PDA

View Full Version : DESIGN SPECIFICATION does NOT guarantee performance



AKA_TAGERT
01-31-2007, 08:30 PM
Who Knew! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.youtube.com (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xk4Aiscs3jM&mode=related&search=)


The LW was so impressed with the DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS of the 210 that they ordered a 1000 even before the aircraft first flew.. Little did they realize the 210 PERFORMANCE would fall so short of its potential
Yet some Ta183 advocates like Beltar would have us belive that the existence of a DESIGN SPECIFICATION guarantees that the aircraft will MEET all the SPECIFICATIONS! The 210 is proof that is not the case!

So I guess the old saying of "Don't count your eggs before they hatch" is not an old saying in Germany or where Beltar lives?

leitmotiv
02-01-2007, 03:23 AM
You bet. The absolutely disastrous 210 program drove Udet to suicide, left Messerschmitt with warehouses full of 210 parts, and ruined Messerschmitt's reputation.

ViktorViktor
02-01-2007, 03:28 AM
Well, does this mean that the Me-210 qualifies as the biggest bust of the aerial war ? ANY OTHER CANDIDATES ?

leitmotiv
02-01-2007, 04:01 AM
Without a doubt. Cost the Reich millions, the 110 program had been run down in anticipation of the 210 taking its place, Messerschmitt had tons of parts for an unflyable airplane which nobody wanted. It was intended to replace the 110, the Ju 87, and operate as a fast light bomber---there were no other options but to keep obsolescent aircraft in production since the replacement was a dud. By the time the useable 410 was operational, the aircraft was obsolescent. The only near comparable screw-up was Heinkel's He 177. It was supposed to be in service in 1941---it was not safe enough to use in combat until the end of 1943. If the Luftwaffe had had a long-range heavy in 1941, a number of problems could have been solved. Most of the problems in the German aircraft production were due to the disastrous choice of Udet to be in charge of research and production, and the absentee landlord at the top, Goring. The man who should have run the Luftwaffe was Milch.

Kurfurst__
02-01-2007, 04:33 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
By the time the useable 410 was operational, the aircraft was obsolescent.

You're kidding me? 410 obsolescent? Because of what? It's a fairly comparable a/c to the Mosquito VI, and I take that is not considered obsolescent..?

Otherwise pretty good points!

Re : Design specification and actual performance. There's of course a tolerance, but it needs to be noted that if the manufacturer did guaranteed a certain performance, this performance had to be reached within certain limits (usually +/- 3% for speed, for example), otherwise the aircraft would be not accepted by the state. In Germany, the B.A.L. organisation was responsible for this, and they were quite strict about that until the very the end of the war.

Regarding the 210, IIRC the culprit was at the RLM's front doors. They wanted the 210 bad, and ordered it anyway, despite that of course the handling problems were known for the Mtt test pilots, and the workaround (that eventually lead to the fixed Me 210A 'lang' and 210C, and the 410) was developed (fuselage lenghtened, slats added, tail enlarged), but they were simply not given sufficient time to implement the changes into production.

leitmotiv
02-01-2007, 04:44 AM
If the 210 had worked in 1941, it would have been a nasty Zerstorer at 400mph, but the 410 coming into service in 1943 was dead meat for Western fighters. The 410 was countered in every role it was given: bomber destroyer, photo recon, and UK nuisance bomber.

Kurfurst__
02-01-2007, 04:57 AM
I think you misunderstood the concept behind it, the Zestöer (and their foreign counterparts!! it was a common idea of a warplane class in the '30s!) were meant as multirole twin engines, but the exact recipe wasn't the same. The 110s were developed to be more a fighter. The 210/410 was a Kampfzestöer concept, literally a "bomber-and-destroyer", ie. a kind of fast bomber primarly that can also fulfill heavy fighter roles - just look at it's internal bomb-bay. I am sure it was more survivable on it's mission than any other LW bomber at that time.

Now how well it faired (not bad at all btw) is to seen in the context of the overall war situation. The aircraft itself was rather comparable to the best of the similiar types fielded by the other side, with advanced features; the situation it fought OTOH, was not.

Xiolablu3
02-01-2007, 05:05 AM
I am not sure that you can compare the 410 to the Mosquito, not that I know a lot about this plane so correct me if I'm wrong.

Top speed for the 410 was 388mph in mid-1943.

Top Speed of Mosquito prototype in Nov 1940 was 392mph

Thats over 2 years earlier and still a little faster. (If those speeds are correct)

leitmotiv
02-01-2007, 05:06 AM
The problem was that by the time the 410 was in service it was in a comparable position to the 110 in 1940 against RAF fighters. In 1941 the 210 would have been the radical weapon it was intended to be.

mynameisroland
02-01-2007, 05:24 AM
I think the major problem of the Bf 110 and then the Me 410 was in their application.

The Bf 110 with 2x 500kg slung underneath the fuselage in 1940 had the potential to be Mosquito like. Fast, long ranged (comparitively) and able to get in, bomb then rtb. Instead it was promoted and used like a fighter. Manuverabiliy, not speed was the 110s weakness. The Bf 110 Schnellbomber was the way to go.

The Me 410 was introduced at a time when the Allies superiority in numbers rendered flying over Britain suicidal. Had the Luftwaffe had aerial superiority like the RAF had it could have use dthe 410 as a fast bomber for pinprick strikes along the coast more successfully than it did. Remember 380 mph is fast if you have to intercept it and it doesnt want to fight.

Codex1971
02-01-2007, 05:29 AM
I would love to see the 410 in this sim! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

EDIT: Flyable that is... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Kurfurst__
02-01-2007, 05:40 AM
Originally posted by Codex1971:
I would love to see the 410 in this sim! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

EDIT: Flyable that is... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Me too, and it was already considered by Oleg (more precisly the similiar Me 210Ca, he loves the plane appearantly), but the barbette defense guns were very difficult to implement.. perhaps a no-rear gunner version would be possible.

leitmotiv
02-01-2007, 05:43 AM
The 110 was not designed to be a fighter bomber---the Zerstorer concept was for a long-range air-superiority fighter. The 210 was intended to be a Zerstorer, dive bomber, and fast bomber. It fell prey to the F-111 syndrome---designed to do everything, it failed at everything. The real Zerstorer would have been the Fw 187 in its single-seat configuration---than the Luftwaffe would have had a long-range fighter which would have been nimble enough to deal with the 1940 RAF fighters.

mynameisroland
02-01-2007, 05:49 AM
I know it was designed as a Zerstorer - but there was a bomber version on the drawing boards and propaganda posters. A Bf 110 with a bomb load flying to English airfields in 1940 would have been very tough to intercept.

leitmotiv
02-01-2007, 05:52 AM
The bomber version was designed to compete with the Ju 88, and was rejected. It would have been even heavier than the 110 Jabo which was dead meat for RAF fighters in 1940.

leitmotiv
02-01-2007, 05:55 AM
Fw 187

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/fw187.html

Codex1971
02-01-2007, 05:58 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
It fell prey to the F-111 syndrome---designed to do everything, it failed at everything.

I thought the F-111 was a fine platform, performed well enough even in Desert Storm. What did it fail in?

leitmotiv
02-01-2007, 06:07 AM
The F-111 was designed to be the Navy and Air Force's new fighter and fighter-bomber. It was an abysmal failure as a fighter and the fighter version was cancelled. The Navy version was a complete failure and was cancelled. The Air Force eventually took delivery of the aircraft as a tactical bomber and in this role it succeeded. None served in 1991, it was out-of-service replaced by the Strike Eagle. It did serve in Vietnam with some effect in 1972, and performed passably in the 1986 Libya raids which missed Ghadify's house and provided him with several olympic-sized swimming pools. The F-111 scandal was one of the great aviation fiascos.

mynameisroland
02-01-2007, 06:16 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
The bomber version was designed to compete with the Ju 88, and was rejected. It would have been even heavier than the 110 Jabo which was dead meat for RAF fighters in 1940.

But a Bf 110 Zertorer with 2x 500kg slung underneath, as in my 1st post http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Would not have been mincemeat. Use it as a fighter bomber and not a fighter and it becomes a success.

Xiolablu3
02-01-2007, 06:25 AM
I always loved the look of the 210/410.

Beautiful looking plane.

http://www.airpages.ru/img/lw/me410_3.jpg

You can see why Willy had such high hopes for it. I have seen pics of 410's with long guns on.

Heres one

http://www.airpages.ru/img/me410b2s.jpg

The problem with 'Schnellbombers' is that they are only useful if they can travel as fast as the main fighters of the day, if they cannot, then the concept doesnt wrk, as we saw in the battle of France when Britian was sending Blenhiems. Although a fast bomber for its day, it just wasnt fast enough and suffered heavy losses. The Mossie managed to keep its speed very high through all its marks.

The AR234 would be a better example of the 'German Mosquito' I think. The next evolution of the 'schnellbomber'.

I am sure the Me410 could have been used succesfully as a fighter bomber. (I dont know much about it tbh) If the model is anything like the Il2 Me110, then its extremely useful for bombing targets and then fighting its way out. Much like the P38.

leitmotiv
02-01-2007, 06:41 AM
The 110 fighter bombers were used by ErprGr210 and some of the Zerstorergruppen in the Battle of Britain hauling two 500 kg bombs. They were mauled severely every time they encountered RAF fighters (and the ErprGr210 commander, Rubensdorffer, was killed by a pursuing RAF fighter). The Luftwaffe considered the 110 obsolescent in 1940 and awaited the 210 in 1941---in vain. The often ignored fact of the Luftwaffe war was that it fought the war with 1930's aircraft (except for the 190), and they were fighting Western adversaries with aircraft designed later than the Luftwaffe's 109, 110, 111, 88, 52, etc.

Xiolablu3
02-01-2007, 06:45 AM
Hmm thats interesting Leit, did they have any escort do you know?

In the game, Me110 Jabos with a light escort seem to do quite well. As long as they stick to the job at hand.

Basically fly over the target, turn back facing towards base and shallow dive bomb targets. Race back to base at high speed. If any fighters attack then 'drag and bag' or at least 'drag and scare off'.

It takes teamwork, but its doable, especially if you have some Bf109's/FW190's above to clear your 6.

Maybe Britains radar made this difficult, as the RAF fighters could get aloft and wait for the attack.

mynameisroland
02-01-2007, 06:46 AM
The Mossie worked because it was fast enough, not because it was faster that all Luftwaffe fighters. A high cruise speed and unpredictable flight path protected it from interception, as it does in IL2. In a straightline speed test the Mosquito will most likely lose against contemporary fighters when carrying bombs, but it will be going fast enought to make interception very hard.

How easy would it have been to intercept Bf 110s cruising in a 20,000ft at 300mph in Hawker Hurricanes?

***edit***

Just read your post Leitmotiv, the mauling of the Bf 110s was due to poor deployment, predictable tactics and radar. Had they been employed in the same style as the Mosquito was why would this happen? the Bf 110 possessed a comparable performance to fighters of its day, all it needed was surprise for it to be an extremely difficult target. As it was the fighter variant was faster than the Hurricane and close to the Spitfire, delete the guns and put some bombs on it and its speed would be considerable still.

leitmotiv
02-01-2007, 06:57 AM
ErprGr210's 110s were usually escorted by bomb-carrying 109s. The Lehrgeschwader, I believe, escorted their 110 fighter-bombers with 109 fighters. Here is the ultimate book on ErprGr210's war against England in 1940:

http://books.stonebooks.com/cgi-bin/foxweb.exe/feedback/feedback?1001298

and the standard work on all the 110 units in the B of Brit:

http://books.stonebooks.com/cgi-bin/foxweb.exe/feedback/feedback?1010148

Kurfurst__
02-01-2007, 09:04 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
The often ignored fact of the Luftwaffe war was that it fought the war with 1930's aircraft (except for the 190), and they were fighting Western adversaries with aircraft designed later than the Luftwaffe's 109, 110, 111, 88, 52, etc.

It's an often repeated myth. Practically every combatant fought the war with aircraft that were designed in the 1930s. The FW 190 for example was flying in 1939 already, as a matter of fact the Bf 109F was a newer airframe, designed in 1939-40. Not that it would matter much - it's hard to say the B-17, P-47, P-38, Spitfire, Yakovlevs, 109s/190s, He 111s or Ju 88s being poor aircraft.

Can't really think of many aircraft that saw meaningful service in WW2 and being designed after 1940. The Mustang is perhaps the only exception to that.

leitmotiv
02-01-2007, 09:25 AM
The German aircraft, the B-17, the Hurricane, the Wellington, the Whitley, the Hampden, the Blenheim, the Battle, the Spitfre were all early-mid-'30's technology (Ju 52: 1920's). The American/British stuff was a very high proportion late '30'/early '40's technology---which made a considerable difference---especially in the bombers, which no Germanozealotry can ignore. The B-26 and the pathetic He 111 were two different breeds of cat. Except for the Spitfire, the 1944 British order of battle in Europe was introduced to service after 1940, for example. The Germans were fighting with 109s, 88s, 111s, 110s in the main. If they could have put up 1000 Me 262s in 1945 (with trained pilots), the Allied advantages would not have mattered.

Kurfurst__
02-01-2007, 09:25 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The Mossie worked because it was fast enough, not because it was faster that all Luftwaffe fighters. A high cruise speed and unpredictable flight path protected it from interception, as it does in IL2. In a straightline speed test the Mosquito will most likely lose against contemporary fighters when carrying bombs, but it will be going fast enought to make interception very hard.

Yup, hence why Jabo 109s penetrating the defences in 1940 were so hard targets - not because, burdened with bombs, they were faster than enemy fighters, in fact in this conditions they were much slower. The reason of their relative inpunity was that it was next to impossible to raise a formation of RAF fighters up to 20 000+ feet to intercept them. Fighters need to take off, form up, and finally climb to altitude. It would take around 13-18 minutes for an 'avarage good' Spitfire Sqadron to get to 20-25 000 feet, and 16-21 minutes for Hurricanes; more with larger formations. Tha time alone was generally sufficient for the raiding Jabos to drop their bombs and and already leave. Any error on the part of the ground control in judging numbers, altitude and heading - which was fairly primitive over the mainland, using WW1 style Observers - would mean precious loss of time for the interceptors. Precise vectoring was imperative for such missions.

Kurfurst__
02-01-2007, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
The German aircraft, the B-17, the Hurricane, the Wellington, the Whitley, the Hampden, the Blenheim, the Battle, the Spitfre were all early-mid-'30's technology (Ju 52: 1920's). The American/British stuff was a very high proportion late '30'/early '40's technology---which made a considerable difference

Such as ? Compared to that claim, British bombers had no self sealing tanks, no armor protection, and no gyroscoping bombsight (in fact they didn't have in large scale through the war), no effective bomb types, and no means of noctural navigation at all. In contrast all Luftwaffe bombers had these items at the beginning of the war, and were improved later on.


---especially in the bombers, which no Germanozealotry can ignore. The B-26 and the pathetic He 111 were two different breeds of cat.

I think it's more of a case of Allied Wishful Thinking. Your comments on the He 111 itself are very revealing, considering how little performance difference was there between the He 111 and the B-26, save for the fact the Heinkel was more throughly armored, and carried a larger bombload and larger bomb sizes.


Except for the Spitfire, the 1944 British order of battle in Europe was introduced to service after 1940, for example.

Hmm, the two mainstay British fighters in Europe were the Spitfire (early 1930s) and the Typhoon. The latter was hardly a very successfull fighter, plagued with problems and was in fact developed according to a specification of January 1938. As a matter of fact, it's development preceeded the 109F/G/Ks and possibly the FW 190.

Let's face, the thesis you are pushing forward simply has no realistic foundation in reality.

SeaFireLIV
02-01-2007, 09:41 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Who Knew! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.youtube.com (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xk4Aiscs3jM&mode=related&search=)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The LW was so impressed with the DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS of the 210 that they ordered a 1000 even before the aircraft first flew.. Little did they realize the 210 PERFORMANCE would fall so short of its potential
Yet some Ta183 advocates like Beltar would have us belive that the existence of a DESIGN SPECIFICATION guarantees that the aircraft will MEET all the SPECIFICATIONS! The 210 is proof that is not the case!

So I guess the old saying of "Don't count your eggs before they hatch" is not an old saying in Germany or where Beltar lives? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yes, I get so tired of trying to tell people that design specifications can be quite a different thing to how a machine performs under realistic combat conditions. Especially when you consider that the guys in that period didn`t have high tech computers to measure everything down to perfection and even then in our day, some aircraft STILL under-perform to expectations.

Design specifications should be used only as a limiting guide, while as much info should be used and considered from other sources ie, real life pilot/s experience of aircraft under real flying/combat conditions.

BillyTheKid_22
02-01-2007, 09:54 AM
http://hhope.uw.hu/me210c.jpg


Me-210 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif



http://www.umt.fme.vutbr.cz/~ruja/modely/podklady/Messerschmitt/Me-410/2.jpg


Me-410 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Mr_Nakajima
02-01-2007, 10:15 AM
Some pictures of the real thing (Me 410 that is)...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v677/Mr_Nakajima/Me410Front.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v677/Mr_Nakajima/Me410Side.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v677/Mr_Nakajima/Me410Detail.jpg

Blottogg
02-01-2007, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
The F-111 was designed to be the Navy and Air Force's new fighter and fighter-bomber. It was an abysmal failure as a fighter and the fighter version was cancelled. The Navy version was a complete failure and was cancelled. The Air Force eventually took delivery of the aircraft as a tactical bomber and in this role it succeeded. None served in 1991, it was out-of-service replaced by the Strike Eagle. It did serve in Vietnam with some effect in 1972, and performed passably in the 1986 Libya raids which missed Ghadify's house and provided him with several olympic-sized swimming pools. The F-111 scandal was one of the great aviation fiascos.

Not to side-track the thread, but the F-111 did actually participate in Desert Storm (the F-111F models out of Lakenheath, and possibly Upper Heyford's F-111E "Neander-Varks", though I'm not sure the latter were used, as they were being phased out at about the same time.) It was one of the few PGM platforms in the war (most F-16's were limited to dumb bombs back then, and the F-15E was just coming in to service...they reportedly had only been cleared to carry Rockeye CBU and the Mk series dumb bombs.) The 'Vark was borne of Robert McNamara's mistaken idea that the Navy's need for a fleet defense interceptor and the Air Force's need for a tactical bomber could be combined in the same airframe. The naval F-111B never could get down to fighting weight (despite three weight reduction attempts), though the radar, missiles and engines were re-used in the F-14 that replaced it. As you said, the Air Force version went on to some measure of success (though with it's own teething problems.)

Sergio_101
02-01-2007, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by Blottogg:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
The F-111 was designed to be the Navy and Air Force's new fighter and fighter-bomber. It was an abysmal failure as a fighter and the fighter version was cancelled. The Navy version was a complete failure and was cancelled. The Air Force eventually took delivery of the aircraft as a tactical bomber and in this role it succeeded. None served in 1991, it was out-of-service replaced by the Strike Eagle. It did serve in Vietnam with some effect in 1972, and performed passably in the 1986 Libya raids which missed Ghadify's house and provided him with several olympic-sized swimming pools. The F-111 scandal was one of the great aviation fiascos.

Not to side-track the thread, but the F-111 did actually participate in Desert Storm (the F-111F models out of Lakenheath, and possibly Upper Heyford's F-111E "Neander-Varks", though I'm not sure the latter were used, as they were being phased out at about the same time.) It was one of the few PGM platforms in the war (most F-16's were limited to dumb bombs back then, and the F-15E was just coming in to service...they reportedly had only been cleared to carry Rockeye CBU and the Mk series dumb bombs.) The 'Vark was borne of Robert McNamara's mistaken idea that the Navy's need for a fleet defense interceptor and the Air Force's need for a tactical bomber could be combined in the same airframe. The naval F-111B never could get down to fighting weight (despite three weight reduction attempts), though the radar, missiles and engines were re-used in the F-14 that replaced it. As you said, the Air Force version went on to some measure of success (though with it's own teething problems.) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As it turned out the F-111 became the replacement for the
Convair B-58 Hustler. It was superior in every respect to the B-58.
Except looks ;-)
B-58 was VERY cool looking.;-)
F-111 was never a fighter, and is scored only one air to air kill.
One whacked a hovering Iraqui helicopter with a lazer guided bomb!
That must have been one HELL of a bang!

No US planes that reached production failed to reach specification
in such a big way as the Me-210.
One notable failure though was the B-24!
The first B-24s were too slow. It required new engines and turbosuperchargers
were fitted before the B-24 made it.

Seems that was a problem for many planes that failed to meet spec.
Designed with unavailable powerplants or powerplants that got canceled.
There's a laundry list of interesting US prototypes that failed
because the intended engines were canceled.

Notable of the prototypes that failed to meet spec was the first US jet.
The Bell P-59 was too slow. But it was still an important step in getting the
pilots and ground crews trained for the P-80 and P-84.

Sergio

Jaws2002
02-01-2007, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
But a Bf 110 Zertorer with 2x 500kg slung underneath, as in my 1st post http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Would not have been mincemeat. Use it as a fighter bomber and not a fighter and it becomes a success.

The BF-110C (the one flew in 1940) did not carry 2x500kg.

Badsight-
02-01-2007, 11:07 PM
i know about the 110 , but the 210 & 410 also had prop-rotation in the same direction ?

Codex1971
02-02-2007, 02:09 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
The F-111 was designed to be the Navy and Air Force's new fighter and fighter-bomber. It was an abysmal failure as a fighter and the fighter version was cancelled. The Navy version was a complete failure and was cancelled. The Air Force eventually took delivery of the aircraft as a tactical bomber and in this role it succeeded. None served in 1991, it was out-of-service replaced by the Strike Eagle. It did serve in Vietnam with some effect in 1972, and performed passably in the 1986 Libya raids which missed Ghadify's house and provided him with several olympic-sized swimming pools. The F-111 scandal was one of the great aviation fiascos.

I think your being a little too harsh on the old Advark and I think you should check your sources, F-111 did fly in Desert Storm.

The F-111E model had modified air intakes to improve the engine's performance at speeds above Mach 2.2. Most F-111Es served with the 20th Fighter Wing, Royal Air Force Station Upper Heyford, England, to support NATO. F-111E's were deployed to Incirlik Air Base, Turkey, and were used in Operation Desert Storm. In the early morning of Jan. 17, 1991, the F-111 went into combat again in the initial bombing raids of Operation Desert Storm. More than 100 F-111 aircraft of different versions joined the first strikes against Iraq both as bombers and radar jammers.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-111.htm

Codex1971
02-02-2007, 02:12 AM
Originally posted by Mr_Nakajima:
Some pictures of the real thing (Me 410 that is)...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v677/Mr_Nakajima/Me410Front.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v677/Mr_Nakajima/Me410Side.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v677/Mr_Nakajima/Me410Detail.jpg

HOT ROD!

Ratsack
02-02-2007, 02:49 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
... [The F-111] didn't serve in 1991, it was out-of-service replaced by the Strike Eagle. ...

F-111s were used during Desert Storm in the electronic warfare role.

They were also used for tank busting with LGBs. The aircrew called it 'tank plinking'.

cheers,
Ratsack

WOLFMondo
02-02-2007, 03:01 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
The German aircraft, the B-17, the Hurricane, the Wellington, the Whitley, the Hampden, the Blenheim, the Battle, the Spitfre were all early-mid-'30's technology (Ju 52: 1920's). The American/British stuff was a very high proportion late '30'/early '40's technology---which made a considerable difference

Such as ? Compared to that claim, British bombers had no self sealing tanks, no armor protection, and no gyroscoping bombsight (in fact they didn't have in large scale through the war), no effective bomb types, and no means of noctural navigation at all. In contrast all Luftwaffe bombers had these items at the beginning of the war, and were improved later on.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Crikey! I agree. *oh noes!*

Blame prewar politics. Germany had prepared the way for war. The British and French didn't so were left with a bunch of poorly thought out aircraft for bombing .The Wellington is probably the exception to the rule but even then it suffered badly against fighters. Great plane though in its element.

That said, turning that around in a couple of years with the Lancaster and the Halifax, something the Luftwaffe never could match.

I'd also disagree on much or any of the British stuff being of 40's design. Almost all the British fighters design in the 40's were axed because of Jets, like the MB5, only the Fury/Seafury made it though (itself a Tempest development) because jets couldn't provide the accleration needed in a botched carrier landing (same reason why the Hornet also made it, although that was a Mossie development). Many of the British bombers designed in the 40's were also axed for the same reason. I bet when the RAE saw the Vampire and the Meteor there wasn't much point building anything other than Spit IX's. Everything was in hand.

Xiolablu3
02-02-2007, 03:10 AM
The F-111 served for a long long time in the Autrailian Air Force, I think?

I saw a program about it where they were wondering which plane to choose to replace the F-111.

They seemed to like the F-111, and were praising the number of roles it could perform.

I never got any kind of feeling that the Aussie pilots thought of it as any kind of 'failure'

joeap
02-02-2007, 03:13 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Codex1971:
I would love to see the 410 in this sim! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

EDIT: Flyable that is... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Me too, and it was already considered by Oleg (more precisly the similiar Me 210Ca, he loves the plane appearantly), but the barbette defense guns were very difficult to implement.. perhaps a no-rear gunner version would be possible. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting technical stuff on this thread. Now about a flyable 210 or 410, well we have the Il-2 field mod which is AI rear gunner only. We could have had the same if the barbette was too difficult.

Ratsack
02-02-2007, 03:14 AM
Back when David Irving was still trying to be an historian instead of a Nazi apologist, he wrote the biography of Erhard Milch, The Rise and Fall of the Luftwaffe. He interviewed Milch extensively for the work and so Milch's views and biases come through very strongly.

In Rise and Fall the Me 210 is presented as a disaster that fell primarily at the feet of Messerschmitt himself. Given that he and Milch hated each other's guts this view is unsurprising in a sympathetic biography of Milch. That said, the story was that the 210 was not initially designed by the Prof, but by one of his underlings. When it came to the critical pre-production phase, Messerschmitt himself intervened to ˜improve' the design. The result was the overweight abortion that failed to see the light of day in 1941.

Following the death of Udet and Milch's subsequent clean up of the Luftwaffe Technical Office, the 210 was rebuilt along the original lines. When if finally appeared it was renamed the Me 410 to remove any bad associations with the Me 210 catastrophe.

I think we can say that this was Milch's version of events. However, much of what Milch recounted in his interviews with Irving (circa 1969) has proven to be reliable, so make of this what you will.

cheers,
Ratsack

Ratsack
02-02-2007, 03:31 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
The F-111 served for a long long time in the Autrailian Air Force, I think?

I saw a program about it where they were wondering which plane to choose to replace the F-111.

They seemed to like the F-111, and were praising the number of roles it could perform.

I never got any kind of feeling that the Aussie pilots thought of it as any kind of 'failure'

No, they like it, especially since they stopped running into the ground. Little problems with pilots thinking they could do impossible things without the benefit of terrain following radar.

It was picked up for the RAAF because, ahem, http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif while Australia doesn't possess or condone nuclear weapons, we like to maintain the capability to deliver one. You know, just in case, and because we're such terrific friendly guys, you know? We also like to maintain a force that is capable of delivering heavy, precision munitions to our neighbours, too. It's a friendly gesture. We like our regional friends to know that, when we've got our F-111s in Darwin or any number of the specially prepared bases in the north of our Wide Brown Land, we can make high-speed special deliveries to places as far away as, say, Jakarta. Just to pluck an example out of the air. Just for argument's sake.

This is, of course, all in the warmest spirit of friendship and good neighbourly relations in our little part of the world.

Wouldja like a cold one with that, mate? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

cheers,
Ratsack

Mr_Nakajima
02-02-2007, 07:32 AM
Originally posted by Badsight-:
i know about the 110 , but the 210 & 410 also had prop-rotation in the same direction ?

Hi Badsite,

I haven't seen it specifically written down, but if you look at the pictures I posted, it looks like both props spin anti-clockwise when seen from the front. So no contra-roation as per the P-38.

waffen-79
02-02-2007, 08:26 AM
the 410 series are awesome, I wish we have them flyable in game, but knowing Oleg's quality standards, if they can't pull out the rear gunner problems I doudt they ever model it

NagaSadow84
02-02-2007, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
Back when David Irving was still trying to be an historian instead of a Nazi apologist, he wrote the biography of Erhard Milch, The Rise and Fall of the Luftwaffe. He interviewed Milch extensively for the work and so Milch's views and biases come through very strongly.

In Rise and Fall the Me 210 is presented as a disaster that fell primarily at the feet of Messerschmitt himself. Given that he and Milch hated each other's guts this view is unsurprising in a sympathetic biography of Milch. That said, the story was that the 210 was not initially designed by the Prof, but by one of his underlings. When it came to the critical pre-production phase, Messerschmitt himself intervened to ˜improve' the design. The result was the overweight abortion that failed to see the light of day in 1941.

Following the death of Udet and Milch's subsequent clean up of the Luftwaffe Technical Office, the 210 was rebuilt along the original lines. When if finally appeared it was renamed the Me 410 to remove any bad associations with the Me 210 catastrophe.

I think we can say that this was Milch's version of events. However, much of what Milch recounted in his interviews with Irving (circa 1969) has proven to be reliable, so make of this what you will.

cheers,
Ratsack

True. Although IRRC it was the same Milch who started the He 177-Disaster-Myth.

WWSensei
02-02-2007, 09:03 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
None served in 1991, it was out-of-service replaced by the Strike Eagle.

Sorry, you have wrong info. I know cuz I was there. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Over 100 F-111s were involved in Desert Storm and the first air to air kill (sort of) was a Raven jammer diving to the deck from a bogey who couldn't pull up in time.

The Aardvarks of the 20th Fighter Wing were the predominant group there. Most of their missions were night missions but they flew day time as well.

In fact, the popular video of a bomb strike to shut off the oil pipelines that Saddam had opened to flood the Gulf with oil was performed by an F-111.

Strike Eages did fly in the Gulf too, but they weren't the primary replacement aircraft for the Aardvarks. F-111s weren't phased until 1995 and that was started by the 27th Fighter Wing. They were replaced by Vipers.

Last F-111 left the inventory and reported to the Boneyard in October of 96.

Last Raven jammer wasn't phased out until 1998.

leitmotiv
02-02-2007, 09:54 AM
My apologies. I looked up F-111s a few years ago and the info I saw was that they were not in Desert Storm. WHOOPS!