Jump to content

II/JG54_Cule

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    33
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

14 Good

About II/JG54_Cule

  • Rank
    Founder

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    flying

Recent Profile Visitors

441 profile views
  1. Turn rate involves lots of factors. Engine power is one of them, because with higher angles of attack in the turn, a more powerful engine will deliver more centripetal force, assisting in the turn. F2 (in comparison to F4 and Gs) has weaker power at combat and continuous settings, and if I remember correctly the turn times are calculated using such power settings. This could probably be the important disparity when the devs calculated it. However, a good indicated best turn time does not mean a plane will turn tighter in a combat situation, where energy is bled through drag to assist the turn. F2 can turn very well at lower speeds, though not sustained. Another thing to note is that some planes turn to one side much better than the other due to the engine torque. A right hand side turn in a yak vs 109 will result in the yak gaining the upper hand even if it has a slower indicated turn time, that is because the yak's torque favours the right turn whereas the 109 is hindered by it and would rather turn left. P.S. When the 109 G2 was conceived, it was not yet intended for better intercepting 4-engine bombers.
  2. (talking about turning on the left, which is what 109s do) Both aircraft share similar wing loading, the P-51 has a neater laminar wing which at high altitudes with high angles of attack will badly affect turning radii. In addition the 109 still will have a bonus assisted turning capacity to the left using the more potent torque. In DCS this is especially fun for instance. Although it's been more than 2 years since I flew the K4 there actively on multiplayer. In good old 1946 it was generally so off it's not worth comparing in my opinion
  3. my calls: dogfighting - Bf109 F-4 - it works surprisingly well against spit IXs and la5FNs on the mad servers with incorrect plane matchmaking which allows this. Light and nimble. Best 109 feel for me. powerbomb of "reckless speed and power" - (my prefered solo technique) - to come up from below unexpectedly stir up the hornet's nest, stomp over the enemies knowing at any time you can endure a 5:1 disadvantage and run away with ease - bf109 K-4. Boost the 2,0ata engine, keep an eye on the slip ball and go on a 400km/h climb and you will get >30m/s climb on low altitudes. high altitude work - bf109 K-4. I cannot wait for P-51. It has a similar top speed up high, and it will be a better diver, but the 109 will climb better and will turn way better. boom and zoom - fw 190 D9 - it shares 2 important advantages over the 109 for this role. It's a more stable gun platform, ensuring better snapshot hitting chance, and most importantly, it has VERY good handling at high speeds. It's only my opinion!
  4. I have flown inverted for almost 40s and there's no hickups at all. (Spring map, on the deck, Realism difficulty)
  5. The (dare I say) negative stability of some aspects of the spitfire surely would explain some of the flight model behaviours that are not related to this particular issue and the very sensitive controls, but it does not explain - in fact it almost contradicts - that if you put a IXe on inverted flight it will suprisingly maintain itself flying straight for as long as the carburettor will take it (haven't tested max inverted flight time duration). And it's not about spending some time to find the sweet spot while inverted that flies well - it's like a magnet, do a half roll, either harsh or slowly and it comfortably sets itself in this awkward stable flight without problems. In fact, it flies much better (from stability point of view, as-is right now in 3.003) inverted than upright.
  6. If you fly a WWII airplane (of which all the ones available in the sim do not have symmetrical aerofoils) and fly inverted, the aircraft's lift acts downward, bringing the airplane towards the ground and hence one will require pushing the stick forward to increase angle of attack, counter the downforce and maintain altitude, albeit red-ing out slightly. Put the spitfire IXe inverted (i've tried merlin 66 only), and something interesting happens: When flying level, the plane will maintain altitude without a touch of the controls, and what's more bizarre, if you push your stick forward to elevate oneself while inverted, the plane will immediately respond and will massively keep increasing the angle of attack by itself up to a point where it's climbing at around a 5-10º angle, inverted, and of course the pilot is in a redout before more data can be obtained. I cannot make up my mind how a NACA 2213 can generate this behaviour? Notice that by increasing angle of attack in the above context I mean what would be pitching down (decreasing AoA) in an upright configuration, but I thought it would make it less clear if we started to talk into negative values throughout. Testing was conducted on standard cloudy weather, spring setting.
  7. Hey mate Unfortunately we are inactive these days. Somebody else already took the domain www.jg54.org but thanks a lot for the invite, and excuse the late reply.
  8. I can understand your concern for simplicity, but: If you or the devs do not want a key-mapping for the fuel gauge of the Spitfire for the sake of simplicity, why inlet and outlet key mapping for specific radiators like those on the LA-5 (not using the generic mapping for axis-gradual radiators), custom stabilisers for the 190, toggling altimeter comparison pressure, and functions like these? Don't get me wrong, I love all those sort of things and I'm happy and proud that they were made, in fact I'd like many many more things to be made like that, but the presence of the above examples sort of contradicts the argument that it was made for simplicity and so that people have an easier time getting into each aircraft. Maybe different people have different views about what custom aircraft controls are simple enough or not to be built into this game, but I feel the spitfire/I-16 gauge is as important as those mentioned earlier, and aside from this debatable simplicity argument I do not see any reason why not to implement the feature.
  9. I don't see your point. If they want to scan the skies so be it, in my opinion this is irrelevant. But If they want to check their fuel gauge, after or before or without having scanned the skies, they have 3 options: a) Always show fuel amount which is unrealistic because you had to press the button to see it in real life b) Assign a key bind like on other simulations. c) Every x seconds show the fuel gauge being read but you cannot control the period of the check and at the very instant when you do want to check it, it's the luck of the draw whether it's going to be pressed or not. Devs have discarded a so between b and c I'd go for b
  10. Thanks for the replies. I don't think this is a good system, the user should be able to press the button whenever he pleases. It should be mapped in the controls IMO. On the bright side the Spitfire handling is quite spot on in this game.
  11. On the spitfire, where is the key mapping that presses the button on the fuel gauge to read the fuel capacity? Otherwise the fuel gauge indicates zero.
  12. Hola a todos. Buena suerte con vuestro escuadrón
  13. Visit jg54.org and get to out TS if you are interested!
  14. Will skins be customisable like in 1946? That would be great.
×
×
  • Create New...