Hiromachi
-
Posts
1260 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Hiromachi
-
-
Is this a new model of lawnmower ?
-
Question here Cobra, with the last update in May you've said that :
The F4U-1 is on a very temporary development hold as we wait for some new terrain technology to become available in the core engine- as well as focus fully on the AJS-37 until completion.I'd expect us to announce/show the Pacific project in full before the end of Summer, however- and a release of the Corsair this year.
It's still being very much actively worked on in general, there's just a temporary lull for the Corsair itself.
http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2764600&postcount=45
So is this still a case and there will be an exclusive announcement for Pacific project by the end of August (or when exactly you consider end of summer) ?
-
- That's a bit off topic, but to correct the above. US fuel tanks did not have any rubber covers or layers inside of metal tank.
US fuel tanks were almost entirely formed from non-metallic materials. Fuel cell consisted of layers of materials typically cemented together, including three basic elements, an absorbent interior lining and inner and outer layers. Those tanks, that proved effective even against .50 caliber rounds (though first versions offered only partial protection again those) were rather complicated and heavy, normally had half a dozen or more layers of material. Typical thickness of the tank could reach 19 mm or more. And they required very careful handling.[1]
But Goodyear design was not flawless, first versions created major issues. For example VF-3 Wildcats received their first all-rubber fuel cells in February-March period (1942) and soon started encountering problems. Self-sealing tanks on numerous fighters began to leak. In April 1942 VF-42 F4Fs encountered similar issues, which at certain point disabled eight out of nineteen fighters and led to complete replacement of the fuel tanks. Other Wildcat units as well as Brewster Buffalo units experienced similar issues during first half of 1942 as well.[1]
The reason for this was the fact that gasoline with high aromatic content which happened to be used by U.S. Fleet attacked the tanks in a variety of ways, the interior linings being exposed to the fuel all the time tended to blister and began to slough off particles which would block fuel lines and could damage the engines. Poor seals at the filler neck allowed fuel to contact the outer skin of the tanks causing deterioration. Swelling and bloating of the various layers caused by gasoline penetration and deteriorating cement threatened the whole integrity of fuel cell. Soon however Goodyear produced fuel cells made of different materials, not reacting with U.S. gasoline. Eventually U.S. reached the point at which it had the best fuel tank protection from all the other fighting countries, of course it wasnt immune to damage, it would provide satisfactory results for multiple operations.[1]
About not burning Wildcats and burning Zeros, as a matter of fact there were multiple examples of Zeros returning to the aircraft carriers safely despite battle damage (including hits to the fuel lines or fuel tanks, like A6M2 of Petty Officer Tetsuo Kikuchi of Akagi carrier, which took thirty hits including numerous into wing fuel tank) while some Wildcats were observed burning which would indicate that fuel tanks were not sufficient against 20 mm. Though generally Wildcats would return even with extensive battle damage, including cockpit area and fuel lines.[1]
- But I assume most important thing for this topic is complete absence of U.S. M8 API rounds. The M8 API was put into service in 1943 to replace the M1 Incendiary, and is still in service today. The M8 is built nearly identical to the M2 Armor Piercing except the M8 has 12 grains of incendiary mixture in the nose instead of a lead filler, and a lead caulking disc in the base acting as a seal. Having the same hardened steel core as the M2, the M8 matches the armor piercing capability of the M2 with the added advantage of incendiary effect. While it has considerably less incendiary mix than the M1, the performance of the M8 was greatly superior to the M1 because of it's ability to penetrate the target and ignite the material inside rather than just flash on the surface like the M1 often did, making for a greater first shot effect. Bullet weight is about 649 grains, and identified by silver tip paint.
Pyrotechnic performance of these projectiles is only slightly less than the M1 Incendiary. The flash varies exponentially with the amount of fuel, so while the M1 contains 3 times the incendiary mix of the M8, the flash is only about 30% larger. This rounds were routinely found in U.S. ammunition belts since mid-late 1943, at some point becoming the most common type of round encountered.[2] I have added a link to the Aberdeen Proving Ground report on M8 and M20 ballistics and aerodynamic characteristics, hopefully Sithspawn or someone else from the team can carry it to the developers and take advantage of it, to add the M8 rounds to US belts.[3]
Couple combat reports indicating ammunition used, from 1944:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/4-jones-12april44.jpg
http://www.taphilo.com/history/WWII/jacobson.shtml
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/4-kolbe-2nov44.jpg
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/4-mckennon-8april44.jpg
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/4-mckennon-29march44.jpg
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/4-riley-8april44.jpg
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/20-planchak-2dec44.jpg
As you can see its almost always API and Tracer rounds. The other source though, indicates a slightly different setup:
"In December 1944 the Ordnance Section of the 12th Air Force. using 57th Fighter Group fighter-bombers, conducted a study of attacks on a static Italian steam locomotive. Strafing damage was found to stall a locomotive and cause repairs ranging from one to 35 days, and that strafing was much more likely to achieve hits than bombing or rockets. It was suggested that strafing using a .50 belting of four armor piercing incendiary (API) rounds to one tracer was ideal (as opposed to the previous API-lncendiary-APl-Incendiary-Tracer belting). Strafing from 90-degree beam was suggested over an attack from a shallower angle, as these perpendicular strikes were more likely to perforate the locomotive's boiler and less likely to ricochet."
References:
1) R.L. Dunn, "Exploding Fuel Tanks - Saga of Technology That Changed the Course of the Pacific Air War", U.S. 2011, pages: 25-27, 55-56, 67-75, 101.
2) http://browningmgs.com/AirGunnery/09_ammo.htm
3) AD-A219 106/2 Aerodynamic Characteristics of .50 Ball, M33, API, M8, and APIT, M20 Ammunition by Ballistics Research Lab, Aberdeen Proving Ground - https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0Iwvrpz0e6CVEZjMmhhUHBoWFk/view?usp=sharing
4) W. Wolf, "American Fighter-Bombers in World War II: USAAF Jabos in the MTO and ETO", Atglen, PA: Schiffer Publishing Ltd, 2003.
Cheers,
Hiro
Edit: Returning to that;
The older 109s btw laminated alumium armor behind the fuel tank, that pretty much rendered early US API ammo (before they copied the Russian one) ineffective in starting fires. The late ones, like the K did not have this, but they did have a rather large aluminium tank in the same place and in the bullets typical way, filled with water/methanol. The bullet had to pass through this. I wonder how passing through that liquid effected API rounds, esp. compared to the older layered alumium armor. Can an API round pass a barrel of water, AND remain effective for causing fires I wonder.Yes it can. M8 API had 15 grains of incendiary mixture, made of :
50% Barium Nitrate
50% Magnesium Aluminum Alloy
Magnesium is burning even completely submerged in water :
-
It's a sad thing to lack.
And Rudel is such a troll :)
-
Down low was where the Ki-84 really shined in terms of performance, the higher it went the more it lost out in terms of performance when compared with the american fighters.
On full boost the Ki-84 was capable of impressive speeds at low altitudes.
Actually no, Ki-84 supercharger was more optimized for medium altitudes with 2nd speed critical altitude being somewhere between 6200 to 6500 meters. With ram effect aircraft could reach top speeds up to 7000 meters and according to Japanese pilots up to 9000 meters their ride was capable.
On full boost at low altitudes aircraft wasn't going any faster than ~560 km/h.
How were Japanese pilots ever supposed to see the difference between a -1 and a -4 in the middle of combat? Not gonna happen.Surly they wouldnt know, American pilots went as far to report fighting Tony while in fact they fought Zeros. And that's a hell of a difference. So confusion happens.
But if you would actually check what I've been referring to then you would learn it is a book based on Japanese and AMERICAN sources, especially since author was born in US, is US citizen and has access to US archives and publications. For every chapter and combat it is noted what aircraft did US forces operate.
Either way we're not getting F4U-4, but F4U-1d.
-
That shows you actually dont know much about Japanese aircraft.
Neither of those really was a match for F4U-4, Ki-84 was actually quite a bit slower down low and only a bit less at medium altitudes. And while it would outturn Corsair (with 17 sec turn time) it wouldn't really save it.
Also, I went through the whole H. Sakaida monograph of 343 Ku, titled "Genda's Blade", not a single combat was recorded between N1K2-J and F4U-4.
-
Corsairs did serve in Europe (with the Fleet Air Arm) so german planes are relevant at least to some degree. I don't think they saw much action against enemy aircraft though.
Yes, Fleet Air Arm operated Corsair MK I to MK IV (so dash 1 to dash 1D [name depending on version and manufacturer] ) while the proposition was to introduce F4U-4. That's quite a bit different aircraft by all means.
And Corsair service in Europe was delicately saying ... minor. Providing escort in Operation Tungsten, but according to various combat and post-combat reports Corsairs never encountered Luftwaffe fighter opposition on any of these raids.
After the Norwegian operations, FAA Corsairs switched operations to the Indian Ocean to fight the Japanese forces.
-
One of the reasons I had hoped for an F4U-4 instead of a -1, it just makes a lot more sense considering the other WW2 aircraft already available.
Btw, if I'm not mistaken ED will be working on the Me262 & P-47D after they've released DCS 2.5, the F/A-18C & Spitfire IX.
Yes Hummingbird, that would make sense if you aim to compete with 109 K-4. But if I'm not mistaken they never fought. So from historical and immersion point of view there was no reason for LN to take into consideration German modules released by ED.
At the same time F4U will have competition in A6M5 model 52, Type 1 Model 3, Type 4, Type 5 and N1K2-J fighters. Neither of those would really be a fair opponent for F4U-4, not to mention that there weren't that many dash 4s in direct combat. I think I've explained somewhere in the other thread that until the last days of the war American carrier attacks were escorted by F6F-5 and F4U-1c and F4U-1d.
When I tried to check the combat records I couldnt find a single operation in which F4U-4s participated. They did somewhere else, but overall their impact was minor if compared to dash one.
-
No no. One Spitfire. VEAO is not going to deliver their Spitty any time soon. P-40 F ... yeah, I've lost my hope long ago. P-47 D is in development since 109 K-4 was released and not much updates we had on that one. F4U is postponed. So not sure why you name them all. Just because they are declared to arrive at some point it doesnt really mean they will be any time soon.
In a way that in 2014 everything went quicker after D-9 and K-4 were available for players. Since then nothing has changed in terms of number of ww2 modules released.
And no the P-40F has never had a concrete release date, so how do you work out that it has been postponed twice? It's development was always subject to the EFM being completed, and clearly, right now all the effort has gone into the Hawk. The P-40F will arrive, but patience has always been needed when it comes to releases.Sure sure, its an object of unspecified properties and unknown date of release. Might be sold as well under the name "Something".
And please, that hypocrisy, you are the one going hard OT. Not even a single sentence related to the topic.
-
How do you work out that WW2 is dying when there are so many releases lined up?
You mean the single and only Spitfire IX ?
Cause else then that nothing is "lined up", F4U is postponed temporarily as Cobra said in their latest upate. VEAO has no credibility being unable to deliver a single piston engine aircraft since forever. So for now only one to deliver modules is ED, and as hard as Yo-Yo is working I think we all learnt by now that it takes months if not years to release following modules.
It may not be happening as quickly as any of us want, but it IS happening, so maybe you ought to reconsider your statement!Bf-109 K-4 went into early access mode on December 4th, 2014. Count how long that is ... and possibly reconsider your statement.
Now, shall we get back on topic?Sure, I see no point in going into development with no Japanese adversaries considering its already planned to make Iw-Jima and Okinawa. So They will be there, most likely first as Ai and soon after first Japanese module (A6M ?) will be released.
I'm sure LN guys know what they are doing.
-
Wouldn't the use of such software be considered a cheat for MP matches ?
That software is called Drivers. If you would consider Drivers illegal because of your presumption then I'm sorry but ... :lol:
-
Ekhem, people have various joysticks and various settings are required to give them a satisfaction from flying. Just because you think its not "realistic*", doesnt mean that for someone else its not crucial to be able to fly. Especially if someone has really cheap/old stick with lousy spring.
I dont consider that to be a problem that someone else can customize controls to his desire.
Also, what is the reason for showing your stats with 109/190 ? Because I dont see any specific relation to the problem you seem to find.
S!
*When you start "measuring" realism dont forget, that you dont sit in a cockpit of real aircraft, but you hold a short stick in your hand, cup of coffee/beer in the other and your desk cant pull any G's.
-
And where is F4U in all this ?
Can we expect soon any update on that one ?
-
So I guess first news on F4U we can expect in Q2 update ?
-
Its still 1.5 hour before midnight in Sweden. Plenty of time :)
-
The general layout of the cylinder and cooling fins match Sakae engine as well as Homare engine (as they share cylinders design) however there are certain details :
that make it hard to match it with anything known to me.
In general that indeed looks like Sakae/Homare cylinder and resembles Japanese design but details confuse. It's a very early model so its possible certain details are not finished and some were omitted on purpose :)
Rudel is definitely best troll on the forums :P
-
Hmmm hmmm, but I believe 109 K-4 actually has superior energy since its rate of climb is higher. At least thats what was found in game testing, you said yourself back in the older bug report thread that 23 m/s is very pessimistic for 109 K-4. Some folks claimed it to be 26+ m/s in game atm.
Based on the first post Spitfire IX makes 23.5 m/s at best.
So I might be understanding you wrong here, but it looks to me that Spit doesnt have equal energy.
-
Yes, I'm aware of real life tests Kurfurst. Still, thank you for pointing this.
-
I still would like to ask Yo-Yo for the turn time and turn radius data for Spitfire IX. Based on current discussion it seems that Spitfire has a lot of energy and should have a very good maneuverability. But knowing specifics is always nice, hence the polite request.
-
Right. So in regard to the performance of the Spitfire IX in current state.
Could you tell me please Yoyo, what is expected minimum turn time and turn radius of this Spitfire ?
-
Very nice Yoyo.
One question if I may ask, so Spitfire will be running only +18 lbs boost ? Not +25 ?
-
It looks like its our fault that ED IS inconsistent and first declared Normandy and then started releasing modules without any regard to time and area of operation.
Regardless if this change the performance and will create any balance. It is the standard rating P-51 D at that time and place operated.
-
You are correct, I dont see you point at all... you want something that probably wont help you at all. Yes, let me stop Yo-Yo from working on the Spit and Jug and get on that...
Oh please Sithspawn, its not like this issue exists since yesterday. It has been asked for at least 1.5 year and was also noticed by Yo-yo. We have pointed this numerous times. It would be nice if customers opinions were actually taken into account, because so far it looks like whatever customers think is irrelevant. Since quite some time actually.
-
It is also documented without that boost, which is also historically accurate. So what now?
It's also documented that no 109 K-4 and FW 190 D-9 were present over beaches of Normandy. So what now ?
We can reverse the logic and play like that forever. But you know Sithspawn that I am right.
Next aircraft speculation
in Heatblur Simulations
Posted
Planes of Fame A6M5 is as close as it gets to real Zero, indeed. But you wont get as much in detailed performance mjmorrow, they (as any other flying museum) never run their aircraft at full power or even close to that, they also rarely if every perform complicated aerobatics that put more stress on airframe. Their goal is to preserve history which means they show as much as possible as long as it wont affect those birds - very expensive birds if I may add.
Though for overall flight characteristics it might be a good idea to ask them, I know Steve Hinton used to fly Zero quite a bit and liked it so they could call Chino guys.
The other bunch that is currently in process of building A6M3 model 32 from a scratch, are Legend Flyers guys (albeit their Zero wont have original engine, supposedly it was too expensive):
It will take them probably another year or two to complete it.
But if you want a Zero to match F4U-1D than I have a bad news, there is no such Zero. Between 2000-5000 meters A6M5 can be capable and overall has a better rate of climb and time to altitude but in general its outclassed. If that would be 1943 F4U-1 then it would be a pretty good match, but late 1944 F4U-1D is a different story. You might want N1K2-J or J2M3 for that one.