• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

medal medal

PainGod85 last won the day on October 16 2016

PainGod85 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

6,456 Outstanding


About PainGod85

  • Rank
    Semper iratus, omni tempore
  • Birthday 02/07/1985

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

4,419 profile views
  1. Incorrect about the energy fighting, at least in part. Energy fighting does not require your target to have no energy, it requires you to use what energy you have to drain your enemy's to the point he has less kinetic energy than you and no means to quickly regain that energy and then capitalize on it. BnZ is an expression of it, as is turnfighting.
  2. They are. It's just that Griffons hard counter them starting at 5-6 km. Or they would, if the average Griffon pilot knew how to manage his energy state.
  3. The P-47 has an exhaust-driven turbosupercharger feeding a single stage, single speed impeller mounted on the engine. As such, there are no gears to change. Yeah, that's the beauty of energy fighting, the basics stay the same even if the airframe you're sitting in has different properties. You can't beat physics, after all.
  4. p-47n

    The N has 500 hp more than the ingame Ds. That said, the D was eventually cleared for 70" MAP, which netted it 2800 hp as well, though at a lower critical altitude.
  5. p-38

    It's not much of a problem if you run manual engine controls. The cause is one engine producing a bit more engine power than the other for some reason.
  6. help

    Okay, remember .50s are neither meant nor generally able to snapshot the enemy. You need some time on target with them to inflict critical damage. Hence your goal must be to slow your opponent down so you get that one second of burst into him to guarantee the kill. Sure, someone being stupid and flat turning will present you with a good lineup even if they're fast, but let's assume your opponent is somewhat competent. So this begs the question, "How do I slow my enemy down while keeping my own speed high?" Simple. Well, not really. You make them try to engage you by passing them at angles and speeds they cannot lead you in. The P-47N especially has the roll rate to quite suddenly change direction and make your opponent miss his shots. And then you'll have turned a little bit because you didn't actually try for a gun solution while he just pulled a hard turn trying to lead you. Now he can either choose to commit and turn in behind you (another high G maneuver) or run away in the opposite direction. If it's the former, stay level for a bit to make sure you're actually pulling away, then go into a bit of a climb, maybe 5-10°. If he follows, you gradually turn to one direction while keeping your climb angle constant. Tighten up the turn as you lose speed and always keep an eye on the enemy. Use flaps as needed/required. If you notice he's going to be able to prophang, you can generally still nose down and pass under his guns (that is to say, dive past him on his belly side, then zoom back up and level to reset with more energy next time). Once it becomes clear he's either going to break off or completely stall out, roll over (a bit of rudder helps), pull lead and incinerate him. If it's the latter, just zoom up at ~10° and once you're above him, pull a very gentle turn towards him. You'll want to conserve your energy and make him do something stupid - like pulling a high G turn trying to prophang. Essentially, you'll want him to pull the stupid **** you pulled with your split s, no offense intended. If you know your opponent will be at a higher energy state, you can do two things: Either perform this kind of maneuver a second time, which does require setting up, or try to capitalize on them attempting to get on your six by pulling up into him at lower speed (= smaller turning circle), landing you in the vertical chasing him up. They will either try to loop back down and fail or stallfight you and fail a bit earlier. Don't get me wrong, the ability to pull hard maneuvers does have its place and it's important, but even more important is being able to suddenly change direction while not actually pulling a lot of Gs effectively. Also, this is all theorycrafting and the best laid plan doesn't survive enemy contact. It's not meant to be rock, paper, scissors of air combat, quite the opposite. Mix and match different aspects of the maneuvers I've outlined to 1. fit your playing style. 2. fit the situation. 3. fit your plane. Some ground rules do apply, though: Don't ever go slow if you're outnumbered. Don't ever climb near stall speed if you suspect enemies might be around. Don't ever dive into a furball before thinking about whether and how to disengage after your attack. Don't ever choose to engage if you don't know if you'll win. Don't ever let the enemy dive on you at a steep angle. This video details exactly why that is so important, I cannot stress it enough. Yeah, I know. "Don't ever" starts at 'a' and continues well past 'z'. I'll have to check my recent replays versus Germans, it may be I have one where I chandelled a 109. Here, the second kill, though I had to finish him off after holing just about everything on his plane: It may look close, but I knew he would be unable to pull enough lead. All his rounds flew past underneath me.
  7. p-47n

    The pilot's manual states a stall speed of 115 mph and 100 mph clean/with full flaps. It also implies this was tested at full internal fuel, though no weight is specified. From page 7: "Without external load, or with drop tanks attached but empty".
  8. So there are players in this game who actually PM'd me to thank me for getting Gaijin to fix P-38 flaps, and then there's the OP. I rest my case.
  9. You can't see what isn't there in the first place. Ryan's document details .50 ammo lend-leased in its entirety. If a specific ammunition type isn't listed, it means there was never any delivered to the USSR.
  10. In long, shut off the engine, zero the throttle, pray to RNGesus. In short, pray to RNGesus.
  11. You know, you all should stop looking at the kinetic energy of ~20-30 rifle caliber bullets hitting a wing in one somewhat concentrated spot and start looking at what that kind of damage means aerodynamically. Rip up wing skinning enough, and the aerodynamic forces it is subjected to during 400 kph fights will literally flay what is left of it from the ribbing. And at that point, all bets are off on whether or not the structural components will be able to withstand the added drag this causes.
  12. Apparently, forcing overshoots is too complicated of a skill to learn for most allied pilots. Meanwhile, it's my bread and butter. (Then again, the P-47N makes it easy...) Just because the enemy has more altitude than you is no reason to throw in the towel. Make him engage you in a shallow dive, work that angle, then pull out of his elevator axis and reverse into him. Force him to maneuver, then stick with him as he tries and fails to outdive your plane.
  13. Hopefully, P-38/late engine power at altitude will be fixed.
  14. p-38

    You're welcome.
  15. At 6000 m, the 47M would still comfortably make 2800 hp whereas the M71 engine on the I-185 would be on its second supercharger gear, making hundreds less hp than 2000. The 47M's speed at that altitude would still be 700 kph TAS.
  16. p-47n

    It actually never was. The manual says 115 mph, but this is with "no external load, or with drop tanks attached but empty", implying full internal fuel. At full internal fuel, it stalls (correctly) at 115 mph. However, at the loads players are using (45 minutes) the plane stalls at 105 mph, which drops down even further once flaps come into play. At full internal fuel, the 47N stalls at 100 mph with full flaps. This means stall speed will actually be notably below 100 mph at ingame combat loads. The very same manual also mentions the following takeoff procedure, and I will be paraphrasing this: "The plane will fly off the runway from a 3 point attitude at 100 mph. However, prevent this by raising the tail ca. 6 inches so the tail control surfaces gain more authority. At 110 mph, lift the plane off the runway." And yes, around these speeds you get a PEC of 0 mph: Indicated Airspeed (Corrected for Inst. Error) MPH Calibrated Airspeed MPH Position Error Correction MPH 300 311 11 250 258 8 200 205 5 150 152 2 120 120 0 TL;DR: There is no problem with stall speed.
  17. You might have had a point if Shag hadn't posted about the error he made testing the 152C's thermodynamics roughly three hours before you decided to take a dump on him for no reason. I wish I could downvote your post.
  18. help

    The file didn't work for me so I went looking myself. Is this the mission? If yes, ultimately a good carry and you did get 4 kills out of it. You also did not too bad of a job not getting target fixated too much. That said, you made so many mistakes I actually had to pause the replay to calm down. Case in point, you were level at 5 km, gaining separation from a 109 nearly 3 km away, and what do you do? Instead of zooming above him to set up a chandelle, you go into a high G split s and try for a headon. Why? You were making bad call after bad call trying to go for risky headons against cannon armed planes. If that Ta 154 pilot had had half a brain cell, he would've crippled you. The same goes for the many 109s you went headon against, especially in that very last merge against the premium G-2 before you gained his tail and shot him down. Feel free to watch some of my recent replays. I'll throw a few links in here to get you started: Regarding your aim, it's rather clear this is an issue with latency. Besides leading more and seeing where this will get you, there's really nothing you can do to fix it.
  20. help

    Just link the server replay, then. EDIT: That said, generally I don't try for a kill shot against my target if it goes into an effective evasive maneuver at that kind of speed. Just a quick burst at most to keep them maneuvering, then it's past them, up and about to capitalize on their energy state. Most of my kills in the 47N are made between 300 and 500 kph.
  21. Just tested it. At 100% radiator, the oil will continue to overheat without the use of WEP because the oil radiator component on the annular radiator is not implemented. Le sigh.
  22. p-47n

    Stall speed is correct. The plane takes off at 110 mph at combat load as per the pilot's manual, clean. That is to say, at ~30% fuel. And yes, that means as long as you have energy, you can turn with a surprising number of planes...not that you should, because at low speed you still won't regain energy as quickly as a 109.
  23. True, but I considered my explanation good enough for the issue at hand.
  24. help

    .50s have some of the best ballistics ingame. Generally, I find myself leading too much sometimes, especially if I've flown something else in the meantime. Are you using a belt with tracers? What's your latency and packet loss? Also keep in mind the bullets inherit speed and vector from your plane, so if you lead someone in a high speed diving attack and pull lead, you will pull such a large angle of attack that you may have your nose pointed forward of the enemy while your plane is still on a course than would lead it past his tail. I would not be surprised if the P-47 could pull more than 20° AOA, especially in a dive.
  25. Exactly what it says on the tin. Also reusing clog and DxDiag. DxDiag.txt 2017_03_17_22_19_28__27176.clog
  26. Are you saying bombers need another advantage? Because it sounds like you're saying bombers need another advantage. (Protip: They don't. They should not be able to effectively defend themselves against a properly flown fighter, yet ingame they're porcupines regardless of the angle you're attacking from.) Want to know what else is unrealistic about bombers? Gun stabilization for gunners. Want to know what else is unrealistic about bombers? Gunner hivemind. Want to know what else is unrealistic about bombers? Accurate lead out to 1000 m and beyond when in reality they could only hope to hit enemy planes at a few hundred meters at most. I could continue, but then my beer would get stale.
  27. The better combination of thrust/weight and weight/drag ratio will accelerate better. If you shallow out your dive, you shift favor from t/w to w/d, which is generally better for heavier planes like the P-47s.
  28. Yeah, that's my main issue with the way damage is portrayed ingame. While some fuselages have empty portions, generally they were filled with spars, radios and other equipment necessary for the plane's operation.
  29. I just noticed another problem with the propeller and would ask that it be added to the existing BR, if possible. Essentially, the prop blades themselves don't seem to be attached to the prop hub.
  30. Bomber gunners have been overperforming since forever.
  31. Always remember the RAAF brass got one of their top scoring aces killed by ordering him to turn with A6Ms.
  32. I played several rounds this weekend. DMs are fine. Well, or at least not any more broken than they were in 1.65. Also, late .50s still shred everything if you know what you're doing.
  33. 1. No. 2. Yes and no. It means the airfoil will produce more form drag at a given airspeed. Since all types of drag increase with the square of the speed the plane travels, it will run into its drag spike sooner. 3. High lift. You see how the 109's wings are actually really tiny? That's because Messerschmitt took the lessons they learned during glider construction and applied them to the 109. Ingame you dn't notice it, but the 109 actually has a noted tendency to just levitate above the airstrip when trying to land in DCS, and the reason for that is the high lift produced by the wings combined with the ground effect. 4. Political lobbying on the part of Willy Msserschmitt. He managed to secure the rights for fighter production until Focke-Wulf came up with a design too good to pass up. Fun fact, the Fw 190C would have been ready for mass production and able to to outperform the P-51D...a year before the latter's introduction in the ETO. That didn't come to pass because the 190C would have been engined with a DB 603 powerplant, and Willy messerschmitt managed to secure all of these for his Me 210/310/410 production. 5. Maybe. However, I can assure you any drag gained by the blunt-nosed spinner is more than made up for by the Spitfire's and P-51's wing armament. 6. Sorry, can't answer that one. 7. Well, the optimal shape for transonic speeds is the Sears-Haack body. That said, the best result would be achieved with a nacelle of infinite length, coming to an eventual point. As such, it is my belief a pointed nacelle would approximate this better and produce less drag. 8. I can only guess here: Speed? 9. Nope, sorry. 10. Most German planes have that tail attached to a long lever. Compare the 109 with the P-51 and you'll see what I mean. You need less force if you work with a longer lever, and as such, your control surface may be designed smaller. 11. Slim does not mean low drag. In fact, the opposite may be true. f you look at the Mosquito or the Ta 154, you'll find the fuselages develop without sudden changes in construction angles from nose to tail. The Bf 110's does not, and as such, it creates much more drag at the same speed. 12. Wow. Well, first off, engine design, specifically the critical altitudes. Also, aileron design for roll rate, flap design for stall speed, position of the tailplane in regards to the wing for dives, frontal area, radiator design...just about everything. Your comparison is flawed from the start, to be honest. The P-38 was not a heavy fighter, historically. It's just classed as one in WT because it has two engines, and all heavy fighters have two engines. #logic
  34. Turn away gently, maybe with a shallow diving component. Proceed to gain speed and zoom climb. If they are still closing, level out, gain more speed and separation. When your distance has opened up to 3-5 km (more separation for higher altitudes) perform a gentle high yoyo or diving turn towards them (it's situational) and do NOT accept the headon. Make them roll in one direction and suddenly pull out of their elevator axis, then gently turn away so their dot remains close to your 6 o'clock position. If he tries to follow in a high speed, high G turn, he'll bleed sufficient energy for you to pull away and gain the vertical separation you need to safely attack in another zoom climb. Remember, most Yaks will suffer at altitudes above 5 km, and the Spit V specifically does not have a high altitude supercharger gear. At 5 km, it becomes really bricky. Even higher altitude planes like Spit F9s or F14s will run into problems as turbosupercharged engines like the P-47's don't actually lose hp at altitude until they reach their critical altitude, whereas they do because more engine power has to be shunted into the second supercharger gear.
  35. Gameplay

    Yes please.
  36. It's called 'becoming a competent player'. The only reason the Spitfire F9 is even at 4.3 is because most people aren't. Always gotta turnfight and go headon, all the time.
  37. As you can see, near the tip of the leftmost propeller blade, the texture is incorrectly mapped to the model. 2017_03_17_22_19_28__27176.clog Clog and DxDiag attached. DxDiag.txt
  38. Page 68 of the manual (not the PDF!) tells us the 47N was equipped with a G Suit from the N-5 up. We have the N-15 ingame, so it should definitely receive it. Clog added. 2017_03_17_22_19_28__27176.clog
  39. The Yaks are not high altitude planes. It's just that the P-51's Allison is even more of a groundhog than the VK 105/107 series engines the Yaks use. You should try the P-38s again in 1.67. The flaps actually rip at the correct speeds now. (I'm not implying flaps ripping off is correct BTW)
  40. The US tree contains some of the best fighters in the game, hands down. The problem is, most players see them as screwdrivers when they're actually wrenches. Ever tried unscrewing a screw with a wrench? It doesn't work. In the P-47N I am actually glad to be uptiered, as a full downtier generally ends like this:
  41. Make sure to tell them the G-6 overclimbs from 600 m up, as can be seen in the graph linked at the bottom of that page. That is because its engine produces way too much power. But please, continue ignoring basic physics. Let the heavier G-6 at lower boost beat the G-10 to 7500 m for another year. Also note the other very much legible sources from that same page: Do you see how climb rate at WEP takes a nose dive compared to its peak value from 600 m up and starts declining at an even higher rate past 4000 m? Do you see level speed FTH being 5000 m for the G-6? Also note that the plane was carrying MG151/20 gunpods with 135 RPG, as was correctly deciphered from the original document. Very nice selective editing you did there, the original statement about the illegible parts reads as follows: Note: The orginal document is barely readable at certain parts, therefore the transscription may contain errors . These parts has been marked with ... . And even if you won't accept the transcribed parts of this document, the graphs contained therein corroborate them to the t.
  42. Engine power has a direct influence on turn performance. The more air the engine pushes over your tail surfaces, the more control you retain.
  43. p-47n

    P-47N engine power is fixed in 1.67. No more missing 350 hp at critical altitude. You're welcome.
  44. BTW, the P-47N will be almost as good as the M in 1.67, but roll better while at 4.7. And with the current teams' quality, I don't see that BR getting revisited anytime soon. Please dive away from me. See how that will end 1v1.
  45.[keyword]=&Filter[user_battles]=1&Filter[nick]=PainGod85&action=search This link should work. It's the last 16 matches. 83% mixture, 20-40% radiator and 15-35% oil rads depending on map heat, 93% prop pitch. Above 9700 m reduce mixture to around 60%.
  46. The only other thing I could find after some digging was this: 109 G-14/U4 mit DB 605 AM A/IV/141/44 Seeing as I'm bug reporting the engine performance, the airframe it was installed in should not be relevant, especially considering the G-14 was just an attempt to streamline the G-6 production. In that document, it is stated with ram, the critical altitude is 5 km.
  47. Well, if you don't believe me, believe Messer_Smitt, who posted a source corroborating the factory data sheet I posted here: You'd have to ask him which one of his documents it's from. At this point, I don't know what else to give you.
  48. This. I flew the P-47M today, just for giggles. 3 deaths for 34 kills, all solo, and one of these deaths was due to AA. To be completely honest, I consider the La-9 to be inferior to the P-47M. One can hard counter the other with speed at altitude and energy retention, the other can only hope for a lucky snipe.
  49. These are all factory documents. It doesn't get much more official than that. Particularly the graph I posted separately. DB AG, 17.8.43. What else do you want?
  50. Oh boy, you're going to love the new P-38 flaps. Feel free to worship me for bringing them to you.
  51. Alrighty, I've put off making this report for a while, simply because I don't really fly 109s anymore, but for the sake of accuracy, here goes. Preamble: Courtesy of Juliet-6, this is the engine power for various Bf 109s currently ingame: Note the G-6 and G-14 are running 1.7 ATA, whereas the G-10 runs 1.8 and the K-4 runs 1.98. Also note the G-14's engine power seems to have been fixed in the meantime, which I only found out about just now. Now, the maxiumum attainable horsepower being 1800 PS is reasonably correct. However, the altitude at which it is produced is wildly incorrect. At 1.42 ATA, the DB 605 reaches maximum engine power for the factory setting at just a hair over 2 km and maxes out its supercharger's RPM at ca. 5700 m. For lower boost settings, these altitudes stay roughly the same as the Kommandogerät splits up available engine power between the prop and the supercharger to keep the engine boost at 1.3 ATA. However, if you increase boost above these dry power settings by adding MW-50 (such is the case between the G-2 and the G-6, essentially), the supercharger will reach its maximum permissible RPM at a lower altitude. For the G-6, the critical altitudes should thus be 600 m and 4000 m, respectively. Note the engine power during 270 kph IAS climb at various altitudes here: 2017_03_11_18_27_51__13848.clog
  52. TBH, as long as you have one squadmate to drag'n'bag with, it's not much of an issue. However, once you get isolated, you're essentially boned despite the fact you should be able to fly circles around them.
  53. Russian LF9 at over 8km merges, pulls a high g turn after me and suddenly sits dead on my six. Legit. The turning circle for that plane should be literally measured in football fields at that altitude. EDIT: Oh, and before that he prophung me while slow at ~6-7 km, but that didn't prevent him from immediately pointing his nose at me and start spraying. Even more legit.
  54. TBH I'm just amazed how quite a lot of planes that run at half (or less than half) my p/w at 7-8 km can just casually slowboat their way up to my P-47M from 1500 m below - never actually getting the angle to pull lead, but only truly stalling out when I pass them on my way down as I can't keep my plane's nose up anymore during my chandelle. It's the reason a lot of these planes are overtiered - if you can effectively stalemate a plane by always being able to present headons from below that should be able to bounce you into the ground 1v1, 2-3 km above your and below his critical alt, something fishy is going on. Honestly, these low alt planes become less dangerous for a speedy P-47 at low altitude, which is not how it should be.
  55. TBH, the one prop that requires flying it like you would a jet is probably the P-51D.