Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

882 Excellent


About busdriver

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    St Paul MN

Recent Profile Visitors

1464 profile views
  1. No flames from me. It's challenging at 1 g to try and simulate g forces. You're simply going too fast and pulling too hard if you are constantly going to sleep. Perhaps you fly as if the throttle has only one position...full forward to the stop. I reckon that you are now being forced into paying more attention to your energy state and need to learn to modulate your throttle. Overall, I like what the Devs have done. I have minor quibbles based on my Jurassic era experience. Learn not to put yourself to sleep, as in recognize not to snatch on the stick above xxx kph/mph. If being a fighter pilot were easy nobody would want to be one.
  2. IMO you have this reversed. You actually have to be cognizant of your energy state...and not just a 1GCCFP snatching on the stick. You can fly around at the speed of heat with your hair on fire and your fangs out, but you're pretty much going to be a high speed cheerleader flying straight lines.
  3. Umm actually you posted... Effectively you posited they have to use YOUR data, as in the data you deem to be a reliable source. Come on, you're sounding like a polemicist. You're honestly going with the premise that 1980s g-suits are some quantum leap in technology over a 1944 g-suit? The Devs have made decisions based upon their interpretation of the information available to them. I offered them my own anecdotal centrifuge experience. Factually, nominal GLOC tolerance was incrementally increased before release. I still hold opinions that conflict slightly with some aspects of their implementation, but I'm comfortable with their efforts. I don't suspect a conspiracy or willful disregard of data to kneecap the Luftwaffe or RAF in BoBP. Yes they did...and I had the same experience.
  4. Why do they have to use YOUR research data? IAC competitors and airshow pilots routinely go well in excess of 6 g. FWIW this represents 1434 test subjects and GLOC thresholds without g-suits. My own experience at the centrifuge in late 1986 while flying BFM several times a week, gave me a 6 g tolerance without straining (and no g-suit). And there's this bit of data the Devs are aware of... I don't see a huge problem with the current g tolerance. That's all I got.
  5. My sources say it's because the B-29 had priority on remote turret production. No mention about stability, but an issue of buffeting. [edit #2] After further cogitating, I initially read our friend @BlitzPig_EL‘s remark to mean aerodynamically unstable as in hard to control. But perhaps he was implying that the airplane would buffet (at combat speeds) enough to make accurate gunnery impossible and reading instruments or the radar scope very difficult. Thus the airplane was NOT a stable platform, more like it was flying through moderate to severe turbulence. My apologies for the confusion.
  6. I don't want to infer something you did not imply, but it might bear emphasizing the P-61s of the 422nd and 425th NFS didn't have the dorsal turret. They lacked the dorsal guns and thus flew without the gunner (generally speaking). In fact the 425th had their airplanes locally modified to move the radar operator's station forward into the cockpit.
  7. Patience Grasshopper... Aw man, if you'd check our friend's content history you won't find any hint of him needing constant updates. He was asking about Tank Commander, the ONLY module you don't have.
  8. Happy New Year to me...more books to add to my library.
  9. It's a combination...here's my amazon review from 2010. Mr Bowman is a prolific Mosquito and 2 Group RAF author. I have a dozen of his titles. There is so much content to recommend this latest. It really is a treasure for Mosquito fans. Each chapter has lots of first person narrative. There are lots of photographs, many I had not seen before. Most of these new photos were squadron "line up" photographs of pilots and navigators/observers. Interestingly, the first chapter, "Low Levellers and Shallow Raiders," happens to be a verbatim duplicate of the first chapter "Down Low," in Mr Bowman's Mosquito: Menacing the Reich published by Pen & Sword. Likewise chapter eleven, "Mosquitopanik," is essentially the same as chapter six, "Mosquitopanik," from Bowman's book Mosquitopanik also published by Pen & Sword. I appreciate the Mosquito kill chronology, updated from Martin Sharp's & Michael Bowyer's excellent 1995 edition of Mosquito published by Crecy. There is a nice appendix covering squadron assignments. I wish there was a chronology of Mossie squadrons by command (Bomber, Coastal, Fighter) as each converted or became operational. The only reason this is not a five star review is the publisher's workmanship, the binding. This hefty book is 480 pages long and poorly bound. The heavy, glossy paper is typical of Schiffer books. Perhaps it is more accurate to say the book is too heavy for the binding. I discarded my amazon receipt before experiencing structural failure of the spine and endsheet peeling away from the back cover. My abuse? Merely placing the book on a table and opening it in the middle. As a comparison, Boiten & Bowman's Battles with the Nachtjagd (also by Schiffer) is the same thickness, but only 348 pages (same format size) and printed on lighter non-glossy paper. It suffers none of the binding defects of Achtung Moskito! You won't be taking this to read on an airplane, it's just too darn heavy, and fragile.
  10. LOL...that was the picture I was going to post. And the Merlin 72 has 6 exhaust stacks versus 5 on the MK. IV's engines.
  11. The Mk XVI's Merlin 72 engine (1680 hp) nacelle has an extra air intake on the bottom, right where the propeller hub meets the nacelle. Picture to follow.
  • Create New...