otto

I set up a friendly Ai p51 just to try to boom it. Didn't take too many shots and i'm sure the damage model will get improved after EDGE is available.

4.30 P51 explodes. And the last 5-6 minutes or so is full of scissors action :joystick:.

I was critical of ED more than i would have liked .And i'm not asking for the takeoff, landing of the dora to be made easyer. I'm sure that if i had more precise hardware than just a T16000m i would have made it first time like i did with the p51(takeoff, landing). To me there is a big difference between how easy it is to takeoff, land the p51 vs how hard the dora. This is my 40th-50th take off with the dora, second landing try, first p51 takeoff,landing after months (and i did not make more than 10 of those because online there was always airstart available) .

+1.

+1

Do a complete reinstall with 1.2.10 .

I'm sure that ED has much better documentation, data than ww2aircraft performance site. And they are going to model the engine gap seal or lack of properly. But i just don't trust that ww2 performance site. Every comparison chart is set in such a way that spitfire always seems faster , better. For example 109 g6 vs Spit 9 . 109k vs spit 14. Where is the 109 G 14 , G6 AS vs spit 9 ? 2 planes the spit 9 would surely met in combat. Where is the 109 K vs spit 9 ? There weren't a lot of spit 14's flying around. Not nearly as much as spit 9's. And that site had so many translation errors for a site that should present accurate info.

One of my favourite flanes alongside the F104 starfighter.

This is ridiculous.Performance graphs show performance of an average plane(with the lack of "manufacturing quality"). You don't think they chose a "special plane " that was an exception for tests ? Why not simulate allied air superiority of 20 to 1 ? Why not simulate the skill and experience of some of the luftwaffe aces? I have incredible vision but not much resistance to G forces . Can we simulate that in game please.

I also preordered . One of my favourite all time planes.

To me any space combat "simulation" is something i'd get bored in 5 minutes.You can turn on the spot in any direction and they call it dogfight.

aljazeera : "A Russian jet has shot down a Ukrainian SU-25 attack plane over the east of Ukraine " 17 Jul 2014 11:35

OMG "you put your helmet on and you're Iron Man (Tony Stark)".If i would be like 9 years old that would impress me :lol:. "It's fun geeky interesting" :megalol:. Overall the plane might not be a failure.Might have some incredible technology on it but the way this guy describes it is funny.

Tested today 120cs in 1.2.8 and i think you are right about 120 no so great efficiency , about ET and 73. I might be speaking from my experience in previous dcs versions. But the 9m and 120 still have the low visibility smoke trail advantage.And R27 seems a really weak aam to me .

I notice it doesn't have a hud. How do you aim your weapons ? I'm no expert :) .

I used to fly F 15 just as much as su 27 in version 1.2.3 . But since than the 120 c is just too effective and the r27 too weak and i get no satisfaction when getting a kill in the f15. The R27 seems to me like it doesn't track at all unless you fire it well within visual range.

+1. Was just thinking about this today.

Even if there is a picture with screwdrivers from 1945 you still have to prove it actually turned :) .

Mr Friedrich. If the germans had at least some C3 fuel. And there are lots of 109s with C3 painted on them. Would it not seem logical that at least some of them were indeed loaded with c3 fuel ?

Look what kind of proof posts Williams on his site : This demonstrates his chart held in battle. :lol:

gtx 570 gainward

If i make my own aircraft performance site and try to compare 2 planes: -I post, publish everything i can find about these planes.And let the reader make his own conclusions. Be impartial. What does Williams do ? 1.About the 1.98 ata : "1.98 ata boost with MW was tested but seems not to have made it into service " And posts only data that supports his claim. Why isn't the data i posted about the 1.98 K-4 on his site ? 2.Williams, is using the data stated in 'Leistungen 8-109 K4 und K-6 mit DB 605 ASCM/DCM. Oberammergau, den 11.12.44 and 1.19.45, prepeared by Messerschmitt AG, - williams says "Bf 109 K the curves needed to be treated with reserve." Why when the original document states : -Die angegabenen Leistungen werden mit gut gebauten Serienmachinen sicher erreicht.(The given performance are surely going to be reached with well built serial aircraft.) He tries to influence the reader and this is not what an impartial man does. Also post "ww2 pilot testimony" that begins with : The Spitfire XIV was the most marvellous aeroplane at that time and I consider it to have been the best operational fighter of them all as it could out-climb virtually anything. Is this objective or biased ? 3. There should be just as many pilot testimony on allied and axis side. Not 100 allied and 2 axis. He makes tons of intentional of accidental mistakes in translating german documents. Look on Kurfurst site.

Honestly i would have prefered a FW A-8.Not that i don't like the D-9.

Cobra i understand you because i can't program sh** on a pc. Take your time.

1. The North American F-86 Sabre was the first American aircraft to take advantage of flight research data seized from the GERMAN aerodynamicists at the end of World War II 2.Wernher von Braun. His crowning achievement was to lead the development of the Saturn V booster rocket that helped land the first men on the Moon in July 1969.[3] In 1975 he received the National Medal of Science. 3.Messerschmitt P.1101's design features were subsequently used by Bell as the basis for the Bell X-5, which was the first aircraft capable of varying its wing geometry while in flight. 4.http://www.wrightmuseum.org: Capture of U-234. Among them were German civilian scientists who were bound for Japan to help the Axis ally in the development of cutting-edge aviation technologies to be used against their common enemy. These scientists would remain in America and make significant contributions to efforts relating to the development of stealth technologies, jet powered aircraft, and eventually guided missiles. 5.The MG 213 never reached production, but inspired the DEFA, the very similar British ADEN cannon, and the smaller American M39 cannon. 6.Infra red technology(nightvision) on tanks.