Jump to content

Arsenal53

Members
  • Content Count

    49
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

7 Neutral

About Arsenal53

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

373 profile views
  1. it's my feeling about this opus for now Only the 3D of the planes represents a progress compared to ROF, the map does not represent any progress. the AI is not adapted, it opens fire at distances that correspond rather to the distances of the second world war. it does not manage its speed and defensive maneuvers well and often crashes alone as soon as it goes close to the ground. no mission, no campaign, no career except creations that come from 3rd party This volume seems to me only for multiplayer dogfight I think that all this, for the moment, is too expensive. I really regret my purchase . This makes me much more circumspect for future volumes
  2. Strange thing, am i alone? With this update all the mission type icons on the map in quick mission seem to have been a little shifted. For exemple on Kuban some Solo flight icons are located over the water and not over an airfield, but it change nothing in the mission start
  3. by full power you mean 3000rpm and max boost? the pilot's notes for Spit IX with Merlin 61,63,66, 70 or 266 engine give this speeds and Rick Volker former display pilot of the canadian haritage team spitfire gave this testimony and another quote from Mr Feuilherade display pilot of the SAAF museum Spitfire: "... Basically, the Spitfire has no vices, and it really is very pleasant and easy to fly. The controls are so light and powerful that it feels as though your hand is hardly moving on the stick if you throw the aircraft around. I am quite convinced that is why the Spit was so good in combat, as you can fly it to the limits all day without your arm getting tired. Even at speed, you can hold it in a max rate turn on the light buffet, with a gentle two-fingered pull in the stick. As a comparison, at the end of my instructor’s course in the SAAF, we practised aerobatics in a Harvard for a few days in a row, for the end-of-course aerobatics competition. After a few days my arm was sore! You think you are maintaining a pressure on the stick, but involuntarily, your arm relaxes. Remember this was also in a Harvard, which handled pretty well compared to most general aviation aircraft. This is one reason the Spitfire was considered effortless to fly. The "broken" stick (only the top part moves for roll control) also works well, as your arm is not moving all over the cockpit. With the clipped tips the roll rate is brilliant. My display routine involved a pass down the crowd line at about 300 feet AGL, where I would do a straight roll. With a ghost of an upward pitch, check, and stick hard over, she rolled rapidly through 360 degrees. Out front the nose stayed planted, rolling on the reference point with no yaw divergence. I’ve mentioned the rudder earlier, but to add, it is extremely powerful indeed and requires very little use once she’s up and running. Both elevator and rudder trim are powerful and require small trim wheel movements to adjust. The rudder trim is a smaller wheel then the elevator trim wheel, which is slightly lower and further back. The aircraft has very gentle stall characteristics, with no wing drop tendency. You get a nice buzz on the stick as you approach the stall, giving you plenty of warning, and enabling accurate holding of a turn on the buffet (i.e. max rate). The aircraft really does feel like a willing participant in the air and you instinctively know it will always give its best for you. I can now understand how pilots grew to love it so much. Being able to out-turn from under the guns of a -109 or FW 190, well, you sure will get to love an aeroplane like that! At low power settings the engine is actually remarkably quiet, but as you open the throttle into positive boost settings, there is a wonderful growling that starts coming from under the rudder pedals up front... "
  4. I think we put our finger on the big concern of the flight models ...
  5. i can't go up to 1.5/1.55 ata at 3250 rpm with 100% throttle, and no more than 1.75/1.78 ata with MW50 engaged... am i alone or i missed something? it was just a quick test flight and altitude was maximum 500/600m ...
  6. Yes, definitively, Even only in AI, A8/R2 and Me 262 are the perfect opponents
  7. https://translate.google.fr/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=fr&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.deutscheluftwaffe.com%2Farchiv%2FDokumente%2FABC%2Fm%2FMotoren%2FBMW%2FLeistungssteigerung%2FBMW%20801%20D%20Leistungssteigerung.html&edit-text=&act=url
  8. i've taken the time to read the NACA document, but i've not found a indication of the time limitation and the maximum manifold pressure tested was 39 in/hg, this is equal to 1.34 ATA . On the manual the maximum use of 1.42 ATA is explained by cooling reasons. there is no indication that this equipement will broke. And yes, as the hypothesis issued by JtD, this equipment was probably modified on late engine. if the engine can run longer at a higher manifold pressure and maximum temperature, it can work at a lower pressure.
  9. yes it is perfectly understandable: without this system, impossible to draw more power from the engine. But the question is to know what is the reason of such limitation? it is the engine modifications (i mean the BMW801 F parts as pistons) that allow it to resist longer, isn't it?
  10. I don't think so, the boost increase to 1.58 / 1.65 was made possible simply besause that the limits of the engine have been pushed further, it's different from the injection of A5 fuel. It could, in this manner sustain a higher pressure in the cylinders thanks to the engine modification. If the pressure can be higher then it must be logical that the engine must sustain a lower pressure for a longer time. As for the manual, they simply added a paragraph descibing this new feature. If the limitation at 1.42 had remained they would have written it on the new inscription near the button but they don't
  11. This is very strange... Is this normal ? what is the explanation? Strange also that the margin with 1/58ATA/2700RPM Erhöhte Notleistung engaged is so smaller than 1.42ATA/2700RPM
  12. @Ishtaru why did you made the test with 50% fuel? Is that an historical procedure? is time from the groundstart to the max altitude or from the start of climb to the max altitude?
  13. i've not bought yet "clash at Prokhorovka" but i'm thinking about it, i would have liked to see the gear shift in the conduct, it's important feature specially with heavy tanks
  14. I have a question for the developers: Can't it be possible to have in the options the GM1 boost? certainly it is not very useful in multiplayer but offline, on historic missions at high altitude against Mustang, Spitfire or Thunderbolt it would allow a few more options. Subsidiary question: there are sources that talk about FW 190 A8 motorised with BMW 801 TS / TH (Basically, as i understand, a BMW 801 D-2 engine fitted with the oil cooler of the BMW 801 F and the oil tank of the BMW 801 D and TH. It was delivered with a cowl in which the nose armor was increased to 10 millimeters and oil tank armor was increased to six millimeters)? These engines would offer (and I use the conditional as there is a lot of conflicting informations) an increase of 17 km / h at the combat power. There are several red planes that have a second engine in option, why not offer one to the blues?
  15. this A8 has a very slow speed increase, even in dive and is built as a tank! i've made a test with a A8 with three SC 250, started a vertical dive from 5800m ,full emergency power and full trim down 390 kmh IAS, 800kmh IAS is reached at approximately 3000m and start the recovery with full trim and full joystick up always with all my bomb load. Just a little blackout , lost an aileron because my speed exceeded 850 kmh IAS but i didn't rip off my wings. Is that plane not too much strong?
×
×
  • Create New...