Jump to content
Wolf8312

Be specific about why you want the pacific?

Recommended Posts

Quinte, multiplayer isn’t a problem.

Japanese aircraft are only outmatched on paper. I lost track of how many Hellcats and Corsairs I killed in the old Zeke.

 

On one particular occasion -  it was me by myself against 3 guys from a squad flying Corsairs. I bagged all 3.

 

The point is, most guys online don’t fly in a disciplined way, and notions of real world balance go out the window - so don’t worry about it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

Quinte, multiplayer isn’t a problem.

Japanese aircraft are only outmatched on paper. I lost track of how many Hellcats and Corsairs I killed in the old Zeke.

 

 

lol

 

They're outmatched on paper and if the Corsair or Hellcat driver makes lots of noob mistakes.   Otherwise you're outnumbered and screwed.

Share this post


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

I'm not knowledgeable enough to dispute that, really, but I'd assume the speed difference between a Zeke 52 and a corsair to be at least 30mph at all altitudes, even with an early corsair?.

Assuming following data is true for all 4 aircraft at rated / normal power (for comparative reasons I've added F6F-3 and Ki-61, speeds in mph, climb in min. and sec.): 

Speed ---- A6M5 mod 52 ---- Ki-61 ---- F4U-1 ---- F6F-3 

                     334                       339        333          335            Aprox. 10k ft (for F4U-1 8,250 ft).;
                     348                       367        378          363            Aprox. 20k ft.;

Climb --- A6M5 mod 52 ----- Ki-61 ----- F4U-1 ----- F6F-3 
                    3:12                     3:34          3:39          3:36           Aprox. 10k ft.;
                    7:01                     6:50          8:03          7:36           Aprox. 20k ft.;

 

Zeke 52 and Ki-61 data are based on documents available to me (manuals). Corsair data are based on: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-1-detail-specification.pdf which comes in line with Chance-Vought November 1942Pilots Handbook for early F4U-1 (again, available to me). F6F-3 data based on “America's Hundred Thousand: U.S. Production Fighters of World War II” by Francis Dean and F6F-3 Hellcat US Navy ACP 1945 – Airplane Characteristics & Performance.

 

So yes, when it comes to A6M5 and F4U-1 exclusively, there is a 30 mph speed advantage at altitude around 20,000 ft. Also on deck Japanese fighters will have issues, due to superchargers optimized for mid altitudes. But in general it's closer than most think, especially between A6M5 and F6F.  Also, I know both have WEP / overboost, but since its only temporal performance increase and I dont have too much data about it, was easier to compare that way.

 

2 hours ago, Quinte said:

That's largely besides the point, since our multiplayer experience does not rely on aircrafts being delivered from US mainland, nor do we have much to learn, discovering a fight we never heard about before.

If you give some players lightnings and corsairs, and others zeroes, assuming we're talking about somewhat experienced players, it's a bloodbath and the zeroes are on the defensive all day long.

I know about multiplayer and why 109 F-4 is everyones favorite ride. I'm quite sure average bandwagon will fly what's best available or what provides most air kills but at least 10 years ago it wasn't as onesided, even though people knew they should not dogfight all pull straight in front of a Zero, they did. And as Zeros can establish higher altitude a bit faster than competitors, one can try to utilize this.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That’s my point - lots of mistakes are made. More often IME you can pull them into a knife fight.

 

Properly flown? Then yes you’re correct all day long. That normally doesn’t happen though. Most guys end up succumbing to “I’m good enough to pull it off” even though they might know better.

Share this post


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

If you give some players lightnings and corsairs, and others zeroes, assuming we're talking about somewhat experienced players, it's a bloodbath and the zeroes are on the defensive all day long.

 

Don't forget that poor Japanese performance later in the war was a result of inexperience as much as hardware deficiencies. Experienced players would do fine flying IJA/IJN, they would just face more challenge. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don´t exactly know what, but there is something that exicites me about japanes planes - therefore I´m all in for a sim set in the pacific theater.

Also I´d love to see carrier ops, islands overgrown with jungle, etc. etc. ... it´s something different and new from the - at least for me - already so familiar western theater of war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

Quinte, multiplayer isn’t a problem.

Japanese aircraft are only outmatched on paper. I lost track of how many Hellcats and Corsairs I killed in the old Zeke.

 

On one particular occasion -  it was me by myself against 3 guys from a squad flying Corsairs. I bagged all 3.

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. If you managed to kill three guys from a squad by yourself in an inferior plane, great, but it just means you found yourself three rookies. Average players should kill you in a 3v1even in spad XIIIs. I'm sure you'll find here people shooting down 190s in their I-16s. Doesn't mean it's a particularly fun matchup outside of one-time stints here and there.

16 minutes ago, =362nd_FS=Hiromachi said:

~snip~

Thanks. Didn't figure it was that close, to be honest. Am I correct in assuming we are comparing with the very best of what the Japanese had at that time though, and that they would have been operating earlier A6M2s and 3s in non negligible numbers at this point? In any case, I still feel the F4F vs A6M2 claasic matchup to be more interesting.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Quinte said:

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. If you managed to kill three guys from a squad by yourself in an inferior plane, great, but it just means you found yourself three rookies. Average players should kill you in a 3v1even in spad XIIIs. I'm sure you'll find here people shooting down 190s in their I-16s. Doesn't mean it's a particularly fun matchup outside of one-time stints here and there.

 

 

Were you there?

I found my statement to be true in mission after mission, for years. Average players died in Hellcats and Corsairs. Too many allowed themes to be dragged low and slow. Good pilots, more rare, not so much.

 

The rare occurrence where a guy would stay high and fast was so rare, that all these years later I can still remember who it was and what they were flying.

Overconfident Hellcats and Corsairs were Warrant Officer Yamaha Kawasaki’s bread and butter. :)

 

The flip side is that when I did fly the Hellcat or Corsair etc I found it easy to remain untouchable.

 

Will it be the same for me in the Zeke  this time around? Maybe not.

 

Yes Zeke vs Wildcat is classic and imo the most fun on both sides. Bring it on.

Old Zeke was also over-modeled a tad.

Edited by Gambit21
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

I'm not knowledgeable enough to dispute that, really, but I'd assume the speed difference between a Zeke 52 and a corsair to be at least 30mph at all altitudes, even with an early corsair?.

That's largely besides the point, since our multiplayer experience does not rely on aircrafts being delivered from US mainland, nor do we have much to learn, discovering a fight we never heard about before.

If you give some players lightnings and corsairs, and others zeroes, assuming we're talking about somewhat experienced players, it's a bloodbath and the zeroes are on the defensive all day long.

 

My experience in multiplayer suggests a far more even match-up. Even when Corsairs and P-38s are part of the mix. Yes, a few players will fly with enough discipline and tactics to make themselves difficult to defeat in a Corsair or P-38 but the vast majority are not. The A6M proved to be a capable opponent in online fights because its actually fairly well suited to it with a good climb rate and superb turning agility combined with good enough firepower - exactly what the average pilot needs to succeed.

 

In the Zero vs Wildcat it was a fairly even exchange factoring in average players versus average players. A good Wildcat pair could wrack up the kills against a group of Zeros or the Zeros could dominate. It was fairly well "balanced" although we tend to shy away from that term here.

 

I would dissuade people from thinking its all about the Zero as well. The Japanese had plenty of types that can compete in the early, mid and late war period. Historical circumstances such as poor reliability and a wholly inadequate pilot training program were far bigger problems. I myself am looking forward to getting into the Ki-61 again. I fought some incredible Ki-61-I-Otsu vs F4U-1A dogfights over the years that were extremely memorable and fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

Were you there?

This is not a personal attack. Whether they were weak or you are very good doesn't change the fact that a 3v1 ending up with the squad wiped is the direct result of massive failure on their part, everytime, all the time. A failure so massive that the planes involved are almost irrelevant.

 

11 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

The flip side is that when I did fly the Hellcat or Corsair etc I found it easy to remain untouchable.

And that's what I'm talking about. I don't deny some people will turnfight a zero every now and then. We see it with the yaks currently, or the spits in ClOD. And most of them will die. But some won't. And those, you can just watch and wait til they kill you. Which can get quite frustrating.

 

1 minute ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

It was fairly well "balanced" although we tend to shy away from that term here.

I don't see any reason to. Balance should be at the core of any game that doesn't pit only friends vs friends. In a sim, balance is just attained by different parameters than in most other game, where it could be a matter of buffing/nerfing units or vehicles or guns and so on. In a flight sim, balance is attained first by a careful choice of the theatre and the planeset involved, then at a finer level directly during mission-making.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quinte, we are comparing very best of what Japanese had with very best of what U.S. had. It's not like with the end of 1942 U.S. Army, Navy and Marines were flying their best hot rods, while Japanese were flying a mix of aircraft.

Yes, in 1943 Rabaul, Buin and on New Georgia airfields you would find A6M2s (especially when Mobile Fleet was asked twice to deliver its fighter units to strengthen air defence of Rabaul), A6M3 mod 32 and 22s and also since August 1943 A6M5 mod 52. Though A6M5 mod 52 would rapidly replace former models, as it was only Mitsubishi that manufactured A6M3s, of which production seized in August 1943 and production of A6M2 by Mitsubishi seized in 1942. Only Nakajima kept producing A6M2s until June 1944 (though last few hundred as fighter-bombers), reducing production at the end of 1943 when they started manufacturing A6M5s in December 1943. 

Overall A6M5 would become the most produced variant and by the end of 1943 there were already 500 built, which exceeds production of A6M3 mod 32 and almost matched production of A6M3 mod 22. 

 

On the other hand Navy used F4F-4s continously throughout 1943 and even when F6F-3s arrived, they did not replace all Wildcats. Army used P-40s and P-39s as well as P-38s and P-47s. Marines were a bit more lucky running mostly with F4U-1s and later with F4U-1As. And lets not forget about RAAF sporting Boomerangs and Spitfire V C :) 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Quinte said:

This is not a personal attack. Whether they were weak or you are very good doesn't change the fact that a 3v1 ending up with the squad wiped is the direct result of massive failure on their part, everytime, all the time. A failure so massive that the planes involved are almost irrelevant.

 

 The mission/experience you keep referring to is irrelevant in the end. This has nothing to do with the greater point which I have already outlined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

 

 The mission/experience you keep referring to is irrelevant in the end. This has nothing to do with the greater point which I have already outlined.

 

Your greater point is that you can win in a crap aircraft if the enemy pilots suck.  I'm not sure that that is a compelling sales pitch.

Edited by BraveSirRobin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, his greater point is that there will always be people making rookie mistakes. Which is likely true, but I don't believe is enough to make for a really pleasant game experience. Or rather, is a very much imperfect way of justifying an intrinsically biased playing ground, when selecting a more balanced planeset to begin with would get rid of the issue altogether.

 

But we're all nitpicking on a project we don't know much about yet anyway.

Edited by Quinte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like Japanese fighters are really nothing but crap. Alright, let's skip on Asia-Pacific.
Far too few Spits vs. 109s anyways...

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Early F6F-3 & F4U-1 without water injection have lower engine rating, so good flying discipline is still quite important. A6M3/5 actually have better PWR & sustain climb.

Edited by s9723

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, it's carrier ops--and the certainty that 777 will raise the bar on carrier models and on water physics. I also like the radar and radio aid aspect. My personal favorite--for the sheer desperation of the struggle--is the battle of the Atlantic. With more of the tech solved, that theater becomes a little less impossible way down the road.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nakajima_Ki84_Hayate_N3385G_ONT_18.10.70

 

This Japanese aircraft was certainly not crap, among others.  If you're afraid of imbalances in aircraft then make the focus late war(late 44 onwards) when the technology on both sides was in relative parity.  The operational difficulties will never be reflected in the sim, so then you'll find balance.  You'll see soon enough in BOBP.  Not including 17 year old pilots with fumes in the fuel tank and faulty engine parts from bombed factories makes for a far more competitive sim.

 

I want to fly late-war pacific because the Japanese had an absolutely world-class air arm with remarkable(and unique) technology built from the ground up faster than anyone else which has never been modeled in a sim of the standards that we have with the new IL-2.

Edited by 7.GShAP/Silas
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why I want the pacific? Hmmmm....because of THIS!

3411-wallpapers-aircraft-wallpaper.jpg

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, =27=Davesteu said:

Sounds like Japanese fighters are really nothing but crap. 

 

Eh..:the A6m-2 was the class of the skies in 41, 42.

2 hours ago, Quinte said:

No, his greater point is that there will always be people making rookie mistakes. 

 

Yep.

More to the point - the rookie mistake seemed to occur more often than you might think, even by more experienced pilots. I’ve fallen victim myself a time or two. “Just one more turn” - dead.

 

 

2 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

Your greater point is that you can win in a crap aircraft if the enemy pilots suck.  I'm not sure that that is a compelling sales pitch.

 

Not so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know that this:

 

2 hours ago, Quinte said:

No, his greater point is that there will always be people making rookie mistakes.

 

and this:

 

2 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Your greater point is that you can win in a crap aircraft if the enemy pilots suck.  

 

Are basically the same thing, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:
2 hours ago, =27=Davesteu said:

Sounds like Japanese fighters are really nothing but crap. Alright, let's skip on Asia-Pacific.
Far too few Spits vs. 109s anyways...

Eh..:the A6m-2 was the class of the skies in 41, 42.

Wasn't I ironic enough? :blink:
I'm all in for the Asiatic-Pacific-Theatre. Thought I made that clear by now.

Just don't I think it's all about 20kph difference or just about fighters in general.

Edited by =27=Davesteu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harder to keep track on my little phone screen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, =27=Davesteu said:

Wasn't I ironic enough? :blink:
I'm all in for the Asiatic-Pacific-Theatre. Thought I made that clear by now.

Just don't I think it's all about 20kph difference or just about fighters in general.

 

A few of the folks around here might say something like that :) I've seen it on a multiplayer chat more than a few times... They had never flown a Japanese plane before so there was that too.

 

With the right aircraft set, things will be plenty of fun and lots of challenge for both sides.

 

Come on Ki-61.... 😄

The_Kawasaki_Ki-61_Hien_of_the_244th_squ

 

Or... a Ki-100 will do as well :)

The_Kawasaki_Ki-100_of_the_111th_squadro

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

A few of the folks around here might say something like that :) I've seen it on a multiplayer chat more than a few times... They had never flown a Japanese plane before so there was that too.

No worriers, I'm dug deep into the topic. That's why I prefer to call it Asiatic-Pacific-Theatre for example. :)

 

Yeah, that Hien is lovely, isn't she? Preferably in the sky over New Guinea, not Japan as the markings shown suggest. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we follow the pattern set in our long years on the Eastern Front with three releases and a handful of collector planes, we can cover all bases.

 

This is in chronological order, although there’s no need to release in this order. As much as I’d enjoy carrier ops it might be easier to start with land-based aviation.

 

1 - Midway-style mid-war naval aircraft:

The iconic Zero vs Wildcat matchup, with almost totally symmetrical aircraft on each side’s carriers (fighter, dive bomber and torpedo bomber). Covers Wake Island, Midway and anything hypothetical set in 1942-3. 

Wildcat vs Zero

Dauntless vs Aichi D3A Val

Devastator vs Nakajima B5N Kate

Buffalo vs A6M2-N Rufe floatplane 

Catalina vs G4M Betty

 

Something like that. 

 

2 - Mid-war island-based army aviation. I’m not an expert on aircraft types but probably should include Ki-43, Ki-61, Ki-21, P-40 of some sort, early P-47, B-26, C-47 if it hasn’t already appeared as the Li-2. That should cover off the middle of the war and allow for New Guinea, Solomons and other parts of the island-hopping campaign. 

 

3 - Late-war aircraft, land- and carrier-based. This could include the Hellcat, Corsair, Avenger, Seafire, A-26, Ki-84, J2M, N1K2, A6M5. The Allied set can predominantly be naval aircraft as a lot of the late-war Allied planes from BoBo can be used (P-38, P-51, P-47, B-25), and an A-26 can pull double-duty here and in any future Korean War. I don’t know if it served in Europe in ‘44-‘45 but if it did then that’s triple-duty. 

 

Chuck a few left-field collector aircraft into the mix like a Boomerang, Vengeance, P-36, Fokker D.XXI and you can use what we’ve got to fly for RAAF/RNZAF/RAF/FAA, ML-KNIL, and with an Il-10 we’ve got VVS in Manchuria. With a few new maps we’ve got a really comprehensive PTO spanning 1941-45 going from islands, open oceans, potentially CBI, Aleutians, Soviet invasion and as far as Japan’s home island defence. 

 

The PTO offers so much choicebabd scope for varied campaigns, and something like the above could provide at least most of them. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you guys and your damn fighters... give me my torpedo bombers and dive bombers

 

48e938c25daf9cf8341559a34c16ef3a--milita

 

D4Y1 

 

9377598120_17e1730f27_b.jpg

 

C6N Saiun

saiunhasegaw.jpg

 

B7A

 

59144.jpg

 

the B5N

hsgs1993box-lg.jpg

 

 

Also i would only need this Carrier lol

 

taiho01.jpg

 

Edited by Simba
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't tell you how many F6Fs I shot down with the Ki-61 in the old sim.  They mostly thought that pushing the nose down was an instant get out of jail free card, and when that didn't work, their belief that the Hellcat's ability to "out turn" the Zeke (for half a turn or so...) would save them.

 

It was so predictable. 

 

Over confidence killed them.  Over and over and over again.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Over confidence killed them.  Over and over and over again.

 

Yep

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, =27=Davesteu said:

No worriers, I'm dug deep into the topic. That's why I prefer to call it Asiatic-Pacific-Theatre for example. :)

 

Yeah, that Hien is lovely, isn't she? Preferably in the sky over New Guinea, not Japan as the markings shown suggest. ;)

 

New Guinea would be my preference too :)

28 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

I can't tell you how many F6Fs I shot down with the Ki-61 in the old sim.  They mostly thought that pushing the nose down was an instant get out of jail free card, and when that didn't work, their belief that the Hellcat's ability to "out turn" the Zeke (for half a turn or so...) would save them.

 

It was so predictable. 

 

Over confidence killed them.  Over and over and over again.

 

Same here. I kind of enjoyed the fact that not everyone really knew what the Ki-61s reputation was so they would employ tactics that didn't always suit the match-up. Diving from a Ki-61 with a Hellcat wasn't usually the best plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/24/2018 at 5:26 AM, Wolf8312 said:

 

Oh I never thought about navigation. Sounds like a nightmare if you can't hug the coast!

They used Hayrake radio navigation

 

YE "Hayrake" Directional Beacon
The ZB/YE system (nicknamed Hayrake) that the allies used was method of finding a way back home to the aircraft carrier. This system was classified until 1947. ZB is the receiver adapter in aircraft, working on top of the regular radio receiver. YE is the rotating directional beacon installed to allied aircraft carriers.
The carrier sent out a Morse code letter for every of 30 degrees of the carrier's compass direction points synchronized with the position of a rotating antenna. The coded letters for each of the twelve compass points were changed each day and sent as modulated Morse code tones. The code was modulated in the lower part of the broadcast band. That broadcast band RF signal was then used to further modulate the 234 to 258 Megahertz VHF signal. The VHF signal was mostly line-of-sight. If the pilot could hear two Morse code letters, he would know his relative position to the carrier. The double modulation would make it difficult for an enemy to easily detect the Morse content of the signal. The VHF signal was reportedly reliable to about 40 to 70 miles out for an aircraft at 10,000 feet and further at higher altitudes.

 

Example

 

Cheers

 

Hoss

 

Edited by 19//Hoss

Share this post


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

F4U Corsair

I wish we would see this one:

uPUaLP.png

 

jKvLhg.png

 

Early birdcage Corsairs never saw much attention while they are very interesting and carry a lot more history than late war models. 

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dreaming is nice, but let's have a bit of statistics.

With BoBP we'll have 40 (or so) aircraft, but these are mainly variants of 25 (or so) base designs, out of which 18 are single-seater. This gives an average of 5 single-seater and 1 multi-crew aircraft per development cycle. Any suggested Pacific plane-set involves 1.5 times more aircraft and 2 times more crew-stations than ever has been done in one development cycle.

 

And add this:

Quote

My speculation is that ships are the - or at least a - real reason why the Pacific got "postponed".

 

Not only do they have to be modeled to the standard we have come to expect, but many of them had dozens of AA mountings. Too many of these makes the game a stutter-fest.  Large ships are visible from vast distances: playing with our current bubble would be impossible. That is before you even start on carrier deck operations: it is hard enough to get the AI to behave itself on a normal airfield, as playing the career shows. 

 

All of these may be surmountable with time, more powerful PCs and a redesign of the game engine but not in the normal year or so for BoX releases. I do think a Pacific theatre module with a map such as the Slot, ground based aircraft and simplified ship models would work with the current technology, leaving carrier operations till later. 

 

I too am in the opinion that carrier operations are at least 3 development cycles away, unless some very serious work on naval techs and related issues is being done behind the scenes, but this we can only learn when we see them tested e.g. on Kuban shipping.

 

Also add that any serious naval operation presupposes at least 2 to 3 new ship types on both sides (not including carriers), and these are not just dummy barges floating mindlessly on the Don river, but real warships that are vastly superior in complexity to whatever has been done before.

Edited by sniperton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's true. So far substantial part of planeset relies on variants of primary aircraft such as Il-2, Bf-109 or FW-190. With any expansion to the east it will require building everything from the scratch. But it's not something new to them I'd say. After all BoS was first and back then they made models from the scratch. But after all that's what we pay them for, delivering best from the best.

 

2 hours ago, sniperton said:

I too am in the opinion that carrier operations are at least 3 development cycles away, unless some very serious work on naval techs and related issues is being done behind the scenes, but this we can only learn when we see them tested e.g. on Kuban shipping.

Possibly. There is also a lot of work that has to be done in relation to ship Ai, how they manouver individually and how they interact as a group. Not to mention AA on board of all those ships. Still, Pacific can be started with land based scenario, giving time for ships to arrive. 

 

Anyway, in 3 development cycles I have serious reservations about this game engine in terms of graphics and performance. That would be around 2021-2022 and technology is changing rapidly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally, I do not want the pacific theatre of operation game! But if there is a game offered then yes, I should buy it.  The Pacific is a to great/vast theatre of operation to be covered by one game alone.

It should be cut into battles or campaigns but then it is difficult to find some that are at least a little with not only an equilibrium of forces but also of quality of planes?! :salute:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, senseispcc said:

...but then it is difficult to find some that are at least a little with not only an equilibrium of forces but also of quality of planes?! :salute:

 

 

Absolutely incorrect.

 

I suggest reading a few books - or A book.

  • Upvote 1

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

×
×
  • Create New...