Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

30 Excellent

About AndytotheD

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

228 profile views
  1. This shouldn’t work for German fighters, the drop tank for them typically feeds into the internal tank. For allied fighters I see this being viable, but decidedly dumb: in a Spitfire I’d kill for more gas overall, and the American fighters have enough tankage and performance that doing so would yield little advantage
  2. Think about it like this: due to increased drag the G-14 is actually slower at combat settings than its G-6 counterpart, until you use MW50 and get an extra 300hp out of the engine. A late G-6 without MW50 should be a little slower than the early model. With MW50 it should be as fast as the G-14. Really I’m hoping they give us something like a G-6/AS but very few, if any, saw action in Normandy. As it stands, I expect MW50 to be a modification, and there should be plenty of modifications
  3. That's the second time they've lost a jet in a not significant interval. If the last CT-114 was built in 1966 it might do to start replacing them.
  4. Are you engaging the MW50 in a dive? You can overspeed the prop that way and break it really quick
  5. I was literally a kid when I started playing this game. I must have been about 9 or 10 when I started playing in 2005-2006? I'm 23 now, and always flown under the Callsign AndytotheD, though I think Steam might use something different.
  6. I like to look ink the throttle to the turbocharger, keep the RPM in constant speed mode and advance/regress the RPMs as required. The engine drinks fuel at an astonishing rate (for the amount of fuel it can carry) so I’d also recommend running it at cruise power settings and lean mixture until you’re about to enter a fight, in which case shove everything fully forward and use water injection as appropriate. Additionally, above 27,000 feet, unlink the the turbocharger from the throttle to prevent overspeed. Personally speaking I only take the 8 guns. Getting behind some targets is hard enough for me that I’d like to make sure I kill them.
  7. I’ve read somewhere that a grand total of 27 D-9s had Ez 42 gyro gunsights, and that’s available as a mod
  8. we’ve had this discussion before, the G-10 actually turned out to be an absolute mess of different fuselage, wing and potentially engine combinations. Even if the name is not historically accurate, it well and truly deserved the moniker “bastard aircraft of the Erla factory”.
  9. Boyd's Aerial Attack Study has had the single greatest impact on my flying since I've been playing combat flight simulators. Even if you don't want to sit down and read the technical minutiae, the diagrams speak volumes.
  10. Probably about 380ish maximum speed. Not bad, but not nearly as fast as the pure bomber variants, which had the benefit of two stage merlins and the resultant high-altitude performance.
  11. I'm not saying it is a good reason. I just don't think that single tragedy shouldn't be used to decide their inclusion. I listed plenty of other operations where they were used in a tactical role, and plenty of strategic operations (Crossbow targets) that not only the strategic bombers took part in, but also our tactical fighters. Operations which will be simulated if the plane list for Normandy is accurate.
  12. "This kind of contentious use of airpower lingers around heavy bombers...a very good one, if not the best". "The unnecessary obliteration of Caen & almost all of it's civilian population..." Maybe I am putting words in your mouth but its awfully easy to infer.
  13. Those were the engagements I'm thinking of. You may be the first person I've met who considers the moral implications of strategic bombers in a combat flight simulator. I certainly haven't, so in that regard I commend you. However, please consider the following: Normandy will be simulating the V-1 offensive, a very deliberate terror bombardment campaign. If we want to be especially contentious, there will be players on the German side who are going to be flying in support of these operations. Maybe not as an assigned mission set, but it's not hard to imagine what kind of target the flight of B-25/26/recon planes you've been sent to intercept is trying to reach if you're over northwestern France. Speaking of the V-1 offensive, there are a variety of Operation Crossbow targets inside the map boundary that received attention from USAAF and RAF strategic bombers on numerous occasions (not limited to the tactical fighter action we will probably see against the bombs in the air and on the ground), that also don't involve razing a city. I consider this operation (including the tactical strikes and air defense against it) more of a strategic campaign then I do tactical, but it's being simulated all the same. The usage of strategic bombers here shouldn't be contentious. In regards to Caen, my research may be off, but I believe that was one of the few times a city was the target during one of the aforementioned operations. Indeed, it was razed by accident, the bombers were supposed to hit defenses outside the city, and the other bombing operations hit areas outside of towns (such as in Cobra or Goodwood) Ultimately, my want for strategic bombers is not from any blood lust for collateral damage, its for historical accuracy. We're finally in a theater that regularly included both strategic bombers and tactical fighter bombers on the same operations, and saying its a "tactical air war simulator" as an excuse doesn't fly anymore.
  14. With Normandy you’ll find that strategic bombers were very involved in the tactical engagements on the ground. It’s a shame the engine can’t handle it cause it would be fantastic to see at the least. CLOD seems to handle large bomber formations, with flak and fighters well. However, we’ll see if it remains that way after TF5.0 comes out. If it does it might be worth looking at what they did differently.
  15. Ours is a fighter bomber, with machine guns and cannon where a bombardier/navigator would sit.
  • Create New...