BlitzPig_EL Posted April 19, 2016 Posted April 19, 2016 Starting to fall in love Was it fair....no!....is air combat fair?...NO! But it's actually a very nice energy fighter as people have said (and I totally discounted).....It can't climb kinda like the 190 but it's very good at high speeds! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQ_9YoV_kA0 Welcome to the Flying Tigers. 2
6./ZG26_Emil Posted April 19, 2016 Posted April 19, 2016 Just going through the tracks. This is now two pilot kills on a 109 in a row, both from just a handful of rounds hitting them and these 0.50 cals absolutely rip bombers to shreds.
Crump Posted May 9, 2016 Posted May 9, 2016 I posted this in the other thread but here's the quick and Crumpized version: There are "the book" rules and then there's "what you do to win" rules and when the equipment doesn't perform when following "the book", then you do what's necessary to make it perform, and the limits became the equipment's, not the 8-hour WER-level Army 50-point inspection test in the States to verify safe long-term longevity. That's what happened IRL. But that is not what happened in real life. In real life, praying for a combat fairy to come rescue you is not a recipe for success and airplanes require copious amounts of maintenance to remain airworthy. Limitations are set based upon the very narrow engineering margins required for flight. Exceeding those limitations means things are going to break. Actually read the Allison memo you so often quote but seem to not understand. Instead you selectively cherry picking a single fact that the engine was overboosted under very specific atmospheric conditions by a few individuals. You seem to completely overlook the fact the entire point of the memo is stop it so that the engines do not blow up and kill the pilot. You want to turn the memo into evidence this was a widespread and accepted practice when in fact it is evidence for exactly the opposite. The practice was being squashed by both the USAAF and the manufacturer. It was not being squashed because anyone wanted to lose the war or create pilot casualties. It was squashed to prevent pilot casualties and win the war. Making immature personal insults does not change the fallacy of your conclusions.
BlitzPig_EL Posted May 9, 2016 Posted May 9, 2016 Yet the problem remains that the limits on the V1710 currently in this game are not how anyone really used the engine in combat. If you exceed 2600rpm and/or about 37 inches of manifold, the engine will seize in very short order. I have tried every method I can think of with combinations of different RPM, manifold pressure and radiator outlet opening to find an effective engine setting for combat, and there simply isn't one. I have simply given up flying my baby. Hell, the I16 is more effective against 109s than the P40 is, and that is just nonsense. I can't imagine how the P 39, with the same engine, will be greeted by those trying to emulate Pokryshkin"s exploits. 2
Crump Posted May 9, 2016 Posted May 9, 2016 If you exceed 2600rpm and/or about 37 inches of manifold, the engine will seize in very short order. That should not happen. I agree that something is amiss if your P-40 is not a viable fighter. It was a great design and the mount of numerous aces. It should be a premier angle fighter against the Bf-109 series and easily outpace the Bf-110 series. Modeling engine settings that will damage the aircraft and occurred under very narrow atmospheric conditions as well as flight conditions should not be the answer.
Venturi Posted May 9, 2016 Posted May 9, 2016 And yet, for someone with such strong opinions, you really have no idea of the current reality of the product and the relative performances of planes. All you have to go off of is other people's measurements of the planes' performance and those people's opinions, on which you overlay your opinion. It would lend great credibility to your statements if you could try flying even one time in Wings of Liberty. Not that I expect you'll support this project with cash, rather than mere words..
Crump Posted May 9, 2016 Posted May 9, 2016 (edited) And yet, for someone with such strong opinions, It is not strong opinion's Venturi....it is plain fact. I would be happy to try it and I hope things change. I cannot justify spending 160 USD and be treated as I have by the community manager and some members of the community. Edited May 9, 2016 by Crump
1CGS LukeFF Posted May 9, 2016 1CGS Posted May 9, 2016 (edited) It is not strong opinion's Venturi....it is plain fact. I would be happy to try it and I hope things change. I cannot justify spending 160 USD and be treated as I have by the community manager and some members of the community. Oh, please. If you are as truly knowledgeable as you say you are about aviation, then buying the game and giving it an honest, education opinion should be a small thing. But, we all know why you hang around here. Edited May 10, 2016 by LukeFF 1
Jason_Williams Posted May 10, 2016 Posted May 10, 2016 Closed for personal bickering. I don't have time to police this stuff. Jason 2
Recommended Posts