Jump to content

JtD

Founders [premium]
  • Content count

    2935
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1632 Excellent

About JtD

  • Rank
    Founder

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

2979 profile views
  1. JtD

    A8 vs. Pe2

    The Mk108 was the hardest hitting cannon in WW2 in terms of weight of fire per weight. It's just insane, and even post war the damage potential compares favourably with many far more modern weapons. The rather low projectile velocities made it less useful against ever faster targets, but against large and slow bombers, where pure destructive power counts, you'll have a hard time finding anything better well into the 1950's. The relation in firepower between an A-3 with 2x7.92+2x20 vs. an A-8 with 2x13+4x20 or an A-8 with 2x13+2x20+2x30 is in the region of 1-2-4. Cramming this amount of firepower into such a small aircraft is pretty much insane. According to postwar US studies, you'd need about 25-50(!) .50cal Browinings with API ammunition to achieve the same level of lethality, depending on target and on how you define lethal.
  2. 1800+ is what I read, too. About 700 in Cottbus, 700 in Kassel, and 400 in other factories.
  3. JtD

    Fi 156

    In the armament section of the manual you'll find a reference to a machine pistol model 28/II Schmeisser with two 50 round magazines as the standard version. No kidding. The plane was always armed.
  4. JtD

    Pe-8 anyone ???

    What I took away from the Pe-8 project for IL-2:1946, is that there were more subversions than aircraft build. There was a large variety of engines and other modifications, individual aircraft were rebuilt or modified. There's basically no standard type Pe-8. Beautiful and amazing aircraft, but in terms of effort / historical importance very much on the bottom of the list. Personally I'd love to see a British four engined bomber instead of a US. We've had the B-24 in Il-2:1946, but I don't recall ever having seen a British one.
  5. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org Il-2 1946 has all that modelled.
  6. The original cockpit hood was smaller, as such an aerodynamically advantageous smaller cross section. Also possibly lighter, if so, then marginally. However, the larger canopy had a more aerodynamic shape, and it's really hard to tell if there was any effect on performance. If so, it would have been beyond the computing capabilities of the day, and also inside of measurement accuracies of the testing possibilities back then. All in all it should be pretty much performance neutral. It's been said already, the new canopy shape was also used on fighters as the war progressed. Reasons for slower installation there were the demand from ground attack units, with no real complaints coming from the fighter pilots. I can see that the advantage would be bigger for ground pilots, given there focus on things below and ahead - as opposed to above and behind. So lack of demand, with limited availability.
  7. Please provide a (transcription of a) primary source. There's nothing about that in any document I know. The rear tank was standard on the A-8. And as a matter of fact, all tanks of BMW801D powered Fw190's were C3 tanks. It's just fuel. So I don't get what you're trying to say with that statement.
  8. The differences in CoG between the A-3 and A-5 are about 2 cm. This would have an effect on the handling, but then flying the fuel tank dry causes a change of 13 cm. So in terms of pitch authority, there should be little to chose between A-3 and A-5, even if the A-3 is slightly less stable / shows a higher elevator response. With the A-8 the question is if you take the extra fuel tank in the fuselage behind the pilot. If you do, when it's full, the A-8 will be borderline unstable, CoG being another 4 cm back, when it's empty, it will be between A-3 and A-5. If you don't take it, you'll be another 1 cm forward with the CoG compared to the A-5.
  9. JtD

    Yak series Dive and high speed behabeour too good?

    Vees for victory. Designed for 4000, with 10% reserve.
  10. JtD

    SpitIX FM and DM bugs.

    No, it's correct.
  11. JtD

    MW50 Tech Chat?

    In the game I am playing the message comes up when I go over combat power, but MW50 is not being injected.
  12. JtD

    MW50 Tech Chat?

    That's what the low pressure warning is for.
  13. JtD

    MW50 Tech Chat?

    The system could be switched on manually by the pilot. In game it is always on. As there's no real point in switching it off, I don't think there's a problem with that. Simply because either way, MW50 injection starts only when you go past combat power. You can look at power percentage, or power setting. There's an information when the system is not working properly, "low pressure". While it's not as gamey as it was back in the day, it probably is more useful this way.
  14. JtD

    Bodenplatte Spitfire IX notes

    Test engineer colleague of mine discovered after year of handing out his business cards, that he was "break test manager". Awesome job.
  15. Well, radios don't need more, if that indeed was the radio. However, below a plan from the Yak-9 manual, which appears to have the same gauge in a different spot. In the Yak-9, it's clearly measuring current going in and out of the accumulator.
×