Jump to content

LeLv76_Erkki

Members
  • Content Count

    386
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by LeLv76_Erkki

  1. Yeah it seems to be true, also I think ram air effects the optimal altitude so typically the higher the power setting and speed the higher the switch altitude, in Yaks for example. But that behaviour of La-5 might not be 100 % on ram air.
  2. In his graph M66 is faster at 6k, because its done at 3000 rpm +18 lbs. Once I have the time I want to test M66 vs M70 at all altitudes and power settings
  3. I have found that when using +12lbs RPM 2900 (30 minute power setting) or the continuous power setting Merlin 70 starts to enjoy advantage much lower, at 4000 m or so already. At 6000 m M70 is full 10 mph faster (indicated speed) at continuous and 7 mph faster using 30 min power setting.
  4. Button. It can use full throttle for 10 min with the boost.
  5. My whole point was that you do NOT get historic outcomes by behaving historically. Unless you think gunners should seriously damage an attacking fighter almost every time. What that induces is very unhistorical behaviour of avoiding bombers because they are more dangerous than fighters.
  6. All gunners are about equally worthless when they are set to the lowest difficulty. In multiplay, in great part thanks to the superhuman gunners, Pe-2 is pretty much a better fighter than I-16 or heck in many ways better than P-40 even. You can attack Pe-2 head-on, tear off its wing and the gunner often still hits from the spiralling plane you as you pass by at 1000 km/h of relative speed. Multiple human Pe-2s just arent worth engaging longer than one pass from ahead and even that is risky. I do not think it is very realistic or historical to expect a relatively small and lightly a
  7. However getting hit and damaged/shot down by the Peshka gunner is not a "fluke" but rather common. On the other hand its relatively safe to attack an ace AI Ju 88 from dead astern despite of the three very rapid firing guns of the two gunners and them also having good fields of view. Or A-20, or Il-2 even(despite Il-2 gunner also having very good field of fire). Its so bad that I nowadays rarely even bother attacking Peshkas unless an opportunity to do that head-on or directly from the side presents itself. I did not have time to fly last taw but in the one before that I shot down about 12 Pes
  8. Someone will know the exact dates or months, but Yak-1 s. 69 and LaGG-3 s. 29 are both Spring 1942 aircraft. La-5 September 1942, Yak-7B May-April 1942. Yak-1B late 1942, entered frontline units I believe May-ish 1943. P-47D-28 is mid 1944 but its practically identical(or worse thanks to its propeller) compared to earlier bubbletops including D-25 introduced in May 1944(earlier ones just didnt have direction finding antenna or gyro sight).
  9. TBH honest the difference between 8 mm and 12,7 mm is also that one produces (at least somewhat, way or another) believable gunner performance results, the other does not. Its not helped by the fact that Pe-2 is the only Soviet bomber in game = every Soviet bomber has borderline superhuman gunners. When B-25 will get introduced that will be literal flying fortress if gunner AI isnt tuned.
  10. They're omnipotent - the Pe-2 bottom gunner - who aims through a periscope - will be aware of you attacking head-on and can and often will shoot you as you pass by the millisecond you enter his field of fire. Gunners also dont care about G forces or maneuvering. German gunners arent as lethal because almost without exception their guns are mere 8 mm MGs, and because Pe-2 is so fast meaning attacking fighter spends more time in fire and has to attack from behind more often. Try attacking He 111 H-16 from within the top gunners field of fire, though...
  11. No, its not slow. Versus 109 and 190 its main trouble is that it can maintain that top speed for only relatively short time, and that right now in multiplay it faces 109 K-4 that is head and shoulders above all other fighters. Against historically most common adversaries to the type - 109 G-6, G-14 and 190 A-8 - it performs very well.
  12. Just a note: ability pull high AoA, having very low stall speed, having small turn radius and turning quickly are all different things. Flaps can give some aircraft impressive maneuverability and handling at very low speeds, but exploiting those in actual combat is very difficult(and not the least because typical dogfight starts at 450 km/h and ends in 20 seconds). I need to catch up to this thread...
  13. He 111 is very underpowered and Ju 88 not much easier in full load. Make sure you use 100 % RPM! Do not use full flaps, they will slow you down too much. 10-20 % down or even or none at all is enough. Elevator trim fully back too will help you a bit. For He 111 H-6 the maximum fuel load is so massive that you are unlikely to ever need more than 50-60%.
  14. I cant recall what engine and fuel rating it is modeled after. It does hold speed very well through many kind of maneuvers compared to both 109 and 190 and it can choose to run away too, except from the K-4(depending on altitude).
  15. I dunno, P-51-D5 in 1946 can do 600 km/h at the deck and about 720 km/h at critical alt. Outturns the 190 and some 109s too. My record on Warclouds flying P-51 was 59 kills before I died to my own greed 15 seconds before mission end, mostly 190s because that was in the era before D-9 was nerfed
  16. I think right now Spitfire IXe & P-47D-28 vs. 109 G-4, G-6, G-14 and 190 A-5, A-8(after its heating issues are fixed) makes a quite balanced and pseudohistorical planeset for July-August-September 1944 scenarios. P-51 and bombers are missing, but its definitely playable. I wonder if any server has something like that yet? K-4 will have to wait for P-51 and Tempest to have worthy adversaries.
  17. Fighters looking to bounce on ground pounders will and already do lurk around 8-12 kft. P-47 (or 190, or 109...) can bounce them from higher up. 26 kft is likely impractically high though.
  18. Yes, aluminum is weaker than steel, and I know first hand one can penetrate a steel barrell's (0,9 to 1,0 mm thick) both sides + some junk within the barrell with 22 LR standard velocity ammo out to at least 150 meters. Even mere .303 ball would have about 30-40 times the kinetic energy and somewhere around 4 to 5 times the velocity. In game I have several times seen machine gun tracers richochet off upper and lower wing surfaces of Yaks, LaGGs and Las, but besides the Il-2 its not very common and I'm not 100 % sure that it isnt just a special effect.
  19. You underestimate people you talk with. 25 % is less than 100 gallons of fuel. Thats about 40 min even in fuel save mode. K-4 will have more endurance. 😄 We are discussing P-47 vs. K-4 in general, not just level speed at some very specific altitude. Going high will not make P-47 superior to K-4. 1.98 ATA or not. Plese dont keep dodging that. You guys can keep banging your heads against the wall but it wont make the current iteration of P-47 we have in the game perform better than K-4 in raw numbers. I dont care about your subjective experiences in game - I've won Yaks in turn fights in a 190 b
  20. I did not specify the 190 variant. If being superior in every aspect of performance except in one 500 meter gap at rather high altitude is "marginal performance advantage" and even for that you need to give up guns, fuel and micromanage engine, then I want what you're having.
  21. Push the stabilizer ahead in the K-4. 491 km/h IAS, and it can maintain that for 5 min longer and once in combat power, its again about 20 km/h IAS faster than P-47's(again shorter) combat power level speed. RPM can be manually increased to achieve more speed at the cost of WEP timer - just a bit more and its faster while still having more than P-47's 5 min of WEP. And so what? P-47 gets that close in a very narrow altitude band. At low altitudes its basically meat on the table(speed difference is around 45 km/h at WEP) in every respect, and in an even duel P-47 loses even if that
  22. In game specs say K-4 climbs better at 6000 m. The K-4 climb rates are for combat power only. I have actually tested these planes and K-4 is faster at all altitudes. Yes, even if you dump all fuel and half the guns on the P-47. And the K-4 can still maintain that WEP-combat-WEP-combat cycle while P-47 needs to turn off the water minute after its reached its top speed. The superior speed alone makes K-4 the best fighter. LaGG-3 or P-40 vs. 109 F-4 is also survivable, but that doesnt make LaGG-3 or P-40 better fighters than the F-4. I too quite like flying the P-47 but it
  23. Just dont be surprised that many others will refuse to fly P-47 vs. K-4 online after the shine of a new toy wears out. That mighty speed alone makes K-4 the best fighter in the game right now, and how those engine modes are done really dont help P-47 pilots at all. And on top of the speed, the K-4 also the best climber. Even without 1.98 ATA.
  24. More maneuverable? You must mean rolls better and turns slightly better at high speeds. Kinda like 190 vs. Yak. K-4 especially with the DC engine beats the snot out of P-47 in a duel at all altitudes. You can go and compare climb and turn rates. And since K-4 is decisively faster at all altitudes except at and right next to 7000 m, and can stay faster as long as it has fuel left in the tank, it can dictate any engagement where its not surprised or attacked from superior position or where its not about to run out of fuel. Use flaps you say? Okay, what if the 109 uses flaps of its ow
×
×
  • Create New...