HR_Zunzun

Do not forget Alexander Pokryshkin. He achieved almost the same amount of kills with the P-39. Many other Kobra pilots were highly suscesfull too.

Without going into further detail (so not affirming/dennying anything) of those 249 hits for a total of 6 kills, do we know how many of the hits were made by the mg 17? Do we know how many of those 6 kills were actually "over kills"? Can we reliably rule out "net code" influence? There are many factors that can make something plausible or logic looks like an apparent DM problem.

It is this DM problem consistent? I only see one video of one sortie. You may be right, but without some statistic consistency the explanation could lie elsewhere. For instance, with the trees alone could just be a matter of very good luck. The lagg enter the tree area with almost 90º bank angle, so could have just skimmed the tree (the one that moves) with the belly. Not saying is not a DM problem but without more consistency (same behaviour in different events with the same plane and not with others) my explanation could be plausible. For the rest, with the multiple impacts "anomaly", is the same. I have experienced that many times when shooting at other plane models. Other times, they go down in a very short burst.

I was referring to the fact that the sequential actions described in the text aren´t very disimilar to other done by other fighters in similar circumstances. If you are cruising with your drop tank selected, with your gunsight lamp off, and your gun heater off, then you have to do the same. Could be more or less difficult to access the different swichtes, levers and knobs, but the actions would be pretty much the same (except the double engines). Obviously, in german fighters is going to be easier to get into combat settings. But not by a huge marging. In any case, any fighter being bounced, while cruising in economical settings and with drop tanks in use, is going te be in a pickle. That regardless of the degree of automatism implanted.

Any other fighter that uses external tank would be subjected to a similar amount of procedures.

I don´t have a clue whether this is correct or not. Most likely will need tunning. What I think (my feeling), is that is more correct than previous implementation.

Agree. I think a reason for that could also because most of us use short stick (so more sensitive to input) and the lack of sensorial feedback (like stiffiness of the stick or "seat of you pants" feeling of building Gs). The way it is means we have to develop a new muscle memory for the new conditions.

This vid is very old and has been posted dozens of times by others before you. I didn´t have to watch it again to know what you were trying to convey.

My bad. I miss the starting altitude. Now makes more sense. Regarding the boost control failure, it says only affected the speed test (didn't mention the climb test). In any case, if anything , I understand would be underestimating the results (gave less boost). Wouldn't it? Not that it would change much considering how it was unable to maintain boost as getting higher.

Tempest climb rate in this chart seems low compared to this test. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/tp.html At 9lbs and 11400lbs of take off weight it was climbing at 4380ft/min (22.25m/sec). In the game (in this chart) it does the same, 22m\sec, while lighter (half fuel) and on 11lbs.

A few HR_ will be there too. Both days.

Maneuverability is not defined by the ability to perform a loop but more the ability to change a plane of motion effectively (or at least better than opposition). It can be at low or high speed (eg. zero vs 190 to put two extreme examples). Ideally at both high and low speed and in all planes of motion but perfect fighter doesn't exist. In any case, looping is not what I consider a high altitude useful combat maneuver. I think that more useful is good speed at altitude, good dive, good climb or good zoom (to get above your enemy) and good elevator authority when diving. I completely agree with Legioneod in regard that the P-47 currently seems to lack high speed authority and, on the contrary, enjoy a low speed controlability very dubious (very fun but very dubious).

As I also recalled, my comment was directed to comparing apples to apples and not oranges. That new example proves your point better.

And one of the reasons why they do not correlate it is because the -N in your comparison has a bigger and different wing that tend to favor it in the climb. That is making the direct comparison faulty unless you know by how much does it improves the climb rate and you factor it in your calculations.

So that ( helping the N model) would make the difference bigger for the M model if both had the same wing (The -N would climb worse with the normal wing and the roc difference would be bigger in favor of the M model). I do not know by how much but it would. And that, if I am not mistaken, goes against your point. So I still stand that is apples to oranges for a direct comparison. Otoh, I do agree that other flight tests (same plane with different TO weight) would be better.