Jump to content

Aurora_Stealth

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    209
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

202 Excellent

1 Follower

About Aurora_Stealth

Profile Information

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

Recent Profile Visitors

888 profile views
  1. Think that's good advice, I've heard very similar things from warbird pilots, the aft C-of-G on the '109 allows you to apply harsh differential braking (which you rely upon) to keep in check any bumping and drifting which the aircraft does on the field... apparently its quite easy to three point though in contrast to the Spitfire; which wants to keep gliding on and is reluctant to lose energy. The Spitfire (not quite as applicable for clipped wing) needs to be brought in very slow before reaching the fence as strong or early braking was often rewarded with a nose over on the real t
  2. If they were indeed training machines - it would make sense that they would not have bothered using the MW-50 (initially), and instead just used a standard G-6 for simplicity. I'm sure they would have conserved their better equipped aircraft for combat operations, but perhaps later retrofitted the MW 50 system and other equipment once these standard G-6's were brought forward as replacements? I can't imagine this was terribly difficult or unfamiliar, this is what they did in the field during 1944 for many combat squadrons anyway... so that would then allow you to describe them as "
  3. Happy birthday Jason! and congratulations truly on your personal milestone must be quite a satisfying achievement especially when thinking back through all the up's and down's that no doubt have come with it. Sorry to hear about the sit-rep on marshall mode and the person leaving, however on a positive note; it is great to hear about the progress on the fuel systems and in general to be seeing this flight-sim soar to new heights. All the best, Aurora
  4. Same here, I'm sure there will be veterans in-game of the Bf-110 who will still defer to its agility over other potential advantages in performance. But the idea to me of having an aircraft that is faster, climbs and dives much quicker and is potentially better armed and less affected by carrying bombs while still being more maneuverable than an A-20 (probably somewhere between the Bf-110G and A-20B) is still frankly a big improvement for me in the kind of hit and run / strike attacks needed on many online servers. I've found that relying on maneuverability to get home against sing
  5. Well, there's a lot to unpack here. The Me 410 was designed to replace the Bf 110 - its painful and delayed development (incl. Me 210) ensured that this did not happen as planned (two years late) and this is the real culprit behind all this. Had it arrived in strength a year earlier in 1942 it may have had a much bigger splash and greater role to play and that was actually what many in the Luftwaffe had been hoping for. By 1943, the tide had turned and the situation was changing fast in the air war. The He 219 was great performance wise, but again, such a specialised aircraft with very few act
  6. I appreciate completely where you're coming from - you're trying to understand it from a metric / results based standpoint - fair enough. The problem is the Me 410 wasn't really designed for dealing with fighters. You can describe that as a mistake or failure - but the only real alternative then is to just use single engine fighters which they ended up having to do anyway. In mid-1943 they were trying to find new ways of up-scaling against the bombers. Its construction was made to be robust and reflect an up-scaled armament to serve as a high speed bomber and only later as heavy bomber destroy
  7. I think it was still quite capable as a hit and run aircraft, pilots did appreciate them compared to most other twin engined aircraft that were available in the Luftwaffe. But like you suggest it didn't have the agility to escape most late war single engined fighters and neither did it have the outright speed/acceleration to run away if bounced or if heavily outnumbered. There's a limit to what you can do in that situation and I think, even if the Mosquito had been employed in 1944 in that very same environment it would have had a hard time (perhaps being even more vulnerable due to its wooden
  8. That is very true, although I'm not sure how many of the B variant were available in comparison to the A in terms of production. Of course, I'd love to get my hands on the B variant with its greater performance and armament. It seems quite hard to distinguish externally the difference. I guess that's a good argument for having both!
  9. Really, really enjoyed reading this dev blog, very excited for the upcoming update! so much to unpack... the Me 410 speaks to me as being functionally aesthetic - i'm going to be pinching myself all year to be patient for its arrival. I'm especially interested to see how the cockpit including that rear gunner position with its hand-grips, gunsight and turret system work out - typically over-engineered yes - but I love it. Assume we're getting the A-1 and A-1/U-2. The Spitfire Mk XIV... what can I say... its going to be a lot of fun - Rolls Royce... you bad boys! lol Ple
  10. Just to say - I still haven't heard a sound argument [from a technical perspective] why a P-51 would be able to outmaneuver a G-14 or K-4 in terms of turning performance below 300mph (co-energy) when its been demonstrated in almost every metric (with the exception of drag) that its turning performance would have been inferior. Apart from satisfying the US inclined user base (which I can understand from a business perspective), this viewpoint seems to originate from survivor-ship bias. Usually when I hear an argument about the P-51 turning well, it derives from quotes from Bud Ander
  11. Yep, who would want to fly on a side which is being placed at a constant disadvantage due to factors outside the player's control... that has to operate with all those limitations. In late war scenarios you would essentially be penalising the player for flying Luftwaffe aircraft, which might be historically correct (up to a point)... but would be denying equal opportunity for players in the game environment. This is still a combat flight simulator, not a (strategic) war simulator and people still want to be able to fight back in order to make the game experience and air combat actu
  12. Be looking at those photos thinkin.. I'm glad I wasn't in that tank.
  13. Yep, very fond memories of the Spits vs 109's and Zeke's vs Wildcats servers back on IL2 including what became the definitive 1946. Think I was introduced to the game by a friend around... 2006... been an obsession ever since really. Have a few screenshots of it still sitting on my hard drive somewhere. The name I used back then was Werner_Molders.
  14. I really enjoyed reading this post, sounds like a very intense fight and one of those moments afterwards where you just sit back in the chair with a massive grin on your face and a real sense of satisfaction. There are still very few games today that I feel get the depth, detail and immersion right like this sim does. Like you say, it really does get so many details right and the AI being quite dynamic now makes for challenging situations that were hard to imagine happening before. I'm very optimistic for the future of the game... amazing to think how far the game has come - especi
  15. Just my five cents here... 160mph sounds too high to me to be its stall speed, but sounds a lot like the minimum maneuvering speed, which gives a large margin (typically x1.4 but varies) above the stall speed to safely conduct say a 30 degree bank angle. Because of its laminar flow style wing profile, it wouldn't surprise me if it needed a significant cushion of airspeed to stay clear of the stall; knowing the harsh stall/spin characteristics that can develop.
×
×
  • Create New...