Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

55 Excellent

1 Follower

About Aurora_Stealth

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Milton Keynes, UK
  • Interests
    Passion - flight.

Recent Profile Visitors

484 profile views
  1. @MattS Well have only flown the D-22 Razorback since the update... its quite the change, and its not only superior to fly as an airframe (using earlier D-28 as previous benchmark) - its also tons of fun with the new silky control feel. Using 150 octane with the Razorback makes it feel a much more competitive fighter. It's smooth, and slick but just a little slower to roll yet feels much more controllable and comfortable when maneuvering - there is lots and lots of buffeting when you pull too tight so you know when you are at the edge. I personally feel a lot more confident engaging an enemy fighter with this, and you can pull and rein in the P-47 tight right up to the stall now due to its more forgiving characteristics, the greater energy reserves from that extra power allow you to push on much further. Sustaining a tight turn is still not a recommended tactic against most fighters as it still cannot rely on its turn rate alone but you can certainly do it now to a greater degree. The canopy design of the Razorback is not a huge hindrance although it is inferior for spotting - I guess it depends what you're used to. Its not going to dogfight easily with lighter types like a G-14, but at the very least you feel you can catch them out far easier now and its no longer one sided. I would imagine the Razorback vs a G-6 would be an interesting fight although I'd probably still err on the latter if pushed. The fact I'm saying probably should tell you a lot in itself. My greatest enjoyment so far with the Razorback is being able to use the snap roll into a diving turn just like you see of P-47's in the film footage as they break to attack - looks classic! when diving you really need to keep in mind the correct IAS at altitude otherwise if you don't you'll end up with a dead stick and a rapidly approaching horizon - compressibility. So overall I reckon the P-47 is going to be a much more viable fighter bomber regarding online multiplayer. Its combination of greater power and speed with increased usability and control feel and that vast array of ground attack options makes it much more pilot friendly in my eyes. You'll still have to be quite cautious in how you engage but its definitely better and you aren't going to feel such a brick on the wall. I was very disconcerted to watch the AI on QMB start actively boxing me in as I approached, they behave more fluidly now and are generally much more switched on which makes for quite entertaining QMB sessions now. Really good stuff - 5 out of 7... would recommend.
  2. FYI - also had a strange experience on the weekend, someone was shooting at me from behind while in the Ju88.. I could see all the tracers and hear the hits on my aircraft but when i turned around and looked at where it was coming from... there was no one there... just flashes and firing towards my aircraft.. I think the player may have left shortly afterwards but seemed like connection issues indeed. Perhaps this is to do with sync of people's packet sizes? may need to address packets to the server via the MTU guide? I might recheck my own packet settings more often... my visibility settings work generally very well but some strange situations have been occurring now and then.
  3. @[TLC]MasterPooner FYI The photo from Alpino is not using typical .50 calibre ball or even straight API rounds. Its also an M3 machine gun not an M2 and this was fitted to a modern aircraft and fired at a range we don't know. This is really muddying the water here and people are now trying to use this photo and assimilate it to something else. In either case this wasn't what was seen in WW2 Allied fighters using M2's - the photo shows damage from an APEI shell i.e. using a form of high explosive not invented for the M2 until after the war hence the holes being much much larger than any entrance or exit holes that just the bullet typically produce on its own as ball / AP. It is commonly accepted that most bullets leave a larger exit hole (provided they can continue to penetrate and exit) because they are less stable after hitting which is basically tumbling - but it also depends on what they're actually penetrating - an engine block or another dense material can cause unusual exit holes but going through two thin metal skins may alternately leave just a similar very small exit hole as well. Best to stick to WW2 photos of .50 calibre damage caused by WW2 aircraft - it'll save for a lot of speculation.
  4. I heard that's quite a short career?! Not much opportunity to collect medals apparently... perhaps we can introduce a Guinness world speed record achievement? Saturday night Doodlebug racing? lol
  5. @Caudron431Rafale Hi Caudron, As we've tried many times to get across (hence why this topic is in the complaints section)... there has been a decision made by the development team to focus on the fuel systems after two to three months solidly of working on the damage model itself. The fuel systems modelling is considered a higher priority right now in terms of its magnitude of effect on an aircraft's damage. That's not saying its not an issue, just not a big enough one to delay work on the fuel systems. They decided there is a higher development priority and are working based on priorities but there is a chance the team will come back to this later. There is nothing disturbing about it, the order of magnitude between the effects of cannons and machine guns has been very clearly laid out. I'm sure if the team gets some spare time they'll try looking into it... and once again we're not saying there isn't an issue - but you are probably looking at something like a half mph speed loss for each .50 calibre round. That in contrast to an aircraft effectively burning on fire or not, take your pick. If it can be easily corrected why don't you offer your services to easily correct it? it all takes time I'm afraid. Thanks
  6. @Mephisto This looks absolutely brilliant... and meticulously researched from the author - thanks for sharing! no doubt some controversial and curious quotes and findings. Already got my next aviation related book sorted for the lock-down it seems 😃 Thanks again,
  7. @unreasonable Oh I see what you're saying, sorry I didn't realise that it was blocking bullets completely from passing through but within that context it makes perfect sense. I was assuming that it was all getting absorbed within the inside of the fuselage and catching on the radio and other equipment including armour behind the tank or something like that. Fair comment.
  8. Good points, FYI - as stated on some other threads and just to remind people the rear fuselage as a structural element is undetachable for almost all fighters in-game (Bf 109 included) by means of using ammunition, only a collision or damage from contact with the ground will cause failure in structural integrity of the rear fuselage (i.e. detachment) from tailplane. The P-38 and some bombers are exceptions. To reiterate again, the rear fuselage and its lack of detachment from tailplane is not specific to the Bf 109 - it is a universal issue with many aircraft fuselages in-game. I think most agree the ability of the fuel tank not to catch fire on the Bf 109 is however clearly out of place and it should be more consistent with the others. That should be addressed with the upcoming changes in fuel systems as was announced. Cheers,
  9. Haha! let that M2 go free or mount it on a horse with no name 😃 I think that's also the story with many of the aircraft too, they all have big personalities which collide and it can feel a bit bruising at times.
  10. I'd just like to clear something up while we're on topic here as I've been taking some strange comments from players online who think that I'm deliberately trying to portray things to cause problems for the Allied side... I'm all for authenticity on both sides that's what gives the game its credibility however people have to be realistic as to what's achievable in a game - especially when people have such high expectations from online gameplay. No one in their right mind is saying that no aerodynamic effect would occur when using the .50 calibre because it is not a cannon, some speed loss would obviously occur when enough bullets are soaked up. The question is how much so and is it really significant enough to demand the team to spend further time on an already onerous level of detail. The team has limited resources and time, you guys want the new Normandy map and all those aircraft plus every other expansion to be exactly as you each desire it. We're also not saying "every" .50 calibre hole recorded in combat would have been neat, its a little more complex than that and other effects occur but they tend to puncture skin on average (ball ammo / API).. not so much deform or open large areas of it (modern APEI) - there are always outliers if you search hard enough but the game cannot give you every variation exactly. With modern explosive ammunition (APEI) and special filler types these characteristics on the .50 calibre can be altered today (including the timing and fusing of ammunition to explode at a certain point past its impact. They can be engineered to explode early on so to damage skin, or delay and explode further inside but this happened after WW2 regarding the .50 calibre. We need to be realists here - the data transfer involved in calculating each machine gun bullet and its aerodynamic effect would be horrendous for everyone online so that's not a direction anyone is going to like. Those type of changes are unlikely to change the result of an aircraft being shot down or not simply because it is ~7 to 10mph slower than it was from accumulating 20 to 30 hits of machine gun ammo. Much more significant is control damage and stability which is already modelled. I'd be very surprised if every bullet (firing 750 - 800 rounds in a minute) of a gun could ever be calculated individually in its exact aerodynamic effect. It's a bit much to expect this, and more likely it is a function of accumulated damage as a larger total calculation which for data transfer is efficient and makes sense. I like the video, and the scene chasing the '109's makes me smile. It looks like the pilot is desperately trying to snap roll but then loses balance and control because of the damage. Without meaning to be cynical - and in relation to what we're discussing - its the imbalance in aerodynamics or loss of control not the performance or speed loss that causes the biggest problems here with the .50 calibres. Note the pilot cannot hold the maneuver properly because one side is hit / imbalanced, not because the aircraft is so punctured that it lost all its speed (its still moving relatively quick even in maneuvres for a good amount of that video). I'd suspect that the blown left radiator at 3:40 has just caused a load of aerodynamic drag on one side of the aircraft, due to the heat and disruption to the airflow which is shifting around and also clouding over the left hand side of the fuselage and tail - causing imbalance and stalling it. Adding any kind of strong evasive maneuver into that situation, such as a snap roll as he does.. will make that much worse and it helps to initiate that ensuing spin. It's hard to tell if that is in fact ripped skin damage on the edge of the left wing (its still possible), its pretty obscure and it could be the aileron. Cheers,
  11. @alpino Cool photo, nice to see someone having fun using that as target practice! From the exit marks it looks like they are using modern APEI ammunition, not surprising though as the A-29 Tucano is a modern turboprop and they will nowadays be supplied with the latest ammunition technology. I believe FN Herstal produce the M3's for the A-29 Tucano and from the size of the blast and burn marks on exit I'd suggest they're using APEI (Armour Piercing Explosive Incendiary) rounds. This wouldn't have been available in WW2 for the .50 calibre unfortunately. The more typical API (Incendiary) would have been though, but those would just pierce and light-up but not create such large exit holes.
  12. @MattS First of all - thanks for sharing this Matt. I've just had a look through the track - and last night also spent about an hour or so picking away at Ju88's in QMB in the P-51 to assess myself. I'm gonna do my best to break down what I'm seeing - and hopefully provide some useful feedback. Please note that regarding streaming or burning of the fuel tanks and around the engine etc - lets see what the fuel systems / damaged lines are like after the Dev. team completes the upcoming update as they are trying to address fuel systems damage right now. This is the next stage of their overhaul. You can get fires on the Ju88 but you have to be quite determined and they can be difficult to achieve. Your gunnery is pretty decent, but you are firing in very short bursts in many attacks (less than a second of firing in many cases) which isn't going to cause enough damage. You're also getting rocked around by the turbulence/prop wash of the engines of the Ju88 which is knocking you off target and causing you to slip. Try to keep below or above but not directly behind (maintain some speed as you approach to avoid being a static target however). Easier said than done... I know its tricky with a gunner. Also, don't bother firing until you are at 250 - 300m - you're just wasting ammo from further distances. Don't fire until both sets of guns (i.e. your wings) are dead aligned with the Ju88 wings, then hold that firing pattern as you close for 3 - 5 seconds. If you don't keep your wings dead aligned with the Ju88 - only half of your bullets will hit. There are some other observations that are clear to me regarding the Ju88 from my own QMB sessions. Its surprisingly hard to hit the engine itself from low deflection angles from behind. The reason? the back half of the engine nacelle is just a covered frame with the retractable gear inside and is a major obstacle to hitting to the engine. So from directly behind or 5 - 10 degrees deflection you are just hitting the nacelle and gear which is absorbing your fire and not knocking out any major systems or the engine. Also even from behind, the pilots headrest covers a lot of area so hitting him is also difficult from small deflection angles. Head-on passes are easier to get at pilot or engines, or using sustained bursts from underneath can cause more damage. With all that considered, in most cases I still think you can get decisive kills within a few passes using the above methods if you hone your technique a bit more. Apart from the fuel systems modelling which has been mentioned .. I don't think this is out of the ordinary. The Ju88 is just a difficult nut to crack and is fast and evasive enough to present a difficult target - but you can get it on fire and you can knock out the engines if you get the right angles on it.
  13. Yeah think we've got to be a little careful here misreading what Shuck is doing. I'm reading Pierre Clostermann's book 'The Big Show' at the moment (another must read), when a similar situation occurs. Clostermann in his Spitfire Mk IX is on radar calibration exercise over Beauvais when he is intercepted by a "probably new variant Messerchmitt Bf 109 G" which is initially called out from the R/T operator.. the aircraft is shadowing him around 30,000 feet (9,000m). He waits to the last minute to break, and performs a steep climbing turn briefly and then flattens the turn which surprises the Luftwaffe pilot who overshoots and attempts in vain to cut the corner on him. The Bf 109 enters a stall and spin following the overshoot but recovers - however this is a fatal mistake at this point and the Bf 109 is eventually shot down in the dive. This in Sept 1943 so possibly a G-5 high altitude variant. At these extreme altitudes (much above rated 7 - 8km altitude), the Bf 109 is going to struggle to produce as much lift (smaller wings) depending on the model and the second stage of the Merlin's supercharger seems to help in the thinner air up there. It makes sense in a tactical ploy however to increase that wing area slightly by opening up a little flap, and so adding just enough lift (at the cost of some L/D ratio) to temporarily keep the Bf 109 in the maneuver for a little longer and also to avoid the stall onset.. but lets be honest that energy will be draining away then at a slightly quicker rate due to the increased drag as well. In other words its a quick fix to stay competitive in the fight but it won't last for too long. A Bf 109 will be more prone in general to stalling up there, because of the aforementioned factors at being at extreme altitude, hence why using a little flaps is a way of holding this off. I also imagine, because the radiator is integrated into the flaps on the Bf 109 that 7 degrees flap is not causing as much excess drag compared to other fighter types with conventional flap setups i.e. just takeoff or landing flap positions. One last thing - which astounded me when I read the title of this thread - and I promise here this is not me being revisionist... 7 degrees is the magic number for flaps I have been using in IL-2 over recent months with the Bf 109 G-14 and K-4 to tighten the turn against other similar turning fighters. I know it works through a process of elimination, as I tried 5 degrees and this was insufficient then pushed to 10 degrees which slowed me down too much and I lost ground in the turn.. seven was the sweet spot against the P-51. I managed to last 3 - 4 minutes in a furious turning contest with no fewer than six aircraft taking pot shots at me on Combat Box although this was a while ago as I'm flying other aircraft atm. I can confirm resolutely there is something of a sweet spot in this number.
  14. @BCI-Nazgul FYI - here's the links to the existing .50 calibre discussions, appreciate its not always easy to find these - but this topic has been saturated already on other threads. Also.. the back end of the below thread has become a topic for the .50 calibre (especially configuration when mounted in P-51) - part of the new game version topic is the DM changes: So please take your pick.
  15. People are just dissatisfied with the .50 calibre at the moment. I'd suggest waiting to see the changes in the fuel systems and API rounds which may affect the vulnerability of these fighters. Otherwise this is just chewing the same discussion point out of dissatisfaction. The Dev team has spent an enormous amount of time working the DM's, and its one of the most accurate in any WW2 simulation out there.. so to say the .50 calibre isn't doing what it 'should' or we need "credible" DM's because they don't meet personal expectations is just so insensitive and provocative - its insulting to all the hard work they've done overhauling it.
  • Create New...