PainGod85

Member
  • Content count

    3,389
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4
medal medal

PainGod85 last won the day on May 20

PainGod85 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

7,020 Outstanding

7 Followers

About PainGod85

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

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

4,923 profile views
  1. Just for future reference: wwiiaircraftperformance.org Also, there's a thread somewhere on these forums with links to a lot of pilot's manuals and Standard Aircraft Characteristics (SAC) sheets. CBA looking for it right now, though.
  2. Just to make this clear, you mentioned Gabreski first as someone who used surprise attacks to score his kills while flying the P-47. I then countered with two pilots who flew mostly 109s - planes designed in a fundamentally different way than the P-47 - also utilizing surprise attacks to great effect. Surprise attacks were used to great effect on all airframes and by all belligerents. Your argument is invalid.
  3. It's not really a good plane - decent, but its low roll rate and top speed make it easily countered by the planes it can meet.
  4. Engine damage isn't counted as a critical hit in WT. As to why, you'd have to ask the developers, since the engine is kind of important when you want to stay in the air.
  5. I'm still stumped as to how accidentally posting in the wrong thread is possible.
  6. ...I'm getting Blake in here. @blakeob you deal with whatever Laurelix told him.
  7. How about you get some proper sources and file a bug report if you believe its performance to be wrong?
  8. BnZ may also be used to describe an attack where the enemy is forced to evade into a heading that enables you to zoom away and reset while at comparable energy states - such as engaging from below with a speed advantage or making them enter a steep climb to work the angle against you, leading to their inability to follow your zoom.
  9. The P-47D has less internal fuel than the N. The chart posted above states the 780 gal fuel value is with external tanks. The N's maximum internal fuel load is 557 gallons, the D's is 370 gallons. Anything more means the planes carried external tanks. Both planes could be equipped with one 110 and two 150/165 gallon external tanks, which is how the 780/997 gallon maximum fuel load was achieved for the D/N.
  10. Which has what exactly to do with the topic at hand again? It does not negate the point I made about surprise attacks being the most effective and preferred tactic of many an ace.
  11. Why do people still believe landing to rearm and refuel is somehow their right even if their team got stomped? Why do they believe they deserve to drag out a match where the outcome is already decided? Why do they think it is somehow fun and engaging gameplay to accept nigh inevitable death by AAA or breaking off the fight after winning the superior position with patience, skill and intuition, thereby resetting the engagement over and over again? Not to mention the fact AA batteries held their fire when friendly aircraft were in the vicinity IRL. There is no justification for AAA performing the way it has been for the past year, there has never been a need in normal RB to increase its effectiveness so much most modern guns have a hard time matching its lethality and there certainly is no argument to be made to retain this broken mechanic besides the fact a lot of people would lose the crutch they've been leaning on for so long. I say let them burn, let them learn from experience and finally start to become better players for it.
  12. What if I told you the same goes for Hartmann? Or Boelcke?
  13. out right broken

    Well, the game has the P-38s, so what seems to be the problem?
  14. The 205N is worse in just about anything compared to the Serie 3.
  15. Bolognese = Pasta plane. :P On the P-40 the long nose and the distinct wing planform were a dead giveaway. Again, no solid clue on the first beyond what I said in my earlier post.
  16. I might be misremembering the pilot's manual, going to check. E: Yeah, remembered it wrong. 16-17k lbs is with full internal fuel and no external loads. Internal fuel load is 557 gallons, with external tanks this increased to 997 gallons. http://www.avialogs.com/en/aircraft/usa/republic/p-47thunderbolt/f-47n-thunderbolt-standard-aircraft-characteristics-17-may-1950.html
  17. I would like to add outside of inercepting known enemy formations, fights between fighters (and subsequent shootdowns) were made at much closer range than you see in WT simply because 1. you can't really identify a plane at the ranges we start firing at ingame. 2. trying to hit a maneuvering target from an unstable platform is much, much harder than the instructor makes you believe. As such - and from the fact you're using the cockpit - you may actually go for SB, neutered as it is. Personally, I only use VR in DCS and IL-2. E: The second is a P-40, but I'm stumped on the first. Probably a 109, but could also be any Bolognese.
  18. The 16k lbs load on the 47N is with three external tanks with full internal fuel. Now remove those tanks, remove 2/3 of its internal fuel and you can see why it climbs as well as it does ingame, being constructed as what amounts to a flying fuel tank. E: Edited out my mistakes.
  19. They are harder to kill than most players, but I agree. Just in case Discord didn't clear it up, orange - I can make it out both in daylight and night missions.
  20. Well, 1v1 any plane should be able to force a stalemate against anything it is capable of meeting, but that's usually not feasible. A faster plane will have an easier time doing it, one that has the better performance at altitude even moreso. As such, the P-47Ds are tiered appropriately, especially considering their SL speed is reminiscent of a clean 70" D-30+.
  21. He has proven time and again he's immune to lowly things such as sarcasm, articulation in text and reading comprehension in this thread alone.
  22. XP-47J: Republic’s P-47 Thunderbolt by Warren M. Bodie (1994)US Army Air Force Fighters Part 2 by William Green and Gordon Swanborough (1978)R-2800: Pratt & Whitney’s Dependable Masterpiece by Graham White (2001)The American Fighter by Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers (1985/1987)“500-Mph. P-47 Disclosed by AAF” Aviation News (29 October 1945)http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/p47_9.html XP-72: Fighters of the United States Air Force, Robert F. Dorr and David Donald, Temple Press Aerospace, 1980. The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion, 1987. American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982. War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume 4, William Green, Doubleday, 1964.
  23. I also like to marginalize other people's proof on the internet by throwing around my multitude of university degrees that only exist in my mind. Protip: Rapitor actually has a degree pertinent to this discussion, and he literally noped out of it because he thought the points you're arguing to be utterly ridiculous.
  24. Actually, the XP-47J chewed through two engines because the engineers forgot about the fact they weren't rated for the higher boost, being R-2800-57s. Note the absence of the suffix denoting water injection. The third engine, an R-2800-14W, was however rated for 2800 hp and test flights were conducted with it, up to and including speed runs at critical altitude. However, the XP-72 only ever flew with its turbocharger inoperative - not because it was defective, but because the program was cut short due to the advent of jet engines.
  25. That was added back when Ruhr was used for EC game modes...and never removed because reasons (TM).
  26. Wow, quadace broke @Rapitor. I quite literally have no words. This is just...I mean, wow...this is some grade A comedy. Time to update that bingo card?
  27. @xBromanx the Fw 190 is capable of much higher G load at full fuel. E: Though only at higher speeds.
  28. "I don't know how to fight nation x, they must be OP!!!111" With an attitude like this permeating the playerbase, is it any wonder teams in WT are in this sorry state?
  29. P-47D

    Not authority, because that would mean the nose moves down/up (at near 90° bank) and cannot be recovered beyond a certain point. Rudder reaction times when using the instructor are all over the place. It can easily be tested, if you override rudder input at high speeds and the plane immediately and sharply yaws to the side at a large angle, it has nothing to do with rudder effectiveness and everything to do with how the instructor utilizes it. (P-47s generally yaw 10-15° in less than half a second in this case.)
  30. If WT is anything like DCS, you'll really want to trim it nose heavy - in DCS, you'd stall the 190 almost immediately after the plane lifted itself off the runway in neutral (or, heaven forbid, tail heavy) trim.
  31. P-47D

    Can confirm for the 47M as well, the rudder cannot keep the nose from dropping, then rising through your elevator axis at speed. It's the reason Fulcrum has more or less stopped playing his. EDIT: This is with rolling the plane on its side manually, then using exclusively MA to perform the turn on target.
  32. FTFY :P Yeah, the D-30 outrussians the Russians. As in, it's beastly at low altitude up to 3-3.5 km, retains a high top speed once switched to second gear, but loses much of its acceleration. It's the reason I don't enjoy it - with the current average skill in WT, you need to be able to put a lid on the enemy team if you fly solo, and it's pretty much impossible to do this in a D-30 against more than 2-3 enemies.
  33. Actually, the two rightmost lines are with wet WEP, the other 3 are dry WEP. The increased MAP critical altitude comes from the wet engine producing more power at the same boost than the dry one, which equates higher level top speeds and thus more ram air - and this is the reason the P-47 running wet 65" has a slightly higher critical altitude than the one running 65" dry.
  34. What if I told you the Sturmbock version of the Fw 190 can be considered a heavy fighter, whereas the standard Anton isn't? It's all about protection levels, and the Sturmbock quite literally mounted a ton of armor - don't quote me on the exact weight, but it was way in excess of what actual fighter planes meant to engage enemy fighters were fitted with.
  35. It's about 30 kph slower at SL. And at 2.7 in RB.
  36. He does not: http://thunderskill.com/en/stat/KonigSchmidt/vehicles/r Also, nobody has mentioned the 2.7 Corsair yet? Over 580 kph at SL isn't OP enough, and even at 100% it is faster than just about anything it can meet.
  37. You should probably read my post again very carefully.
  38. 1. I was talking about the rear fuselage tank. 2. The plane was weighed down to keep CoG more or less in the same place both on the tail and the nose (components were rearranged to this effect).
  39. It's not OP. Low dive limit, mediocre medium alt performance, bad high alt performance, only one flap setting. Need I say more?
  40. You know what else used enormous amounts of pressure to get work done? The steam engine. The axial compressor found on German jet engines was conceptually realized by the Aerodynamische Versuchsanstalt in Göttingen. Junkers took the design and incorporated it into their Jumo 004, same as BMW did with their BMW 003. An axial compressor has no parts commonality with a turbocharger besides the shaft. Now, the actual turbine stage is pretty much derived from - you guessed it, steam turbines! Turbines also don't have any parts commonality with a turbocharger bar the - again, you guessed it, shaft! Now let's take a look at centrifugal compressors as they were used on early Rolls-Royce jet engines. Turns out RR decided to use them because they could easily upscale the compressors of their piston engines instead of developing something new from scratch. Apparently jet engines as we know them today are 100% developed from piston engine supercharger compressors, whaddayaknow? <= This is what sarcasm looks like.
  41. Hey, you want to know what a jet turbine and a diesel engine have in common? They're both combustion engines because both of them use combustible materials to produce power. Again, you have no idea what you are butchering English about, please stop.
  42. Then make a goddamn bug report if you have the sources.
  43. You never just get hit by one round, especially considering Italian planes never mount anything less than four guns, two of which are 20 mm MG151/20s.
  44. out right broken

    Wow, people saying the C.202EC is undertiered. Meanwhile, the damn thing is pretty much bricked due to the gunpods; literally all kills I made in it have been caused either by distraction or incompetence on the part of the target - well, and the occasional bomber getting in the way of 20 mm mine shells. There is no way any plane even slightly below the EC's BR should allow itself to be killed by it.
  45. Please leave it at 7.3 in RB, I will use it as I used the Me 262 A2a, to harvest copious amounts of tears. Just need to research my way up the tree beforehand.
  46. In what warped part of reality does this look anywhere close to this or this ?
  47. It's really disconcerting how a player with less than 1000 battles played gets it whereas someone with just shy of 9000 battles doesn't.
  48. SD and Typhoon already corrected you on the NA bit. Jet engines are quite a bit different from combustion turbos, namely they don't actually run on engine exhaust. Quite honestly, the one component turbochargers and turbojets have in common is the fact they both run on a shaft. Also, xxxxbustion? Really? Could you spellcheck any less? EDIT: Looks like using italics is enough for the automatic filter to crack down on it, whereas yours wasn't replaced. Oh well.
  49. Don't forget the Ta 152 inherited the all moving tailplane trim control. Might I suggest trying to trim the tail heavy attitude out? Anways, if you take a look at the plane's internals, it should become clear as to why it behaves this way. Lots of weight gets added behind the trailing edge, and as such it becomes tail heavy.
  50. One could always say tons of TNT equivalent dropped on bomb points. The game already accounts for it, so it should be possible to use the value obtained for researching modules.
  51. The worst thing is, there are indigenous designs the US could receive instead of a CAC Sabre it never operated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_FJ-4_Fury Not that I'm saying I want either of them ingame.
  52. You keep using this word. I don't think it means what you think it means. That said, I have no idea what you're trying to say with this and what its relation is with anything I said in the post you quoted.
  53. You forgot to mention the NA Sabre is also lighter.
  54. *eyetwitch* The H used an Allison. Actually nevermind. I was thinking of the F-82 just now. My bad.
  55. Says who? Proof needed! The B-57 is exactly the reason why the CAC Sabre shouldn't be added to the US tree. The US actually license produced it, whereas the CAC Sabre was only ever used by Indonesia and Malaysia outside the Commonwealth. The US never bought any airframes, never license produced any airframes, and to my knowledge never even had a pilot sitting inside one. There are no parallels at all that could be drawn between the B-57/Canberra and the CAC Sabre bar the fact both were developed in the Commonwealth.
  56. Different weaknesses, different strengths. Or let's just follow what you'd call your logic to its ultimate conclusion and give every nation every plane, that way any potential imbalance will be removed. /sarcasm Also, could you maybe put some effort into spelling when you write your posts? It's getting to the point where I'm starting to get a headache trying to decipher what you're typoing about.
  57. I was more talking about the 'unfair advantage' bit since I used the same argumentational structure in my comparison. And if you really want to play that kind of game, it had a British engine, which should obviously mean any US jet currently not represented in the British tree should also be made available there.
  58. See the brackets I put into your post? That is where proof goes. Otherwise we end up with baseless assertions such as me saying the reason my car requires diesel instead of gasoline is due to the fact WT doesn't have modern aircraft.
  59. *seizes epileptically* Thank you! This assumption should be beaten to death, buried facedown and then bolted into the ground. And sealed with a boulder. Or concrete. Or both.
  60. First of all, the CAC Sabre only ever flew with RAAF roundels, the US never operated any. As such, the US tree should damn well not receive it even if it were added. Right now it could only be added to the British tree, and I'd rather see an original plane such as the Swift instead of yet another version of the F-86 ingame. EDIT: How the xxxx did this thread get derailed into becoming a discussion about 120mm sabot as soon as page 2?
  61. Wow, that is actually something I could get behind. The P-47Ds would have to lose their attacker role, though. It's rough, but it would definitely force people to learn how to fly their damn planes.
  62. This is really strange behavior and we should probably summon technical moderators in here to shed some light on what may have happened. @Rapitor @Smin1080p That said, you'd probably be best off filing a bug report and attaching the pertinent files - that is to say, replay, server replay link, clog of the session in question.
  63. It happens more often than you'd think...it's the reason IRL AA held its fire if friendly aircraft were in the vicinity.
  64. Actually, think about it. The P-47 has a rather large wing and a fuselage packed tightly with lots of fuel. Now increase wing area, add even more fuel tanks, then empty them to 1/3 of their maximum capacity. Wing loading plummets, which means stall speed drops down to very, very nice and low values. Add to this very effective flap design and you get an exceptionally maneuverable plane. (I've quoted the P-47N's flight manual often enough to dissuade people from the notion the plane stalls at too low of a speed, and I will do it again if needed.)
  65. Generally, a badly flown 190 is one of the easiest kills in the game, whereas one flown by a skilled pilots is among the most lethal planes you can fight against. It is definitely not a beginner's plane as energy management and proper use of air combat maneuvers is paramount to having success in it. I wouldn't say you shouldn't climb, but there is very little point climbing past 5-6 km. You'd be better off leveling off and picking up speed once you're at that alt, then use the accumulated energy either defensively or offensively, depending on the situation.
  66. Use at least 45 minutes of fuel. That will increase elevator authority at speed. Other than that, sideclimb and work your way from the highest target down. Distracted enemies are your bread and butter, so teamplay can be very rewarding. That said, it's a 1943 plane fighting late 1944 ones such as Griffon Spitfires...and these will ruin your day if given half a chance. At this point I'd actually advise against flying the A-5, or at least not to fly it solo.
  67. IKR? I've turned with 109 F-4s and shot them down, and that was before the engine performance at altitude got fixed. I also outmaneuvered a K-4 that ended up becoming very salty because of it. Muh P-47 turning with 109s meme. )))
  68. I share the bolded sentiment. @topic: C.205 is clubby AF, not because the plane is somehow OP, but because average player skill makes it easy to abuse its strengths. The P-47N is grossly undertiered, so is the F4U-1a and a bunch of others.
  69. Meanwhile, I consider most of the planes you mention borderline incapable of dealing with the planes you were flying. Specifically the Spit LF9 is probably the easiest plane right now to get at least above average results out of, and the P-47M just stomps any German plane it can meet into the ground 1v1. The only Russian prop that can hold its own against it is the La-9.