Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

230 Excellent

About JG7_X-Man

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    The (...not so) United States of America
  • Interests
    A picture may be worth a thousand words, but the experience is worth far more than a thousand pictures.

Recent Profile Visitors

1803 profile views
  1. Umm - I'll give you guys something to shoot at I promise I will not blame the developers for my deaths that are sure to come
  2. Thanks for all the chimed in constructively! I have brought this to their attention - if they believe the modeling of g-LOC is fine, it will stay the same. If they deem it needing to be tweaked, they will make it so.
  3. Just wanna make it right. I insulted some swell guys - I saw the error in my ways, trying to make amend.
  4. Many of the BLUE pilots may be english speaking - but they don't speak english on comms
  5. If you could point me to that post - I'd more than likely be satisfied The 262 has raw data of the period to back it- it's rate of climb, cruise speed, etc... cannot be disputed. Point as which one one pilot can withstand 6G in airplane A where another pilot can't in airplane B is debatable. Bingo! Another person that thinks outside the box! I am not saying there shouldn't be a advantage from wearing the G-3 G-Suit at all! I am just saying: What is the advantage b/w wearing one and not wearing one per WWII aircraft - may I see the data please that supports what we see in game (I hope it's not present day data using present day technology) Why could the G-3 G-Suit not have been a mod to be selectable. Let's be honest - the premise that everyone that flew a P-51D-15 into combat in WWII wore a G-Suit is flawed!
  6. Yay me! I laid a trap and you took the bait - now you are mad at me
  7. Thank you for bring up that point! I didn't cherry pick it - I wanted you to bring it up. When one wears a G-Suit into battle and get more kills than the day before, the increase in kills cannot be attributed to the G-Suit alone All other factor/variables (....the two issues that make that number suspect here are the skill of the pilots the USAAF were encountering the later days of the war, second the numbers include the over claims on the USAAF side, as there were not that many Luftwaffe aircraft in the air) that must remain constant for this statement to be true. Statistics 101: Correlation ≠ Causality or Correlation does not imply causation Because I sing when it rains, doesn't mean when I sing it rains.In this case, because I wore a G-Suit and got more kills does not mean I got more kills because I am wearing a G-Suit. The average flight hours logged by a new Luftwaffe pilot entering combat for the first time declined from thousands of flight hours before the war and hundreds of flight hours in 1940 to averages of only 160 hours, 112 hours, and 80 hours.in 1944. By February 1945, the flight training hours were zero, because flight training had ceased. Towards the end, at least one 17-year old Luftwaffe pilot took to the air in his Focke-Wulf 190 with only 6 hours of flight training in the air. The bulk of the flight training was accomplished on the ground to conserve precious fuel. Good find! My only issue here is the quality of a 1980s G-Suit is far more advanced than the G-3 Suit the USAAF wore at the time - major issue for me is efficiency (...like time to inflate and deflate) come to question. So this my point - Modern equipment data being used to simulate 1940s tech. For the record - I never said "they" have to use my data - I just want to see some data.
  8. This is what we need! Looking at something objectively and point out reasonable ideas. I look at this like back when the developers decided it would be cool to have an image of a V2 rocket in the hanger of the startup screen. Just because something is implemented doesn't we cannot express displeasure with it.We are all human, and as humans, we make mistakes. I think the idea of G-LOC is a great one, but to implement it, you have to get it right. Better yet, use the Agile methodology - (1) acknowledge the error quickly and (2) implement constant improvement. The only people that will be offend by a fix are those that can only win when the odds are grossly in their favor.
  9. Well some needs to ask the Blue Angels (...because they don't wear them). I read the research article published by NASA: Dressing for Altitude Page 105: During testing in the Mayo centrifuge, 12 subjects made 320 runs and researchers used visual symptoms as a subjective measurement and the blood content of the ear and ear pulse as objective measurements. The centrifuge runs lasted 15 seconds with a maximum acceleration of 6-G attained at a rate of 2-G per second. Any data that is used in this game would have to be based of actual research data - which did not exceed 6Gs. Also - the sounds we here simulated in the game is the "Hook Maneuver" right? The Anti-G Straining Maneuver (AGSM). Performing a isometric strain or tightening of all abdominal and leg muscles, puts muscle pressure on arteries in lower part of the body, minimizing tendency of blood to pool there in high- G maneuver, thus keeping more blood available for eyesight and brain function, and can increase G-tolerance by 1-2 Gs. – Charles Bretana Is this sufficient? Silky - the question isn't whether G-suits were issued or worn. The issue is how and where the developers got the data proving how effective they were in 1944 if the BLUE ANGELS don't wear them today. If we are simulating reality - show me the data that supports a G-3 G-Suit (I think that is what is simulated) can keep a pilot from blacking out up to 8Gs where research by NASA said it was tested for a max of 6Gs. Logic being, if I can gunt to 6Gs, and a G-suit was only tested up to 6Gs, there shouldn't be any advantage from wearing a G-Suit in 1944 - 45.
  10. I guess you didn't see the 1st sentence "OK - Can we discuss like adults"
  11. The P-51 pilot can pull 8Gs vs the 6Gs of the K-4 pilot before blacking out - Is there 1944 data that backs up this difference ? Or an extrapolation based on present day suit data. I did several studies and this varies quite a bit b/w aircrafts. Not asking anyone to divulge any trade secrets - but can I get a general idea why all pilots don't black out at the same G-load? Then the aircraft that have G-suit hard coded, why was this approach taken - verse a mod.
  12. I recorded this quick mission just to see what is the max G-Force the P-51D-15 can do versus the Bf 109K-4 Fw 190D-9 Tempest V Bf 109G-14 Well it seems that they are all different depending on the aircraft. I am not 100% sure I am testing everything accurately - so if anyone can think of a reason my testing is off, please let me know.
  13. OK - Can we discuss like adults I recorded this from the quick mission. Note: the screenshot was the max g-force sustained. Bf 109K-4 P-51D-15
  14. Ahh - Thanks -=PHX=-SuperEtendard! So what I gather here is by throttle back, I caused each aircraft to change its AoA to best maintain that speed it currently at (like a snapshot in time). If I for example had left the throttle wide open, each aircraft would eventually reach an AoA of 0. For example - the picture I posted above of the Tempest V. Notice how it's a negative AoA. Which makes sense as 590 is tad high for it need to decreae it's AoA to matian that speed. Now I am more confused because with a -AoA, would the aircraft lose altitude? rgr! I will retest the Fw 190D.
  • Create New...