Pman

That's a mashed up article and not how it appeared in the publication. See my previous link Pman

Link to the full article that we quoted for development of the Buchon : http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=135476 Pman

Picture of their old one Because if you read the entire article the startup sequence is that of a merlin and not the DB605 ;) Plus this line at the beginning of the article gives it away ... I'd suggest you do your research before ever assuming anything ;) Pman

He was referring to the OMFC Buchon that he and Ray Hanna flew and owned. This was a Merlin powered buchon. I knew both Mark and Ray quite well when they were still with us :( Pman

Also worth noting that Mark Hanna (Whom I knew in person RIP) was referring to a Merlin engine Buchon and NOT a 109 with a DB605 in that article Solty is quoting. Pman

Nice work David, I will pop into the ACG server tonight to try it out :) Pman

+1 Pman

Thought I'd chime in here: No current plans for any variant of the tempest sorry! Lancaster is in early stages of planning but as per my podcast it will be after the Dak due to AFM concerns. Currently 4 variants of Spitfire in the works 2 variants of mosquito planned, more news on them in 2015 Once the P-40F and Bearcat are out and in the public domain we shall start giving out more piccies and SS on what some of the other artists have been doing with meshes etc :) Pman

Great video guys, Shared on the VA facebook page for you :) Pman

If Pat wants/needs some pointers I am happy for him to contact me directly and we shall see what we can do :) Pman

My technique is slightly different. 1) Line up with the runway 2) let the aircraft roll forwards before stopping 3) lock tail wheel 4) set RPM to 12o'clock position manually 5) cowling flaps fully open 6) full nose heavy trim 7) slowly power up to 1.2 ata 8) adjust heading using toe brakes to maintain straight travel down the runway 9) as the tail raises apply right rudder to counter yaw at increasing speed 10) be ready to apply some forward stick pressure when you get in the air to counter the aircraft tendency to climb.

Да , вы правы,правильным является термин EFM и не PFM Pman

Your not the only one, We have contacts who own 4 Spitfire I's plus several II's as well plus other in restoration. You will for sure see an early Spitfire from us, plus we have contacts with unbelievable data on the BF109E3/4 including current pilots rated on type :) Its safe to say that once our current line up of 4 warbirds has been completed BoB period aircraft will follow soon after :) Pman

For what its worth we will be developing the Spitfire XIV to be historically accurate (as much as possible) using real world data gathered from airworthy aircraft and current pilots. Historical data although good is often not reliable as it is often a biased view and/or a matter of relativity. We do not "balance" our aircraft, we will make them in line with all of the data we have at our disposal, if that means that Spitfire XIV's and Bf109's rule the roost then so be it ;) If it means that FW190's rule everything then there is nothing we can do about that, we cant "buff" or "nerf" our aircraft to make it more acceptable to peoples expectations about how they should or should not perform That said I had my first A2A in a Bf109K4 vs P-51D and I quite enjoyed myself and scored some good hits on a P-51 (players, not AI), 2 damaged scores for my tab but no kills yet :) Pman

:( At least he apologized Pman

Glad that you all enjoyed it :) It was good fun to do and thanks to Dojo for having me on! Pman

Haha, have no fear I am whipping my guys back and forth and we will have it on staff test for a couple of weeks and pending any major problems it will then make its way to the VEAO testers :) Pman

Thanks guys Once we are a little further down the line with our roadmap if there is interest I can always hook up with Dojo and do another one :) Pman

I'm not going to get into a massive debate about IP rights and what people see as right or wrong. To be honest the only opinion that we can take with any weight is that our of our lawyers. Let me re-iterate one point about the A-4, It was McDonnell Douglas' lawyers who we had long discussions with (although they are owned by Boeing now they do not manage the IP rights) and we could have had an agreement with them but they would not grant us a licence under terms we deemed economically viable when other development costs were accounted for, if another 3rd party is willing to agree to their terms then good luck to them but we couldn't make the business model work. It is not a matter of opinion if you need a licence from an aircraft manufacturer if you are simulating in depth systems, you do. Someone was paid to create that work on behalf of say Boeing therefore they own the design, when you copy (not an artistic impression when it comes to simulating fuel systems etc etc) you need the IP holders permission. Its as simple as that, even taking aside tradenames and design of airframe If you need one for FC3 or not is still a matter of contention under UK law (which by the way is the only law we care about as we are based in the UK) depending on how much system modelling you do in the back ground. It is VEAO policy that we will not even entertain a project where there is no licence or waiver. Pman

Exactly my friend ;) Pman

I'd love you to point me in the direction of an official third party where you have proof there is no licence or waiver in place.... Pman

First rule of itars is that we don't dicuss itars ;) Pman

This is pretty much correct Although names like Ah64d are open to be used and that would be fine for an fc3 level aircraft it is NOT enough for an asm level aircraft. People need to understand that it's the systems you need permission for as much as the aircraft name/shape. Pman

That is correct, Mcdonnell Douglas for the record :) Pman

It is isnt it Pman