Jump to content

Sgt_Joch

Members
  • Content Count

    608
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

197 Excellent

About Sgt_Joch

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    canada

Recent Profile Visitors

923 profile views
  1. That is 262s vs 8th AF in feb-april 1945. Typically, the 262s would attack with 15-30, sometimes 45 ACs. They would use their high speed to avoid the escorts, deliver a mass attack on the bomber formations, usually one pass and then hi-tail back to base. The heavies are pretty much sitting ducks in that scenario. More typical for BOBP would be the experience of 2nd TAF in sept. 44-early 45. 262s would be spotted, 1-2 times a month, usually flying in pairs. Usually, they would leave the area at high speed as soon as the RAF fighters were spotted. The only times RAF fighters could engage would be if they caught the 262s low and slow and gained enough speed in a dive to get into a firing position. I suspect the 262s were fighter-bomber versions with orders not to engage.
  2. I am 60+, use VR and a HOTAS, turn technocrat off and rely only on instruments and basically have no issue with workload. Most of the planes do not require that many controls once you get used to them, whether FC fighters or most WW2 single seat fighters. Certain planes, like twin engine bombers, because of the bombsight or planes like the HS129 where you rely more on the technocrat and have vital gauges on the engine nacelles are much more problematic in VR.
  3. Sgt_Joch

    SE5a

    There were multiple threads about this on the ROF forum, the consensus was that at "neutral" trim, the AC should require only minimum forward pressure on the stick. There does seem to be an issue with the way it is presently modeled.
  4. So do we agree that the FC fms are, shall we say, more forgiving that the ROF ones?
  5. Had a chance to fly the SE5a over the weekend and it is quickly becoming my favorite FC ride. However, I have to admit the FC fms feel very different to me from the ROF ones. As I recall, in ROF, both the SPAD and the SE5a were finicky planes that would stall with little warning if I pushed them too hard in a turn. A wing would drop and you have to quickly counteract to prevent a stall. In FC, the SPAD and SE5a are both very tossable and you can push them hard without having to worry about stalling. Even with a high AOA and low speeds, it is very easy to put the nose down and recover speed. As I recall from ROF, you could easily get into a nasty, sometimes irrecoverable spin if you pushed some ACs too hard. I have not seen this yet in FC. Am I the only one noticing this? At first I thought it was because FC was early access, but it has been almost a year now.
  6. You are correct HB. I went back and read your post in the other thread and see where are looking at this the same way. The other issue is that flight tests were amateurish at the beginning of the war, so hard to know how reliable the data we have even is. There is a NACA report from 1919-20 which is an english translation of a german test from nov.-dec. 1918 of a D.VII with a D.IIIau engine. I have read it in the past, but have not been able to locate it. It might be useful for comparaison purposes.
  7. 109 mph is 175 kmh which is the "official" top speed of the D.II: 1. aircraft profile on D.I-D.III 2. Aircraft profile on D.V: since the D.II to D.V had similar weight and powerplant, you could expect similar performance. You could probably justify 175 kmh top speed on a D.Va with a mercedes D.IIIa engine. note however that when comparing the Alb. D.II and D.III, the D.II is faster, but has a lower climb rate. This "could" indicate that the D.II was using a prop with a pitch biased for speed while the D.III was using a prop biased for climb. I say could since these books were written 50 years after WW1 so they could be mixing results from different planes. 3. here is the SE5a:
  8. problem with anecdotes is that you can find one to support any argument: 1. 2. 100 mph is around 165 kmh which is the "official" top speed of the d.III/d.V 3. take away from the quote:1. the Alb. D.III and D.V had similar climb rate/speed;2. the Sopwith Pup and Nieuport 17 had a slightly better climb rate than the Alb. D.III/V;3. the Alb. D.III/V were slightly faster than the N.17 and Pup;4. the SPAD VII, SE5 and Bristol F2B all had much better climb rates than the Alb. D.III/V
  9. VR only here. Yes, track IR and monitor gives better image clarity and performance, but the immersion factor of being in a actual 3d environment is just too good to pass up.
  10. Looks like the prop is now a lo res substitute, not as nice as the 2d version, but it gets the job done. No more distortion and no more target planes doubling up. Between all the tweaking to the game and Steam VR, I find the performance has noticeably improved since I got my Rift last year. In QMBs, fps is mostly around 90, except closer to the ground where it drops to 45. This on an average rig: i5-4670k @ 4.2 ghz/vega 56 with balanced graphic settings.
  11. Like a lot of stuff about WW1 AC, it is hard to get a definitive source. There are several threads on The Aerodrome forum discussing engines. The consensus seems to be that the 220 hp version was in service from february 1918 onwards while the 235 hp version was in service from august 1918 onwards. Both were in service at the same time. The 235 hp version was introduced to counter the 7F at high altitude. I suspect the high compression ratio may have been an issue at lower altitude since the french in 1918 were using relatively low octane U.S. avgas.
  12. The in game Spad XIII is the standard 1918 version. The 235 hp version was only deployed in the fall of 1918.
  13. You are opening up the same can of worm that was discussed over and over again on the ROF forum with no reliable answer. There is no source for the 186 kmh top speed. It does come from the 1918 German tests, in fact it is never mentioned in the Profile series. The 165 kmh top speed was the factory figure which was probably conservative, but the highest speed I saw in an actual reported flight test was 172 kmh.
  14. Yes, the Camel and Dr1 are both unstable firing platforms. Too nervy for my taste. I personally find the Dvii is the best fighter overall to learn on, stable firing platform, good blend of speed, maneuverability, diving ability, ease of operation with the SPAD a close second.
×
×
  • Create New...