Nerd1000

At least in theory you can exploit the over-g to defeat missiles at close range. The rule of thumb is that a missile has to pull around 3x the g its target is pulling to have a good chance of hitting, so going from the eagle's realistic 12.5g (missile must pull 37.5g) to the less realistic 14g (missile must pull 42g) might make a difference in a dogfight.

speaking of wires, a while back some guy tried to tell me that the IFF antenna wires going from the fuselage to the tips of the tail on pre-1943 spits were structural bracing :music_whistling:

nice! is that a Tablet acting as the CDU?

I'm told that it involves a simple incantation, three small bits of wood and 4cc of mouse blood.

You wouldn't even need multicrew for a mosquito night fighter or fighter bomber. Just switch seats like in most of the helis that are in game if you need the map or the radar.

I'm pretty sure that this is because the MiG uses the default guns sound effect rather than its own effect.

something akin to Teamfusion mod for Il-2 CloD?

I wouldn't be too confident about seeing 'hilarious reactions'. At the very least there is a nice placebo effect from knowing that you are not fighting the ultimate 109, but instead his less slippery older brother. Also even a small reduction in top speed could raise the chances of allied flyers given that a certain 'flying Honda Civic' is so dependent on BnZ tactics. As 109 variants go, I'd like to see a 109 F-4. From what I've read it was the most pleasant version to fly and could be included in scenarios for Western Europe, the Mediterranean, North Africa and the Russian front. Naturally we'd also need some of its enemies from the same time period- LaGG-3 (yuk), Yak-1, Spitfire Mk V, early Typhoon Ib and so on. I'm not holding my breath.

This is in some respects a built-in limitation of the 109. The view from its small, framed cockpit with a razorback is never going to be as good as from the Mustang's bubble canopy, especially if you are looking to the rear (though believe it or not the K-4 is probably one of the better 109s in this regard, as it has the improved 'erla haube' canopy). All you can do is try your best to look around the obstructions by moving your head.

The A-10 proves that around half those things are optional.

IMO the No. 1 flaw is the view to the rear (or lack thereof...)

The gull wings allow the landing gear legs to be a lot shorter for the same prop diameter- Long skinny landing legs are more prone to bending. This was a concern because the F4U was designed to land on carriers, and thus the gear needed to be a lot stronger than the gear on a land plane. The F4U's gear is actually so strong that it can be used as an airbrake for dive bombing... so long as you don't go too fast. :smilewink:

Splash One!

Are you being affected by a crosswind?

Because Rudel is bad sense of humour...

I have the exact same problem.

Or reduced weight (higher mass fraction = higher delta-V).

What a shame...

The AI cheats.

Why do you refer to the P-47 (an aircraft known for its heavy weapons load in the fighter-bomber role and high speed diving attacks in the fighter role) as the 'Turningnaut', or indeed the Spitfire (which was only significantly slower than a contemporary model of 109 during the reign of the Mk V) as the 'Slowfire'? In any case this is hardly on-topic for this thread, which appears to have reached its conclusion regardless of whose numbers you want to believe. I vote we just let it die and move on to our next 'interesting debate'. Perhaps we could argue the virtues and failings of various camouflage schemes?

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. As it is, the F4U should be an admirable fighter-bomber even if it cannot deal with the likes of the Kurfurst and the Dora.

Indeed. People seem to forget that it all happened 70 years ago and there's no good reason to keep fighting over everything. As an aside, video game players are a notoriously whiny bunch. I wouldn't be surprised by 262 pilots whining about the 262's disadvantages (slow engine spool-up, low muzzle velocity of guns and wide turn radius) while at the same time the pilots of the piston-prop planes that face them are complaining about fighting a jet. :doh:

Feature, apparently. The start activates to prevent engine flameouts caused by injesting rocket exhaust gases.

I'm confused. The model they're showing has the petal-style exhaust but lacks the 300mm plug inserted aft of the cockpit. Is it a Mirage IIIC retrofitted with an Atar 09C engine?