Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

201 Excellent

1 Follower

About PainGod85

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

731 profile views
  1. They're still area ruled. Nowadays it's just much more subtle because the required area cross section changes as you move forward to aft are mostly obscured by wing planform and profile chosen as well as the plane's control surfaces. For instance, the F-22's canopy was moved forward from the YF-22A's position so as to better accommodate the area rule near the engine inlets.
  2. Is that an anti-G suit the US pilot is wearing?
  3. It's not just that they're not in line with each other, a full fuel tank is the end of the line for any rifle caliber round and for a good portion of the larger calibers, too. It will not exit a full tank.
  4. Be that as it may, the gear strut covers are still too skinny.
  5. So long story short, the fuselage is the wrong shape in the area of the leading edge and wheel wells. Also, the main gear legs aren't stocky enough. What it should be looking like (spoiler for historically accurate picture with the corresponding iconography): What it does look like (spoiler for picture spam): Of note are the bulges with vertical walls enclosing the wheel wells towards the plane's centerline. Also, if assets from the Antons were used in the creation of the Dora, odds are their wheel struts are malformed as well, and that means their wheel wells would be malformed, too.
  6. I mean, why would LW planes running engines at lower boost and a higher compression ratio ever be concerned with detonation? ...I rest my case.
  7. Agreeing with the OP. Gunner accuracy should be a function of delta-v (rate of closure), transversal speed (rate of relative target position change), range and G load (difficulty in getting the weapon aligned and keeping it on target), with hard limits enforced for reaction time (no MLG noscope hits on targets that cross through a gunner's field of view) as well as gun traverse speed (at high transversal speeds a gunner shouldn't physically be able to take or keep aim in the first place).
  8. More like the M gains over 23% in mass and the resultant climb rate is reduced by almost 15%. Meanwhile, the ingame P-47 - and I'm rephrasing your own numbers here in order to get the comparison to go in the same direction - gains 50% in weight (your 1/3) and loses 33% of its climb rate (your 1.5 times). Oh look! The changes in climb rate for their corresponding reduction in mass correlate! You, sir, fail at statistics.
  9. Simple. You model both sides' planes to manual limits, completely ignoring one had stopped caring that their engines' MTBF was 20 hours when the plane was likely to have been shot down before making it to 5. (Yeah, the numbers are an asspull, but that doesn't invalidate the core sentiment.)
  10. It's not like I translated the placard or anything. :v
  11. The written part says: "Deploy flaps below 295 km/h". The other, handwritten parts are what I assume to be maximum permissible indicated speeds at certain altitudes: 480 km/h at 9 km 610 / 7 720 / 5 850 / 3 900 / 2
  12. Meanwhile, IRL: 15 minutes at 74" 8 minutes at 70", assuming 600 kph CAS near SL. But let's break the engine after 5 minutes at 67", let's see how that's going to end.
  13. It's old news for me, and the Russian thread is citing much of the same resources that were linked here, IIRC. The guys over there are equally dismayed about the state of things.
  • Create New...