PDA

View Full Version : Beaufighter rear MG?



TROOPER117
11-06-2004, 08:56 AM
Hope you will introduce the rear mounted MG in the Beau's navigator position, as all the pictures of MK21's I've come across seem to have one. Technical specs say it was a .303 or Vickers K. (next patch maybe).

DarthBane_
11-06-2004, 09:02 AM
But it is way more fun as it is now. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Jieitai_Tsunami
11-06-2004, 09:18 AM
I was surprised it didn't have any rear position. I didn't think the Beau usually had an MG but person in the rear position could easily check the beaus 6 and give alot of info to the pilot to get him out of danger http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

3.JG51_BigBear
11-06-2004, 09:57 AM
The Beaufighter definitely should have a rear gunner, especially if ours came from Australia. However I doubt we'll see a rear gun or even have a navigator view anytime soon because no cockpit/position appears to have been modelled for that position. It would be a real help for the full switch players if we got one though.

TROOPER117
11-06-2004, 10:20 AM
It wouldn't be much fun though in multiplayer, imagine just sitting in the back watching the action unfold without that Vickers K! I suppose you could always shout to the pilot, something like "Bloody hell, wer'e dead!!" or words to that effect! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

hotspace
11-07-2004, 06:20 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Hot Space

TROOPER117
11-07-2004, 11:38 AM
Hi, just been letting old Oleg know about our chat on the Beaufighter's lack of rear MG. That site was pretty cool by the way, loads of missions as well as the Festung Europe! Let you know how it goes.

ivankuturkokoff
11-07-2004, 02:03 PM
So if you are so sure on this lets see an image of an RAAF MK21 Beaufighter with reargun in the observers pit then.

TROOPER117
11-07-2004, 05:40 PM
Ok, lets sort this out. There are alot of variants of beaufighters, some have rear MG's fitted and some don't. Even a particular variant like the Mk21 show some pictures of a rear Manually operated machinegun, and guess what? There are pictures of the same variant without! I suspect that as the Mk21 was in fact a copy of the British Mk X version, (fifty odd delivered to the RAAF), that that configuration was likely to have been kept, ie, 4x20mm cannon, fixed forward, 1x.303 MG in dorsal position, with the capability of delivering a torpedo or bombs or rockets. I managed to find out alot of this info through research and a visit to Duxford where a Mk21 is currently being restored! If you require to see a photograph of this aircraft its on the Duxford web page. Take a look at the navigator's bubble and you will see what I'm on about! Oh, by the way, someone mentioned earlier about the lack of the Sperry auto pilot; It was never actually fitted during the war years. Again, sorry for being such a spotter!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

ivankuturkokoff
11-08-2004, 12:02 AM
Like I said Show me a picture of a MK21 with a rear gun. A MK21 lives just 20mins down the road from me (A8-126) in a little place called Narellan. There is no rear gun. Another MK21 lives about 400nm from me (A8-328) and it does not have a rear MG.

Aaron_GT
11-08-2004, 06:18 AM
I'vre seen photos of them with and without a rear gun. I've also seen pics of them with an additional blister on between the two standard cockpits that seems to house a radio loop inside it. I am not sure of the purpose of that.

Are you sure the Sperry wasn't fitted during WW2? It seems a waste to specifically have changed the nose to accomodate it and then never fit it, but stranger things have happened!

slarsson
11-08-2004, 11:48 AM
Certainly some marks could carry an MG in the rear cupola.
Look at the bottom of the article

http://www.raafmuseum.com.au/raaf2/html/body_beauf-8.htm

Daiichidoku
11-08-2004, 01:11 PM
wish i had a scanner....i have a beatuiful close up in flight shot of beau MkX NT 950 coastal command 236 sqn with a vickers K gun in a dedicated mounting

i have no definitive proof of rear guns in a Mk21, however, its not a stretch to imagine many observer carried SOME kind of firearm with them

the PF beau is a 1942 type.....silliness! the first Mk21 left the factory in may 1944

not sure if the Mk21 in PF has the two-speed turbosupercharging that was brought back fo rits hercs...anyone know about this?


even without a rear gun in the beau, certainly, it should be patched to have the observer call out attacks from the rear...if not range and quadrant, then at the VERY least, just that there is an enemy within gun range, closing fast or slow...

if i have to carry a 150-250 lbs observer on board my beau, when hes good for NOTHING, then id like to lose him and add his weight in extra armor plate, please! lol

ivankuturkokoff
11-08-2004, 01:54 PM
MK21 Beaufighters were optimised for Lo level ops they did not have 2 Stage Superchargers.

Regarding the rear gun we are talking specfically here of the MK21 only operated by the RAAF. As for the Sperry Autopilot. The bulge to house it apperrs on all MK21's however no APs were fitted for operational use.

Aaron_GT
11-08-2004, 02:24 PM
"i have no definitive proof of rear guns in a Mk21, however, its not a stretch to imagine many observer carried SOME kind of firearm with them"

Maybe the pics I've seen labelled as Mk. 21s with gunners might possibly be other Marks mislabelled. I'll take a closer look and stare hard to see if the Sperry bumps are there.

rugame
11-08-2004, 03:57 PM
I have yet to find a pic of a mk21 with a rear mg. In fact during my time at the Australian War memorial (working), I went out to their storage at mitchell and (apart from the Me163, B25 and a few other toys they have there) is a beau Mk21(incomplete) and it did not have the gun or the mount.

That said, I would still like to see the MkX in the game and that DID have a vickers fitted.

edit: This link http://www.raafmuseum.com.au/raaf2/html/beauf-8.htm states that the mk21 could be fitted with a rear mg, but as of yet no photos http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

rugame
11-08-2004, 04:10 PM
While doing some research on the DAP mk21 i came across this little snippet

"18/09/44 1 AD. 28/11/44 26 RSU. 01/01/45 31 Sqn. (photo just after delivery Pentland V2 p.90). 31/03/45 Hit by Japanese anti-aircraft fire in port engine and mainplane, gradually lost height and ditched near Ambonia. Crew: Pilot WOFF R.K. Roberts & Nav either FLGOFF Hastie (Vincent p.86) or SGT B. W. Phillips (Parnell p.59) who was slightly wounded in the stomach took to their dingy. Accompanying Beaufighter A8-89 (Pilot: PLTOFF K. W. Sourness & Nav PLTOFF Coleman) radioed for air-sea rescue and circled until fuel shortage forced its departure. A8-6 (Pilot FLGOFF Edwards & Nav FLGOFF D.I. Beasley) and A8-104 (Pilot PLTOFF T.W. Ellis & Nav PLTOFF Coleman) then took up station until Catalina A24-109 piloted by FLTLT W. Mills of 113 ASR Flight landed on the water just 300m from shore. The Catalina suddenly came under fire from a camouflaged Japanese watercraft and its blister guns returned fire. Both Beaufighters commenced strafing the shoreline. An engine of A8-104 was disabled by ground fire but continued to strafe until the Catalina, which was slightly damaged ,had taken off. The crew of A8-33 were successfully rescued and the Navigator recovered from his injuries. (Vincent p.86 & Parnell p.59-60)"

TROOPER117
11-08-2004, 04:36 PM
Hi, thanks for the response, I seem to have stirred up a bit of a debate now ref that rear MG, but I can only say that after a whole day researching this variant that most of the technical specs for this aircraft type from several sites still insist that it carried a manualy operated vickers k in the navigators bubble! I'm going back to Duxford air museum in the next fortnight so I'll try to get a diffinitive answer from the guys doing the restoration project on a MK21. By the way, I like your idea for a future patch to at least get verbal warnings and instructions over the intercom from the old navigator. Reckon that would certainly add to the realism! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

TROOPER117
11-08-2004, 04:43 PM
Just a quick response to the Sperry auto pilot question. At least two of the sites I visited whilst researching the MK21 made ref to the fact that the sperry wasn't fitted during wartime service. Don't ask me to identify which site as I must have visited at least 40 of the buggers and can't remember!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

SUPERAEREO
11-08-2004, 05:45 PM
My books also say that the Sperry autopilot, although present in the project, was never actually fitted on any operational aircraft.

S!

TROOPER117
11-08-2004, 06:00 PM
Glad at least someone else can confirm that my research was correct, I was beginning to have doubts?? Thanks mate. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

rugame
11-09-2004, 12:04 AM
I came across the same fact today doing some research, it mentioned that the sperry was never fitted to production A/C

Tetrapack
11-09-2004, 06:54 AM
Given from the time the DAP Beau's operated in the SWP (since Late 1944), it was not really necessary to carry any defensive armament so the rear MG was probably just left away to save weight.

But another issue is that the DAP Beau's were not fitted with the torpedo carrying gear http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ivankuturkokoff
11-09-2004, 02:28 PM
Yes Tetrapak correct ref Torps but a decision was made to leave them in, it was brought up in the beta process http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

bob_the_Skull
11-10-2004, 07:10 AM
"The Bristol Beaufighter: A Comprehensive guide for the modeler" By Richard Franks
SAM publications
2002
ISBN 0953346552

Initially 54 British (Fairey built) Mk ICs were supplied to Australia by March 26th 1942. Followed by 18 more by October 1942. Then 63 MkVIc, (no delivery date given)
First Mk21 didn't fly until May 26th 1944.

"The most prominent alteration was the addition of a Sperry Autopilot and this unit was housed in a small 'hump' ontop of the nose, just forward of the cockpit canopy. It is the most distinguishing feature of the mark, but in truth the Sperry unit was rarely actually fitted inside the 'hump'!"

>>Which makes you wonder was it fitted else where or just left out altogether?

"the later series Mk21 actually had both supercharger speeds operational, unlike the British mkVII engines which were fixed in the M gear"

There are two drawings, pg.72, showing both early and late productions Mk21's. The early model had 4 0.303 in (7.7 mm) guns in each wing? and the late production models had two .5 in (12.5 mm) Guns in each wing. Also for the rear position it has "Australian style coupla with machine gun, No frame"

"On top of these home grown machines it should be noted that from 20th April 1942 to 20th August 1945 a total of 218 Beuafighters of various marks were shipped directly to Australia for use by the RAAF."

mike

TROOPER117
11-10-2004, 10:38 AM
Mike! Thanks for the confirmation. I was beginning to feel that I must have got my research wrong, or that the info I had been collating must be incorrect! I'm a professional person and like to get my facts correct. (Although I do make the occasional mistake!)lol

Aaron_GT
11-10-2004, 03:36 PM
"There are two drawings, pg.72, showing both early and late productions Mk21's. The early model had 4 0.303 in (7.7 mm) guns in each wing? and the late production models had two .5 in (12.5 mm) Guns in each wing. Also for the rear position it has "Australian style coupla with machine gun, No frame""

I thought the first ones had the standard UK production style 2 and 4 guns, but 4 and 4 would be impressive (but 2 and 2 .50s is even better, of course).

Aaron_GT
11-10-2004, 03:39 PM
Go to

http://www.defence.gov.au/gallery/

and search for Beaufighters.

It seems to pull up some pics of Mk. 21s (Sperry bumps visible) lacking rear guns, but also with an additional perspex bubble on the fuselage.

Bussard_1
11-10-2004, 04:11 PM
Aaron & Bob the skull,
.303 fit in Pommy made Beaus was 4 in the stbd wing and 2 in the port wing [landing light took up space].4 x .50 cals rocks!
I have read that the 20mm hispanos used in early Aussie based Brit built Beaus fired faster.The reason was that the breach block was shaved to allow the weapon to tolerate the dusty conditons encountered in Northern Territory Australia.The bi-product of shaving the block was that because of the lower reciprocating mass the weapon cycled faster!!
Ref:
6x.303 p58, The Bristol Beaufighter,Richard A. Franks.
Shaved Hispanos from Parnell's Beaufighter{exact title iludes me at the moment}

Bussard

Daiichidoku
11-10-2004, 04:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bob_the_Skull:

"the later series Mk21 actually had both supercharger speeds operational, unlike the British mkVII engines which were fixed in the M gear"

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you for letting me know that...I rad that Mk21s had two stage reinstated, but didnt know it was the late prod machines...
But was it automatic turbosupercharger control or manual? anyone know?

As for the gunner, if not even a nav who will call out attacks, how about being able to sit in his position and look fo rattacks yourself?

Surely with the frameless conopy this would be the easiest and quickest position to ever produce?

TROOPER117
11-12-2004, 02:26 PM
Hi mate. saw one of your replies to a question on the Beaufighter. You mentioned that there was an additional perspex bubble on the fuselage. That was put there purely to protect the direction finder loop! Have you tried www.burmabeaufighters.com, (http://www.burmabeaufighters.com,) its a pretty good ref site with a shed load of links at the bottom of the page. One of the links takes you to a complete online pilots manual from the war years, very imformative!

p1ngu666
11-12-2004, 05:06 PM
anyone checked to see if we have the correct ammo load for the 20mm's?

i think some beus had rear guns, some didnt. but from cockpit view, on the not locked on gunsight view, u cant see past 90degrees to left, right, up or down, moved forward is only a little better.
to be able to see back would be great

Daiichidoku
11-12-2004, 07:28 PM
yes, pingu, there is no rear view in the beau, which is why oleg should give the beau observer the ability to call out attacks from behind....or give us a simple observer position to look for ourselves...or give the blighter a gun to use....at the very least, if he will stay useless, then leave him oput of the loadout, and let the beau fly with 200lbs less of deadweight


can anyone tell me if the superchargers on the hercs were automatic, or manual?

pourshot
11-12-2004, 09:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ivankuturkokoff:
So if you are so sure on this lets see an image of an RAAF MK21 Beaufighter with reargun in the observers pit then. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/mk21_pic2.jpg
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/mk21.jpg

pourshot
11-12-2004, 10:00 PM
For some reason early build MK21's did not have the rear gun fitted at the factory even though it was in the order's specs ( I could post them but it's way to many pages and hard to read ) this letter shows it was addressed.

Sorry about the image size folks it would be very hard to read if smaller.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/3.jpg

pourshot
11-12-2004, 10:15 PM
Also as for the auto pilot it was in the origanal order specs but later deleted the bulge was retained probably to save time in production.

Daiichidoku
11-13-2004, 12:50 AM
Nice pics, Pourshot....

Maybe even a dev or oleg will see this and give the beau a gun...or a non-mute gunner...or both!

pourshot
11-13-2004, 02:32 AM
I would be happy if the gun/position was only AI, we fly this plane in games that have heavy air opposition and I'am sure if the RAAF was flying under the same conditions nobody would remove the gun even if it is only a single .303.

Aaron_GT
11-13-2004, 03:43 AM
" That was put there purely to protect the direction finder loop!"

That's what it looked like, I just wasn't 100% sure as I wasn't sure why you'd need to do that!

Great stuff, pourshot. I thought it was the case that the first Mk. 21s didn't have the rear gun.

The question now is did any of the early Mk. 21s that didn't have the rear gun also have the 4 .50s, or did the early ones just have the 6 .303s? In other words, was there any Mk. 21 production that matches what we have in the game.

Other questions are on what size of bombs could be carried on the wing, or fuselage. Something definitive to show Oleg on that would be good, but whilst I've seen a photo that might show fuselage mounts for 500lb bombs on the fuselage it isn't really definitive :-(

Aaron_GT
11-13-2004, 03:46 AM
Did the Mk. 21 have the increased 20mm capacity, (283 rpg) or just the standard amount from the VIc (240 rpg)? Also, how would we be able to count the rounds carried anyway?

pourshot
11-13-2004, 05:18 AM
Aaron from what I can tell 2x500lb on the wing is what the mk21 was built to handle. Center racks were proposed and deleted, I can show pics but like you say a single picture is not proof.What I can show you is the specs from the production order, this should answer your other question regards load out for guns.

One other thing to note is that all mk21's could be refitted in the field to suit the job at hand be it rockets bombs or just strafing or even the removal of the wing guns and replacment with wing tanks.

This chart mirrors every thing I have seen regards loadouts.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/spec1.jpg

TROOPER117
11-13-2004, 01:16 PM
Pourshot hi!
Thanks for the reply, I was the originator of the thread and took a bit of stick as to the rear MG and the lack of the Sperry!
I really couldn't be bothered to justify myself as I try hard to be factual and correct in my work, but glad you put the photo's in anyway. Did you get them from a book or if a web site, which one??
Regards, Dave.

pourshot
11-13-2004, 03:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TROOPER117:
Pourshot hi!
Thanks for the reply, I was the originator of the thread and took a bit of stick as to the rear MG and the lack of the Sperry!
I really couldn't be bothered to justify myself as I try hard to be factual and correct in my work, but glad you put the photo's in anyway. Did you get them from a book or if a web site, which one??
Regards, Dave. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

G'day dave, you can find alot of usefull info if you go here Australian Archives (http://naa12.naa.gov.au/Login.htm)

RAAF_Edin
11-13-2004, 09:44 PM
Good work Pourshot! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Daiichidoku
11-14-2004, 10:23 AM
bump

ivankuturkokoff
11-14-2004, 09:40 PM
However you wont find an image of a MK21 with the rear gun fitted.

You will be hard pressed to find a rear gun fitted in the earlier RAAF Beaufighters in the Pacfic theatre as well.

In Parnells book "Whispering Death a History of the RAAF Beaufighter Squadrons", on page 58 an image of a 147 KG Depth Charge, and rack mounted 9Kg Frag bombs. On Page 60 an image of 3 45Kg Napalm bombs on a Beau wing rack. A shot also (though not mounted) of a 272Kg Magnesium incendiary bomb.

(All images forwarded to the developers a while ago)

pourshot
11-15-2004, 12:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>However you wont find an image of a MK21 with the rear gun fitted <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Already did that, think it was on page 2.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You will be hard pressed to find a rear gun fitted in the earlier RAAF Beaufighters in the Pacfic theatre as well. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok I wont show you a pic of a beau in theatre with mg mounted, but how about this short story from "Australians at War in the Air 1939-1945"
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/Beau_at_war.jpg

Makes me think it was up to the crew if the gun was carried or not as I can find as much proof for as against it's use.

ivankuturkokoff
11-15-2004, 03:22 AM
Great Research Pourshot http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

But I see some images of a Rear defence gun, no model mentioned in these images. The document is a Minute detailing some procedures on the fitment of said gun and the manufacture of packing cases. The images probably from the same source document illustrating the fitment. In a similar vein I can produce images of AIM9Bs fitted to RAAF MB326H's but they were never operational http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I am not disputing that it could be done. The Observers station on the MK21 was not that different to other Beaus, that clearly in the European theater had and used the rear .303. The issue is was it fitted and used operationally by the RAAF in the MK21.
I put it to you it wasent. However I am happy to be proven wrong with an image of a MK21 fitted in theater http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Do think however at least a Navigator calling the bandits would be great.

Tooz_69GIAP
11-15-2004, 03:30 AM
All the data I have also suggests that the Mk21 didn't have a rear MG fitted onto operational aircraft.

But I don't have much data, and I would love to proved wrong also. The Beau is a great aircraft, but man, you can't see **** from the pit!!!!!

pourshot
11-15-2004, 04:46 AM
I will see if I can contact my uncle who was a aircraft fitter in the RAAF in PNG he would have some Idea as to how many use them.He was with No4 squadron but he worked for many different groups even the Yanks, he may be able to fill in the gaps.

However that story I posted does show it could be fitted if need be.And like I said in another post if the RAAF had to fly under the same circumstances as we do no one in his right mind would fly without it I'am sure.

pourshot
11-15-2004, 04:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> But I see some images of a Rear defence gun, no model mentioned in these images <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

if you look at the blind flying panel you can Identify this as a MK21 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

pourshot
11-15-2004, 05:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>But another issue is that the DAP Beau's were not fitted with the torpedo carrying gear <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Yes Tetrapak correct ref Torps but a decision was made to leave them in, it was brought up in the beta process <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So using this same criteria why cant we have the rear gun?

No mk21 was built to handle torps yet it's in the game? and we know at least some carried the rear .303 so why not make it standard?

If you want torps on the mk21 realism has gone out the window anyway.

RAAF_Edin
11-15-2004, 05:22 AM
I think the whole thing comes down to weather it is a "reason big enough" for Oleg to model the Beaufighter with 0.303 MG, as RAAF Beaufighters had them fited in the field, as Pourshot has shown with both images and written referrence found at the Australian archives. The gun was used when needed and "be sure" the RAAF did need them in conditions they flew in.

I would also really like to hear what Pourshot's uncle has to say on this topic, and just for sake in realism, for which most of us cry about, if they were used then so we should have them... no mater how useless a rear AI gunner can be http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Aaron_GT
11-15-2004, 10:59 AM
If there was a rear gun at least we'd here it firing sometimes and that would warn us about a plane on our 6.

A 'virtual' rear gun that has no bullets with the firing sound replaces with shouts of "bandit" or something would be better than nothing.

This is an issue for the upcoming Mosquito too as often the navigator would kneel backwards on his seat to provide a lookout on the six. Modelling the navigator this way round for the Mosquito FB. VI and having it possible to jump into it would be very handy (or even having it crewed by a separate person online!)

ivankuturkokoff
11-15-2004, 02:03 PM
In my search of the archive docs there is an engineering (Beaufighter Order No17) order that specfiically mentions mod to instal rear defense gun in the MK1C,VII,XC,XIC not 21

http://naa12.naa.gov.au/scripts/ShowImage.asp?B=3102572&S=33&T=P

ivankuturkokoff
11-15-2004, 03:11 PM
Pourshot. After much digging I have found a solitary In flight image of a MK21 with rear gun http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif This I think is the same airframe (A8-95) that is illustrated in your Archive image on page 2. The caption to the image states The aircraft is being tested by Flt Lt Len Vial of 1AD Laverton Vic 1945. (1AD being 1 Aircraft Depot).

This is the only image of any RAAF Pacific Beaufighter (of any mark) with the rear defense gun that I can find. I think it was a 1 off engineering "Proof of concept" type thing. This Gels with one of the Minutes you posted an image of on pg2. Laverton was the home of Testing in WWII and immediately therafter. All the in theatre images I can find show no gun fitted.

The bulk of evidence indicates RAAF Beaufighters in Operational Pacific service did not have the rear gun fitted.

As to why no rear seat 3D model. I think its a poly limit

Happy to post this MK21 image if I could figure out how to do it on this board !

RAAF_Edin
11-16-2004, 12:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ivankuturkokoff:
In my search of the archive docs there is an engineering (Beaufighter Order No17) order that specfiically mentions mod to instal rear defense gun in the MK1C,VII,XC,XIC not 21 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

er... this order says to install the 0.303 in those models...yes...but, it does not say not to install in any other model. Gotta be carefull about the wording. I am awaiting on word from Pourshot's uncle... and if the man says the guns were used then they were used... unless the man is luying... but I see no reason why he should... if he was there and says they were used... that's all the proof I need. How and why they were fited.. doesn't really matter I guess.

ivankuturkokoff
11-16-2004, 01:12 AM
Kuky. Its a technical document there is no mistake in the wording. You cant imply that because it doesnt say you cant install in a MK21 then its okay too.

Anyway I think we know that at least one MK21 had a gun installed. However whether they were used operationally is the moot point. So far there is no photographic evidence of operational use of Rear MGs in RAAF Pacific Beaufighters.

In fact even looking in the European theater most Beaufighters did not it would appear have the rear MG fitted. Photographic evidence seems to indicate that the rear gun was fitted to RAF coastal commanf TFX's. Few other models had it fitted according to the avaialble imagery.

As to Getting Oleg to incorporate it because of veterans recollections. With all due respect to those veterans Oleg will need unambigous photographic evidence. provide that and you will get your rear MG http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

And a further point Pourshot the Blind flying panel in your page 2 post is in fact a non standard MK21 panel. Again indicating a test and not an operational aircraft. (I do know the diff between the MK21 panel and the other marks. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

RAAF_Edin
11-16-2004, 02:27 AM
My wording does not imply ti the document... but the way you said:

"...instal rear defense gun in the MK1C,VII,XC,XIC not 21"

The emphasis being on:

"..not 21"

This way it's like you're saying the documents says it should not be fited to Mk.21. That is what I meant by being careful about the wording. And by the way... a word of a man who was at the time and saw with his own eyes something happening (of course he must have some credibility) does mean something to me. Also, if something is not being recorded does not mean it never happened... and this is the part that brings us to this discussion.

Now I am not saying I was there, or that I know... all I can do is think for myself and make my own opinion based on things I hear, read, see and so on.

ivankuturkokoff
11-16-2004, 03:43 AM
Kuky.

Okay A comma before not might change the inflection. The intent was to indicate this document lists specfic marks, and that the MK21 was not referred to.

I am not discounting a veterans word in any way. I am merely stating that if you want a rear MG in the Beaufighter 21 you need to prove it to Oleg. That proof needs to be ironclad. So far I dont think it is. Get some images of Operational MK21s with rear mg and that will suffice.

ivankuturkokoff
11-16-2004, 03:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ivankuturkokoff:
Kuky.

Okay A comma before "not" might change the inflection. The intent was to indicate this document lists specfic marks, and that the MK21 was not referred to.

I am not discounting a veterans word in any way. I am merely stating that if you want a rear MG in the Beaufighter 21 you need to prove it to Oleg. That proof needs to be ironclad. So far I dont think it is. Get some images of Operational MK21s with rear mg and that will suffice.

The argument is getting circular <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

RAAF_Edin
11-16-2004, 04:28 AM
I agree...

JG53Frankyboy
11-16-2004, 04:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Did the Mk. 21 have the increased 20mm capacity, (283 rpg) or just the standard amount from the VIc (240 rpg)? Also, how would we be able to count the rounds carried anyway? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


well, open offline a dogfight map . fly the Beau, fire its cannons , hit refly , then wright >user STAT in the chat box - you will see the fired rounds.

ore you visit this side http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
http://free-st.htnet.hr/dvd/

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

Aaron_GT
11-16-2004, 08:47 AM
Ah - obvious really, I just didn't think of it!

p1ngu666
11-16-2004, 09:41 AM
could just whine for another model that deffo had rear gun.

i like the gunner saying bandit when firing, give him a firing area like what he can see http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

id really like a rearseat avalible tho, in full real u really worried about colloision cos u cant see past 90degrees...

Daiichidoku
11-16-2004, 02:45 PM
iven that the observer can have his whole head in the rear canopy area, and probably did so IRL to get a great 360 view, i cant imagine a rear crew position being difficult at all to make...

Dont even need any interior detail, really, basically just need like a static camera halfway down the spine of the Beau that can be moused in directions..even if not down, to hide that there is no observer "cockpit" to view....maybe a lil bit of the canopy framing, where it is attached to the fuselage and some plexiglass reflection is all it takes

Im sure IRL, with his entire head in that canopy, the observer wouldnt even be able to see any of the inside of the beau, without actually looking down into the plane

I know, I know, if its so easy I should just do it myself.....but I cant, so maybe given that it may be easy to do, I hope 1c will do it...if they ever actually see this thread, which I doubt

Of course, I do have a hope that indded, there IS going to be any combo or singular of a crew position to view, or an AI gunner with gun, or an observer who will call out or at least give verbal indication of an impending attack, in the patch to be released

Bussard_1
11-16-2004, 08:20 PM
Gents,
When PF first came out I asked a question regarding the wing armament. http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=26310365&m=3851037332
Burnin_777_AVG's answer seems to indicate{to me} that the observer,his VGO or .303 Browning and the observer's cockpit exterior AND interior were both modelled{albeit by different modellers} and then excluded.??
Bussard_1

pourshot
11-16-2004, 11:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ivankuturkokoff:

I am not discounting a veterans word in any way. I am merely stating that if you want a rear MG in the Beaufighter 21 you need to prove it to Oleg. That proof needs to be ironclad. So far I dont think it is. Get some images of Operational MK21s with rear mg and that will suffice. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So will the torpedo be deleted from the loadout?

After all it's not historic, The MK21 had no center bomb racks EVER. It looks to me like proof only has to be "ironcald" when it suits him.

Tooz_69GIAP
11-17-2004, 08:56 AM
I have a feeling the torp was left on coz of a loack of torp carrying aircraft in PF.

If we ever get the US and Japanese torp planes, then I reckon Oleg should remove the torps from the Mk.21. If they weren't fitted, then we shouldn't have em!!!!

Daiichidoku
11-17-2004, 12:34 PM
not to stay too far, but while this seems to be the only ongoing thread for the beau,is the bail out correct?

I notice that when I bail from the beau, the top of the canopy is released and pilot bails out the top of the cockpit...

AFAIK, the pilots entrance hatch BELOW the cockpit is used, blocking the slipstream, and the pilot drops his seat back, and rolls out backwards and down out of the craft, with the nav/observer/gunner whatever he is now follows

perhaps this is different for the mk21? anyone know?

not a pressing issue, of course, how a pilots gets out of the plane, I suppose...

RAAF_Edin
11-18-2004, 01:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tooz_69GIAP:
I have a feeling the torp was left on coz of a loack of torp carrying aircraft in PF. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That would be one lame reason... if that was the case... I would change my attitude in thinking Oleg tends to realism. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

pourshot
11-18-2004, 01:28 AM
Ok I just got off the phone with my uncle, I love to talk to the old bloke (he turned 95 today god bless him) but if you ask something you have to listen to everything that happened to him in the entire war http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Anyway as far as he can remember he has no recolection of any beaufighters of any MK having the rear gun fitted in service, but we know that at least some models had them.

So I can provide no proof it was used in the field in the MK21 however I dont think that should stop us having it as we know it was available as a option as we have proof of that much at least.

Now when I asked him why they would not have used it he answered with a snort http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"That thing was realy bloody fast it did not have to worry much about fighters catching it and anyway by the time we started using the DAP beaufghters there was bugger all to run away from" he said later that the navigator had very little room as it was so he thinks that added to it's removal.

And after reading some 600+ pages of RAAF No31 squadron combat reports I can confirm targets had become hard to find by the time the MK21 came on line.It appears to me that the MK21 missed most of the real hot stuff so I can understand the guys not wanting it in the way all the time.

I still hope Oleg will allow us to have the gun installed as it was a option even if little used, we sure as hell need it for online missions were the fighters are many.

RAAF_Edin
11-18-2004, 03:12 AM
Well that's fair enough Pourshot...

pourshot
11-18-2004, 05:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ivankuturkokoff:
Pourshot. After much digging I have found a solitary In flight image of a MK21 with rear gun http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif This I think is the same airframe (A8-95) that is illustrated in your Archive image on page 2. The caption to the image states The aircraft is being tested by Flt Lt Len Vial of 1AD Laverton Vic 1945. (1AD being 1 Aircraft Depot). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No the one in that image is A8-3

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/A8-3.jpg

pourshot
11-18-2004, 05:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ivankuturkokoff:
In my search of the archive docs there is an engineering (Beaufighter Order No17) order that specfiically mentions mod to instal rear defense gun in the MK1C,VII,XC,XIC not 21

http://naa12.naa.gov.au/scripts/ShowImage.asp?B=3102572&S=33&T=P <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Those models were in use before the MK21 so it makes sense that it would not mention it, I could be wrong but the doc is not dated.

Kongo Otto
11-18-2004, 06:54 AM
Found this at the web:

"B" Flight 211th Squadron,Chiringa 1945
Aircraft Code is "W"
http://members.aardvark.net.au/clardo/BFlt2.jpg

Greetings
Kongo Otto

Daiichidoku
11-18-2004, 12:35 PM
NIce find, Kongo

But is that really a MK21? the nose seems blunt enough from this angle, but it doesnt seems to show the bump for the auto pilot housing

perhaps it simply doesnt show a tthis angle?

perhaps some Mk21s were built without the fairing, or had them removed in the field?


Given the testimony from pourshots gramps (sounds like hes going strong, bless 'im) seems that guns were most rare, if ever used operationally in Mk21s

So Oleg is giving us an accurate beau

HOWEVER, given that Oleg has sought fit to include types like the 109Z, or I 185, or Ki84C, would it be that much of a stretch to include a gun, given OUR virtual theater is RIFE with enemy fighters

at the very least, Oleg, sir, if you do read this, give us SOMETHING in regards the beau rear....a voice, a position, anything!

at least give the observer a sidearm to use, lol

Carnage2681
11-18-2004, 12:55 PM
Do we need more snipers in the game http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

p1ngu666
11-18-2004, 02:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Carnage2681:
Do we need more snipers in the game http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

depends if ur flyin with the sniper http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

bue can outrun zeros down low, and ki43's.
think oleg may have gone for a genericish beu, cos of 42year (raf beus of similer spec in 42 tho?) and torp loadout

the view tho makes u worried flyin with friendlys in full real, cos theres SO much u dont see, worried about running into someone..

clint-ruin
11-18-2004, 03:47 PM
I know that trying to think outside the box here results in snapped necks, but would it be too much to ask to include the rear armament and then just change the name of the aircraft to something other than Mk21? Or add a new variant to the list?

Daiichidoku
11-18-2004, 07:54 PM
Good idea, Clint, just reanme it the X, add a gunner, a dorsal fin, and just drop the auto pilot that wasnt fitted anyhow, and also the torpedo capability could be retained...

So the Mk 21 a PTO type, the X is just as appro for western front ops

can just as easily make it a VI or anything, too

p1ngu666
11-18-2004, 08:54 PM
got a feeling the external models where done ages ago for other types

Kongo Otto
11-19-2004, 12:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
NIce find, Kongo

But is that really a MK21? the nose seems blunt enough from this angle, but it doesnt seems to show the bump for the auto pilot housing

perhaps it simply doesnt show at this angle?

perhaps some Mk21s were built without the fairing, or had them removed in the field?



<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Daiichidoku

Indeed it is hard to tell is it a Mk.21 or a Mk.10

I think you canÔ┬┤t see the housing of the autopilot from this angle.


The Problem is that in wartimes some improvements or changes where made which where not autorised
by higher commands.

In Germany specially for Luftwaffe equipment we say:"Es gibt nichts was es nicht gab."
Means something like:"Nothing is impossible "

I think maybe this was the same in the RAF and the RAAF.

Greetings from Germany

Kongo Otto



PS: Pleas excuse my bad english.

RAAF_Edin
11-19-2004, 03:41 AM
"Es gibt nichts was es nicht gab"

would mean somethig like:

"There wasn't a thing that you couldn't find"

WOLFMondo
11-19-2004, 04:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
got a feeling the external models where done ages ago for other types <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Im sure I remember seeing images on netwings of several types of the Beaufighters.

Aaron_GT
11-19-2004, 10:56 AM
If we have a TF. Mk. X then there are a lot more things that might need changing beyond the rear gun, the auto pilot, torpedo, and fin.

* Some TF. Mk. Xs had the thimble nose (although we don't get radar modelled in the game so it won't do us much good!).

* Later TF. Mk. Xs could carry 1000lbs under each wing.

* TF. Mk. Xs had capacity for
two 500lb bombs on fuselage mounts.

* The TF. Mk. X could mount a 2000lb bomb in place of the torpedo (no other fuselage ordnance)

* An external 300 gallon centre tank was an option

* There may be differences in supercharger settings.

* .303s rather than .50s

* The option to remove all wing guns for extra
fuel.

And probably all sorts of detail changes on top!

pourshot
11-19-2004, 05:26 PM
Anyone else notice that we have had 5 pages and no flames http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

hobnail
11-19-2004, 05:54 PM
Anglo-Antipodean influence at work?

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

clint-ruin
11-19-2004, 07:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
If we have a TF. Mk. X then there are a lot more things that might need changing beyond the rear gun, the auto pilot, torpedo, and fin.

* Some TF. Mk. Xs had the thimble nose (although we don't get radar modelled in the game so it won't do us much good!).

* Later TF. Mk. Xs could carry 1000lbs under each wing.

* TF. Mk. Xs had capacity for
two 500lb bombs on fuselage mounts.

* The TF. Mk. X could mount a 2000lb bomb in place of the torpedo (no other fuselage ordnance)

* An external 300 gallon centre tank was an option

* There may be differences in supercharger settings.

* .303s rather than .50s

* The option to remove all wing guns for extra
fuel.

And probably all sorts of detail changes on top! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Didn't realise the changes could be that extensive! But, given the amount of 'missing' loudouts [or wrong weapons on the wrong pylons] I don't think we'd much miss the 300g fuel tank, etc. Stuff like removing the .303s smacks of other 'recon' mods for aircraft like the 109 or P38 which we don't have either - and the range of the beau [2500km] will still get you from one side of any one map to the other and back again if you don't go crazy.

Anyone know what the difference with the engines might be? That and the .303 gunnery/dm/skin changes seem like they'd be the only real work to be done.

p1ngu666
11-19-2004, 07:19 PM
some hercs had 2stage superchargers, or similer because ones fitted to bomber aircraft often got them to lofty heights.

beu mk 21 reaches max speed at 500metres tho, so thats like natural asperated or something?

and yes its got long range, ull probably never need more than 50% fuel.

i dont have much bue info sadly, but gives a nice idea what mossie will be like...
mossie will be 100kph faster tho i think http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Burnin_777_AVG
11-20-2004, 02:08 AM
As the other half of the Beaufighter team I once again state that the other Mk.s were modeled ages ago, but some tweaks were made by MG that needs to be addressed on the other Mk.s. These corrections would not be difficult and take a minimum amount of time, but MG has failed to deliver us the requested model to make the needed corrections.

If the other Beau Mk.s don't make it into the sim, it is NOT the modellers fault. Simon and I have been screaming for months to finalize the other Mk.s only to have it fall on deaf ears. If you guys want the other Mk.s you have to convince Oleg to email the final Mk. 21 model to either myself or Halfwit ASAP. Also on a sad note. The other Beau cockpits have not been created because MG won't commit to their further development and the modeller which did such a great job on the Mk. 21 pit doesn't want to waste his time on something that MG won't commit too. It's all been a rather dissappointing experience from our perspective. And considering how popular the Beau is, I think they are nuts for not letting us finish the project we started and giving the community soemthing they will enjoy.

With regards to the Mk. 21 machine gun: The Mk. 21 was a late-war bird and our research indicated that the Vickers was not carried on a regular basis. We offered to have 2 versions and sent a version to MG with a gun, but they decided to not use it. Also, the decision to not model the Nav position was not the modellers.

I hope this helps and again I have stated all this in various places several times. I wish the nit picking of the Beau would stop.

And two more things. The Aileron problem on the Beau is not the modellers mistake either along with the cockpit lights not working. I hope these two issues get fixed soon.

BV

Copperhead310th
11-20-2004, 06:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Burnin_777_AVG:
As the other half of the Beaufighter team I once again state that the other Mk.s were modeled ages ago, but some tweaks were made by MG that needs to be addressed on the other Mk.s. These corrections would not be difficult and take a minimum amount of time, but MG has failed to deliver us the requested model to make the needed corrections.

If the other Beau Mk.s don't make it into the sim, it is NOT the modellers fault. Simon and I have been screaming for months to finalize the other Mk.s only to have it fall on deaf ears. If you guys want the other Mk.s you have to convince Oleg to email the final Mk. 21 model to either myself or Halfwit ASAP. Also on a sad note. The other Beau cockpits have not been created because MG won't commit to their further development and the modeller which did such a great job on the Mk. 21 pit doesn't want to waste his time on something that MG won't commit too. It's all been a rather dissappointing experience from our perspective. And considering how popular the Beau is, I think they are nuts for not letting us finish the project we started and giving the community soemthing they will enjoy.

With regards to the Mk. 21 machine gun: The Mk. 21 was a late-war bird and our research indicated that the Vickers was not carried on a regular basis. We offered to have 2 versions and sent a version to MG with a gun, but they decided to not use it. Also, the decision to not model the Nav position was not the modellers.

I hope this helps and again I have stated all this in various places several times. I wish the nit picking of the Beau would stop.

And two more things. The Aileron problem on the Beau is not the modellers mistake either along with the cockpit lights not working. I hope these two issues get fixed soon.

BV <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

burnin' you & halfwit did an outstanding job on this plane. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif i love & it's a monster of a ground attack plane. But Gdam Bristol for making the thing a with such limited rear visability for the pilot! every time i fly that thing i feel like i have a bad guy just over my shoulder...and that's before i even get the dam gears up!. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif lol geez you think those clowns would ahve heard about a MIRROR! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

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

Aaron_GT
11-20-2004, 07:35 AM
Thanks for the Beau. That, the A20G, and the Corsair have provided me with hours of fun already. In fact I've barely flown anything other than those three since PF arrived!

Aaron_GT
11-20-2004, 07:36 AM
I presume that the rear observer was supposed to make up for the lack of rear visibility. We just have a deaf mute in that position at the moment.

Daiichidoku
11-20-2004, 02:52 PM
Yes, very nice indeed to be flame free (so far)

Pingu, the Mk21s, AFAIK had the two speed supers reinstated...25% in the Beau is more than enough, at least for a dogfighter server, for a strike mission, it all depends and distance to tgt, of course...good reason the mossies replaced beaus in many roles....top speed, acceleration, rate of climb and almost unlimited ceiling

Burnin, sir, all of us who have posted in this thread are obviously in love with the beau....love what yo uand halfwit did, an excellent job <S>!
But i dont think, at least it doesnt feel that ANYone is nitpicking...or blaming and modeller for what has happened...we are simply voicing our concerns, and hoping 1C MG will notice and make the necessary changes to bring this bird in line to a more correct state, and more playable, especially in regards to "le derriere"

MG, for whatever reason, not including the gunner position, IS nits....but perhaps it will be realeased in a patch

cockpit lights? who cares, really?...the aileron thing, well, i had thought the beau had crappy aileron authority, especially at low speeds....guess i know better now

but please, dont be offended by "nitpicking"....nothing could be further from the truth...

the fact that this is a good thread, with no flames or ridiculousness is very telliing in this regards...we are simply, as you must be, very fond of the Beau, and wish to see it get a fair shake, if nothing else

pourshot
11-20-2004, 03:51 PM
G'day burnin I dont think anyone is complaining about the great job you did with the Beaufighter in fact it's maybe one of the most popular additions to the game in some time I personaly love it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


But as a player that likes to fly in the cockpit a rear gun would make coop's much more survivable, as it is now a enemy fighter can park on your six and take all the time he needs to line you up for the kill without fear. Hell I even find formation flying very hard given the limited cockpit view let alone looking for fighters.

At the end of the day it dose not matter if we get a rear gunner or not, it wont take anything away from the fantasic work you and your team have done. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

TROOPER117
11-21-2004, 04:50 AM
Have to agree with Kuky, whether we get a rear MG or not will not detract too much from the game.
There has been some really good disscussion points on this thread, and I think if you are like me you will have been heavily rechecking your resaearch and possibly finding out alot more about the Beau than you knew before, and that can only be a good thing!
I'm pretty sure that a rear MG would have been fitted to some individual Mk21's, and although the photo's may be a little obscure or even named incorrectly, I'm a military person myself and I know that on ops we make adjustments and changes to our equipment that certainly is not standard operating proceedure. But we do it non the less!! But I think we would all agree that if the Mk21 had been introduced earlier on in the war when Japanese aircraft had parity or even air superiorty in certain theatres, you would have seen those crews fitting some sort of rear defence measures to their aircraft to increase survivability. And after all, when we play PF there are alot of bad guys out there itching to get on your unprotected tail!!!

Daiichidoku
11-22-2004, 04:11 PM
Bump

Daiichidoku
11-22-2004, 04:12 PM
bumpola

p1ngu666
11-22-2004, 05:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Burnin_777_AVG:
As the other half of the Beaufighter team I once again state that the other Mk.s were modeled ages ago, but some tweaks were made by MG that needs to be addressed on the other Mk.s. These corrections would not be difficult and take a minimum amount of time, but MG has failed to deliver us the requested model to make the needed corrections.

If the other Beau Mk.s don't make it into the sim, it is NOT the modellers fault. Simon and I have been screaming for months to finalize the other Mk.s only to have it fall on deaf ears. If you guys want the other Mk.s you have to convince Oleg to email the final Mk. 21 model to either myself or Halfwit ASAP. Also on a sad note. The other Beau cockpits have not been created because MG won't commit to their further development and the modeller which did such a great job on the Mk. 21 pit doesn't want to waste his time on something that MG won't commit too. It's all been a rather dissappointing experience from our perspective. And considering how popular the Beau is, I think they are nuts for not letting us finish the project we started and giving the community soemthing they will enjoy.

With regards to the Mk. 21 machine gun: The Mk. 21 was a late-war bird and our research indicated that the Vickers was not carried on a regular basis. We offered to have 2 versions and sent a version to MG with a gun, but they decided to not use it. Also, the decision to not model the Nav position was not the modellers.

I hope this helps and again I have stated all this in various places several times. I wish the nit picking of the Beau would stop.

And two more things. The Aileron problem on the Beau is not the modellers mistake either along with the cockpit lights not working. I hope these two issues get fixed soon.

BV <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

im curious as to what other marks u made, could u give us a list? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

yeah beu is great, my fave along with ki43 and zero 5b http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif and val

its a shame beu hasnt reached full potential, like other planes in fp, not the modelers fault tho.

the observer did navigation, radar and other stuff i guess, and lookout

also, is beu lacking armoured glass?, on a pdf tooz sent me, stated a earlier mark had armoured glass..

i think there is a desire in the community for some more beu's, id like one with the 6 303 and rear gunner, for the full english http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

with your model list, we the community, and modelers ofcourse http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif can pick which ones to include..
anyone who models a plane could expect a pint of beer from me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

pourshot
11-23-2004, 12:22 AM
Blimp

stathem
11-23-2004, 08:49 AM
We're to get the Mossie one day? You've already sold one copy of whatever that's in...

Anyone need a navigator?

Daiichidoku
11-24-2004, 03:10 PM
bumpage

Provost.Marshal
11-28-2004, 11:30 PM
G'day all. This photo was taken over the Bismark Sea In 1943. I wouldn't know which variant it is but this was taken in theater. I wish William "Bull" Garing was still alive as he would be able to shed light on this subject.

http://ajrp.awm.gov.au/ajrp/remember.nsf/10c400fd5e135a44ca256ab6007a37e1/24b3829601116084ca256c1b001895fb/Content_1/0.2A?OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=gif]http://ajrp.awm.gov.au/ajrp/remember.nsf/10c400fd5e135a44ca256ab6007a37e1/24b3829601116084ca256c1b001895fb/Content_1/0.2A?OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=gif

Aaron_GT
11-29-2004, 02:26 AM
It's not a Mk. 21 as that didn't fly until 1944. It's probably a VIc with an additional rear gun. Or could it be an early Mk. X? Did the X not receive the tail fillet and thimble nose until after the first aircraft?

Daiichidoku
12-01-2004, 11:45 AM
this thread needs another bump

how difficult could it be to have a vewable crew position when the observer has his entire head above the airframe in the rear canopy? dont even ned internal details

would it not be even easier to stop recruiting deaf/mute observers for the RAAF?...give us a voice to call out attacks, at LEAST

We have to suffer the IL2 gunner freaking out from neg G manuvers, or running off the runway a bit on take off, but the Beau ob/nav/gunner facing death from a enemy on the Beaus 6 says sweet **** all? gimme a break

RickRuski
12-01-2004, 01:17 PM
To those who have not seen this with regards to Beaufighter rear gun, check this link
http://history1900s.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.compass.dircon.c o.uk%2FBeaufighter.htms

WTE_Target
12-01-2004, 04:31 PM
Perhaps all the Reo's in our Beaus are frozen stiff with fear of the approaching bandits

pourshot
12-05-2004, 03:34 PM
I have now found proof positive that the rear gun was carried and used in RAAF beaufighters, it was a field mod latter made a offical modification as can be seen in docs shown in previous post's in this thread.

It should also be noted that the gun can be taken from the stowed position and fitted in around 30 seconds. This could account for the lack off pictures, with the gun mounted the astro dome is very cramped.

It should also be noted that the docs show at least 2 squadrons made this conversion, even if it was only used for protection when attacking airfeilds without fighter cover.

That is the very same situation we find ourself flying under 99% of the time so i feel it's only fair to allow the addition of the gun even if it remains AI only.

doc1 (http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/reargunletter.jpg)

doc2 (http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/reargunletter2.jpg)

Daiichidoku
12-05-2004, 05:45 PM
nice find, pourshot!

now we need to condense or consilodate this thread, and send off to Oleg....

just we hope we dont get finally get a gunner only to have him shoot the tail and elevators off! hehe

pourshot
12-08-2004, 06:30 PM
Bumpola

ivankuturkokoff
12-08-2004, 08:37 PM
Great photo Provost Marshall, and fascinating Docs Pourshot.
In the docs the file dates are 1943, that would predate the MK21 would it not.

That said the Bismark sea shot is a beauty a MK1C I think

pourshot
12-08-2004, 11:48 PM
You are correct about the dates, but it does show the gun was needed and explanes why the mk21 had it as standard.

Anyway I have shown enough docs to show the mk21 was built with the gun as standard if the gun was removed later show me the tec order making it so.

pourshot
12-08-2004, 11:50 PM
Just one more thing why are you so hell on bent defending the negative on this subject?

Are you the one who found the data for oleg to do the modeling?

ivankuturkokoff
12-09-2004, 01:03 AM
Settle down Pourshot you are getting close to a flame and that is counterproductive to this post which so far has been noteworthy by being flame free.

No I was not the input to keep the gunner from the rear pit.

The documents you have presented do show that the rear MG could be fitted to the RAAF Beaufighters including the MK21. You will recall I acknowledged that, and also that I had sourced a MK21 image seperately that showed a MK21 with a gun in the rear pit.
that aircraft belonging to the Aircraft perfomance and trials unit (the WWII equivalent of ARDU),it was not an operational image however.

The point is Historical acurracy. I am yet to see an operational MK21 image or documentary evidence that showed that RAAF MK21s carried the gun operationally. It is the MK21 that is modelled in PF.

As to other marks of RAAF Beaufighters, I agree the gun could be fitted and was on ocassion fitted operationally. However generally available photographic refrences would indicate that the fitment of the rear gun was not routine. Look through as many refrences as you like of any mark of RAAF Beaufighter in the Pacific, do the majority of images show a rear defense gun fitted ? ..... I think not.

So far the imagery of MK21 with rear guns include your well researched archive posts of "A" MK21 gun fittment and associated documents describing this fittment. The images I have sourced of a MK21 over Melbourne and the MCG... hardly operational. Nothing presented here so far shows as you state that it was fitted to the "MK21 as standard".

I am providing Historical balance to the argument.

Daiichidoku
12-09-2004, 10:55 AM
Having a rear gun is only one possible solutioon to the real problem with the Beau....

With NO rear visibility to the pilot, he absolutley depended on the nav/obs/gun whatever he is, lol, to give bombing results or whatever, but most importantly, to call out any enemy fighter attacks

The Beau should get a viewable rear position, which Ive read was done, but Oleg/1C decided against including it....
If not that, then it should get an AI only gunner
Failing that, at least a verbal warning from the rear would be nice...seems silly that an IL2 gunner freaks out when you do neg G manuvers or wander off the runway a bit on take off, yet the guy in a Beau says nothing when there a fighter in his face...

Anyone know if there is something planned fo rthe Beau to address this in one of those upcoming patches?

pourshot
12-09-2004, 04:13 PM
No flame intended mate, after re-reading my post I can see it looked a little blunt and could be taken the wrong why. I dont get into flame fests as a rule it's not my style I do however suffer from being to blunt. However both were genuine questions.

Did you read my post saying how the gun was carried in the stowed position and how this may explain the lack of photo's?

I think it is agreed that the gun was fitted at the factory as standard (still waiting for the tec order to say otherwise and I have looked hard) and probably removed in the field on a need to basis. However do you think anyone would remove it if the mk21 was still being used under the conditions shown in the 2 letters I posted from 30/31 squadrons, the same kinds of missions we fly all the time in il2.

I feel the rear gun should be considered a loadout option like rockets or bombs, just becuase I choose not ot carry rockets on one mission does not meen I cant on the next if the need arrises.

And last but not least we have only one model of beaufighter in il2 for now and in the intrest of gameplay it makes sense to include the gun just as the torpedo was for gameplay.

Daiichidoku
12-09-2004, 07:01 PM
rgrt, Pourshot....

One must also remember that most in-flight photos would have been taken during safe times, close to base or in otherwise secure skies, hence the gun which may have been on any number of photographed Beaus may be stowed

FAFL_Aguirre
12-10-2004, 12:42 PM
Great thread guys- very interesting with cool research. Gun or no gun i'd just like the observer to communicate a little and warn the pilot if there is trouble on his six or if they've run out of beer. I've fallen in love with this plane!!!!!!

GreyBeast
12-11-2004, 07:04 PM
BÍMP



I, too, ...am in love...

Daiichidoku
12-16-2004, 11:55 PM
bump