. The whole series of unconventional tailess day/all-weather/night fighters by Blohm und Voss spanning the P.208, P.209, P.210, P.211, P.212 and P.215 was very interesting in aerodynamic concept. And way less speculative than the Lerche...
I agree (btw Q&A,talking about the Lerche II modelling (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/2401080194) versus the real Lerche II characteristics http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yeah. Speculative.

I would much prefer a patch that would bring Spit XIV, Typhoon, Helldiver, Devastator, Ki-44, D4Y, G3M, Ki-48 or even the Potez, Lioré et Olivier, Dewoitine, etc... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif


Originally posted by Vike:
Concerning the HG-III with the rear positionned cockpit,don't you think this plane would have some very bad drawbacks?

I think about the Gs.
In general,WWII-fighter cockpits were positionned near,if not at,the center of gravity.

Thus,i would fear that the HG-III,in a turning combat,would have been a real roller coaster for the pilot... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif
I have no idea how much difference the HGIII design 3 (the one with the tail cockpit) would cause the pilot, in regard to G-manouvering, when compared to the more conventional HGIII Design 1 and 2 (conventional central fuselage low-drag cannopy).


Originally posted by Vike:Or was the HG-III specifically dedicated to bomber interception? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif
Not really. Not more or less than the Me262. But then again none of the Me262 was a high-G T&B dogfighter. The Me262 was mostly an interceptor and B&Z fighter.

Aymar_Mauri
10-11-2006, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by EJGrOst_Caspar:
Well I would have prefered this one:

Heinkel He P.1078A
http://www.luft46.com/ghart/gh078-1.jpg
http://www.luft46.com/ghart/gh078-3.jpg

Its quite conventional... IMHO. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
Yes, quite a bit like the Ta-183 in regards to aerodynamics. It's also one of my prefered Heinkel jet designs. On the other hand, the B version was quite daring in aerodynamic and the C looked a lot like the B&V P.208 ---> P.215 series.

DuxCorvan
10-12-2006, 04:32 AM
As far as Me 262HG gets its intended 'Gatling'-like revolver cannons... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BTW, Aymar, how are things going in EB? You still there? There's a light in the end of the tunnel for my job and family issues (I'm finally going Santander to baptise and be godfather of my brother's daughter who we all feared she wouldn't survive for months), and I'd like to return back to active life in EB when I come back. I think there are things I should finish there.

JG53Frankyboy
10-12-2006, 04:44 AM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
As far as Me 262HG gets its intended 'Gatling'-like revolver cannons... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

............

well, a revolver canon is not gatling like http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

anyway, the RRG screenshots of the Me262 HG are showing 4 canons in the nose. so i realy doubt it will get MG213 or MK213 - it will still have MK108 , and the Ta-183 too.

Vike
10-12-2006, 05:50 AM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
anyway, the RRG screenshots of the Me262 HG are showing 4 canons in the nose. so i realy doubt it will get MG213 or MK213 - it will still have MK108 , and the Ta-183 too.

Yes,even one and only MK108 is vastly enough to crush anything...http://www.farcry-thegame.com/fr/images/smileys/partyconfetti.gif

Great found Caspar about the Heinkel He P.1078A!

http://www.luft46.com/ghart/gh078-3.jpg

It looks very pretty! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://vike01.free.fr/images/avatars/signIL2.jpg
- AthlonXP 2400Mhz + 1024MB DDR CL 2.0
- Radeon 9800XT 460/790Mhz
- Saitek X-52 + Track IR 4 Pro
- Aka JV69_Vike http://vike01.free.fr/images/avatars/jv69.jpg

Capt.LoneRanger
10-12-2006, 05:57 AM
The HGIII looks awesome. Cockpit and rear remind me to a Colonial Viper, but the design is very cool and futuristic. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

greets
Capt.LoneRanger

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v411/Arcadiac/Lone1copy.png

PraetorHonoris
10-12-2006, 09:29 AM
Actually I have no idea, where this comes from... the HG3 plans I know are a tad more conventional and would be a 'realistic' 1946 addition:

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/5277/hg3rp6.th.jpg (http://img136.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hg3rp6.jpg)

And of course we won't get the MG/MK213... that would be too good for the Luftwaffe, despite being a more realistic option than the old MK108. This was no good fighter-to-fighter weapon in 1943 and with the speeds of 1946 we will have a very hard time against Luthier's favorite (MiG9).<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/6061/untitled1copymd8.jpg

"Misconceptions about the Luftwaffe [...] are, in large part, simply caused by a lack of basic skills of many, who write about the Luftwaffe. For some inexplicable reason, many historians - especially Americans - believe they can write books about the German army or the German air force without knowing German"
Dr. J.S.Corum, LTC USAF, Strategic Studies Institute

Aymar_Mauri
10-12-2006, 11:13 AM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
As far as Me 262HG gets its intended 'Gatling'-like revolver cannons... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Like JG53Frankyboy said the MG213/MK213 were not "Gatlin" style cannons. The later is built upon alternating rotating barrels while the german model was made up of a single barrel with a rotating revolver-style loading chamber.

No plans for including MG213/MK213 in the HG series though.


Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
BTW, Aymar, how are things going in EB? You still there? There's a light in the end of the tunnel for my job and family issues (I'm finally going Santander to baptise and be godfather of my brother's daughter who we all feared she wouldn't survive for months), and I'd like to return back to active life in EB when I come back. I think there are things I should finish there.
Things are going fine in EB. We're sorting out the recruitment issues with the new 100+ units in the game and are nearly ready to release 0.8.

Nice to hear about your niece's good health and glad you are sorting your personal issues. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

We'll be very glad to have you back in EB. Just get in touch with us whenever you can.

Aymar_Mauri
10-12-2006, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
Actually I have no idea, where this comes from... the HG3 plans I know are a tad more conventional and would be a 'realistic' 1946 addition:

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/5277/hg3rp6.th.jpg (http://img136.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hg3rp6.jpg)
I also have that book series (Midland Publishing's Luftwaffe Secret Projects) including that particular book (Fighters 1939-45) where it shows no other variation other than those two with different shape engine intakes. But those series of books have a lot of unshown designs. In fact, the new series (one book published) claims that 40% of it's content is previosly unpublished material:

LUFTWAFFE ADVANCED AIRCRAFT PROJECTS TO 1945 VOLUME 1: Fighters & Ground Attack Aircraft, Arado to Junkers (http://www.ianallanpublishing.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=480_522&products_id=48222)

But there was another variation influenced by former Messeschmitt's engineer Alexander Lippisch's work. This design:

http://www.luft46.com/gmart/gm262-4.jpg

Influence by this cockpit design:

Lippish Li P.13a (http://www.luft46.com/lippisch/lip13a.html)

The most probable to enter series production was one of the two designs you show in that page - the one with eliptical engine intakes or the one with straight intakes. But the one with inovative cockpit placement was studied.


Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
And of course we won't get the MG/MK213... that would be too good for the Luftwaffe, despite being a more realistic option than the old MK108. This was no good fighter-to-fighter weapon in 1943 and with the speeds of 1946 we will have a very hard time against Luthier's favorite (MiG9).
I agree about the fact that it won't be included in the add-onn and about the fact that MK108 is a **** against fighters - horrible balistics. Although I can also say that it would be realistic to have the MG213/MK213 in-game in a fantasy scenario like 1946.

DuxCorvan
10-12-2006, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
Things are going fine in EB. We're sorting out the recruitment issues with the new 100+ units in the game and are nearly ready to release 0.8.

Nice to hear about your niece's good health and glad you are sorting your personal issues. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

We'll be very glad to have you back in EB. Just get in touch with us whenever you can.

Thank you very much, Aymar. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Hope some peninsular fellow among those 100+ http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Aymar_Mauri
10-13-2006, 04:34 AM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
Things are going fine in EB. We're sorting out the recruitment issues with the new 100+ units in the game and are nearly ready to release 0.8.

Nice to hear about your niece's good health and glad you are sorting your personal issues. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

We'll be very glad to have you back in EB. Just get in touch with us whenever you can.

Thank you very much, Aymar. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Hope some peninsular fellow among those 100+ http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
A couple yes. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

PraetorHonoris
10-13-2006, 11:34 AM
Well I somehow doubt there were serious plans for such a developement... There was a lot of 'brain-storming' for sure, but I don't think anyone would have considered actually building it.
Interesting cross-thinking, though.

A HGIII, the conventional design, would have been a great addition as well. But the HGII is very sexy already, hopefully it will perform as good. What do you think?

Btw, I am a fellow RTW modder, too. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
My baby is Rise of Persia.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/6061/untitled1copymd8.jpg

"Misconceptions about the Luftwaffe [...] are, in large part, simply caused by a lack of basic skills of many, who write about the Luftwaffe. For some inexplicable reason, many historians - especially Americans - believe they can write books about the German army or the German air force without knowing German"
Dr. J.S.Corum, LTC USAF, Strategic Studies Institute

Antoninus
10-13-2006, 12:08 PM
FliegerAd at the twcenter fora?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________________
http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/3734/il2sig26hf.jpg

Actually everybody talks about aerial combat. I maintain that hitting ground targets, and especially ships is more dangerous than aerial combat. - Joe Foss

PraetorHonoris
10-13-2006, 12:15 PM
Yes.
There are two games I play. The TW series and the Il2-series. Well, I don't play RTW as much as I mod it... but that is fate of every modder, I guess. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/6061/untitled1copymd8.jpg

"Misconceptions about the Luftwaffe [...] are, in large part, simply caused by a lack of basic skills of many, who write about the Luftwaffe. For some inexplicable reason, many historians - especially Americans - believe they can write books about the German army or the German air force without knowing German"
Dr. J.S.Corum, LTC USAF, Strategic Studies Institute

Aymar_Mauri
10-13-2006, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
Well I somehow doubt there were serious plans for such a developement... There was a lot of 'brain-storming' for sure, but I don't think anyone would have considered actually building it.
Maybe not. But they planned a lot weirder projects than this one...


Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
Interesting cross-thinking, though.
Yes, indeed.


Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
A HGIII, the conventional design, would have been a great addition as well. But the HGII is very sexy already, hopefully it will perform as good. What do you think?
I would prefer both of them in 46. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

As for performance, let's see if they think justifiable the inclusion of the Jumo 004C or 004D. That would mean more reliability and greater power. Of course that the greater degree of sweep in the wing will probably make it less manouverable.


Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
Btw, I am a fellow RTW modder, too. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
My baby is Rise of Persia.
Ah! Yes. Your nick locked familiar. I heard of your MOD at the ORG forums.

Vike
10-13-2006, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
Actually I have no idea, where this comes from... the HG3 plans I know are a tad more conventional and would be a 'realistic' 1946 addition:

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/5277/hg3rp6.th.jpg (http://img136.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hg3rp6.jpg)

Thanks for this PraetorHonoris! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif


Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
the fact that MK108 is a **** against fighters - horrible balistics. Although I can also say that it would be realistic to have the MG213/MK213 in-game in a fantasy scenario like 1946.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Mk108 is a close range gun. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif
If you combine close range shooting with its high rate of fire,you can have suprising results. (http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j32/Vike01/WindsOfWar.jpg)
(Guess what were my two victims... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif...
Two Spit-IX crushed in a row on the WindsOfWar server,with a simple K4-B4...Even no MG131 bullets fired http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif)

The MK108 had short range,but,in short range,the shells trajectory is enough good to estimate when and where to hit.
With Jets (like the Me262A we already have) it is even easier and quicker against prop fighter.

Yes,we're about to have jets for the opposition,but the number of Mk108 simultaneously available on the jets we're about to have (x4) should vastly help,even the less skilful among us http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Can anyone bring me the characterisitics of the MK213 and its possible benefits against the MK108/MK103? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

And what was the armament scheduled on the "HG-III rear positionned cockpit"?
Its long nose seems to allow possible *very* big guns,no? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://vike01.free.fr/images/avatars/signIL2.jpg
- AthlonXP 2400Mhz + 1024MB DDR CL 2.0
- Radeon 9800XT 460/790Mhz
- Saitek X-52 + Track IR 4 Pro
- Aka JV69_Vike http://vike01.free.fr/images/avatars/jv69.jpg

Antoninus
10-13-2006, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by Vike:
Can anyone bring me the characterisitics of the MK213 and its possible benefits against the MK108/MK103? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif


<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">

Vike
10-13-2006, 03:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Antoninus:
<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">

Aymar_Mauri
10-13-2006, 06:18 PM
Originally posted by Vike:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
the fact that MK108 is a **** against fighters - horrible balistics. Although I can also say that it would be realistic to have the MG213/MK213 in-game in a fantasy scenario like 1946.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Mk108 is a close range gun. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif
If you combine close range shooting with its high rate of fire,you can have suprising results. (http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j32/Vike01/WindsOfWar.jpg)
(Guess what were my two victims... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif...
Two Spit-IX crushed in a row on the WindsOfWar server,with a simple K4-B4...Even no MG131 bullets fired http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ah! Eine experten!!

But you must not forgot that jet fighting is 99% high speed long range engagement were a high-velocity longer ranged cannon is superior. We're not talking about close range high-G slow turn dogfighting. That is why I wrote that. Jet fighting was even more so a departure from close-combat tactics. Therefore the importance of the MG213/MK213 in regard to the MK108. An even more so of the MK103.


Originally posted by Vike:
The MK108 had short range,but,in short range,the shells trajectory is enough good to estimate when and where to hit.
With Jets (like the Me262A we already have) it is even easier and quicker against prop fighter.

Yes,we're about to have jets for the opposition,but the number of Mk108 simultaneously available on the jets we're about to have (x4) should vastly help, even the less skilful among us http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Not so in regard to high-speed/long-range engaments with jets, as I have alreay explained.

Then again after seeing the stats for both guns (MK213 and MK108) it seems to me the muzzle velocity is too close for what I was thinking. But the ROF is trully scary!


Originally posted by Vike:
And what was the armament scheduled on the "HG-III rear positionned cockpit"?
Its long nose seems to allow possible *very* big guns,no? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif
Well, the gas tanks would have to be moved forward due to the new cockpit location.

AFAIK, there were no immediate plans to adopt the MG213/MK213 to any of the Me262 HG versions. But since they were not that different in weight and size it would probably be just a matter of time.

Aymar_Mauri
10-13-2006, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by Antoninus:
I don't think it would be very pleasant for the pilot to fly from a cockpit that is placed that much behind the center of mass.
Well, I don't know. The tested Lippish Li P.13a revealed no such problems. But of course this HGIII is another matter...

Aymar_Mauri
10-13-2006, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by Vike:
The MK213 shells weight is 330g like the MK108 ones,the muzzle velocity is 25m/s faster than the MK108.So the shells trajectory would be slightly flatter,but would be far less flat than the MK103 ones (860m/s).

So it would imply that the MK213 is a short range gun too. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif
Yes. It seems so. I honestly thought it's muzzle velocity was more in the vicinity of the MK103.


Originally posted by Vike:
But the 1200 shells/minute rate really hurts me...The 600 up to 800 shells/min of the MK108 is quite dreadful,but with 1200 S/m,i would imagine an enORmous wave of complaining if that gun was implemented in the sim! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif
Hehehe. Yeah. Scary!!


Originally posted by Vike:
I also found the weight of (http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-po.html) the MK213 (aka MG213c) =>75kg (vs 58kg for MK108)

By comparing pro and contra,MK108 doesn't seem too inadequate for our incoming jets... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
Yes. If OM/RGR only wanted it. But I guess not. Or the Russian drivers would not have the expected superiority over their infamous opposition... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

luftluuver
10-13-2006, 10:21 PM
This would be a nice fantasy a/c since they included the Lerche,

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

Focke-Wulf VTOL Project
Very little is known about this VTOL (Vertical Takeoff and Landing) project. The entire aircraft had a aerofoil section, and there were two huge propellers located in the center of the aircraft. They rotated in opposite directions, thus canceling out torque problems. At low speeds, control was achieved by varying power to each propeller. Power was to be provided by an unnamed turbojet, and forward propulsion was brought about by sending exhaust through a nozzle located on both trailing edges. The landing gear was very simple, consisting of two main gear legs on either side of the center propellers, and a small tail wheel. A single fin and rudder was provided to help with lateral stability at higher speeds. The single pilot sat in a cockpit nacelle that protruded from the front of the aerofoil section fuselage.

Vike
10-14-2006, 04:07 AM
Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Vike:
I also found the weight of (http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-po.html) the MK213 (aka MG213c) =>75kg (vs 58kg for MK108)

By comparing pro and contra,MK108 doesn't seem too inadequate for our incoming jets... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
Yes. If OM/RGR only wanted it. But I guess not. Or the Russian drivers would not have the expected superiority over their infamous opposition... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

Ah and what about the ejection? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Isn't a rear positionned cockpit really dangerous for that!? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Did Messerschmitt planned an ejection-seat for the HG series,or was the pilot obliged to get out by his own hands? omg... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://vike01.free.fr/images/avatars/signIL2.jpg
- AthlonXP 2400Mhz + 1024MB DDR CL 2.0
- Radeon 9800XT 460/790Mhz
- Saitek X-52 + Track IR 4 Pro
- Aka JV69_Vike http://vike01.free.fr/images/avatars/jv69.jpg

Antoninus
10-14-2006, 06:59 AM
For jet vs. jet combat I would equip the fighters with the 20 mm MG 213C/20. With a rate of fire 1400 rpm and a muzzle velocity of 1050 m/s, as modern fighter guns, it sounds like the ultimate gun for aircombat.

Against fighter sized targets 20 mm rounds and maybe two guns are sufficient, This combo would be lighter than four mk108, so that the fighter can carry more ammunition.

Against heavy bombers there are still the missiles.



Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Antoninus:
I don't think it would be very pleasant for the pilot to fly from a cockpit that is placed that much behind the center of mass.
Well, I don't know. The tested Lippish Li P.13a revealed no such problems. But of course this HGIII is another matter... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't either just suspect it. In the tested Lippisch DM-1 the cockpit was placed around the center of the plane as I would expect it for a conventional design, so any negative effects of the rear positionned cockpit shouldn't show up here.

http://www.luft46.com/lippisch/dm1-2.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________________
http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/3734/il2sig26hf.jpg

Actually everybody talks about aerial combat. I maintain that hitting ground targets, and especially ships is more dangerous than aerial combat. - Joe Foss

PraetorHonoris
10-14-2006, 09:27 AM
The reason why German engineers planned their aircrafts without the MG213 was the late availability of these weapons. Only 10 MG213 were build by 1945 and serial tests were about to begin. However, unless this weapon would have been a total failure, it surely replaced the older guns.
Also even the fighter versions of the 109G10 designed for top cover of the Sturmbcke (heavy 190) were given a 20mm for it's better air-to-air combat performance.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/6061/untitled1copymd8.jpg

"Misconceptions about the Luftwaffe [...] are, in large part, simply caused by a lack of basic skills of many, who write about the Luftwaffe. For some inexplicable reason, many historians - especially Americans - believe they can write books about the German army or the German air force without knowing German"
Dr. J.S.Corum, LTC USAF, Strategic Studies Institute

Philipscdrw
10-14-2006, 12:10 PM
I've read the book that was scanned earlier - it said the RLM were expecting the Allies to introduce jet fighters which would smother the Me 262, so they were trying to develop new fighters to match what turned out to be the P-80, Meteor and Vampire. (The Volksjager contest that was won by the He 162 might have been part of this policy, but I'm not certain. The RLM did change their minds about practically everything every other week...) I think they considered the Me 262 to be a bomber interceptor, with their new jets used as fighters.

Ing. Messerschmidt wanted to put the Me 262 engines in the wing roots originally, but because the dimensions were not yet known, he put them in pods under the wings instead. The HGIII design would put them back into the wing roots, where they were originally intended to be.

(By the way, I reckon the reason for putting the cockpit in the fin would be to reduce drag, not to give space for really big guns...)<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

------------------------------------------------------------
PhilipsCDRw

PF_Tini's Simple Guide to Switching 4.04m, 4.05m, and 4.07m. (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/7351046415)
Flying on Hyperlobby as EAF_T_Dozer

NagaSadow84
10-14-2006, 12:48 PM
?Me 262 Volume 4? by J. Richard Smith and Eddie J. Creek has a whole chapter about the Me 262 Hochgeschwindigkeits-projects.
The following projects are mentioned:


1940~
35? swept wing

3 November 1942
40? Swept wing, swept tailplane, engine intakes behind the wing leading edge

November 1943
40?~ swept wing, engines beneath fuselage

Me 262 HG I (18 April 1944)
Increased inboard wing chord, swept tailplane, 2x Jumo 004 B, 4x MK 108, cockpit canopy with lower profile = ?Rennkabine?

Me 262 HG II (28 July 1944)
35? swept wing, swept tailplane, 2x HeS 011 A, 4x MK 108, ?Rennkabine?

Me 262 HG II (10 August 1944)
Me 262 HG II (28 Juliy 1944) with V-tail

Me 262 HG III (22 December 1944)
45? swept wing, 2x HeS 011 A in the wing roots, 4x MK 108, swept tailplane

Me 262 HG III (22 December 1944+)
45? swept wing, 2x HeS 011 A in the wing roots, 4x MK 108, swept tailplane, ?Rennkabine?

Aymar_Mauri
10-14-2006, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
This would be a nice fantasy a/c since they included the Lerche,

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

Focke-Wulf VTOL Project
Very little is known about this VTOL (Vertical Takeoff and Landing) project. The entire aircraft had a aerofoil section, and there were two huge propellers located in the center of the aircraft. They rotated in opposite directions, thus canceling out torque problems. At low speeds, control was achieved by varying power to each propeller. Power was to be provided by an unnamed turbojet, and forward propulsion was brought about by sending exhaust through a nozzle located on both trailing edges. The landing gear was very simple, consisting of two main gear legs on either side of the center propellers, and a small tail wheel. A single fin and rudder was provided to help with lateral stability at higher speeds. The single pilot sat in a cockpit nacelle that protruded from the front of the aerofoil section fuselage.
Yea, it seems an interesting project. Reminds me of some experiences made later by some civilian americans. Although the objective was quite different - a personal VTOL small aircraft. It was discus shaped too but with 6 or 8 fans radially installed near the perimeter of the discus.

Aymar_Mauri
10-14-2006, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by Vike:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Vike:
I also found the weight of (http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-po.html) the MK213 (aka MG213c) =>75kg (vs 58kg for MK108)

By comparing pro and contra,MK108 doesn't seem too inadequate for our incoming jets... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
Yes. If OM/RGR only wanted it. But I guess not. Or the Russian drivers would not have the expected superiority over their infamous opposition... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

Ah and what about the ejection? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Isn't a rear positionned cockpit really dangerous for that!? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Did Messerschmitt planned an ejection-seat for the HG series,or was the pilot obliged to get out by his own hands? omg... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have no idea. Judging by the Pfeil's system it should not be a problem producing a specific solution for the HG series. Even for this Design 3.

Aymar_Mauri
10-14-2006, 06:28 PM
Originally posted by Antoninus:
For jet vs. jet combat I would equip the fighters with the 20 mm MG 213C/20. With a rate of fire 1400 rpm and a muzzle velocity of 1050 m/s, as modern fighter guns, it sounds like the ultimate gun for aircombat.

Against fighter sized targets 20 mm rounds and maybe two guns are sufficient, This combo would be lighter than four mk108, so that the fighter can carry more ammunition.

Against heavy bombers there are still the missiles.
Agreed on all accounts. I much prefer a higher velocity 20mm against fighters than a slower velocity 30mm.


Originally posted by Antoninus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Antoninus:
I don't think it would be very pleasant for the pilot to fly from a cockpit that is placed that much behind the center of mass.
Well, I don't know. The tested Lippish Li P.13a revealed no such problems. But of course this HGIII is another matter... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't either just suspect it. In the tested Lippisch DM-1 the cockpit was placed around the center of the plane as I would expect it for a conventional design, so any negative effects of the rear positionned cockpit shouldn't show up here.

http://www.luft46.com/lippisch/dm1-2.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You have a point, but we really aren't certain if the HGIII's COG was the same as the Me262. In fact, it should be further back (maybe not by much though) because of the greater sweep of the wings.

Aymar_Mauri
10-14-2006, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by Philipscdrw:
(By the way, I reckon the reason for putting the cockpit in the fin would be to reduce drag, not to give space for really big guns...)
Yes, the main reason is preciselly that one.

Aymar_Mauri
10-14-2006, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by NagaSadow84:
Me 262 HG III (22 December 1944)
45? swept wing, 2x HeS 011 A in the wing roots, 4x MK 108, swept tailplane

Me 262 HG III (22 December 1944+)
45? swept wing, 2x HeS 011 A in the wing roots, 4x MK 108, swept tailplane, ?Rennkabine?
Didn't know they were planning on using the Heinkel HeS 011 engines. Was it a "stand-in" due to unavalability of the Junkers Jumo 004D or a planned replacement?

Interminate
10-15-2006, 01:23 PM
PraetorHonoris sig quote-

"Misconceptions about the Luftwaffe [...] are, in large part, simply caused by a lack of basic skills of many, who write about the Luftwaffe. For some inexplicable reason, many historians - especially Americans - believe they can write books about the German army or the German air force without knowing German"
Dr. J.S.Corum, LTC USAF, Strategic Studies Institute



I like your sig quote. So true. Sicher.

Aymar_Mauri
10-16-2006, 10:48 AM
Originally posted by Interminate:
PraetorHonoris sig quote-

"Misconceptions about the Luftwaffe [...] are, in large part, simply caused by a lack of basic skills of many, who write about the Luftwaffe. For some inexplicable reason, many historians - especially Americans - believe they can write books about the German army or the German air force without knowing German"
Dr. J.S.Corum, LTC USAF, Strategic Studies Institute



I like your sig quote. So true. Sicher.
And this contributes to the thread in what way?...

NagaSadow84
10-16-2006, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NagaSadow84:
Me 262 HG III (22 December 1944)
45? swept wing, 2x HeS 011 A in the wing roots, 4x MK 108, swept tailplane

Me 262 HG III (22 December 1944+)
45? swept wing, 2x HeS 011 A in the wing roots, 4x MK 108, swept tailplane, ?Rennkabine?
Didn't know they were planning on using the Heinkel HeS 011 engines. Was it a "stand-in" due to unavalability of the Junkers Jumo 004D or a planned replacement? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think they planned with both engines, as Luftwaffe Secret Projects Vol. 1 mentions Jumo 004 B/D and HeS 011 for the December HG III projects.

Aymar_Mauri
10-17-2006, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by NagaSadow84:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NagaSadow84:
Me 262 HG III (22 December 1944)
45? swept wing, 2x HeS 011 A in the wing roots, 4x MK 108, swept tailplane

Me 262 HG III (22 December 1944+)
45? swept wing, 2x HeS 011 A in the wing roots, 4x MK 108, swept tailplane, ?Rennkabine?
Didn't know they were planning on using the Heinkel HeS 011 engines. Was it a "stand-in" due to unavalability of the Junkers Jumo 004D or a planned replacement? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think they planned with both engines, as Luftwaffe Secret Projects Vol. 1 mentions Jumo 004 B/D and HeS 011 for the December HG III projects. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is logical. The problems with availability of engines in the last stages of the war were really big. They did that with many projects.

BlitzPig_DDT
01-21-2007, 10:55 PM
Old thread dug up to the main page courtesy of the lost posts, but... these are some seriously awesome designs. I wish we could have them all! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

BlitzPig_DDT
01-21-2007, 10:59 PM
I'd kill for one of these too -

http://www.luft46.com/junkers/3bjgap.gif

http://www.luft46.com/junkers/jugap1.gif

Just hope it could be fitted with some ordnance, and the Blitz's divebomb site. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

(I know we won't get any new models from Oleg at this point, doesn't mean we can't wish, or hope for some additions after it's declared dead and licensed. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif )

NSAdonis85
01-22-2007, 08:24 AM
...and I would too for one of these:
Arado Ar.E.555-1 http://www.luft46.com/arado/are555-1.gif
http://www.luft46.com/arado/3bae555.jpg
Focke Wulf Fighter Project2:
http://www.luft46.com/fw/3bfpiib.jpg

anarchy52
01-23-2007, 03:55 AM
That junkers attack plane looks like a hybrid of A-9 and A-10. Very cool.