Jump to content

JtD

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    3489
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2308 Excellent

About JtD

  • Rank
    Founder

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

4116 profile views
  1. Angle of attack is the angle between the reference line (datum line) and the flight path. It doesn't matter if you go level, or up, or down - the angle is always given against the flight path. The reference on an airfoil typically is the chord, which goes from the frontmost point to the rearmost point of the cross section. However, wings can have different airfoils or airfoils at different angles (wing twist), so it's not as clear. Additionally, wings are often mounted at an angle against what the designers chose as the datum line of the aircraft, which is completely arbitrary. It can be, but doesn't have to be, the thrust line, i.e. the angle the engine/propeller is mounted at. It can be, but doesn't have to be, the sight line of the gun sight. It can be, but doesn't have to be, the line through the frontmost and rearmost point of the aircraft. Plus, in Il-2, the programmers chose the reference/datum line. It can be, but doesn't have to, identical to the historical thing. You will also notice that angle of attack changes with speed, as the aircraft at high speed has the nose further down than at low speed, where it has to raise the nose - against the flight path. Wiki has a few pictures that probably make it easier to understand: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_attack Angle of attack is not the angle between flight path and horizontal, that would be the angle of climb.
  2. Ich habe kürzlich mal wieder ein Buch über Panzer gelesen, in dem es auch stark um den T-34 ging. Dabei wurden auch die Defizite des T-34 thematisiert. Ich wollte die mal im Spiel überprüfen, konnte aber bereits feststellen, dass die Optik nicht so katastrophal und die fehlende Fahrwerksdämpfung nicht weiter schlimm ist. Zumindest beim Rumfahren im Gelände. Hat vielleicht jemand anders mit den (frühen) T-34 auch mal ein paar technische Daten überprüft oder kann mal einen Abriss geben, wie sich der T-34 im virtuellen Gefecht verhält, speziell im Vergleich zum Pz III? Dabei geht es nicht um Panzerdicken und Durchschlagsleistung, sondern um Turmdrehen, Sichtfeld, Treffergenauigkeit, Schussfolge über längere Zeiten, Geschwindigkeit im Gelände und ähnliche 'weiche' Faktoren. Mir fehlt zum Testen ein wenig die Zeit und auch der Antrieb und hoffe, dass hier schon Erfahrungen vorliegen.
  3. In addition to what KW_1979 wrote, it is also important to note the detailed circumstances. For instance, the Fw190 in practice was very good at acceleration, because changes in power setting were managed by the Kommandogerät. Other aircraft would need the pilot to increase mixture, rpm then throttle, to say the least, giving them a much slower response. This way the Fw190 does rather well in side by side comparisons, even though the climb rate isn't particularly great. This is just one example about how important it is to read the fine print.
  4. Yeah, love'em. 😁 Size and hit probability not being linear might have something to do with fire distribution. The region around the plane is not saturated with fire evenly.
  5. No, it wasn't significantly different as far as I know. There are only slight differences, mostly simplifications with the K-4.
  6. I think in this case the best comparison is made between the Bf109K-4 and G-4, with the aircraft being same size and structurally similar. It's indeed a striking difference, already in terms of hit percentage, but mostly in terms of loss percentage. 6% vs. 20% is quite a drastic change.
  7. Wow, that's a lot of work. Personally, what I find most interesting even though it's probably the most obvious thing - size matters. Thanks for providing a empirical result to confirm this. It also looks to me as if the P-47 really is as screwed as subjective observations posted by a number of community members suggest. Thank you for doing all this testing and counting and the presentation.
  8. It may not be intuitive or trivial, but it is well known and documented and was done like this already in Il2:1946 (within in limits of that engine). Thank you for the pictures, different perspective and different from charts.
  9. Unfortunately wiki is not correct, both the A-4 and the C-6 have Jumo211J engines with 1420hp take off power. The A-4 and the C-6 really are the same aircraft, with the exception of the addition of the solid guns in the nose (3x7.92+1x20 fixed instead of 1x7.92 flexible), the occupation of the front fuselage bay with a fixed fuel tank in the C-6, bringing down bomb carrying capacity from 28 to 10 50kg bombs and the option to mount 2x20mm fixed forward firing guns in the gondola in place of the 2x7.92mm flexible rearward gun. Historically the 2x20 were used at night, the 2x7.92 at day. It is possible that the devs decide for other, later options like a MG131 for defense. Still, same 1941 plane, for use in 1944.
  10. Just like others, I'd have preferred a smaller map with more detail. I don't fly 1000km round trips, but I do look out of the window. The Rheinland map is what it is and I'm still not over seeing the industrial heart of Germany as a green valley with a few villages in between, but so be it. What bothers me is that the Normandy map is of similar size and I fear there'll be a similar result. Which is the major reason you don't see a BoN badge to the left, yet. I'd appreciate a statement or commitment of some sort from the devs at this point, to know their point of view and their thought about detail/size/performance balance. Are they happy with Rheinland as it is, and what is their plan for Normandy?
  11. JtD

    Endlich IV

    War heute den ganzen Tag so...
  12. Ja, ist ziemlich wenig. Im Vergleich zu P-38 und Mosquito ist diese Ju88 keine Offenbarung. Langsam und schlecht bewaffnet - sowohl was Schusswaffen, als auch was Bomben anbelangt. Dafür aber ein paar Bordschützen, was einem selber wahrscheinlich wenig nutzt aber beim Gegner (so er denn keine KI ist) Debatten über Scharfschützen auslösen wird. Es ist eben ein 1942er Modell. Leistungstechnisch sogar eher 1940. Ich kann jetzt nicht ausschließen, dass es eine solche Modifikation gab, aber Handbuch der C-Reihe Stand Ende 1942 sieht soetwas überhaupt nicht vor. Demnach wäre es also nur für die G. Andererseits haben wir ja auch an der A-4 ein paar Dinge, die im Handbuch nicht exisitieren (44x50kg Bomben), vielleicht sind die Entwickler ja wieder kreativ.
  13. Die C-6 hatte keine Vollglaskanzel, sondern einen festen Bug, wo, wie schon geschrieben, 3 MG17 und 1 MG-FF installiert waren. Mit 2800 bzw.120 Schuss Munition. Hinten in der Kanzel die 2 MG81. Da das Flugzeug bei Tag und bei Nacht eingesetzt werden konnte, war die Bestückung der Bodenwanne variabel. Bei Tageinsatz war ein nach hinten schießendes, bewegliches MG81 vorgesehen, bei Nachteinsatz zwei nach vorne schiessende, starre MG-FF. Zudem konnten, mit dem richtigen Rüstsatz, im hinteren Behälterraum 10 50kg Bomben mitgeführt werden. Im Gegensatz zur A-4 war der Tank im vorderen Behälterraum immer drin. Leider weiß ich nicht, was mir das "a" in C-6a sagen soll - vielleicht, dass es nicht die Nachtjagdvariante mit Antennen ist. So oder so gibt's wieder eine Ju88 mit Jumo 211 Motoren und das für ein Szenario Mitte 44, wo sie als veraltet betrachtet werden können. Ein späteres Modell mit BMW801 Motoren hätte mich deutlich mehr angesprochen und hätte besser gepasst. Ansonsten bin ich von der Ankündigung BoN insgesamt etwas unterwältigt, werde aber schon wegen der Typhoon trotzdem zugreifen.
  14. As what we got is what we got and being unhappy about it doesn't change it - what I've been wondering since the start is if we can do something to improve the map on our own? Nothing is really keeping us from going into the mission editor to for instance turn the Ruhr valley into the urban, industrial area it was. A city could be spread through the community as a group, and if the devs think that what's been done is good, it could find its way into the map as such. If everyone who took issue picked and solved one, we'd have a great map by the end of the month.
  15. Whether MW30 or MW50 doesn't really make a lot of difference in terms of performance. It's the same system, just with a 70-30 mix instead of a 50-50. MW30 gives a slightly higher effect at the expense of a higher freezing point (-18°C vs. -50°C), as Hajo_Garlic already stated. If you wanted to use the same amount of water you could reduce the amount injected and it would last longer, but that wasn't typically done. Main reasons to use it were lack of methanol and/or high enough outside temperatures. MW30 was permitted for use as long as temperatures on the ground were -15°C or above. Below that, MW50 was mandatory.
×
×
  • Create New...