Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1579 Excellent

About Bremspropeller

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I have never seen an original 190 with the canopy open during T/O or landing. There is video of Flug Werk replicas doing so, though. I'm fairly confident their canopies are similar, so if the FW canopy holds together in such conditions, the Fw canopy most probably does, too. There's some anecdotal evidence that opening the canopy had exhaust-gasses enter the cabin and would cause turbulence on the tail. Hence opening the canopy was supposedly verboten. 5tuka's find in the POH is a very nice find and shows there's more shades of grey than what's usually anecdotally carried forward...
  2. D-9s also mostly had the ETC 504 installed.
  3. It's not realistic. The C3-injection on the Jabos was introduced to cancel out some of the added drag (and weight) and to give the heavier Jabos an option of just running. It was never used in the fighters.
  4. It would be cool to add the option to just add bombracks (without adding bombs or ordnance) on all aircraft. Thus, a more "operationally used" airframe can be depicted when flying "clean". Yes, it slows you down, but it's realistic - would be cool in SP, Campaigns and MP (maybe even as a server-option). Any thoughts?
  5. I have to admit, the latest hype-trailer had me at "Ramat-David Airbase"....
  6. You know, you can always make the torque match by going inverted...
  7. Mäp sieht schonmal cool aus.
  8. Very! And I think a lot of the coolness stems from the lack if individualism and the lack of bolder design in modern cars. They all look kind of similar. The cool thing about the 500 is that you can own the modern version of it and still drive a very cool car, as it has'n involved into a lifestyle-limo for dinks and yuppies that safe for the brand doesn't have anything in common with the original (*cough* Mini).
  9. This time Mustang vs Dora:
  10. There is no evidence the exit-hole sizes are caused by the projectile - actually the only evidence in place is that there was substantial fire-damage. Both by form and surrounding secondary damage caused by heat. Two out of five exits show a rather underwhelming hole-size and are closer to what one could expect even in conjunction with ripping effects. The larger one of those two small holes shows fire-damage. You can believe whatever you want - it's not neccessarily true, though. All those holes in the car are sized between the two small exit-holes and the top (read: most outboard) exit hole. Taking the fuel-cap in relation to the car-mirror.
  11. 1) Disagree. See edited post. 2) It's actually the metal getting hot enough to have the paint and primer melt off.
  12. No, the exit-damage can't be much larger than the projectile's projected area - even with outward ripping and peeling (keep in mind, at the airspeeds involved, there's little backward peeling due to airstream). There is no way of figuring out which size the exit-holes actually were, due to the fire-damage. It is safe to say that the fire-damage played an integral part in the damage-picture. All the exit-holes show extensive fire-abrasion and none are originally sized. On top, the skin shows extensive heat-damage. Curb your enthusiasm. I think the second trail from the bottom is wrong. The exit is associated with the entry on the left. The entry you attached with that exit is actually associated with the exit below the large gash. Like this: Gives you an idea about a normal "punch through" exit without tumbling. Note the lack of additional fire-damage associated with the normal punch through
  • Create New...