me 264 Me 264: Amerikabomber

[Pony51 6,571]

Listening to pleas of the players, Gaijin announced on 16 May 2019 the Messerschmidt Me 264.

Here is the suggestion topic that lead to this creation.

 

The Me 264 was more of an experiment than a planned super-long range bomber, as there was other planned aircraft destined to be primary bombers.

 

The V1 aircraft was built as a reconnoissance, and even if configured as a bomber could never carry more than 4000kg of bombs.

Take a close look at the size of the engines and top turrets.  They look out of proportion too large, but they are not. 

They are the same engines as the Ju 88A.

This means the cockpit of this bomber is actually smaller than the Ju 88A, and much smaller than the He 177.  When space becomes premium it becomes hard to fit massive bombs and still have room for everything else.

 

Bomb load

• SC250 x9 (default)
• SC500 x6 & SC250 x3
• SC1800 x2 & SC250 x3
• SC1000 x4

 

NOT set yet, but stats currently (1.89.0.28) set at 

Rank IV (Before other R4 bombers)

BR 4.7

Repair 61k SL

 

UPDATE 1.89.1.2:

Rank III, between He 111H-16 and Do 217E-2

BR 4.0 in all modes.

Repair 47,500 SL

 

 

 

 

 

Update:

Yes, there are some issues with this FM model, it is being looked as by the Mods the best we can (can only see what players can)

 

Website with data, 

"spring of 1942 a range of options was considered, including the fitting of rocket-assisted takeoff units manufactured by the Walter company,"

[blastedryan 967]

3 hours ago, Pony51 said:

Rank IV 

BR 4.7

Seems like it's going to be as good as the Pe-8.

[Hardmoor 2,196]

3 hours ago, Pony51 said:

They are the same engines as the Ju 88A.

but they are not the same engines,

the Jumo 213 this Me 264 uses, were used in the Ju 88s after the G series,

the original V1 prototype used the Jumo 211J engines that were used on the Ju 88A (and later the BMW 801)

Edited May 17, 2019 by Hardmoor

[Lahgtah 941]

Fuel in the wings=high chance of fire.

 

Very narrow wings=shoot a single aileron off and it's spiraling out of control(like the B-29 or Tu-4)

 

A big elevator=elevator loss, rendering the plane uncontrollable.

 

Bad gunner firing angles=easy to attack.

 

Slow speed=not getting to a bomb point before dying, or the game will end if you try to fly carefully.

 

Yup, sounds like a flying repair bill. Unless something is done about bombers having all the durability of wet paper, this thing will be a hangar queen just like the rest.

 

Edit: Don't get me wrong, I love the way the plane looks. I like the way heavy bombers feel to fly, but they're just unfun because of how quickly you get killed in them. I miss bombers being structurally sound, where unless the enemy put a lot of shells in one place, or hit key components, you could still make it home. Now it's just one burst of anything bigger than rifle caliber guns and you're reduced to your component parts.

Edited May 18, 2019 by Lahgtah

[Pony51 6,571]

47 minutes ago, Hardmoor said:

but they are not the same engines,

the Jumo 213 this Me 264 uses, were used in the Ju 88s after the G series,

the original V1 prototype used the Jumo 211J engines that were used on the Ju 88A (and later the BMW 801)

 

You assume the game model uses the model of the Jumo 213.

Maybe it does, or maybe it uses the Jumo 211J.

 

Besides, the 213 is about 10%~15% bigger, and the fact it for the 264 to achieve the range it was built with a small fuselage.

Small fuselage = limited bomb load.

[Hardmoor 2,196]

1 minute ago, Pony51 said:

You assume the game model uses the model of the Jumo 213.

Maybe it does, or maybe it uses the Jumo 211J.

it says it uses the 213s and i have no reason to doubt that

2 minutes ago, Pony51 said:

Besides, the 213 is about 10%~15% bigger,

i am just pointing out that this Me 264 never existed

[Pony51 6,571]

13 minutes ago, Hardmoor said:

it says it uses the 213s and i have no reason to doubt that

i am just pointing out that this Me 264 never existed

 

Exactly.

This is more a fantasy unit than the BV 238.

[sigma__zero@psn 4,650]

It's a beautiful plane. My concerns about it are the performance (e.g. low altitude speed, whether the bombs are mounted internally or externally, etc) and the BR it will ultimately get. I believe the Greif is better at pretty much everything (same bombload, more defensive turrets, faster, Fritz X, etc) and it will also be inferior to the faster Ju 288 C. Then again, I can't see it being put at 5.0 with the Do 217s or anywhere below, so it's most likely going to be at 5.3 with the other faster and better protected bombers that can easily rush ahead. It's going to be a very tough grind and I'm not looking forward to it. I also hope it doesn't get air spawn after repairs as the additional "screw you" heavy bombers usually get. It seems this big girl is going to be quite the challenge to land safely.

[the_suztown 2,508]

10 hours ago, *sigma__zero said:

Then again, I can't see it being put at 5.0 with the Do 217s or anywhere below, so it's most likely going to be at 5.3 with the other faster and better protected bombers that can easily rush ahead.

on the 1.89 Dev stream it was 4.7, but as always its subject to change;

 

[KnightsCross20@psn 3,636]

Why bother introducing these bombers when the price tag is higher than the aircrafts ceiling? It hasn’t even been used live and it already warrants a 61k repair bill?? Come on now....

18 hours ago, Pony51 said:

Take a close look at the size of the engines and top turrets.  They look out of proportion too large, but they are not. 

They are the same engines as the Ju 88A.

The engines do look a bit to big verses the fuselage. But the fuselage May also be represented wrong. Looks a bit too skinny in the bomb bay area 

[Thorne1 954]

14 minutes ago, *KnightsCross20 said:

The engines do look a bit to big verses the fuselage. But the fuselage May also be represented wrong. Looks a bit too skinny in the bomb bay area 

 

Looks OK to me compared to this in-flight pic (V1 prototype with 801D engines):

[KnightsCross20@psn 3,636]

4 minutes ago, Thorne1 said:

 

Looks OK to me compared to this in-flight pic (V1 prototype with 801D engines):

Yeah the engines look ok. I think the belly may be a little off. The in game model looks a little more streamlined. Will take a look when I get home, and can check on some sources. 

[Kocyra 5,742]

"Repair 61k SL" 

 

What is this garbage... It's not a Tu-4... 

[Pony51 6,571]

1 hour ago, Thorne1 said:

Looks OK to me compared to this in-flight pic (V1 prototype with 801D engines):

 

Those are Jumo 211J engines, not BMW 801.

55 minutes ago, *KnightsCross20 said:

Yeah the engines look ok. I think the belly may be a little off. The in game model looks a little more streamlined. Will take a look when I get home, and can check on some sources. 

 

(Swastika warning)

Spoiler

 

Looks about right.

 

Compare to Ju 88A as I did, from bottom of gondola to top of canopy the 88 is very close, maybe taller than 264 fuselage.

(Swastika)

Spoiler

 

[KnightsCross20@psn 3,636]

Just now, Pony51 said:

 

Those are Jumo 211J engines, not BMW 801.

True...I was still looking at the BMW’s. Compared to to file photos, the engines seem to be ok. Unless the diameter, props, hub are all proportionately off. Still think it’s the fuselage though. 

[Thorne1 954]

15 minutes ago, Pony51 said:

Those are Jumo 211J engines, not BMW 801.

 

Took that from the pictures description.

 

If the pic was really from 1942, it should be Jumos, but if taken later than August 1943 it should be the 801s.

[Pony51 6,571]

10 minutes ago, Thorne1 said:

 

Took that from the pictures description.

 

If the pic was really from 1942, it should be Jumos, but if taken later than August 1943 it should be the 801s.

 

Captions for pictures can be wrong.

Those are clearly Jumo's, and when taken does not matter.

 

This site has nice collection of details

http://www.histaviation.com/Messerschmitt_Me_264.html

 

Note it says "2000kg of bombs".

[Thorne1 954]

16 minutes ago, Pony51 said:

This site has nice collection of details

http://www.histaviation.com/Messerschmitt_Me_264.html

 

See also:

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

[cpt_nosh 776]

On 17/05/2019 at 22:28, Pony51 said:

Repair 61k SL

 

So, I pay 30k SL just to spawn that junk in SIM EC? You can also just take away SL from me on a regular basis, will have the same effect.

[Pony51 6,571]

3 hours ago, cpt_nosh said:

 

So, I pay 30k SL just to spawn that junk in SIM EC? You can also just take away SL from me on a regular basis, will have the same effect.

 

I think that will change.  In Dev sever the amount was less (forgot amount, but less)

[KnightsCross20@psn 3,636]

2 hours ago, Pony51 said:

 

I think that will change.  In Dev sever the amount was less (forgot amount, but less)

It better be a lot less. There is no reason for a 4.7 bomber, with a 4.4kg payload to be 61k in repairs. But let’s see....

[NoodleCup31 8,824]

The plane is unplayable, completely unplayable.

The elevator can't move a single centimeter, it accelerates like a Jet in the slightest dive and doesn't break.

The rudder is an arcade model with extreme limitations.

The roll rate is bad.

The plane is a single big bug.

[NoodleCup31 8,824]

.

Edited May 29, 2019 by NoodleCup31

[BrassWolf 1,861]

You litterally waited 10min for responce... Patience is a must.

[NoodleCup31 8,824]

5 minutes ago, BrassWolf said:

You litterally waited 10min for responce... Patience is a must.

The last action on the thread was like 3 days ago.

Anyways, this is a thread to talk about the FM.