Jump to content

PainGod85

Members
  • Content Count

    443
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

269 Excellent

1 Follower

About PainGod85

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

980 profile views
  1. There's one way, but it'll set you back however much BoS costs on Steam. Basically, you buy BoS as the main game on Steam, then link accounts. That way, Steam will recognize every pack associated with your account here. I did that last year when BoS was on sale for a few bucks and have been playing it on Steam ever since.
  2. Look at the fuselage behind the center of gravity as an airfoil. By cutting it back, you're effectively reducing its chord without changing its span. Overall you lose wing area, which means the plane has less area behind the CoG to push the tail in line with the direction of flight. The fin fillet they introduced later on remedied that by effectively acting as a leading edge root extension. It turned the rudder so effective the TO describing how to install it also mandated its servo tab be turned into an anti-service tab - increasing rudder control forces instead of reducing them. (The same principle can actually be seen on the Boeing 737-300 and later. The engineers would've had to use an unreasonably high rudder leading to issues with hangar size if they hadn't gone with a vortex generator.) E: I actually forgot to mention it, but the fillet naturally also increased the chord and with that the fuselage's area as well.
  3. Well, the easiest planes to model by far would be the 109G-6(late) and 190A-6, mostly because most of either already exists in the game's code as well as in 3D assets. Then there's the Ju 88C-6 (which uses Jumo 211s), P-51 and P-47. Most of these also exists as code in the game right now, though their 3D model would be significantly harder to kitbash from existing assets, especially in the case of the Mustang. Beyond those is the Griffon Spitfire, which is probably going to require a scratchbuilt 3D model as the visual differences between it and the IX are just too many to warrant an attempt at modifying the existing asset. Then there's the completely different engine. The Mosquito uses Merlin engines, so at least code wise modifications could be made. The same can be said about the Ar 234 and Typhoon - their engines also already exist in the Me 262 and Tempest, respectively. Which leaves the Me 410. Completely new 3D model, plus DB 603 engines. And if that weren't already enough, a gazillion possible variants, refits and retrofits. I'd be extremely surprised if it wasn't going to be released last.
  4. Both the V-1650-3 and -7 were rated for 75" Hg of MAP in US service, and the full +25 PSI / 81" Hg in British service. Instructions for the modification of both engines: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/ppf-p-51-mods.pdf +25 PSI cleared: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/Packard_V-1650_Engine_Performance_data.pdf It's not surprising, the engines were exactly the same with the exception of the supercharger gearing, for which there was a modification kit. Either engine could be turned into the other in the field. E: Actually missed this on my first readthrough of the +25 PSI document. The rating wasn't officially cleared because at the start of the -3 engines' production run, they were using single girder pistons. This was rectified in the later -3 engine batches, and virtually all later -7 engines came with them as standard as well. Even then, the rating was available to pilots. E2: By September '44, both the -3 and -7 were officially rated to +25 PSI.
  5. Both should be around. The E type wing was starting to reach squadrons mid-March '44 and completely phased out the .303 installations shortly after D-Day.
  6. Well, I do agree the human body does give pilots indicators insofar as vertical acceleration is concerned. I wouldn't mind an optional HUD scale or indicator field that goes from translucent to black to indicate what the effects of sustaining the current acceleration are going to be if it continues, potentially with an arbitrary error margin and definitely without taking pilot fatigue into account. What I absolutely, positively, do not want under any circumstances is an accelerometer telling you how many Gs you're pulling at any given time.
  7. More than that. To my knowledge it didn't have a fuselage tank, and it only had four guns. E: Apparently, P-51Cs from the C-3 on did indeed have a fuselage tank. Here's one, complete with Malcolm hood: E: Link to source http://www.ww2incolor.com/us-air-force/p-51C_001.html "P-51C-10-NT S/N 43-25050 of the 503rd FS, 339th FG, 8th AF assigned to 1st Lt. Esteban A. Terrats who was KIA in this aircraft on the March 2,1945 during an escort mission to Ruhland,Germany.Photo taken at RAF Fowlmere, England." This picture was almost certainly taken during the winter of '44/'45, as the 339th FG transitioned to the P-51 only in April '44.
  8. There would be literally no sense in adding a G-6 that has the exact same engine as the collector's G-6. The methanol-water injection system was retrofitted to G-5 and G-6 planes starting some time around May/June '44. There is no reason to disregard the option for it out of hand. The G-14 was test flown with it in July, the G-6 itself in May and June.
  9. The AS engine basically mated the engine block of the DB605A to the supercharger of the larger DB603. Planes so equipped required the later, larger engine cowling.
  10. This assertion does not hold up to closer scrutiny. Overall, there are more tests of the B, with several outliers in performance towards both the upper and lower end of the scale. In the end, it averages out in light of measuring tolerances etc. I'm too lazy to draw up sources for the P-47, but I expect numbers to run along the same line as with the Mustang.
  11. I will admit to having been extremely confused in the fact we did not receive an AS(M) engined 109G with Bodenplatte - in fact one of the more prolific versions of the mid-late war 109 - and I think it would be folly to disregard adding one now with Normandy.
  12. I would argue functioning guns and reasonably accurate flight and damage models take precedence over clouds being 100% realistic instead of reasonably accurate in a combat flight simulator, but what do I know.
  13. Alright, let's try this a different way. You have a crane with two different engines that can be used to drive it. One engine is stronger than the other, running at higher RPM. Now you have two weights, of which one is substantially heavier than the other. You test the weaker engine with both weights, noting that the heavier weight takes longer to be lifted ten meters. You test the stronger engine, but only with the heavy weight. You calculate expected performance of the stronger engine by correlating the difference in speed of the weaker engine and adding it on top of the measured value obtained on the stronger engine with the heavy weight.
×
×
  • Create New...