Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

94 Excellent

About chuter

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Napa, California
  • Interests
    I'm an A319/A320 heavy maintenance airframe mechanic but I'm not so very interested in them (a heck of a lot cleaner than Boeings, though - lol). I'm also single engine land/sea - woohoo! Update: Now I'm working all fleets in Scheduled Special Route, Anything from overnights to month-long visits. Almost all my work involves fixing vendor work.

Recent Profile Visitors

690 profile views
  1. Cool. If the US Army was ever interested in taking on the terrain and/or obstacles they probably would've preferred the Panther - lol. As it is I think they'll settle for their historical 3.6/1 kill advantage over Panthers. Only about 15% of enemy engagements by Shermans were with enemy armor of any sort and the Panther's problem areas (too small of a turret and a quite narrow field of view for the gunner being two) coupled with inexperienced crews prevented the Panther from being used to full advantage.
  2. It's a rather interesting question and fun to speculate on outcomes. In response to my question of "why would they" a good point is brought up concerning Shermans being ambushed and having to fight but I have to say I don't really consider that the question, though. That is "reacting to" the Tigers. I see that as "can 10 Tigers defeat 20 Shermans" - lol. Just about 10 of anything properly ambushing 20 of anything else has a shot at defeating that anything else. To me the question implies 20 Shermans are on one side of a hill deciding if they should take on the 10 Tigers on the other side. So, back to the question: With a proper computer, good connection and, maybe, some slick skins I say "HELL, YEAH!", I'd give it a go. Grass range set to 0.0000, though ... can't have that handicap.
  3. I think it was something like 15% of enemy engagements by Shermans was with enemy armor of all types. Anyway, why would Shermans engage Tigers if they could call on artillery or anti-armor infantry units?
  4. It could've lasted that long by being very heavily damaged (but not burned) a few times which would have kept it off the frontline for quite some time for repairs. Edit ---> See above.
  5. But the "weight" being added by the elevator isn't weight (mass) at all, it's force. That force is acting in one direction only: down. If it behaved like mass it would destabilize the airplane further (moving the CG aft) making it more prone to groundlooping. As a taildragger pilot I've only flown one plane with a free castoring tailwheel and my experience with it was that more or less elevator only changed the compression of the tailwheel spring (it was a six inch tailwheel). I preferred raising the tail as soon as possible for quicker acceleration and more rudder authority. The drag, or skid, effect could be valid in grass, however, although I don't recall anything like that specifically being beneficial as the front wheels are wading along as well. (A smooth grass strip is like velvet - OMG!!!) Steerable tailwheels, on the other hand, can be helped by elevator downforce because of the resulting improved tire traction - like how a racecar uses downforce. I have no doubt up elevator improves ground handling in game as you say but that characteristic is decidedly different than reality. (Maybe we should preface all discussions as such. lol)
  6. Of course, the non-retractable Spitfire tailwheels were non-steerable 360° free-castoring so I'm not really sure how full up elevator would help other than aerodynamically ...
  7. -- Wait, what? The Interwebs copying itself? -- I really think that a real event (a plane, maybe "Dixie Gal", "struck the ground" while Capt. Hall was strafing and and then returned to base) somehow got connected with a photo of "Dixie Gal" after a belly landing. One way to clear this up would be to look at the history of "Dixie Gal" and see if separate incidents are noted. (Of course, he it might have bellied in after returning from said mission adding to the damage ...) Have you seen "p-38 halifax mid air collision"? Obviously (to me, anyway) a Halifax ran over a parked P-38 (actually an F-5) and it's advertised as a mid-air collision the P-38 flew away from. The image and caption are taken straight from a physical book but ... still ... really, people? lol Hey, I just came across this in "Air-to-Ground Battle for Italy" by Brigadier General Michael C. McCarthy on page 92: "I had picked a young, bright first lieutenant to be my assistant operations officer. He had been an outstanding flight commander who took care of his guys and demonstrated unusual leadership qualities. P. M. Hall also seemed to be a magnet for88-mm flak. He had already brought two heavily damaged P-47sback to Grosseto that could not land safely on the runway. He belly-landed both beautifully on the beach at Marina Di Grosseto within walking distance of our squadron building. Before the war ended, “Pranger” Hall would add two more P-47s to his victory list. P. M. survived the war but continued his penchant for crash landing good flying machines and, finally, bailed out o fa P-80 in Alaska in frigid winter conditions. He did not survive.The country lost another great fighter pilot."
  8. A propeller produces almost all of its thrust in the outer 40% of the blade with peak efficiency at around 25% from the tip. Losing the outer 20/25% of the blades is going to rob you of most of your thrust. For the crew this must have been ... exciting. Now that I think of it, I believe I have this aircraft confused with one that did the same thing but Americans are posing with it ... not at a German airfield (I think, unless this one didn't actually make it back to a friendly field).
  9. There's really no way this flew with that prop. (I haven't flown a Jug but I've helped change an engine in one and I've sat in a couple, so I'm clearly qualified to make this statement. 😎) The entire belly is flattened all the way back to, and including, the turbo shroud. This airplane landed gear up, was raised and gear dropped and then towed to where photographed. I've been part of several runway recoveries and this one is very typical. What often happens is a very real incident gets associated somewhere down the line with either the wrong aircraft, or often times, the same aircraft but with a photograph after a different incident. The question is: Would an aluminum prop have lasted with the same damage?
  10. The Sherman (M4A3E8) shown is armed with the 76mm M1A2. The Jumbo (M4E3E2) has it's original 75mm M3, although they were sometimes upgunned in the field. All nominal versions of the Sherman were available with the 75mm M3 but some M4A3s came from the factory with the 76 which used a longer barrel either without a muzzle brake as the 76mm M1 (<-- gun designation) or with a cylindrical two baffle brake as the 76mm *M1A1C or M1A2 (<-- those are gun, not tank, designations) but not to be confused with the 17pdr with globular single baffle muzzle brake on the Firefly which was used by the UK. Some M4A1s, M4A2s and additional M4A3s (<-- those are tank designations) were upgraded with the 76 (ex. M4A1(76)W and M4A2(76)W. *Gun M1A1C delivered with threaded barrel and thread protector but no muzzle brake, which was to be installed when available later in the field. At some point everything in Army life is an M1.
  11. chuter


    No one said so, it was simply implied as that's how the game was released, the average person believing a game pitting one side against the other does so giving each side an equal opportunity to win. Yes, the PIII was the German main battle tank at the time but I think the game would have been more balanced had the game pitted the T34/76 against the StuG IIIG 75 L/43 rather than the PIIIL 50 L/60*. I realize this is a sim and as such is based on reality but neither of these two approaches are factually "wrong" and yet they provide two very different gameplay experiences. In the game the T34 dominated the PIII early in development and then the Tiger was released with a rather redundant KV1. The extra armor of the KV1 made it almost immune to the already struggling PIII but didn't help much against the Tiger which now dominates the game (complaints of a dominating T34 replaced by complaints of a dominating Tiger.) Gameplay parity is important because few people like to play a game with a baked-in disadvantage for one side even if it's historical.** I don't know, just my pointless (I'm not a consultant to the team - lol) musings. *T34 losses at the time included 10% to 75/long and 54% to 50/long. The reasons for the success of the RL PIII against the T34 not being a factor in the sim gameplay. **To counter this the EFront server has at least one map where Red wins if they still have a flag remaining at the expiration of time, Blue needing to run the map to win. >>> Still playing the game and wishing for more tank servers. The server list needs module check boxes like what is used for password servers. <<<
  12. chuter


    Yeah, the P IV is ~basically~ just a P III with a gun. And remember, the game expected the P III to be competitive with the T34 so the P IV should be OP - lol. I like the P IV, too, but you have to keep Reds at arms length or you're done for.
  13. But the NA engineers were just about the only ones to get Meredith to work (other than DH with the Mosquito) as noted in your source: "This efficient cooling system arrangement is credited with much of the Mustang's superior performance over the Spitfire." and testing of an in service aircraft showed "... the aircraft was unlikely to have a substantial laminar flow on the wing and transition occurred in the first 15% of the chord." The ideal being 47% chord. That's about all your source goes into on the Mustang. Of note, both Messerschmitt and Supermarine failed to get Meredith to work and consequently spent much effort into getting Laminar flow to work without much success either. The bottom line is the Mustang just didn't have any appreciable cooling drag which, by itself, is huge.
  14. There were no 8th AF P-38 groups at the end of 1944 and the 9th AF had the 367th FG, 370th FG and 474th FG. The 370th FG went to Mustangs in January 1945 and the 367th FG to P-47s in February 1945. The 9th AF was tasked with tactical interdiction and the three P-38 groups were all equipped with some Snoot noses for formation bombing missions which the Mustangs and Thunderbolts weren't equipped for.
  • Create New...