Solution to the Flap Issue

January 21, 2016

I see the flaps issue is being broached again in several threads. I don't really have much of a problem with them as I am typically a BNZ guy and don't twist with the turn fighters but............

I have thought long and hard about this and think I may have a solution that works for both parties.

Firstly, lets assume the Yak flaps function more or less properly and are modeled well. Aerodynamic pressure closes them at high speed and they extend when that pressure decreases. I'm good with that.

Secondly, lets assume they are being "gamed" to an advantage that is ahistorical. I think most would agree here as well. Even those who use them. It's not horrible, it is an advantage only in a dedicated turn fight or zoom climb, it is easilly overcome by the opponent who refuses to engage in such a fight.

Thirdly, and this is something that has not been addressed: The flaps close 'automatically' by activating a bleed or bypass valve to keep the system from overpressurizing and failing. Is this correct?

If the third assumption is true, this bleed system is a safety feature to prevent damage to the system. As such, it should be a failsafe and not a primary system. It should NOT be immune from breakage much like the engines. Gaming the system in an ahistorical manner should overheat, stress and/or break after such abuse.

The solution then is: Set a time limit (five minutes) for abusing the failsafe in the same fashion we set a time limit on engine abuse. It will either force people to manage the flaps manually, fight more historically or break the system. It is implemented with engines and should not be terribly difficult to do with the flaps. The flap guys get to use their flaps fairly judicuosly but not infinitely. The other side can reduce their uber talk considerably. The overall FM becomes more historical without compromising the historically accurate engineering or taking a valuable tool away from one side and that can only be a good thing.

Like I said, I don't persaonlly have a problem with the flap guys. The 'exploit' can be exploited by a skilled opponent as well. I think this would be an excellent compromise and we can all finally move on.

(Although I have been thinking on this for some time I wrote it down pretty fast. I may do some edits/compromises/comments to further clarify down the line.)

Edit: I should probably say, as well, I was an aviation pneudraulics (pneumatics/hydraulics) tech for my first hop in the army and that $#!+ broke all the time. It was an endless parade of tubes, hoses and fittings on much more advanced systems than I suspect any army had in the 1940's. It's kinda what got me thinking about it from that aspect in the first place.

Edited January 21, 2016 by [LBS]HerrMurf

January 21, 2016

I don't care they use them on turn fight, I used the combat flaps on 109 on IL21946, but just annoyed when it's used to get a little lift (very stable) in zooming. But I accept it the 109 and the 190 can evade it if well manœuvre. And since the LW is always (not in the morning) overcrowded, I live well and sleep well with that.

January 21, 2016

5 min sounds like a lot more than necessary to abuse it. It's not like they are going to return to base with the flaps extended.

If we make it even less, it will feel like it's excessive, if we make it 5 or more, we don't solve anything...

It's a tough situation.

January 21, 2016

Maybe we could bring back the 109 prop pitch cheat that was so popular in the original Il-2 series. No Luftwaffe player ever complained about that and it might level the playing field.

January 21, 2016

I'm not a technician but the flaps work with air pressurized ? Maybe their effectiveness can be lowered at altitude when the air is thinner and the compressor need to work more.

January 21, 2016

Maybe we could bring back the 109 prop pitch cheat that was so popular in the original Il-2 series.

Would you elaborate a little more ?

Edited January 21, 2016 by Herr_Istruba

January 21, 2016

Maybe we could bring back the 109 prop pitch cheat that was so popular in the original Il-2 series. No Luftwaffe player ever complained about that and it might level the playing field.

Kind of the opposite of encouraging historical FM/DM implementations.

5 min sounds like a lot more than necessary to abuse it. It's not like they are going to return to base with the flaps extended.

If we make it even less, it will feel like it's excessive, if we make it 5 or more, we don't solve anything...

It's a tough situation.

I think five minutes is a good compromise for both those who use it and those who hate it. Less takes away a tool, more seems gamey. I'm OK with something in the neighborhood. Let's call it three to five then and let the Devs decide.

Like the engine limits, you can use it for a whole round if you are judicious in your use of it. On the other hand if you just keep it to the stops all the time it will fail you when you most need it.

A smart pilot will still have it for most or all of a round because he will fold them up fairly often but it will limit some of the ahistorical infinite looping with the flaps permanently popped out.

Edited January 21, 2016 by [LBS]HerrMurf

January 21, 2016

Maybe we could bring back the 109 prop pitch cheat that was so popular in the original Il-2 series. No Luftwaffe player ever complained about that and it might level the playing field.

Well played sir.

"Fixing" the flaps in the manner described is every bit as bogus as using them all the time. It's every bet as wrong as the timer on engines that ensures an automatic catastrophic engine failure after X amount of time has elapsed.

January 21, 2016

Like I said, it doesn't bother me personally. I'm just tired of the bickering and endless posting on the subject. I think it's a workable compromise for both parties. Just gotta cross the aisle and shake on it, as it were.

Mods, I'm happy to have you move this over to SUGGESTIONS in a couple of days. Once there are a couple pages of discussion.

Edited January 21, 2016 by [LBS]HerrMurf

January 21, 2016

Well played sir.

"Fixing" the flaps in the manner described is every bit as bogus as using them all the time. It's every bet as wrong as the timer on engines that ensures an automatic catastrophic engine failure after X amount of time has elapsed.

Maybe.

Do you have some constructive input on the flaps issue? The first assumption is they are modeled (mechanically) correctly. And it is clear they are being gamed pretty badly ATM.

A time limit doesn't compromise the mechanics or their use as a tactical tool but it does reduce just riding them for an entire round. I think it's a workable compromise.

What do you suggest?

January 21, 2016

Would you elaborate a little more ?

I never used it myself, but the idea was if you kept twiddling the prop pitch on Olegs mid war 109s, you could run forever on maximum throttle and never overheat. It was apparently very popular and allowed them to zoom and hang on their propeller like a shoe on the other foot.

January 21, 2016

I'd probably set a G limit but yeah, good post.

January 21, 2016

Very good OP!

January 21, 2016

I never used it myself, but the idea was if you kept twiddling the prop pitch on Olegs mid war 109s, you could run forever on maximum throttle and never overheat. It was apparently very popular and allowed them to zoom and hang on their propeller like a shoe on the other foot.

I also liked how the flaps were modelled in Olegs 109, this coupled with manual prop pitch exploit allowed to perform some very awesomely hard and stable maneuver. I remember how i learned those tricks by some very skillful "luftwaffe" pilots back then. Cannot remember any of them calling the 109 a clown wagon though . Memory is so selective sometimes...

I suspect most of the debate (and especially the hate in it) comes from the frustration of not being able to use the good old oleg 109 flaps, so useful in incredible hammerheads, back in the old Oleg times. I miss them so much too.

More seriously, something must be done with the YAks flaps, add instability or stall so that we end these boring flap threads...And start complaining about the next annoying things about soviet fighters.

Edited January 21, 2016 by Yak9Micha

January 21, 2016

flying around with the flaps at 2%, it was something the germans did too, so I don't see why people cry about this. Hell even bud Anderson talks about how he add a little flaps
to get a better Alpha on the nose to shoot his opponent down in a FW190.

and the axis on the BF109 tail Stabilizer to out turn a yak isn't problem either I guess?!

Edited January 21, 2016 by 71st_Mastiff

January 21, 2016

Good idea, please accept my +1

- It is a simplification like the engine limits, but that does not make it bogus. Both are attempts to nudge people towards normal usage, details can be adjusted.

January 21, 2016

Maybe we could bring back the 109 prop pitch cheat that was so popular in the original Il-2 series. No Luftwaffe player ever complained about that and it might level the playing field.

Kinda like how no Yak pilot ever complains about the flaps as they're currently modeled?

Or if you want to stick to 1946, kinda like how no VVS pilot ever complained about the miracle of Delta Wood?

Your post contributes nothing. It only demonstrates your selective memory (targeting Luftwaffe simmers) while ignoring the fact that improper modeling and mistakes have always been present on both sides. Some might call that bias.

Edited January 21, 2016 by Go_Pre

January 21, 2016

Maybe we could bring back the 109 prop pitch cheat that was so popular in the original Il-2 series. No Luftwaffe player ever complained about that and it might level the playing field.

Please do, I used to fly loose deuce wingman a lot and those 109s hanging on their props were lovely targets. So many kills because the 109 guy hung his plane up so nicely for me.

January 21, 2016

Maybe we could bring back the 109 prop pitch cheat that was so popular in the original Il-2 series. No Luftwaffe player ever complained about that and it might level the playing field.

BoS had it, if you remember back the endless power from the Bf-109 F-4 go over 3000 RPM with prop pitch and beyond. That was BoS Early Access fun!

---> I can fly a Bf-109 or a La-5 with flaps with over 700 km/h and is this a problem that my Bf-109 or La-5 not the same but similar high speed manoeuvrability has like the Fw-190?

---> Who is the one who try to turn after a Yak? I see a Yak coming in front of me. The Yak turns. I climb. The Yak lose much energy thanks to his turn to get behind me. I stay higher than him and can refuel my energy everytime I start to attack him. And who wins? The one that stay higher than his enemy.

---> AAA - Ace Level who cares. I did a speed run with over 500 km/h low and fast with a La-5 and Bf-109 over a enemy airfield. The flak started to shoot at me. Over me a lot of movement. In front of me my target that I followed across the map to shoot him down. That was fun. Never the AAA or flak was able to shoot me down. More funnier was the movement above me. The enemy planes maybe notice the flak and AAA fire but not notice where I am. I recommend everybody to do this what I did. It is like poking into a hornet nest. How is the feeling if above you are more than 5x angry enemy planes around you the flak and AAA fire and in front of you your target. If you are able to stay alive and to shoot down your target this is how a ACE-pilot feels to get the maximum experience

January 21, 2016

The phenomen people complain about ingame has nothing to to wiht turn radius or time. It's the fact that at very high pitch angles deploying landing flaps in the Yak nearly eliminates any stall characteristics and provides steady, stable contorll of the aircraft. You'll not rarely see people climbing steep in their Yaks, popping flaps when reaching the peak and than use rudder to turn the plane like a turret to aim at the (high above) contrahents or prophanging vertically with 0km/h like an Extra 300.

It also has very high energy rentention wihtout flaps which (at leats to me) is suspecious compared to any other aircraft inagme, but this is difficult to prove without NASA level of ressearch.

A time limit is not solving this issue at all, because it's an aerodynamical issue (and thus should be approached aerodynamicly) and flap usage is comperably short. What is probably worth paying attention to is the physics/damage model of flaps so they get effected by high G-forces and eventually bend or break.

Edited January 21, 2016 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

January 21, 2016

Comparing this sim to another, even our beloved '46, is a red herring. Even worse is saying, "hey, that obviously wrong exploit was cool. Let's implement it." Please don't do it.

January 21, 2016

If the flaps (or any other component) are modeled correctly then they are not being gamed. If they are being gamed then they are not modeled correctly.

Here's what I mean. Partially modeling a feature to include its good points but not its bad points is not modeling something correctly. It would be like modeling unlimited methanol injection with no consequences.

I really don't know nearly enough to tell you whether this is how a Yak really works and this is how Yaks were really flown (or not). They may be modeled perfectly and, if so, people need to deal with it. However, anything that gives a non historical advantage (gaming the sim - see Pfalzicopter) cannot be said to be modeled correctly.

Last, this seems to be less of an issue than it is made out to be. Herr Murf states that he can deal with Yaks with Flaps just fine by using correct tactics. If that's the case ... learn correct tactics.

January 21, 2016

FM issues are issues, no matter if and how you or anybody can overcome it with skill, luck, tactics, whatever. Why this is always brought up in a clearly FM related topic shows how people think of this being more of a balanced e-sports game rather than sim.

But thats not new since this has been discussed in the FM section already and came to no result. Not because there's no issue but because theres simply lack of hard data and calculation to mathematicly confirm it.

Edited January 21, 2016 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

January 21, 2016

FM issues are issues, no matter if and how you or anybody can overcone it with skill, luck, tactics, whatever. Why this is always brought up in a clearly FM related topic shows how people think of this being more of a balanced e-sports game rather than sim.

+100

January 21, 2016

Comparing this sim to another, even our beloved '46, is a red herring. Even worse is saying, "hey, that obviously wrong exploit was cool. Let's implement it." Please don't do it.

I was only joking about the prop thing. Just a moment of nostalgia for Forgotten Banter.

January 21, 2016

I really don't know nearly enough to tell you whether this is how a Yak really works and this is how Yaks were really flown (or not). They may be modeled perfectly and, if so, people need to deal with it. However, anything that gives a non historical advantage (gaming the sim - see Pfalzicopter) cannot be said to be modeled correctly.

Russian performance trials concluded, that late Yak1 was comparable in horizontal turn to the 109F. 109 was slightly superior in low level turning, Yak was slightly superior at mid-altitudes around 3000m-4000m, above 109 was slightly superior again. This is true in game for the Yak when it's not deploying it's flaps. I think everyone here knows what happens, when you deploy the flaps. There are two possible conclusions:

1. flaps are modeled wrong

2. Russian pilots were to stupid to use their flaps in WW2 to gain the respective huge advantage in turning

January 21, 2016

Do any other BoS aircraft benefit from deploying flaps in combat?

January 21, 2016

What we've always lacked as a community is well detailed spreadsheets or line graphs detailing every planes characteristics like we had in IL2: 1946, most importantly showing the turn rate and climb rate at different flap settings at multiple altitudes. Until we have everything set in fact it's very difficult to know who is right or wrong.

Me personally doesn't have a problem with the flaps on the Yak. It's certainly a great tool to pull a consistent hard turn however the flaps course the yak to bleed speed incredibly fast, something that not everyone takes into consideration as many pilots fight in pure pursuit (constantly turning as hard a possible to get their opponent in their gun solution). If both pilots, German and Russian (109 vs Yak) are guilty of that then the Yak will win every time. Any good German pilot knows that if a Yak has it's flaps deployed and is rapidly gaining on them, they'll be "cashing in" a lot of energy to achieve it. There are many solutions to deal with such an opponent that is going slow to turn fast, that's where the saying "go slow to kill fast" derived from but a good pilot knows how to deal with such a tactic. That's my take on it, but I could be proven wrong if their is a almost glitch like advantage but I can't see that myself.

Adding a timer to the Yaks flap wouldn't necessarily change the way a turn fight is fought as most pilots fight in pure pursuit anyway and wouldn't last 5 minutes however two identically high skilled pilots would go on for much longer and the Yak wouldn't stand a chance as it's ability to out turn the 109 would be lost due to damaged flaps. It's very difficult to find a reasonable flight mechanic that makes it fair without losing any historical accuracy assuming it is correct.

Edited January 21, 2016 by =69.GIAP=RADKO

January 21, 2016

Do any other BoS aircraft benefit from deploying flaps in combat?

this was asked before in the FM thread, so i can answer you for some aircraft:

Il2: same like Yak

Mig3: goes into the direction of the Yak, seems also quite fishy. Not as extreme as the Yak though.

109: until 10% you can feel a slight increase in sustained turning circle. Nowhere near the Yak though. If you deploy the Flaps to a degree comparable to the Yaks "all-out" flaps, so around 60%, it completely f***s up your performance..wobbly, and quite prone to stall (quite the opposite from the Yak). Overall they seem plausible, comparable to flaps in 1946

La5 and 190: Flaps are negative in pretty much any aspect of turnfighting. Deploying them makes your aircraft way more prone to stall. Even slight elevator inputs make your aircrafts stall, when flaps are deployed during a turn. Rolling them is also a bad idea, when flaps are deployed (which is no problem in the Yak for example)

so to your question: Yes, Il2, Mig3, and 109 also benefit (to a lesser degree). La5, Lagg and 190 don't. No idea about Macchi, 109E, or I16.

January 21, 2016

I was only joking about the prop thing. Just a moment of nostalgia for Forgotten Banter.

I figured you had and have always appreciated your sense of humor. It's just that it took us off track and others started running with it.

Edited January 22, 2016 by [LBS]HerrMurf

January 21, 2016

Noone mentions another two flaps offenders MC.202 and 109 E7.

Both benifit massivly with flaps. The 109E7 less so, but the MC.202 with flaps is almost on par with the Yak if not better (tighter turn, better roll rate, relativly stable). It is more difficult to fly, but you can outturn / outturnfight well flwon Yaks with it.

Same with the 109E7, although a bit less effective than the MC.202.

For me the Yak, 109E7 and MC.202 are fishy. Yak more so as it does become extremly stable and simple to fly compared to the two axis planes.

There was a Yak iteration in between the early access which for me was much more belivable - it was the one after the first crazy flaps, when they adjusted the speed / angle of flaps retraction under air pressure. Basicly the flaps were pushed more in at a lower airspeed. Effectivly they had an effect at very slow airspeeds (200 and less) at higher speeds they lost the effect (were retracted more than now) so in general they gave much less turn rate advantage.

At that times it was so that the Yak was marginally better in a turnfight compared to the 109F4. Now as soon as a turnfight starts after 10 sec with flaps the F4 has no chance.

January 21, 2016

I don't really have much of a problem with them as I am typically a BNZ guy and don't twist with the turn fighters but.....

Kills me to this day I couldn't get it on ShadowPlay but just last week a friend of mine who hasn't played in a year BnZ'd a Yak, and the Yak caught up to his zoom climb with flaps deployed and shot him down, he then shot me and another 109 down while never raising his flaps once (I know he didn't raise them because I was on his 6 95% of the time and should have shot him down 10 times over again, sorry wingmates). Talk about energy. He effing climbed. He had 18 kills so idk if it was one of those guys who set the Easy FM hack on but all I know is what I saw. Sadly, just another complaint without proof.

If people started recording everything, I bet we would see some ridiculous stuff.

And the video 1C posted on YT doesn't prove anything that there's nothing wrong with them. If they asked that pilot if he'd ever use those flaps in combat..

Edited January 21, 2016 by Y-29.Silky

January 21, 2016

FM issues are issues, no matter if and how you or anybody can overcome it with skill, luck, tactics, whatever. Why this is always brought up in a clearly FM related topic shows how people think of this being more of a balanced e-sports game rather than sim.

+1

January 21, 2016

Do any other BoS aircraft benefit from deploying flaps in combat?

Lagg 3 does. It will turn tighter.

They're never going to fix flaps issue.

January 21, 2016

The problem with making it a purely FM debate is the DEV's firmly believe the mechanics are correct and the game engine determines the physics. If those two don't change, and I don't really expect them to at this point, what is the compromise? The flaps are being used in a completely inacurate/ahistorical manner. They physically MAY be correct but they are operationally incorrect. Manu actually made the argument which was next in line for me: If they are historically correct then how is it no Russian pilots discovered their use under combat conditions in five years of brutal warfare? The flaps are being gamed.

So, I find the implementation, regardless of factors, to be incorrect. Assuming the flaps are mechanically correct and the physics aren't going to be changed in the game engine, the flaps will likely remain unchanged in relation to FM's.

The flap mechanism(s), however, should be under tremendous pressure at higher airspeeds and should have a failure point. I still think a time limit for abuse should be instituted similar to the engine abuse time limits. Within the constraints of their current modeling, it makes the most sense.

Edited January 22, 2016 by [LBS]HerrMurf

January 21, 2016

After a fairly short google search I found an english article(translated) of an interview with Yak 1 pilot talking of using flaps in (fighter) combat, when asked he said something along the lines of, why would you, because you need speed in combat, but said they did use them when attacking bombers to increase turn

this was a while ago when some of the more 'crazy' myths about Yak flaps were at their height, I should have bookmarked it, and don't remember the Russian pilots name, however there must be many more instances of original language accounts

There is also in the Yak-1 manual, standard procedure on using the self retracting nature to allow flaps to be pushed in slowly while airspeed increases, I am not defending Yak flaps 'unreal behavior' or being in any way a 'Soviet apologist' as has been accused before, but some of the claims that were gaining widespread acceptance were just silly

and based on a lot of assumption and not on real info on how the system actually worked.

However some peoples experiences in online combat do sound very strange, seems to me that if there is such widespread cheating going on then perhaps that is an issue of much greater importance than flaps modelling in a very small area of the flight envelope of one aircraft

Cheers Dakpilot

January 21, 2016

Noone mentions another two flaps offenders MC.202 and 109 E7. Both benifit massivly with flaps. The 109E7 less so, but the MC.202 with flaps is almost on par with the Yak if not better (tighter turn, better roll rate, relativly stable). It is more difficult to fly, but you can outturn / outturnfight well flwon Yaks with it. Same with the 109E7, although a bit less effective than the MC.202.

I didn't use flaps with them so far, but i noticed that the E7 turns very tight anyway. Way tighter then the F4, what negates what i have read about those so far. Just anecdotal, but after some pilots accounts the F4 was a better turnfighter then the E7. To the technical side, wingsurface is the same, but F4 has way more thrust, which should definitely benefit in a sustained turn.

How did you deploy the flaps with those birds? At what angle you felt the "fishy feeling"?

After a fairly short google search I found an english article(translated) of an interview with Yak 1 pilot talking of using flaps in (fighter) combat, when asked he said something along the lines of, why would you, because you need speed in combat, but said they did use them when attacking bombers to increase turn

this was a while ago when some of the more 'crazy' myths about Yak flaps were at their height, I should have bookmarked it, and don't remember the Russian pilots name, however there must be many more instances of original language accounts

There is also in the Yak-1 manual, standard procedure on using the self retracting nature to allow flaps to be pushed in slowly while airspeed increases, I am not defending Yak flaps 'unreal behavior' or being in any way a 'Soviet apologist' as has been accused before, but some of the claims that were gaining widespread acceptance were just silly

and based on a lot of assumption and not on real info on how the system actually worked.

However some peoples experiences in online combat do sound very strange, seems to me that if there is such widespread cheating going on then perhaps that is an issue of much greater importance than flaps modelling in a very small area of the flight envelope of one aircraft

Cheers Dakpilot

I have searched a lot about Yaks deploying flaps, in German, English and US google. Have found nothing about them being used apart from landing. Maybe you got something mistaken, or it was another plane you read about.

Noone doubts, that flaps should increase the turning capabilities. There are a lot of planes out there with designated combat flaps. 109 (10%), Mustang (combat-position), and a lot more. But the Yak doesn't have flaps for combat-position. It only has landing-flaps.

No one is cheating here. The Yak's flaps are just an exploit. Just go into a duel server, do a 1v1 against a 109, and deploy your flaps. It feels immediately like you are cheating. Anytime i am flying this bird, and deploying flaps, i feel like cheating. There is no "real" cheat needed with this aircraft. Btw the turn-time of the Yak should be 19s. Same like the 109F4, or the P40E. Now try that in game

January 21, 2016

I remember having read about this Yak pilot saying something like "never used flaps in combat, but when attacking bombers i popped 'em to slow down more quickly".

January 21, 2016

What i could find about the Yak1 within a minute

"And although it could complete a circle at the same speed (20–21 seconds at 1,000 meters ^[11]). In comparison, a Bf 109, with its automatic flaps, had a lower stall speed and was more stable in sharp turns and vertical aerobatic figures.^[8]"

January 21, 2016

Russian performance trials concluded, that late Yak1 was comparable in horizontal turn to the 109F. 109 was slightly superior in low level turning, Yak was slightly superior at mid-altitudes around 3000m-4000m, above 109 was slightly superior again. This is true in game for the Yak when it's not deploying it's flaps. I think everyone here knows what happens, when you deploy the flaps. There are two possible conclusions:

1. flaps are modeled wrong

2. Russian pilots were to stupid to use their flaps in WW2 to gain the respective huge advantage in turning

What i could find about the Yak1 within a minute

"And although it could complete a circle at the same speed (20–21 seconds at 1,000 meters ^[11]). In comparison, a Bf 109, with its automatic flaps, had a lower stall speed and was more stable in sharp turns and vertical aerobatic figures.^[8]"

well no, you can't trust Wiki. A well flown Yak-1 in RL and in game will always outturn a 109F/G even without flaps.

The test they refer to is a test of an early production model Yak-1 with the M-105PF engine. The test was run at 2550 RPM because they were worried about overheating issue.

Run the same test in game, if you keep the Yak-1 at 2550 RPM, a 109F will eventually be able to outturn it. However, if you run at max power: 2700 RPM, you will out turn the 109.

nothing to see here.

Edited January 21, 2016 by Sgt_Joch

Solution to the Flap Issue

Recommended Posts

II/JG17_HerrMurf

SC_Manu653

Jade_Monkey

Feathered_IV

SC_Manu653

Willy__

II/JG17_HerrMurf

BlitzPig_EL

II/JG17_HerrMurf

II/JG17_HerrMurf

Feathered_IV

Ace_Pilto

Guest deleted@50488

Caudron431

71st_AH_Mastiff

unreasonable

GP*

Ace_Pilto

Livai

6./ZG26_5tuka

II/JG17_HerrMurf

PatrickAWlson

6./ZG26_5tuka

II./JG77_Manu*

Feathered_IV

II./JG77_Manu*

Feathered_IV

=69.GIAP=RADKO

II./JG77_Manu*

II/JG17_HerrMurf

PeterZvan

Y-29.Silky

Dr_Molenbeek

Fern

II/JG17_HerrMurf

Dakpilot

II./JG77_Manu*

Dr_Molenbeek

II./JG77_Manu*

Sgt_Joch

Please sign in to comment

Browse All

Activity