Jump to content

-=PHX=-SuperEtendard

Members
  • Content Count

    1510
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1031 Excellent

2 Followers

About -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Buenos Aires, Argentina

Recent Profile Visitors

1875 profile views
  1. I am talking about my post and specially @KW_1979 video, which do show how there is some inconsistency going on, and at least on my part I try to see this from a constructive and objective point of view. But it seems that forum fightning against users on the "opposite camp" overweights trying to analyze and come up with how stuff can be improved other than "lol allied noob get gud and fire at convergence" 😞
  2. So you think it is ok that having 20-30 impacts of 12.7mm AP/Ball in a concentrated area wouldn't affect the handling of the plane in any meaningful way, meanwhile a single 13mm that has a tiny explosive filler would do it much more significantly? That having 120 impacts on average to set on fire a 109 rear fuselage fuel tank after it has been perforated in the first couple impacts is ok, while other planes for comparison need 2 or 3 times less than that? I'm not asking for fusealges to be ripped in half or wings torn off from the root, it should be pretty clear to anyone
  3. It's disheartening to see after my post and KW's video people still arguing about convergence and "learn how to aim"
  4. Generally if you can get a deflection shot with the engine or cockpit exposed they can be pretty effective (engine fires and pilot kills easy to make), But then when you are attacking a target from it's straight 6 o clock they are rather ineffective, specially in the multiplayer environment where the players will jank the stick and keep going up and down to avoid the fire and force overshoots (the overall pulling and pushing of positive and negative Gs in quick succession not having enough of a negative consequence promotes this behaviour as well). I think the issue here has multiple things going on at the same time: The lift and aerodynamic penalty is very small or insignificant. They shouldn't be on the same level as explosive ammo of course, but when you get a nice burst with multiple hits concentrated in a determined area all the holes would cause a significant effect, while these are not explosive rounds things like tumbling and keyholing would add up when you get like 20 - 30 impacts. I have been for example in a 109 shot at by a P-51 and he got 21 rounds into my right wing according to the server log, but I didn't have any handling penalty, I was still well in the fight and got an overshoot and got him down. On the other hand even a single 13mm or Soviet 12.7mm explosive round can have a significant lift penalty on the flight surface they hit, and these rounds had a rather small explosive content, I just don't think 20 rounds of AP wouldn't have nowhere near as an airflow disruption as a single 13mm HE with ~1g of nitropenta (1/20th of that of the 20mm mine shell for example). We don't have API yet, I personally think that while it's still in the works we should have increased fire chance against leaking fuel tanks to compensate for the time being for the AP rounds, mind you all nations would be bennefited from this, all of them used API or dedicated Incendiary ammo for all their guns in one way or another (Germans, Soviets, British, Americans, Italians). There seems to be a particular interaction that the later Bf 109 models are particularly resistant to getting it's rear fuselage fuel tank on fire. @KW_1979 has made some tests in the past and he found that the 109 took multiple times the same amount of rounds on average to have it's rear tank catching fire compared to other planes. I think this has to do with the armor protection decreasing the probability of fire, the 109s from the G series had a sandwich of aluminum armor sheets behind the fuel tank, but this was still vulnerable to heavy machine guns and cannons, as we can see in game it does get penetrated and the fuel tank gets leaks quite often, however even with the armor defeated and fuel pouring out there is still some sort of protection against fire starting.
  5. Both D-22 and D-28 work the same, at sea level you can overboost 3" higher than the official spec. 67" or 73" depending on wether having 100 or 150 oct
  6. Afaik it's a thing, at very low alts the system can overboost a bit, in the P-47D-28 this was already present you could run up to 67" instead of the standard 64". The time limit decreases to 3 minutes if you overboost the engine.
  7. @KW_1979 one difference with that test is that D-22 is a bit of a frankenstein using a Curtiss propeller instead of a Hamilton one, so it would be a bit slower. And to have more or less the same weight you should take 79% of fuel. I did a speed comparison (with 100% fuel though, around 470lb heavier than the test, I didn't notice much difference against 79% fuel at least at sea level though) and these are the results I got overlaid on the chart (resolution is not the best but well):
  8. The 190 A-3 has a significant speed advantage over the Spit Mk V. The variants we have in the sim have more powerful engine settings from 1942 compared to the famous 1941 match up, but it more or less remains the same, well in this case the Spit gets an advantage in regards to climb rate.
  9. 2200 HP corresponds to +21 boost ^^ With +25 boost is a contender to the fastest, with +21 it's around the same level as D-9 and DB K-4, but the fastest down low would be the P-51B if it gets the option for the V-1650-7 engine and 81" as used by the Royal Air Force. The XIV would have the crown at the very high altitudes, at around 10 000 meters it would be the fastest prop fighter in the sim.
  10. @Ptolemy_Soter you have to understand with the amount of time and resources it takes to make these planes, we will never have all the blocks done. You ask for mustang D-5 and D-10, i'm 90% we will never see it in game given their close similarity to the already made D-15. So your alternative is waiting for them to be done which may as well never happen.
  11. Looking nice for the Jug ^^ I wonder are we going to get the Malcolm Hood as a modification for it? It fits so well with the plane imho.
  12. Yeah, on the good side they have the G-6, G-14 and K-4 3D models available so while not copy paste it would be easier than start from scratch.
  13. I don't think they should make all of the variants, just make a regular late G-6 and a AS one, and MW 50 option that can be combined for each. I would give up GM-1 for AS for example, and I can live with one type of tail only,
  14. I wouldn't like the AS as collector... It's not a hard to make plane, it's the late style cowling with the larger DB 603 supercharger which is already present in the DB 605D engine in the K-4. Having to spend 20 usd for that would leave a bad taste in my mouth imho. I personally think we should have gotten it as a G-14 modification for BoBP. Since now the G-6 Late is going to be very similar to the G-14 essentially it is a good opportunity to put more work into it and model a plane variant that can be useful for both BoN and BoBP scenarios with the AS & ASM engine. This as a mod or separate plane if skins are an issue, the vanilla DB 605A & 605AM G-6 Late should still be there as the main one, not talking about replacement but as a complement/addition. The G-6 with AS engines were present in the map sector even if coming from other bases, remember that we got 150 octane for the P-51, bombs for the Tempest, rockets for the Spit Mk IX, extra bomb pylons for the P-38. The Ar 234 we are getting will most likely be the one with full bomb capacity and wheel landing gear (the accurate one for Normandy should be recon only with skids). And IIRC the Ju 88 C-6a came from far away bases outside the map and made only a few sorties. All of the arguments that validate the inclusion of the previously mentioned mods for BoBP planes and some of the main BoN planes validate the inclusion of the ASM engine for the G-6 Late as a separate variant or modification. So it isn't that the G-6/ASM is some sort of wunderwaffe unicorn with the rest of the BoBP/BoN lineup consisting of extremely common well represented airfield on map accurate planes and modifications... And you can't say i'm an Axis only fan or "luftwhiner". I also think that we should have the super hot V-1 chaser boosts for some of the allied planes like 81" for the P-51B/C used by the British (with both V-1650-3 and V-1650-7 engines) and +21 & +25 boost even for the Spit Mk XIV as modifications.
  15. The Mk XVI had the US made Packard Merlin, late ones got the bubble but it wasn't exclusive on this version, other variants such as the Mk XIV and even Mk IX got it as well towards the end of the war
×
×
  • Create New...