Jump to content

HR_Zunzun

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    321
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

247 Excellent

1 Follower

About HR_Zunzun

  • Rank
    Founder

Profile Information

  • Location
    Cambridgeshire

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. That is a frequent remark regarding the -M that is being described in many places (specially online) but has no base. The P-47M was the product of the logical evolution of both the P-47 airframe and the P&W R2800 engine. The development was started long before the V-1 posed a threat and the introduction into combat happened long after the V-1 launching sites were overrun (at least the ones that were a threat to UK). Regarding his role in the sim, I think it have its place. We have the K4 1.98 and many people ask for the Ta152. Both fought in tiny numbers compared with the well recorde
  2. I do not think it would work with this subject. It is very side orientated and I predict that many people would vote based on it.
  3. That is a good point. It looked a bit low to me as well and I checked they were not talking about knots instead of mph. But all the speeds in the manuals comes in mph. Afak USAAF used mph until after ww2. USN used knots. I have a book; "Check six" from James Currant, a pilot of p-47 in the pacific. It contains several apendixs. One of them comes with notes from Lindbergh regarding how to get the most from the jug in terms of range. When talking about climbing speeds, Lindbergh said that the best speeds varied from 185mph (all in mph) with external tanks to 170mph without. An even 165mph
  4. Clean, 100% fuel. I can do 170mph at 88% of trim heavy tail. Hands off. 100% trim (all the way heavy tail) gives you around 165mph hands off. Loaded with 3x500lbs and 100% fuel I can do 190mph at 86% of trim, hands off. At 100% of heavy tail trim gives me 180-185mph. Both cases 2550rpm and 42hg (maximus continous). I can´t find any data on best climbing speed for loaded airplanes. But the pilot manuals say for a normal loaded plane: Pilot manual for B,C,D and G airplanes (Technical order No 01-65BC-1) says that the best climbing speed is 140-155 IAS. Pilot manu
  5. The AP are so bad now that I doubt that any possible solution is going to end as bad as the situation we have now: Overpowered HE with dismal AP. We are going into a year now with the problem and we do not have any deadline (or any kind of timeframe) by the devs. It is only fair that a placeholder is demanded. If we had some kind of plan or dates I am sure everybody could be more patient. Why they use API exclusively? Better questiong, why they keep the AP portion in the API round? Why just not making plain "I" only rounds instead? Those two pilots can give you a hin
  6. I have noticed the same with the p-47. I have no FBB. Main thing for me, is that if you want to trim the plane for best speed for climbing you barely can do it. If you are heavy for ground attack you can´t do it (at least in previous patches, I haven´t tried with this one). Otoh, in that another sim with simulate a p-47d30 you have enough trim authority for those speeds. And that makes more sense.
  7. I am not sure a few jagged .50 holes are going to slow down a plane significantly (also depending of what you consider signficantly) but what I am very convinced of is that a few dozens should do it. And this is not what we see regularly in the game.
  8. Please, can you elaborate when the OP has said that a few rounds should cause a significant drag? In this or a different thread there are several videos in which they show that a hugemoungous amount of 0.5cal AP rounds don´t cause any significant drag. I wish we all can appreciate this difference.
  9. For the record, nobody is saying that the Russian wasn´t superior. It was. The berezin was a marvellous HMG. What they have said, now dozens of times, is that the difference in performance is too big. I, my self, will add that this difference in the game is ridiculous.
  10. I think nobody doubt that 20mm is in another league. Altough on the other hand, we should take into account the different platforms. For instance, is a 109 with just 1 20mm cannon being more likely to start a fire than a p-47 with 8 0.5cal with API? I have no doubts that a 190 with 4x20mm will. But a 109? In my opinion no.
  11. An 0.5 cal API round have better chance of starting fires than a 0.5 cal HE round. That´s why Germans introduced the Incendiary round for theirs 13mm MG instead of the HE that they were using. In those relatively small calibers, the amount of HE that a round can carry is very small for the HE causing any catastrophic damage.
  12. Exactly, I remember reading dozens of pilots memories where they mentioned how they started their stopwatchs when they had to put the throttle forward in the middle of a combat. They have the rest of the engine gauges just as atrezzo because they only needed a stopwatch to look after the engine.
  13. In that case all the affected gun should be modelled that way as well (although I think that no serious simmer would think that HE need any buffing at all). So, my point still stands. But in any case, as Countzero pointed out, no netcode is involved at all. Has been proved offline ad naesaum. And again, that is exactly what they did by making the 109´s tail impervious to damage. They put a placeholder while looking for a solution because they reckoned it would take them a lot time. Now, almost 30% (if not more) of all mp planes have an invincible tail. Afte
  14. In that case it would also be a problem with the 0.5 modelling. If you knew (they surely would know) that the server couldn´t register all the 0.5 impact, then you should do something about it. If the state of current technology doesn´t let your DM work as intendend, then you must change your DM to allow for this shortcoming. Otherwise, your modelling will be poor. Simple as that.
×
×
  • Create New...