Jump to content

-=PHX=-SuperEtendard

Members
  • Content Count

    1653
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1343 Excellent

2 Followers

About -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Buenos Aires, Argentina

Recent Profile Visitors

2219 profile views
  1. Yes the drag is different, and you also have the different propeller, but it's the best shot we have at trying to see how it would handle in the current engine flight model. And this was more about low speed dogfighting, yes it's a factor but still it's the best we have and it's better than just speculation ^^ We could consider it as absolute worst case scenario, the actual XIV would be somewhat better than that given the cleaner airframe and better prop.
  2. At least looks like in trials it was noted to not be too much different than the Mk IX in overall agility. Also even with the extra 500 Kg of weight it still retains a lower wing loading than competing German fighters (from 141 Kg/m^2 to 170 Kg/m^2, compared to 200 Kg/m^2 of the 109G-14). Altitude will be important as well, given depending on the altitude the Griffon will have more or less of a power advantage over the Merlin, and this helps offseting the difference in wing loading. I made this chart by joining two of the power charts available at WWIIaircraftperformance.com website, and slighlty reescaling them, anyway for a rough comparison it should be fine (error just in single HP digits) If you compare for example +18 Mk XIV vs +18 Mk IX, you can see that at sea level the difference is roughly 300 HP, between 12k/13k feet the difference is the greatest at 400-450 HP. When comparing +21 Mk XIV vs +25 Mk IX the differences are much smaller at low altitude, at around 9K feet and 23k feet it grows back to the 400 HP region. Funnily enough +25 boost Mk IX has the basically the same power as the +18 boost Mk XIV between 13k and 18k of altitude. So currently you can have a bit of an approximation on how the Spit XIV could handle in this situation: take a Spit Mk IX, load it with bombs (almost 500 Kg extra weight), put the 150 octane modification and fight some 109s at 13k - 18k feet. You will have a good bit of extra drag but so far it would be the best approximation 👍 (also propeller efficiency differences).
  3. In game if they make the speed correct it will match the K-4 at 1.8, given it has a bit of overspeed at the deck (605 km/h / 376 mph).
  4. Are these as stand in for the other A-20 variants that generally operated at this point and time or did these still have some active A-20Bs in their inventories? If so maybe we could convince the devs to implement them officially.
  5. The engine controls for the La-5 are: Throttle Boost (not in the FN) RPM Mixture (not in the FN) Supercharger Engine cowling front shutters Engine cowling rear shutters Oil Radiator Shutters. And all of them are manual and need to be managed in the game, nothing is automatic when using the expert difficulty mode. Like JtD says, in game players (and specially multiplayer) aren't cruising at max economy settings, so they keep the RPM, mixture, supercharger, and cooling controls set for the auto rich maximum continuous operation... they don't have to do a combat air patrol for as much as they can stay in the air over the frontline until bingo fuel, or escort a bomber flight that has to hit a target 300km away, they just make a 40 min sortie and then either get shotdown or return to the closest airfield a couple dozen km away. Veccu's post implies the planes don't have their manual features modelled properly and that there are automatic systems regulating them instead, but that's wrong. It's just that in the game's environment there is no need to do stuff like cruising at mid altitudes with weak mixture, first supercharger speed and low RPM, specially in the typical multiplayer mission.
  6. I was talking about one of the pictures in the document in the link I posted, which I didn't include in the post.
  7. Yeah its true, but I feel like these 3D model changes could be incorporated with the modifications, as it happens with some other planes in the game (Hurricane changes the intake, exhaust tubes, gunsight, P-47 and P-51 change the throttle lever, Hs 129 changes the exhaust tubes and ammo counter, Bf 110G changes the whole frontal part of the gunner seat position with the 37mm cannon, etc). Could be a very interesting selling point being able to accurately portray these variants like that
  8. We could have it all separated as different modifications: Standard Merlin 61 => +15 boost early Spit Mk IXc Merlin 63 mod => +18 boost mid Spit Mk IXc Merlin 66 mod => +18 boost mid-lateish Spit Mk IXc 150 oct mod (greyed out except for Merlin 66) => +25 boost late Spit Mk IXc, as some round tail c armament spits were still in the Bodenplatte period.
  9. Thanks, looking at it, it manages to decrease the penetration range to about 500 yards (460 meters). Your guess was quite good, just 10º difference ^^ They would still offer protection against fragmentation or direct high explosive hits at least. In the end though the Germans started added some quite thick armor in their late fighters, I think the Dora should have 20mm thick headrest, late strike variants of the 190A as well.
  10. Yeah, if there is a chart for face hardened armor we could use that ^^ Also I thought that once the round caliber exceeds the armor thickness by a significant margin high hardness starts decreasing the penetration resistance rather than increasing it. Like it happens with the T-34, it's 45mm high hardness armor makes it more effective against 37mm projectiles but comparatively less effective against 75mm and larger rounds than if it had softer armor.
  11. For what I could measure in game it's at around 35º from the vertical, we can check the penetration in function of angle and distance. Ignore the red lines as those were in the original image, also there is no line for 35º, so i'm going to use 40º since it's the closest, and gives it a bit more resistance as well. First we dial in the armor thickness (8mm or 0.315 inches) and check how fast does the M2 AP round need to travel to defeat it at a 40º from the vertical angle. Around 1800 ft/s. Then we see at which distance does the velocity drop off to 1825 ft/s from the 36 inch barrel, and the chart says around 860 yards, so roughly 790 meters. So from a more or less straight 6 o clock, we can say an M2 AP round can consistently defeat a 8mm plate at 40º from the vertical from 750 meters or less. Also I noticed because of it's forward angle, from higher angle deflection shots the pilot head does get exposed a bit:
  12. Some pages of the manual scanned in this website: http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/DETAILSITE/DE/410/me410.htm It shows detailed schematics of some of the different armament configurations In the end looks like the BK 5 configuration retains the 20mm as they are listed with the plus sign, and the schematic doesn't show the barrels poking out, so they must fit.
  13. 37mm gun 8 x 50/70 Kg in the bomb bay, also above the top bomb in the middle, looks like that's armored glass behind the nose window? 6 x 20mm configuration? 50mm + 2 x 20mm (I guess when only the 50mm barrel is protuding the 20mm are taken out? since these ones are shifted forwards as they most likely wouldn't fit in their regular position). The ZFR 4 sight used in the 410 had both a telescopic and a reflector sight:
  14. And there were never any G-14s, K-4s, 262s and D-9s flying over any of the eastern front maps we have.
  15. It was adjusted but not fully corrected (it still losses some manifold pressure but not as much as it did before ) The one thats working correctly is the new Bf 109 G-6 Late for Normandy. I hope they bring its engine model to the rest of the 109G lineup
×
×
  • Create New...