Jump to content

=FSB=HandyNasty

Members
  • Content Count

    188
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

144 Excellent

About =FSB=HandyNasty

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

854 profile views
  1. It was indeed in Brussels, by Baron Jean de Selys Longchamps.
  2. No. When alone, I still prefer the 190, as it better suits my flying style.
  3. When flying alone, the 190 by a small margin. When flying in pair or more, the 190 hands down.
  4. I'd love to join constructively this discussion, as I'm always interested in DM improvements. However, the new DM calculations are coming out in next patch (see last DD's), and hence I feel this discussion is a bit off-timed. Concerning particular DM quirks (engine of Jug, elevator of Lightning and other stuff), I am sure the Devs know about these and, if they address them in the near future, they will do so after their DM update has come out.
  5. There shouldn't be any conflicts. for some other functions examples : - elevator trim, Bf109 horizontal stab, Fw190 horizontal stab etc can all be set on same keys - oil radiator opening of for example Bf110, He111 with opening oil rads of other planes - same for water rads - RPM control and prop pitch control on keys
  6. Combat power eats into your emergency power. However, it's your choice for having those few tens of initial kph extra. My opinion is not that the tempest accelerates slowly, just dive slowly a few 100s of meters and it picks up speed like no other in-game prop can. Also, depending on how a combat develops, you have the opportunity -or necessity - to throttle down. Combine throttling down with reducing pitch to below 3150 RPM (72%) to get back into nominal mode and give your engine recuperation time. This also makes sure you don't overrev when throttling back up aggressively. Might this actually be the cause of your reduced engine time at emergency? An aggressive throttling up combined with keeping max pitch will make your RPM jump up to more than 3700 revs, and for the few moments/seconds it takes to get back, it puts disproportionate stress on your engine.
  7. I'm not encountering that. I never blew my engine on tempest and have many times gone to 4-5-6 minutes of emergency. Level high speed flight switch at 11k-12k feet yes (or around depends on map temperature), but for optimal climb, SC switch at around 9k feet
  8. 'Tis Thursday and not a single post in this thread concerning the (potential) DD of tomorrow? I myself hope for a glimpse into the scope of the alluded-to DM rework - they mentioned it would be for the next update already. That, or the (realism-improving!) implementation of a whine emanating from german cockpits whenever a Yak-9T lobs 37mm's shells in their general direction
  9. From my tests back in 2018 when the mark IX came out, that is to say, before 150 octane. Also, I am unsure about the IAS to TAS conversion I used. But the main take-away remains (First row is full wings, second row is clipped wings; full throttle and RPM) Deck 500m 1000m 1500m 2000m 2500m 3000m 3500m 4000m 5000m 6000m 7000m 8000m 541 550 560 570 579 588 598 603 605 612 633 647 644 546 553 563 573 582 592 601 608 610 616 637 651 647 So, I have the clipped wings spit being marginally faster in level flight at all tested altitudes. Presumably, the full wings are better the higher up you go. So maybe the full-winged Mk.IX is faster at 10km. I was too lazy to check it
  10. Understand the difference between turn rate and turn radius, and be able to effectively use this within a combat situation
  11. Russian crosshair technology was unparallelled. The windscreen-painted crosshair evolved further into scratching crosshairs on the glasses of special goggles for pilots. It culminated in tests of scratching crosshairs on the cornea of pilots during the cold war, which showed results so extra-ordinary that the method was abandoned as to give opposing pilots at least some chance. Back to the Yak-9's, will the 9T have the choice between HE and AP ammo?
  12. This week : A patch, a sale, and since never 2 without 3, a DD
  13. TBH I specifically mentionned 109's and not necessarily all BnZ'ers. Before 4.001 the 109's were heavily gated by the lack of effective elevator control at higher speeds in comparison with LaGG, Yak, La5. Now all of them are gated not by elevator control but by G-forces. Another plane to which I feel the new G-force model is advantageous (in the few flyouts I did) is the La-5FN. Before 4.001 it was control was gated by the elevator stiffness at higher speeds. Now This is less of an issue (not completely disappeared, especially negative G's), as the G's you can pull are now mainly the bottleneck.
  14. For me, the issue isn't the damage that russian weapons deal. Chimango, you come up with statistics from TAW, I can explain all those without the need to invoke "russian guns don't deal enough damage". * Observation: German 20mm minen blast knocking unconscious, wounding and killing pilots waaaaay better than before. My opinion : it is too much (I agree with you here) * Observation : Difficulty/Inability to bail when wounded above certain threshold. Since I suspect russians to be more often wounded than germans, simply because blast effect from 20mm minen + germans get PK'ed more often by the russian 20mm and 0.50 cal when shot in cockpit, ergo this feature is more detrimental for the survival of VVS pilots than LW pilots * Opinion : New G-force model is really really really a boon to the 109F and G series when fighting the mid-war VVS planes (Yak, LaGG, La5). These combined make me feel that I don't need the hypothesis "russian guns don't do damage" to explain the current lack of "high-performing" fighter pilots or fighter squads on the VVS side in the current TAW iteration.
  15. The plane loss to pilot loss ratio for 2 dates in current TAW campaign : 24/11 (map2) : Axis : 485/260 = 1.87 VVS : 515/280 = 1.84 01/12 (map3) : Axis : 512/271 = 1.89 VVS : 651/344 = 1.89 Ergo, the current number indicate that the plane loss to pilot loss ratio is the same for both (Although I acknowledge the need for more data points), whereas in previous TAW's, the ratio was definitively in favor of the VVS (I don't have hard numbers here, just memory and gut feeling).
×
×
  • Create New...