Jump to content

kurtj

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    36
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

28 Excellent

About kurtj

  • Rank
    Founder

Recent Profile Visitors

377 profile views
  1. I very much look forward to BON, and I am still holding out .001% hope that on Dec. 7 we will get an announcement about a B-17, followed by another surprise. Jason, there is still time to make this the plan all along I think it’s possible considering FC, TC and BOB were all announced and accomplished simultaneously.
  2. I agree, as the vast majority of gun cam available is from non-cannon-armed American aircraft. Most of the cannon footage is attacks on heavy bombers, which have enormous wing spars. That said, here's a nice streak of wings and chunks of wings breaking from .50's. I count at least four, including a 110. Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. I don't believe we have adequate evidence to definitively say either way, as the evidence we do have is a mix of results and a very small sample size.
  3. Perhaps I should have led off with this video, which has been in the back of my mind... look how small the bushings are that hold the P-47 wings on... not much larger than a .50 round! Far different than large spars that run through the fuselage. I can imagine AP 20 or 30mm would do some pretty decent work on something that small, and that's before wing loading and the aircraft weight (as mentioned before) is considered. I wonder if the simulation has uncovered a historical weakness that wasn't widely known due to survivorship bias... not a good chance of RTB after losing a wing
  4. My point is that while perhaps the engine modeling might be overly-fragile on a 47, we may be missing the nuance of the actual physics at play if we lump wing losses together with engine durability. I find it potentially informative in the CAF 47 crash that the wing failed at the root while the landing gear strut did not. To me, this is strong evidence the P-47 wing root is not terribly robust relative to the rest of the airframe. The weakest link is what breaks... Getting back to the 51, its spars run all the way through, so at least from a wing durability standpoint, it seems unlikely to lose a wing at the root. This of course does not have any bearing to engine durability.
  5. I’ll second observing the P-47 engine often dies after a surprisingly small number of rounds... However, the 47 wing root is not continuous and each wing is connected by only two hinges, whereas the Mustang main spar runs all the way through. Its easy to find photos of P-47s whose wings have folded up, even the CAF one... and there are many stories of damaged 47 engines running for long periods. So, perhaps the wing attachment was a relatively accurate but less-reported issue on the 47 (after all, most cases probably didn’t return to talk about it). And perhaps the engine damage model could be improved.
  6. This is a good point; if a technocrat warning could be incorporated, similar to when one reaches the edge of the map, this could be addressed in a simple manner.
  7. Perhaps vulching could be universally addressed by establishing a “vulch-free” airspace of a specific radius, up to a certain altitude, around bases, and auto-banning players who attack within said radius for say, 1 month? Similar to airspace restrictions over commercial airports. Or, an alternative would be to set up low-level flak that ensures destruction below a certain altitude and within a certain radius. I recall some servers seemed to have such a setup several years ago. The airspace restriction would be a non-resource-heavy stand-in for such flak.
  8. First, thank you for your service, and it’s a pleasure to have a discussion with you. One downside of online discussion is there’s so much context that’s left out. Thank you also for clarifying your point. What did you fly, if I may ask? My initial reaction which led to my OP stemmed from my online encounter with what I would describe as a form of the “Mercedes-Benz” (marketing tagline) condescension: “the best or nothing,” that was directed at me. It goes with the “win at all costs” and “winning is the only thing that matters” attitudes that I’m sick of. (I do like winning) I don’t blame people for choosing top tier aircraft, but being attacked for flying less than the best drove me to demonstrate it isn’t as plane-deterministic as some make it out to be. I wanted to represent that the best I could, knowing what I do know. With my mind in that direction, I wasn’t thinking about other ways my account might come off. You bring up good points.
  9. I agree that teamwork is far more realistic than lone-wolfing; I perceive the field of tactics is broad and deep and not limited to formations...The finger-four is far less organized than the echelons it replaced, as well. Using altitude advantage, the sun and surprise are all tactics that work irrespective of formation... and a disregard for such things is an invitation for trouble. I feel ya on that. The environment as a whole remains rich in Tempests and Mustangs.
  10. As someone who typically flies online on whichever side has the best target-rich environment, I spent the majority of the past few years going after a plethora of 109s and 190s. The Bodenplatte release has been phenomenal in many ways, and for the most part I’ve contributed to the Red-heavy server imbalance of late (51 and Spitfire fan). Yesterday, for a change of pace I took a Jabo A8 to Arnhem, where I spent the better part of an hour strafing ground targets alongside two 110s before getting a shared claim of a P-47. Safe RTB with the fourth-highest Blue points score, and this was with a full 80 on the server. The only flak I caught was from someone who spent the better part of 20 minutes lamenting the “OP” P-51, who asked why I preferred to fly “inferior planes.” Fine, I thought, “I’ll pick an A5 and go Mustang hunting.“ Over the 1315 Panzers I bounced a 51 on the treetops... 1 down. After regaining altitude, over the Fuel Depot I bounced a formation of 2 51s and a 47, catching the 47 in the engine, then dragging the 51s down to the treetops and toward one of our airfields. More Mustang fertilizer for the crops, thanks to some inferior 109Gs. After things settled down (I experienced a new vertigo(?) effect where the pilot POV kept wobbling like in a FPS) I made my second safe RTB... All told, two 47s and one 51 for me, and two other 51s for other Blues, all flying “inferior” aircraft. The expanse of the Bodenplatte map seems to create a more realistic online environment where tactics, and not the thin margins of aircraft performance, are the greatest factors for success. Sure, it isn’t nonstop Air Quake action, but neither was the real thing. I find it ironic that so much attention is sometimes paid to the “realism” of aircraft performance by some players in the “____is OP” format. The impression I get is they’re actually looking for as big of an advantage as possible to make up for or excuse their underdeveloped tactics or skills. (I do appreciate when actual original source materials and flight data are referenced, in support of development.) The best part of flying “inferior” aircraft is bagging “OP” aircraft. Many of you already know this (especially you P-40 guys), but if you don’t, I highly recommend it.
  11. On my first Mustang sortie online, I began by successfully placing 2x 1000lb gifts in the hangers of an enemy airfield, then went on patrol. After a half hour alone, I bounced a 262 after it made a low pass on our factory and scored hits on a fuel tank and an engine, but had to disengage after picking up another 262. The P-51 with 150 octane can keep up for quite awhile if you start with an altitude advantage. After regaining altitude, I spied another 262 cruising alone several thousand feet below; he didn’t see me and perhaps wasn’t watching since he was going over 700kmh, but I was going 450-plus mph ; three seconds with the .50s at convergence and he blew up, with one wing pinwheeling with its still-running engine. Checked my fuel and I was down to 15 gallons in the wings; RTB with a score of 140 after 1 hr and 7 minutes of fun. 😄
  12. I’m 34, lol. And if/hopefully when I get up there in age, I will be quite proud to have done so and will probably be holodecking by then. I do see the point about slowly working into it instead of going full dogfighting right away.
  13. I want to emphasize the point about VR value proposition... I recently rec'd a Rift S as a gift and had acquired a new rig that would allow a steady 80 frames on HIGH (i5 9600k and a 2060)... however, it does appear that VR can be quite a subjective experience, based on the individual. I went up for a MP spin in a spit and managed to down a 109; it was most certainly the most intense and stomach-turning IL-2 dogfight I've had. SO, props for VR in this regard. However, even after several weeks, I could not shake the VR-sickness, which continued to stay with me for several days after my last flight. I found this interesting, because I am extremely resistant to actual motion-sickness, both physically in the air, as well as from 2d-screen flying. The juxtaposition caught me quite unexpectedly. I ended up returning the Rift-S due to having a wide IPD (close to 70). I wonder if that has anything to do with it. I absolutely love the idea of VR, but find IRL flying and 2d-sim flying more enjoyable and without the nausea. From the forums it seems my experience isn't that common, though. Either that, or there are a bunch of sick sim pilots all pretending they feel fine.
  14. First MP 1v1 vs. a 262 while flying a Spit IX... caught EA from above while he pulled around after a ground attack run. Once I was on his tail (going about 450 mph) it was a turkey shoot. The rest of the sortie involved chasing phantom 262s that repeatedly egressed before I could find them (I see why it can be considered near-immune to air interception as a bomber flown at high speed at all times.)
×
×
  • Create New...