Jump to content

kurtj

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    18
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

13 Good

About kurtj

  • Rank
    Founder

Recent Profile Visitors

212 profile views
  1. kurtj

    What is your favourite plane

    If I could add the modifier “for what,” my list would be at least 5-10. But when picking just one, it’s the Spitfire for me. I’ve been impressed by how consistently my IL-2 and scale-RC spitfire experience aligns with historical accounts of its handling, tendencies, etc. Especially the “Lady in the air, b- - - - on the ground” bit.
  2. Perhaps unreasonable could conduct another empirical test... I haven’t seen many situations where only the turbo is damaged and then the engine seizes. With a gunner station and a running P-47 on the ground, I figure shooting the aft-fuselage from a perpendicular angle to ensure the engine receives no fire should be a way to isolate turbo damage and see what happens.
  3. It stands to reason that exploding cannon shells or a damaged turbo spinning apart might introduce small amounts of metal into the engine air supply, with rapidly-deteriorating results.
  4. Could it be possible that FOD from turbo damage might end up in engine cylinders?
  5. The B-17 image is from a flak hit. I agree that the P-47 is by no means out of the ordinary or deficient for the period in its wing-attachment methods. It's not like the wings are folding by themselves when in a dive like a WWI plane. However, if a hard landing is all it takes to pop a wing up, even an undamaged wing, while not ripping off the landing gear itself, then perhaps it might be considered a relative weak point in the design compared to the robust overall nature of the aircraft. Perhaps. However, many don't appear to have been sheared off backwards as one might expect by ground drag; it appears that the hinges are failing and "folding" upwards due to force applied by the landing gear hitting the ground, which is the same direction of force as wing lift. We are talking about a very heavy aircraft that's nearly three times the takeoff weight of a Spitfire with only about 20% more wing area, and most of that weight is in the fuselage. I wonder also how many times people are dogfighting with full or near-full fuel loads, vs the frequency of that occurring IRL during escort missions, etc. A 109 only has roughly 1,500 lb of max payload, whereas a P-47 can have upwards of 7,500... exponentially more force under high G loading.
  6. This CAF P-47 broke its wing at the root on landing. And same from the war... And The P-47 has some very well-built components, but the wings are only held on by four hinges. I’d venture a lucky hit to just one hinge could be enough to weaken it to a point that loading would do the rest, especially when pulling Gs. I also wonder how much of it has to do with wing loading and the number of Gs being pulled. Today I hit a FW-190 with a snap shot just as it was breaking at the bottom of a steep dive (I was near 450mph in my Spit IX). Couldn’t have had more than a couple rounds hit, but the wing broke at the root, and it made sense at that precise moment, because he had full elevator deflection and was turning violently. The immediate roll caused by the lift from the one remaining wing was incredibly fast and indicated the enormous amount of lift being generated. However, as he was just above the ground and level, he didn’t explode on impact but went sledding in the snow for several hundred meters. I’ve noticed many of the photos of rtb P-47s with heavy wing damage show impacts from perpendicular below... I.e. ground fire flak that hit while the aircraft was relatively level. It seems reasonable to conclude that perhaps many of them made it back because they didn’t pull high g’s after sustaining the damage. And/or, perhaps the wings were not hit at the critical hinge points. Perhaps the most famous P-47 damage story involves the FW-190 that kept trying to down Robert Johnson's P-47 using only its two machine guns after running out of 20mm. The account makes it sound like his aircraft was completely shot up; here it is: Perhaps survivorship bias is hiding the fact that P-47s and even B-17s could lose wings at the root... especially under high G load... and the B-17 wing even had a root through the fuselage. By definition, every aircraft that returns to base to be photographed hasn't sustained a hit to a system critical for survival. For the record, I'm also a huge P-47 fan.
  7. I was at the USAF Museum in Dayton a few weeks ago and ran across this feature of the Douglas A-20... smoke canisters for laying down smokescreens... a future mission profile, perhaps?
  8. kurtj

    How to Make High Altitude Interesting

    Sounds interesting. I imagine these wouldn't be required to be AI, either, as it would encourage players to take on the recon role, as has already been set up on some servers. Good concept! I think it'd be fantastic to have 30 bombers with around 30 enemy interceptors and 30 escort fighters. Open up gunner spots on the AI bombers, along with ground-based flak guns and you've got it all there. A single MP map with a strategic bomber force traveling across the map and back could easily last an hour or so, and have some of the most concentrated dogfighting yet. One could build the whole map scenario around this. Perhaps an option of "floating" spawn points could keep things manageable - have escort / interceptor spawns a constant standoff of perhaps 20-30 km away from the bomber stream on their respective sides of the front, at altitude. This could be adjusted until a good balance is achieved.
  9. kurtj

    How to Make High Altitude Interesting

    If you're at altitude between the target and frontlines, strategic bombers and their contrails should be the easiest to intercept. Give yourself every advantage. The devs are constantly improving the engine; I look forward to all sorts of features that aren't yet here, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying and appreciating everything that's already here. Fly a bare-metal A-20 through scattered clouds at sunrise sometime and consider all the complex work that went into that beautiful photorealistic sight. It will all come in time, just like the horizon draw distance did, and the A-20, Spitfire, P-39, etc. etc. The point of this post is how to draw the fight upstairs, not reasons why the fight can't be had upstairs. Work the problem.
  10. kurtj

    How to Make High Altitude Interesting

    To the OP, generating decent-sized formations of high-altitude AI medium bombers would probably be the best way of drawing the fight online higher. High-altitude AI reconnaissance flights could be another. I will continue patiently waiting for more medium and heavy bombers, but we could have the AI bomber flights effective immediately. I've personally made several 20,000ft-plus bomb runs online in the A-20, including overflights of multiple active enemy airfields, without being intercepted, on servers with 50-plus aircraft. Being intercepted at that height or higher seems to be rather rare, which tells me it will take massed formations of bombers requiring cover to draw players high-alt en masse. Another tactic, without AI, would be to create strategic targets as primary mission objectives that are so well-protected by flak that it's nearly impossible to deliver a strike without significant altitude. Limits in coordination would probably result in more of an RAF bomber stream effect rather than large formations, but the altitude would be there.
  11. kurtj

    Let's all work for Ridley Scott

    Flitgun, well-put re: CGI. Cujo, I agree with you as well. If you want to search for it, they actually used large r/c aircraft for the Heinkel and Stukas! Speaking of sci-fi, I found the x-wing movement in The Force Awakens to be very video-gamey and without regard to physics, but the scenes in Rogue One were much more on point! Maybe there is hope. Once someone definitively does it right, others will follow. Coincidentally, I was in a Spit in CloD yesterday and found myself in an almost exact frame-for frame match of Dunkirk, on the tail of a zigzagging 109... maybe they were panicking newbies?
  12. kurtj

    Let's all work for Ridley Scott

    We could mo-cap the VR headset perspectives as well! Not just inside the cockpit... inside the pilot's head! I imagine this is just scratching the surface...
  13. With Dunkirk in theatres, I was reminded once again of the dichotomy of aerial dogfights in film: they're either far too small in scale (1969 BoB excluded), using practical effects, or far too unrealistic, using CGI (see: Tuskeegee Airmen). Whereas some of the IL-2 machinima on YouTube is stunning, with way more realistic physics than most Hollywood CGI... So, for the upcoming Battle of Britain film, what if we were to fly "mo-cap" sorties, and the track data could then be used to create full-CGI action sequences? The physics would match, the tactics could match, and the scale could be immense!
  14. kurtj

    Developer Diary, Part 162 - Discussion

    Since we have a little longer to wait... I had the pleasure of taking the following photos over the years... also just about to maiden my 1/5.5 scale Spit once the engine is finished breaking in... and then Dunkirk is coming out in July... It's looking like a Spitfire summer The cowl bulges for the cylinders are to the sides, thus, from a 90-degree side view, they aren't much in profile. Apologies for mixing the different Marks a bit, but I believe there's at least one Mk V in there (the last 3 pics are Mk IX, so don't get too worked up on the cockpit ).
  15. kurtj

    Saturday Night Bombers Flight

    Great mission- as a Pe2 on the staff-pickup assignment, I was bounced by a 190 while in the landing pattern; immediately dropped flaps and gear and he overshot right past me just as I turned on final. Then our escorts cleared the air and it was a very pleasant flight back to Zety, which appeared at 12 low after I passed through a cloud, just as my tanks were nearly empty. My second landing of the mission was full of bounces and a mini ground loop to finish it off-- with just a drop of gas left. It's one thing to calculate mission fuel requirements like airliners today, but airliners today rarely lose 50% thanks to perforations installed mid-flight by FWs! I can say I am rather hooked on Bomber Nights. Cheers everyone!
×