Ala13_ManOWar
-
Posts
3502 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Ala13_ManOWar
-
-
You liked it first read, then reread and suddenly not? :lol: Fine mate, whatever.That's really a first for someone to call the 109... slow. ...Huh? Sorry but the D9 is the ultimate 190, appearing head to head with the K4. ...
.
.
.
Still 190 is quite a better aeroplane than usually said by 109philes :thumbup:.
S!
-
In the newsletter when they announced the delay, they said a couple of months. Also said IIRC the delay was due to their decision to include a new mesh.
But yes, we will probably don't know a thing until it's a month or so close to release. I don't like it either, but anyway remember they adopted this policy after people freaking out in this forums :huh:.
S!
-
Yep, my thought also. I don't see that kind of spring can close the cover by itself.But isn't the spring simply for the 'over centre' action so they hold open and hold closed, they aren't meant to be permanently sprung shut.S!
-
Airliners are designed to crab landing in really strong wind conditions, old 747 and I think A380 even face the wheels bogies into wind for that, as probably other big models also. BUT, in GA it's prohibited to land while crabbing, you always must decrab, as landing gear isn't designed at all to hold that kind of stress. Warbirds are the same and IIRC it is stated at least in P-51 manual you must never land while crabbing. Of course a simulator in where you don't pay the bills is different."Destroying the gear" is surely an overstatement. I prefer your method (slip touch), which is indeed healthier for the gear, but there are plenty of real pilots who prefer the rougher method (crab touch). I've seen too many airliners touchdown still in the crab. Do I think it's poor form? Yep! Does it destroy the gear? Not in the usual sense. It does accelerate metal fatigue, increasing chances of an eventual collapse (after years or decades of such abuse). But I wouldn't worry about the gear collapsing just from a few such landings.Not to mention, IRL if you land while even slightly crabbing in a GA aircraft, you better be quick on pedals as once aircraft is set on ground no matter how strong winds are your wheels will make you run to the direction they are pointing at, so countryside usually… and I know about it, I have tried myself :lol:. That's a bit different in simulator.
S!
-
You keep being mean to somebody you don't even know, I would gladly mark you again negatively :thumbup:. Currently TFC owns not one but two Spits, not to mention they make money restoring and selling aircraft, I don't know how many Spits along other aircraft have they restored and sell, or how many do they maintain and overhaul a year. Let me believe they know their business beforehand insulting anybody, mate :smilewink:.Speaking of old aeroplanes... perhaps you (Alan) should "at least google before talking" yourself, particularly before giving me that sort of passive aggressive negative rep. I know that (Sir?) Stephan Grey is an old Shekel-Farmer of some renown who also owns The Fighter Collection... However, and feel free to correct me on this one, TFC don't seem to have a Mk IX Spitfire on their books.http://fighter-collection.com/cft/tfc-aircraft-directory/
Only, nobody is even impugning his knowledge or experience. Grey is only being used (erroneously?) as prop to shore up someone else's professional reputation by (presumably well-meaning) third parties.
S!
P.S.: my nickname isn't Alan, not even close.
-
2
-
-
And this one too, even though he seems to use his own procedure,
S!
-
No, you have early access on 16th of December to the Beta of a Spitfire with unknown release date :lol:.I tough on a pre purchase you have access to it before the December 16th release date :( Two more weeks ;)S!
-
Who says it's bad? But still 190 is usually overlooked :smilewink:.For the 109 fanboys :lol:it was build in the 1930 years, was for that time like the Spit one of the most advanced design choices for this time, they keep this bird up under constant bombing most of the Time with Allied Fighter designs can not be that bad.Makes sense pilots didn't trust electrical systems on the 190 back then, the first ever using them, they probably thought electrical stuff instead of mechanical had to be unreliable and definitely bad like all new and revolutionary things. History has proven that's uncertain, as you rely on all your electrical devices on a daily basis, don't you? :thumbup:
S!
-
Welcome mate, good to see you around here :beer: .+1000 ManowarS!
-
Congratulations mate! It's really rewarding when you can manage it, isn't it?
S!
-
But Spitfire gear legs aren't so long as Bf109's are, hence CoG isn't in a so high above the ground position. Spit ground handling won't be easy for sure, but I doubt it will be so laterally unstable as 109 is.The spit's gear track is actually narrower than that of the 109! That said, the handling on the ground should be slightly better because the wheels aren't splayed out at an angle like the messerschmidt's wheels are. The Spit also has lower wing loading, a bigger airframe for it's amount of power and (hallelujah!) a rudder trimmer, so it should have more forgiving handling takeoff and landing.S!
-
But it is free, you can download and install freely :lol:. Once the new Georgia map is available you'll have a free scenery either.2.0 is free, as long as you have a map it can run (NTTR and maybe Normandy if released on that platform)S!
-
+10 Not only turns, but she becomes the super agile fighter we all have read about, it's very important to get the rear tank empty first. With full tanks you have to be careful though, and agility isn't brilliant whatsoever, only roll rate is good but not that much until you're on the fuel sweet spot.burn fuel in aft tank first, it turns much better …
IMHO the thing is you're comparing apples and oranges, and not only, you're mixing up models and dates.Whenever you hear about WWII from allied and axis pilots alike they all agree that the FW-190 was the terror of the skies. Spitfire pilots were confident against 109s but learned to fear the 190, and historically it's generally agreed upon that the 190 was superior to the 109. However that doesn't seem to be the case in sims (at least in my view. take DCS for example, the 190 feels outperformed by the mustang and the 109. I know it's supposed to be used as to BnZ but it feels like the 109 just does that better, not just in DCS but in Battle of Stalingrad too. The 109 has no trouble at all picking up speed in a dive, and can retain it much better while extending/climbing. Is it armament? I know the 190 packs a good punch but 109's wasn't terrible. Is it something about flying it IRL that we simmers just don't have the ability to comprehend, like the feel of the aircraft or the ergonomics? I want to be able to use this bird to it's maximum but whenever I take it out of the hanger in IL-2 or DCS most times it feels like the 109 could do an on par, if not better job.It seems people tends to forget we have the ultimate 109, even though almost all 109 had a good climb rate compared to current counterparts, not so were other performances and specially top speed. Earlier models than K4 lacked so good performances in one or another aspects (while sometimes having better ones in others). Here we have the Fw190D9, a more or less later model, but not even close to "the ultimate 190", being that Ta152C and H. Those models really kicked in the ass everything, including Bf109K4. I don't dare to say this or that 109 model should be the one compared to D9, but it isn't K4 definitely. Albeit still Dora keeps on par, even improving slightly, P-51 performances, and Dora low level top speed is unmatched.
The 190s first Spit IX was design to counter were early models, A2, A3, A4 at best, those really were a big step forward for Germans for awhile, again in top speed (almost 100Km/H better than Spit V), but also agility. Of course agility doesn't mean it could out turn a Spit, but it could fly faster the wider radium turn meaning a better manoeuvrability. Dora can still do that over P-51 and K4, but not with a so great margin as firsts 190 did. Anyway, that's a feature you have to master before using it, and it's not an easy one, if not you'll find yourself with no speed and no altitude just trying to turn like mad for your life.
Besides that, 109 fanboys usually forget 190 was an technical wonder, the first ever aeroplane which almost all controls were electrical, with a primitive form of what we call nowadays ergonomics, everything at hand in cockpit, and ease of use for the pilot who could concentrate on combat instead of management. 109 have a bit of that with Komandogerat, but not in a so high level as 190. You're right in a sim we may be a bit unaware of those refinements and make not so huge difference, but IRL of course everything matters. When you read Dora manual you can only wonder how well designed this bird is.
S!
P.S.: forget about comparing other simulators, those games has to be balanced due to playability and we don't know yet different models than current in a DCS modelling level.
-
1
-
-
Don't freak out people. Last time someone asked about this (like last week? :music_whistling:), some mod and/or dev said they are fully aware of the problem and they will take care of it, just they are thinking out a solution.
S!
-
A ver, eso no es una cesta como la de otros aviones donde tú enganchas la cesta, en estos aviones la sonda va operada por una persona y tú sólo debes ponerte debajo del avión cisterna en una determinada posición (el KC135 tiene pintadas unas marcas por debajo para referencia, de posición y distancia), y la sonda será la que se mueva para enganchar y repostarte, y eso sí debes intentar moverte lo mínimo.
Ahí en el vídeo vas persiguiendo la pértiga, cosa que no debes, y vas mirando a la pértiga, y así es imposible que el "operador" (IA obviamente) te enganche la sonda, porque persiguiendo la sonda te mueves demasiado. Tu referencia debe ser el avión nodriza, colocarte en la posición y tratar de no moverte, no tienes que mirar a la pértiga, no tienes que perseguirla, sólo colocarte en posición.
Se aprecia en el vídeo cómo te mueves demasiado, y cuando consigues llegar a una posición en la que el operador puede tratar de engarcharte la pértiga te vuelves a mover (mientras la miras, y te mueves más aún por eso) y así es como chocas con la pértiga. Sé que no es fácil, pero tratar de hacer como te digo, usa como referencia el avión, no mires la pértiga, y nunca jamás la persigas, ella se moverá para buscarte si estás en el lugar correcto.
S!
-
AFAIK original ones used four bladed rotol, like Spit IX :lol:, I know they came with the engines (for the record Heinkels used Lancaster three blades props), but they were a bit modified to preserve ground clearance by trimming their tips so that's why they don't look like Spitfire props at all. Modern Warbirds are many times fitted with three bladed props, but I have no clue what those are. For the film some Buchones were fitted with Heinkel three blades props, but only the ones to be used as ground atrezzo as it was impossible to make them airworthy. May be modern warbirds use that also? Dunno.I really dont know what prop the Buchon was usingS!
-
1
-
-
Don't worry mate, your exposition is clear and fine :thumbup:. Well, I'm talking about post service Buchones, but you're right they aren't all the same. I know back then they used a transport/airliner Lancaster engine Merlin 500/45, that's what I meant about the "civil engine", but obviously I talk about the the ones those pilots in the video could fly, not the Spanish original model that included boundary layer fences due to cannons awful turbulence (also wing had to be reinforced to mount them) and so. Curiously enough, Spanish Buchón had a top speed of 675Km/H (but @altitude isn't said), far better than "later" (as they were G2 airframes) G6.Now I dont know if you are talking purely about post service/ modified Buchons, as these certainly will be lighter without the radio equipment and guns. But the operational Buchons were heavy and no joy to fly from what I have read.The BoB film was made with dismantled aircraft so I guess Spanish (so Lanc) engines, I had the idea those engines had some 1600HP at least, so that's more than K4 1400HP without MW50, but I might be wrong. Anyway they had, after taking apart useless equipment, a very good power/weight ratio.
About modern warbirds, I don't really know the engine model they use to mount/buy, anyway a limited one for sure as they have to pay the bills :lol:. Still those aircraft have a very good power/weight ratio for sure, far from original 109s.
S!
-
Ok, you wasn't (even though you aren't talking about tactics, and you posted the very well known video on 109 turning the hell better than Spit), so what's your point then? :huh:but I wasnt comparing the 109 to the spit at all..... nor did i even say that a K4 can turnfight a spitfire.S!
-
I speak about T&B versus B&Z because that's exactly the point and why I commented on Tomsk OP. He explains very well, including advantages and disadvantages of P-51, he don't miss a thing and he's far from being naive about real possibilities of Mustang/P-47. He's quite aware K4 is still a better aircraft, but you can play your game and bring the combat into your strong points.
Both have flown a Spanish built Buchón (built 100 meters away from were I'm sitting now, I don't disown it at all :smilewink:), a lighter aircraft than original, better powered than original with a Merlin, so at the end of the day with a far better weight/power ratio, and anyway a civil aircraft today as any Buchón keeps original equipment (it would be pointless, Spanish one, not German), they don't even have a self sealing fuel tank as Spanish builder was unable to reproduce it with the available technology (circa 1956 :music_whistling:), and BTW built on G2 airframes.… both pilots flew the P51Ds, and 109G ( think it was the G6). and in another interview, same pilot praises the 109, acceleration and climb ability. It was NOT all ear talk, both models flown, evne if its not the K4 it was still a 109 that would have been around in the western theatre, not to mention a earlier model, that could still give a P51 pilot a difficult time.. and its nice to see that there are american pilots IRL who can predicate and actually enjoy flying a foreign former adversary aircraft, vs putting them down and spouting the usual history channel esque comments …I know they weren't bad at all (just outdated by far…) as they fought Spits and Hurricanes every time available between film shots in Battle of Britain 1968 film, and Spanish pilots won almost every "battle", in part because they were trained Spanish AF pilots, but also because Merlin powered 109 had a stunning performance compared to civil Spits trying to keep it alive, so that allowed them to over climb and dive on Spits all the time (MH434 was among them indeed). There are pilots stories telling they saw some fellow pilots wrapping a scarf on their necks to hold the blood and be able to overturn Spits, as they didn't used G's suits.
I know all of that mate, but Buchón was far better powered than original 109G2 (with a 15 years more modern engine :smilewink:, also a civil one featuring 1000 hours between overhauls but lacking Supercharger, another reason to be lighter), they were very light as they were recovered from scrapyard so everything useless was taken apart, of course Spanish equipment, radios, cannons, etc. You're trying to compare a full equipped, late war, 109K4 with even better engine and more powerful than Buchón (but only using MW50, if not Buchón is still better powered), a K4 with full armament, with armours, with two wing bulges ripping a bit of lift, and so on, with a lighten up overpowered G2 airframe. Yes, I know there are circumstances in were 109 would overturn a Spit, or at least keep with it, but I think K4 strengths are others even though of course it still turns a bit better than P-51. Hence, with module I don't expect you will be able to keep it with a Spit IX capable of using all its power without having to worry how high will be the overhaul bill, not to mention you won't feel all those G's over you :). The day you get a 109F model may be you can turn with a Spit IX, even overturn it by a whisker, but then Spit IX will be the better powered aircraft so the B&Z one, that's called tactics and that's what OP was about :smilewink:.
S!
-
Obvious, it's Area 51 mate :lol:.Hot start and Coldstart at Nellis have this bug while at the Area 51 the bug doesn't happenWeird, it really sounds like engine is stopped, Ata pressure indeed go higher but doesn't reach Atmospheric pressure like he wants to stop but then no :huh:.
S!
-
Ok, I've been flying a bit on Nevada, just for test. Even though I don't know why, but it can be related just to weather conditions in the map, may be you're right extra drag and nose down moment when gear is lowered is harder to notice. Hard, but still it is there, you just need to keep your controls in a fixed position and you'll see how nose attitude changes while lowering or rising gear.
S!
-
Of course it's noticeable. I used to fly a C172RG in which you could either raise your gear or fly all the time with it lowered (but who knows what's the point on that). The thing is you are restricted to 100KIAS with lowered gear, so cruising is a bit painful as you can usually fly 120KIAS, and you definitely have a constant downward momentum in your controls, although you can get rid of it just trimming, obviously, but even trimmed it's there and you can feel the drag.It's a bit like in most gliders - raising the speedbrakes will not increase or decrease your speed, but will certainly increase the descent rate :-)As a simmer only in as far of these powerful ww2 fighters go, I can only compare to the A2A for FSX version of the P51d civil and military versions. On those models taking off and forgetting to raise the gear will certainly give you a very low top speed, and you will not be able to maneuver adequately...
Which one is correct from a RL pov, only a p51d pilot can tell. I asked a few years ago about it at the A2A forums, and the p51d pilot who cooperates with A2A, D Henriques, replied that a significant drag resulted from a lowered LG, affecting speed in a way that would certainly be noticeable in maneuvering and just by checking your ASI. Well...
Sims...
Last time I flew P-51 in 1.5.5 drag was there, easily noticeable at the moment you lower your gear, a bit like a hit, and same as you lower your gear in C172RG (although you feel the hit in your back, but quite close feeling in the controls). I didn't pay attention in 2.0.4 though, so I can't tell if it is or not. Not impossible something happened as many patches are released these days, but I didn't notice.
S!
-
Interesting. The question is, does it happen offline? I cannot test myself right now, but I will.I was doing all kinda maneuvers like the when the gear is retracted. The only aircraft that showed the effect of it on the same server is the Mig21.S!
-
While flying online realism options are set by the server, you know for sure they were correct?
S!
1 day left!
in DCS: Spitfire L.F. Mk. IX
Posted
S!