Jump to content
BlitzPig_EL

Thoughts on the P39...

Recommended Posts

On 3/18/2018 at 6:02 AM, Luftschiff said:

I hit a AAA installation from 4.8km away last night.

How?  I had a soviet 37mm spawn in 500m (probably less) in front of me guns blazing yesterday when I was looking right at it when I was going for flak at an airfield I attacked in the previous sortie with a stuka and a sc1800.  I have a capable rig (gtx 1080), can spot planes easily but this is the 2nd time this month aaa spawned in when I was looking right at it.  I mess with my settings but acheive no effect on ground targets spawning in front of me.  Sorry to derail.  

 

 

In the 39 I reccomend step climbing and not shooting the 37 dead 6 at the tail,  a little angle and the cannon does wonders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 69TD_Joeasyrida said:

How?  I had a soviet 37mm spawn in 500m (probably less) in front of me guns blazing yesterday when I was looking right at it when I was going for flak at an airfield I attacked in the previous sortie with a stuka and a sc1800.  I have a capable rig (gtx 1080), can spot planes easily but this is the 2nd time this month aaa spawned in when I was looking right at it.  I mess with my settings but acheive no effect on ground targets spawning in front of me.  Sorry to derail.  

 

 

In the 39 I reccomend step climbing and not shooting the 37 dead 6 at the tail,  a little angle and the cannon does wonders.

 

Well it happened like a year ago now, I posted that in march - but if memory serves it was on an MP server with icons on, it was very full in the days following the release. It was also firing at me at the time. 500m seems like a worryingly low draw distance, but I know tanks behave much the same for me. Finding tank columns is an exercise in futility when they lod out at twenty paces as though they expect me to duel them with pistols at dawn...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Luftschiff said:

 

Well it happened like a year ago now, I posted that in march - but if memory serves it was on an MP server with icons on, it was very full in the days following the release. It was also firing at me at the time. 500m seems like a worryingly low draw distance, but I know tanks behave much the same for me. Finding tank columns is an exercise in futility when they lod out at twenty paces as though they expect me to duel them with pistols at dawn...

Maybe markers had something to do with it.  I'll have to try to record it happening.  I knew the rough location from my last sortie and it was unpleasant to not be able to react.  I can usually find trains and columns easily, my problem seems isolated to anti aircraft artillery.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For anyone with extensive experience - how does ingame Aircobra's 37 mm HE compare to the LaGG Sh-37 loaded with pure HE's for air to air? The latter appears to have significantly higher muzzle velocity and somewhat higher ROF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CrazyDuck said:

For anyone with extensive experience - how does ingame Aircobra's 37 mm HE compare to the LaGG Sh-37 loaded with pure HE's for air to air? The latter appears to have significantly higher muzzle velocity and somewhat higher ROF.

I think the p39 37mm is better against aircraft and the lagg 37mm is better when you need ap.  I have not used the 37mm HE on the lagg in a while, I ought to use it more but while it's high velocity was a plus, the low rof and ammo count make it harder to use.  The HE rounds seem pretty equal to me, they are most effective when they hit at an angle and down fighters in 1-2 hits and larger aircraft double.

Edited by 69TD_Joeasyrida

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CrazyDuck said:

For anyone with extensive experience - how does ingame Aircobra's 37 mm HE compare to the LaGG Sh-37 loaded with pure HE's for air to air? The latter appears to have significantly higher muzzle velocity and somewhat higher ROF.

 

I think that the Sh-37 cannon is better overall than the M4... But the P-39 carries more ammo and at <300m (I have convergence at 350m) nose mounted 0.50s tend to hit with 37mm. Usually for one 37mm hit I will get around 10x 0.50 cal rounds on the target, too.

 

The quad 0.30s are overlooked in the P-39 but they adds the equivalent firepower of 1.3x 0.50" cal and greatly increases overall RoF and chance of starting fires. I often remove them but sometimes I wish I didn't if the target allows only for quick snapshots.

Edited by Ehret

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really know if there's really a scenario in which HE rounds are better than AP within the confines of the game right now. AP rounds still deal accumulative damage to everything it passes through and are just about always better in air to air situations because of it. The only real advantage of the P39's M4 over the Sh-37 is the ammo count, and maybe the gentle and predictable ballistics, neither of which is to be underestimated. I certainly prefer them, but the Sh-37 will destroy or cripple a plane, the M4 is inconsistent. I've had Pe2's survive anywhere from 1-15 hits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Luftschiff said:

I don't really know if there's really a scenario in which HE rounds are better than AP within the confines of the game right now. AP rounds still deal accumulative damage to everything it passes through and are just about always better in air to air situations because of it. 

 

If that's true, damage modelling might have lots of room for improvement. Yes, 37mm AP will wreak havoc among its path through the plane, but lots of times it wouldn't hit anything vital - it would just pass through, drilling a hole. HE round meanwhile should blast away the enormous crater of sheet metal at the point of impact and spray the vicinity with shrapnel.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/18/2018 at 4:26 AM, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

The P-39 relies in how much you can get out of it's emergency modes (5 min or 2 min), in these settings at low altitudes it has good speed.


I tested the P-39's speed and compared it with the Bf 109 G-2 and Yak-1B

 

eGZV7oe.png

 

bUqyFmD.png

 

Do not take it above 5000 meters though xD

 

It looks like Yak-1 ( 1B) are too fast just at altitutde. Both got low altitutde engine -PF which got second gear of supercharger at 2700m so maximum speed about 3.7-4.0 km then it should sharply noticably drop. It BOX Yaks drop speed with altititude is lower then should ;)   It looks that American planes are more better modeled in game and not such easy to master like VVS ones ;) 

Western Front could be much more interesting then Eastern so :)

 

But it is fact that hiting fighters from Cobra 37 mm isnt so easy like ex. from LAgg3. Also engine managment is a pain for a pilot expecially when You need add full power from idle it often overrevive prop.

 

For these whoes HaHa if You dont know how speed curves for Yaks look like haha   --- At 6 km maxium speed ab 570 kph IRL  but  in BOS above 600 kph HAHA, not mention higher alts where IRL Yaks got very noticable sharp drop speed curve - not in BOX actually. It should looks like P-39 speed curve.

 

Thats how it looks like speed curve for a M-105 PF engine ( it is low altitude engine) :P

 

image.thumb.png.8902489b314349b5e322a06b9dd6e763.png

Edited by 303_Kwiatek
  • Haha 3
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem is (as for P-40) that engine limits are taken from manufacturer's manual. These limits does not mean that engine seizes after limit is surpased. Golodnikov for example stated in an interview that they test the engines to their maximum, and also explains that if their had fought as the manual dictated all they would been shot down in no time. I suppose that the high success of Russian aces with P-39 (taking into account of course that the fight was at low-medium altitude, where the engine performed well) was due that they pushed the engine over manual's specifications. Unfortunatelly for us, there are no documents that give information of what was the engine's real limits.

Of course, the radio equipment was a point to consider, because Russian planes had normally a receiver and only squadron leaders haver receiver-transmitter and in the Cobra they had both, also new tactics and so on, but the engine's limits was a factor that should not be underestimated.

Edited by Tag777
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 303_Kwiatek said:

 

It looks like Yak-1 ( 1B) are too fast just at altitutde. Both got low altitutde engine -PF which got second gear of supercharger at 2700m so maximum speed about 3.7-4.0 km then it should sharply noticably drop. It BOX Yaks drop speed with altititude is lower then should ;)   It looks that American planes are more better modeled in game and not such easy to master like VVS ones ;) 

Western Front could be much more interesting then Eastern so :)

 

But it is fact that hiting fighters from Cobra 37 mm isnt so easy like ex. from LAgg3. Also engine managment is a pain for a pilot expecially when You need add full power from idle it often overrevive prop.

 

For these whoes HaHa if You dont know how speed curves for Yaks look like haha   --- At 6 km maxium speed ab 570 kph IRL  but  in BOS above 600 kph HAHA, not mention higher alts where IRL Yaks got very noticable sharp drop speed curve - not in BOX actually. It should looks like P-39 speed curve.

 

Thats how it looks like speed curve for a M-105 PF engine ( it is low altitude engine) :P

 

image.thumb.png.8902489b314349b5e322a06b9dd6e763.png



So your point and contribution to this discussion about the p-39, is that the yak-1 is overperforming.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real speed curves are with fixed radiator settings, and my curve was with optimal radiator setting (changing them as the altitude changed). Anyway that data is not correct anymore since with the new radiator changes now planes need to open them more at altitude. Because the radiator valves will release the coolant at lower temperatures as the height increases, and in some cases like the Spit Mk IX looks like it's too much. The Yak-7B had FM/engine refinement and shows a greater fall of performance with altitude, I hope they will translate this to the other models in the future.

Edited by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/17/2018 at 10:49 PM, Krupinskii said:

Nice troll.

 

 

 

An old post I know but... In that video, you doesn't prove that the P39 is good. Just that is being well flown, against a noob enemy, seems like me trying to chase a russian plane... Not difficult for an experienced pilot...

 

I was trying the P39 today against "novice" AI flying a G4 (which is supposed to be its "natural" counterpart, because of BoK)... No matter what I do, I cant even reach him and shot him. The dumb AI will turn and turn and turn... and keep turning forever. I can shot down a AI G4 with whatever fighter I fly (against AI) because they just turn like dumbs. With every plane except the Airacobra. What a crap of a plane, gonna stick to P40 better, that's what I call a fighter

 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ME-BFMasserME262 said:

I was trying the P39 today against "novice" AI flying a G4 (which is supposed to be its "natural" counterpart, because of BoK)... No matter what I do, I cant even reach him and shot him. The dumb AI will turn and turn and turn... and keep turning forever. I can shot down a AI G4 with whatever fighter I fly (against AI) because they just turn like dumbs. With every plane except the Airacobra. What a crap of a plane, gonna stick to P40 better, that's what I call a fighter

 

If your preferred style of fighting is turn and burn then sure - the P-39 in the sim isn't going to work too well. However, if you can bounce the target at speed and altitude then there is no way it will be able to evade you. You just need to avoid getting low and slow and prolonged engagements (the latter due to artificial boost timer). The P-39 turns best in instantaneous manner between 300-450mph indicated. Other turns are ill advised; better go in Yak for those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ME-BFMasserME262 said:

An old post I know but... In that video, you doesn't prove that the P39 is good. Just that is being well flown, against a noob enemy, seems like me trying to chase a russian plane... Not difficult for an experienced pilot...

 

I was trying the P39 today against "novice" AI flying a G4 (which is supposed to be its "natural" counterpart, because of BoK)... No matter what I do, I cant even reach him and shot him. The dumb AI will turn and turn and turn... and keep turning forever. I can shot down a AI G4 with whatever fighter I fly (against AI) because they just turn like dumbs. With every plane except the Airacobra. What a crap of a plane, gonna stick to P40 better, that's what I call a fighter

 

That Krupinski video is from old time when 37mm on P-39 was modeled corectly, (he has few more nice P-39 videos) now you cant do that, and P-39 is worst airplane in game because of weard allied engine models and terible cockpit view and poor 37mm strenght of gun now in game. I recomend anyone to just skip on that plane the way its now modeled in this game its not worthe it.

  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I admit its totally my fault then. I was flying it like a noob turning and burning with it... Gonna try to give it (to give myself) another chance, and fly it more like a FW then, since its diving and energy retention are great.

 

Plus, I love how easy is the taxiing, the take off and landing with it...

Plus 2: I find it a great interceptor (disintegrates heavy german bombers quite easily)

 

Thanks for input

Edited by ME-BFMasserME262
Add some lines

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly I find it relegated to the same pen as the P-40, where in any situation where you do not have an energy advantage you have basically no option when engaged in a 1 on 1 situation. Engine limitations prevents you from sustaining any engagement, and if you don't have the option to turn away you are generally dead meat.

 

Naturally, if you do happen on an enemy with an energy advantage, or one who is busy attacking someone else, the P-39 does quite well (you can use it well enough on Berloga, for example)... but if you don't have altitude and you end up engaging a 109 on even footing, you're basically toast. Extending is not an option, maneuvering just kills your energy and will lead to a stall (unless maybe if you firewall the engine, but then you will burn out your engine).

 

To be fair, this could be completely accurate. Like any other aircraft, sheer performance 1v1 is not a decisive factor, and if you fly it as part of a flight, with someone covering you (and you covering them), it can be very effective. But unfortunately MP often involves flying on your own, which makes the P-39 a dicey proposition if you like staying alive (you can either always stay at altitude and never commit, or take a risk and go for a kill and have no options if someone engages you).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saburo Sakai, one of Japans best WWII aces stated in his autobiography that the P-39 was  an easy takedown and [edited] fighter pilots

looked forward to flying against it..

Edited by SYN_Haashashin
Do not use those terms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 71st_AH_Yankee_ said:

Naturally, if you do happen on an enemy with an energy advantage, or one who is busy attacking someone else, the P-39 does quite well (you can use it well enough on Berloga, for example)... but if you don't have altitude and you end up engaging a 109 on even footing, you're basically toast. Extending is not an option, maneuvering just kills your energy and will lead to a stall (unless maybe if you firewall the engine, but then you will burn out your engine).

 

Extending is the option as long you did not slow too much. If engagement is going to hit the ground then it's time to run away. It's simple as that and lack of discipline kills.

The P-40 is not the same as the P-39 -  decent odds of escaping remain for much longer in the latter. Even at the nominal (900-1000hp) which is the same for both planes the Airacobra readily outperforms Kittyhawk by significant margin.

20 minutes ago, fiddlinjim said:

Saburo Sakai, one of Japans best WWII aces stated in his autobiography that the P-39 was  an easy takedown and the Jap fighter pilots

looked forward to flying against it..

 

Yet, inexperienced pilots flying the "Iron Dog" defended well enough against Japanese at battle of the port Moresby despite problems (guns jamming, altitude woes, short range). Sakai had some more demanding (4th paragraph) encounters with Airacobras, too. Wonder what would happen if those P-39s were later variants (like the L, or even better the Q) after Russian like modifications...

Edited by Ehret

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ehret said:

 

Extending is the option as long you did not slow too much. If engagement is going to hit the ground then it's time to run away. It's simple as that and lack of discipline kills.

The P-40 is not the same as the P-39 -  decent odds of escaping remain for much longer in the latter. Even at the nominal (900-1000hp) which is the same for both planes the Airacobra readily outperforms Kittyhawk by significant margin.

 

That's why I wrote "if you don't have altitude". Extending is an option, unless you are low on altitude. If you're anywhere below 1000m, extending will only work if the 109 is distracted or otherwise loses sight of you, otherwise they can catch up to you with ease.

 

In that context, the engagement is very similar to a P40. Yes, the P39 is somewhat more permissive, but its advantages and disadvantages vs a 109 are the same as with the P40: you can dive faster, but anything else will leave you outclassed. Of course, if you have the energy advantage you still have a good chance of winning, but it is a major challenge.

 

So yes, to your point, you definitely need to fly the P-39 very conservatively if you want to go around on your own. Any decision to go down low (say, to shoot down a bomber) is a potential death sentence if a 109 joins the fray and engages you (or if you dive on a 109 and don't manage to shoot it down before it equalizes the energy states... an option that is not even possible for a P-39 to do if situations are reversed).

 

 

That's not to say it's horrible... flown as a group it can be quite effective, but solo it imposes massive restrictions on what you can do without putting yourself in a suicidal position.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, ME-BFMasserME262 said:

An old post I know but... In that video, you doesn't prove that the P39 is good. Just that is being well flown, against a noob enemy, seems like me trying to chase a russian plane... Not difficult for an experienced pilot...

 

I was trying the P39 today against "novice" AI flying a G4 (which is supposed to be its "natural" counterpart, because of BoK)... No matter what I do, I cant even reach him and shot him. The dumb AI will turn and turn and turn... and keep turning forever. I can shot down a AI G4 with whatever fighter I fly (against AI) because they just turn like dumbs. With every plane except the Airacobra. What a crap of a plane, gonna stick to P40 better, that's what I call a fighter

 

 

Are you so sure it's not just you? 😉

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Krupinskii said:

 

Are you so sure it's not just you? 😉

 

 

 

 

 

 

I already admited it was me, my fault for flying it like a noob. Thanks

 

Oh, and just like in the other video of the P39 in this thread: The skill of that P39 pilot is high. But really that score was because of a not so skilled 109 fighter that insisted in fighting like that against the P39.

Edited by ME-BFMasserME262

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, ME-BFMasserME262 said:

I already admited it was me, my fault for flying it like a noob. Thanks

 

Oh, and just like in the other video of the P39 in this thread: The skill of that P39 pilot is high. But really that score was because of a not so skilled 109 fighter that insisted in fighting like that against the P39.

 

Actually, the guy in this 2nd video is above average, you can tell because he raises his nose as I try to bait him into the scissors. He clearly didn't expect me to attempt a vertical reversal as he came back around for a shot, and you see the P39 has no problems getting the nose around in such a maneuver.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with the P-39 is the cockpit visibility, not the plane. Though it does tend to fishtail if you put it in the wrong spot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ACG_Kai_Lae said:

The problem with the P-39 is the cockpit visibility, not the plane. Though it does tend to fishtail if you put it in the wrong spot.

 

Well... I use some careful set snapshots and it isn't that bad at all.

I uploaded two images showing some snapshots. Notice that the composite backward shot has very wide continuous view angle. The forward shot gives you forward-downward (!) angle and mirror basically guards against high bounces. Even better - pitch up slightly and the mirror will show your six. Pitch up and do a half-roll and let the nose pitch-down when inverted and the mirror will scan your whole backward-zone (from ground to sky) in one go.

 

backward_p39.jpg

forward_mirror_p39.jpg


There is my snapshot file p39l1.txt

(just rename it to p39l1.svc)

 

Would forget about a trick... - I don't use it because it ruins immersion for me but you can go to graphics options and set the mirror quality to "simple". Then the plane's fuselage will not be rendered in mirrors - the mirror will show completely unobstructed view.

 

Edited by Ehret

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

P-39 definitely seems undermodeled performance-wise to me in this game. I know there’s an argument that a lot of its success was the superior quality of radio equipment and more powerful armament compared to Yaks and LAs, but from the various pilot memoirs that I’ve read it seems that it had better performance than what is modeled in game. Lipfert wrote that “P39 was absolutely the best Soviet fighter” during the battle of Kuban. Mariinskii, a P39 pilot, wrote that aircobra was at least equal to Me109s in vertical maneuvering, and Pokryshkin expressed a similar sentiment. In game though, whether due to overly conservative engine modeling, it’s really not a match for a 109 unless you have significant energy advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, SShrike said:

Could be incorrect. 

 

Quite

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some lend- lease numbers:

Hawker Hurricane 2,952

Spitfire Mk V 143

Spitfire Mk IX 1,188

Curtiss P-40 2,097

Bell P-39 Airacobra 4,746

Bell P-63 Kingcobra 2,400

P-47 Thunderbolt 195

B-25 Mitchell 862

Douglas A-20 Boston 2,908

 

I can see why we have the P-40, the P-39 and the A-20 in the game, but wondering why we have the spitfire V instead of the hurricane. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/8/2018 at 5:14 AM, Tag777 said:

Unfortunatelly for us, there are no documents that give information of what was the engine's real limits.

 

Yes, there are. Just not in the documents the devs chose for now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SShrike said:

I can see why we have the P-40, the P-39 and the A-20 in the game, but wondering why we have the spitfire V instead of the hurricane. 

 

Because it fought in the Kuban.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/8/2018 at 2:14 PM, Tag777 said:

Unfortunatelly for us, there are no documents that give information of what was the engine's real limits.

 

There was none.*

 

Don't make a mistake - engines had failed. But no one would risk life just to fly with "the manual specs". You fight for your live and you would put "manual" before your own life?!! NO! You wouldn't - no one would. Engines would endure as physically possible. You would endure as long as physically/biologically possible. That was the limit.

 

* edit: Read pilots encounter notes where phrases like setting throttle to "full bore" and "balls out" are common occurrence and they were keep as long needed.

There are none notes about reducing power because "I just passed 5m and I'm afraid engine might seize suddenly...". Pilots were afraid of the enemy and getting shot; not afraid of own engines seizing once engaged. It could happen but so could a bullet to body and combat pilots were rather good at prioritizing threats.

Edited by Ehret
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, [LeLv34]Lykurgos88 said:

By the way, I'm wondering why they put the L model of P-39 in the game instead of N or Q models which were far more common in Soviet service.

 

Documentation problem maybe?


I suppose it's because it was the most numerous variant in the P-39 squadrons during the initially planned timeframe (from April to June) for BoK campaign. Later on it was decided to extend it up to October... maybe we could have got a K or N if they were to go to October from the beginning.

Edited by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

I suppose it's because it was the most numerous variant in the P-39 squadrons during the initially planned timeframe (from April to June) for BoK campaign. Later on it was decided to extend it up to October... maybe we could have got a K or N if they were to go to October from the beginning.

 

Imho the Q would make a good collector plane. She has better acceleration/climb, higher critical altitude and an option to carry extra 0.50" cals. But those come at price - slower level speed than the L at the ground and worse (probably) dive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ehret said:

 

Imho the Q would make a good collector plane. She has better acceleration/climb, higher critical altitude and an option to carry extra 0.50" cals. But those come at price - slower level speed than the L at the ground and worse (probably) dive.


I'm not sure, I think an early N would have the best performance. The N has the same engine as the Q, and the early N had reduced fuel load to reduce weight. The Q variants either increase fuel load, increase armor or even both. And the late Ns (and Qs as well) replace the armored glass headrest with steel armor, so no rear visibility.

Though it seems that they were removed as it's a bit hard to find pictures of P-39s with the metal cover, but after a while I could find some:
 

Spoiler

ab87d07445889958869944999db2fe25.jpg

558776711.jpg

30th_Fighter_Squadron_Bell_P-39Q-20-BE_A



 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

looking on wikipedia it seems the engines in L and N/Q were mostly the same..  albeit the fuel load out was smaller for the N/Q versions.

 

L (based on K):

V-1710-63 (E6) (1,325 hp/988 kW)

 

N:

V-1710-85 (E19) (1,325 hp/988 kW)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, moosya said:

looking on wikipedia it seems the engines in L and N/Q were mostly the same..  albeit the fuel load out was smaller for the N/Q versions.

 

L (based on K):

V-1710-63 (E6) (1,325 hp/988 kW)

 

N:

V-1710-85 (E19) (1,325 hp/988 kW)


That info isn't correct, The -85 series has a bit less power at low altitude but more power at high altitude:

-63:
War Emergency Power (60"): 1550 HP
Take Off Power (51"): 1325 HP  
Military Power (42"): 1150 HP   12000 feet crit alt

-85:
War Emergency Power (57"): 1420 HP 
Take Off Power (50.5"): 1200 HP 
Military Power (44.5"): 1125 HP   15500 feet crit alt

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×