PainGod85

Member
  • Content count

    3,312
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4
medal medal

PainGod85 last won the day on May 20

PainGod85 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

6,886 Outstanding

6 Followers

About PainGod85

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

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

4,784 profile views
  1. Happy Birthday, you sneaky ninja editer.
  2. Wait, you've actually seen the G.56 ingame already? Someone wallet warriored themselves up the tech tree already?
  3. G.55S is lighter. It's missing 300 kg of guns, ammo and assorted equipment. E: kek, ninja'd by half the forum.
  4. How about not turning after him? The G.55S goes just a hair over 500 kph on the deck. But don't worry about it, allied teams are getting slaughtered right now because they're all making the same mistake you made. That said, I'm pretty sure the G.55's CLmax is too high.
  5. So you prefer the temperature scale that uses the human body temperature for 100°, and - wait for it - the temperature a freezing mixture of ammonia and ice stabilizes at for 0°, instead of using degrees Celsius, where the freezing and boiling point of water are the reference points for 0 and 100°, respectively. And you honestly think the former is better for some godforsaken reason. I'm not even going to go into the feet vs. meter debate, it is literally self defeating.
  6. Their rate of fire is only around 10% higher than contemporary cannons', specifically the 151/15 and /20, the ShVAK, B-20, Hispanos, Ho-5 and Type 99 mark 2 model 5. E: I should make clear here that cannons seem to be underperforming, not vice versa. E2: And I should probably add here the greater number of MGs on US planes will result in an increase of effctive rate of fire. At the end of the day, expect at least 1.5 to 2 times the number of rounds impacting your plane for the same amount of exposure to the enemy's guns if they're a US plane.
  7. Wait, what? The 109 F-1/2 with the new gun mechanics are going to murder everything, in fact they would still murder everything at 1.35 ATA, and you want them tiered lower still? Hell, the F-1 in particular has been a closet clubber for a while now, only hampered by low ammo count and horrible ballistics of the same.
  8. Good post in principle, would read again. That said, all your evidence is circumstantial.
  9. Yeah, notifications have been broken since they upgraded the forum's software. However, they're not the only things that are broken. Try managing your attachments without later wanting to gouge out your own eyeballs, for instance.
  10. Really, you're playing that card? I find myself quoting me again. But please, tell me more about how I've been trolling the forums by actually taking the effort to find credible sources to my claims. That said, if the plane stalls at the correct speed, climbs at the correct speed, attains the correct speed at a given altitude and engine setting, and has an FM that takes changes of the center of gravity into account, it essentially means the FM is correct within the parameters of the game's engine. Here, feel free to corroborate the ingame results with these: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustangtest.html And these: http://www.avia-it.com/act/profili_daerei/libretti_velivolo/PA_libretti_PDF/P-51_D_K.pdf Don't forget to correct airspeed for PEC, don't forget to use the correct table for that regarding the use of flaps. And again, I am not asserting there is something wrong with the Mustang FM, you are. As such, the burden of proof lies with you.
  11. *or above Then again, I enjoy clubbing 109 F-4s with the P-47N, call me a sadist.
  12. Yeah, I was just too lazy to make a screenshot with the localhost open, knowing it would just confirm the ingame dial.
  13. Quite honestly, I tend to agree with VanSinn that the F-4 at 3.7 is actually rather fine. While it could be argued that it outperforms a lot of the planes it can meet in a downtier, the fact remains WEP can only ever be used sparingly, and the plane is pretty much hard capped at what it can do once it gets uptiered already. To say nothing of the clubfest the Corsairs are capable of in competent hands, and these can even meet biplanes. The fact that it can be used to club is caused by a fundamental flaw in the tiering system and not by the plane being "OP". That said, with the upcoming changes to guns like the MG151/15, a long, hard look should be taken on the 109 F-1/2 and their 1.42 ATA boost.
  14. On the P-51, 100% radiators loses you around ~2-3 kph, and it pays off by your engine basically never overheating unless you abuse it near sea level on a hot map for an extended period of time. Odds are you'll run out of fuel than frying the engine on sensible fuel loads. I've always used 100% pitch, but that actually just sets engine RPM. Pitch is controlled automatically for every plane regardless of whether you're using manual or automatic engine controls.
  15. It's almost like you're not supposed to get hit.
  16. The only things they "buffed" about .50s was fire chance, with the exception of the M20 round, and penetrating power at long range. Everything else you see right now is not due to changes about .50s, but to changes in the vehicles and how they interact with incoming fire. Notably, spars and aircraft skin used to be equivalent to armored steel. Now they're not.
  17. I'm not blind to the potential issues, I'm just saying properly implemented it could be a boon. Welp, and I agree. This'll be my last reply on the issue,
  18. You know what, I'll just quote myself.
  19. You mean whose idea was it to make the plane perform historically accurate? Gee, I wonder...
  20. TBH I'd love it if there were a semi-public bug tracker that cross-referenced related issues, simply so the community could see what is being worked on, and more importantly, what cannot feasibly be worked on at this moment in time.
  21. Eh, the issue is more complex than that. Take the F4U dive brakes, for instance. They used to be ingame, but players were wondering why the plane had dive brakes when nothing was happening, visually. That is because the dive brakes were actually the main gears getting extended with the tailwheel remaining retracted. Now, people asking about this - from what I've been told - prompted GJ to remove the functionality. Now they were confronted with a choice: Immediately code and animate new functionality for the dive brake animation, or wait until the current low-poly model gets replaced with a better one at some point in the future. It's all about effort going to waste in short order, and I can understand stuff getting backlogged because of it. That said, I have no idea about the nature of the BRs still in the system that have been in there for years, just that I can see in principle how pusing them back can make sense from the point of view of a dev. E: Ninja'd
  22. Roger that, I'll get on that at some point in the near future. E: Sooner if I get GE for it )))))))))))))))))
  23. On that note, are there plans for the F4Us to receive their dive brakes at some point or should I raise a bug report? While I have your attention...
  24. While I agree in spirit, the issue will then be players digging up obscure "sources" to the most ludicrous of claims, then complaining about not receiving anything when these reports get shot down in flames. Seeing as Smin himself has said there is a backlog of BRs 3-4 years old already, can you imagine the kind of utter havoc a reward system would lead to?
  25. I'd rather want to have the instructor cut out to disable the virtual FBW once you go below a certain speed.
  26. r00d From now on, I will just call you the rudest tech mod ever @Rapitor ))))))))))) E: That one moment when you actually don't want automerge to work *throws up hands*
  27. You didn't state your opinion, you asserted it as fact. As such, either post proof that the P-51 FM is currently incorrect, or shut the hell up.
  28. Nah, the DB605 had a redesigned lubrication system that was less than reliable at first. The U-shaped oil tank would regularly spring a leak, douse the hot engine block with oil and subsequently cause a fire. This is what caused the Luftwaffe to limit boost from the original 1.42 ATA to 1.3 ATA, and it is also what caused Marseille's death. Marseille had refused to fly the 109 G precisely because he found the plane to be unreliable, but he was ordered to do it anyways.
  29. What I mean is you didn't have enough excess energy to pull that maneuver. You should have shallow climbed instead of going into a 40-45° climb directly after shallow diving and affording your enemies the opportunity to bank speed.
  30. API-T had its fire chance reduced when it was buffed for all other high caliber MG incendiary rounds. Hence its penetration was buffed, its fire chance was nerfed. I'll see if I can dig up the link to the changelog. E: Here.
  31. Whoa, ok, rewind. First of all, climb speed. You were climbing at around 200-220 kph IAS with no enemies near you. Nope. Are you using SPD or IAS on your end? Use IAS on props, always. You notice the P-63, but you fail to notice you already have so much energy you would have been able to perform a shallow climbing turn near your optimal climb speed to position yourself directly above him. Instead, you do a near vertical reversal, wasting time and energy which leads to that Yak-3 bouncing you from an altitude advantage. Good job avoiding the headon. Then you, while already pulling away from the two planes rather quickly, initiate a shallow dive when you should have zoomed up gently at a shallow angle. Keep in mind, every second you spend in any plane losing altitude, you're also losing energy. You do not want to needlessly lose energy on a plane with somewhat low p/w ratio, like P-47s generally are. Your climb after gaining those 3 km of separation was way too steep. Also, my above point still stands, and I will emphasize here that your hesitation in initiating that shallow zoom climb afforded the enemies the opportunity to regain more of their kinetic energy (=speed) than they would otherwise have been able to as you weren't forcing them to climb. This leads you to misjudge their energy states and you need to dive away to save your hide. More misjdged energy states, and the P-63 gains at you in the vertical. Why are you in the vertical when you started from a kilometer of horizontal separation and little delta-V? The only reason you survived that stunt is both of these pilots' aim being crap. At this point you're already basically out of the game, you're leaking oil and will soon take engine damage. Simply put, you won't have the time to gain enough delta-E to successfully pull off an attack on them. You let them accelerate for kilometers on end, and when you finally got for that second rope-a-dope, you don't give them much trouble propellering up to you. They dived, picked up speed and then went vertical after you. The trick is to make the enemy maneuver after you when they stand no chance of getting a shot. You failed to do that, and even when they were maneuvering after you, they never had to pull high G turns to keep you in their sights. Also, I see you were trying to follow Broman's maneuver from his La-7 video by the letter. Except for the bit where he climbed to 7 km first. You also merged at too little of an angle, which failed to sucker the enemies into the high-G split-s and thus didn't drain much of their energy at all. In conclusion, you really like to use gentle maneuvers when hard ones are called for, and hard maneuvers when you should be gentle and energy conservative with your plane. The P-63A-5 shouldn't actually be particulary good at altitude, and it certainly won't accelerate well at low speed from 4 km up, but give it the opportunity to bank that energy in speed, and it will.
  32. Okay, I'll look at your replay in a bit. You are entirely correct in saying penetration at high angles of obliquity has been improved. However, API-T was actually nerfed this patch. There is one general rule I adhere to if I can help it at all: Don't headon. Even executed "properly" - and I'm using that word in the broadest sense possible - it invites damage to your own plane and as such, running the danger of hampering your maneuverability to such a degree you have to land and repair. Regarding bombers, they are generally such large targets spread past convergence range is largely negligible. The best belt for damage application right now is stealth, followed closely by universal IMO. - Even the one in five tracer component of universal would have the effect you desire, and quite honestly, if your teammate put himself into a position where an opponent can shoot at him, the fault is none but his own. If you can manage to save him, fine, if you can't, don't feel bad about it. The best way to improve one's aim is not actually looking at tracers, especially considering there are guns where the tracer round actually travels at a substantially different speed than the shells capable of destroying your target (the German MG 151/20, for example).
  33. Oh, I know. It's the reason I spoke of BnZ technique, not BnZ fighting. =)
  34. Even props won't really stall in a prophang as the propeller will induce airflow over the control surfaces the instructor can work with. Jets, however...
  35. I was an utter scrub back then, so I actually didn't know about this. That said, the instructor on them was beyond horrible.
  36. Er, nope. To pretty much everything I quoted. The F4U at 2.7 is a club machine if I've ever seen one. I guess I'll have to try out the Hellcat at some point, so I'm going to defer judgement here. The 63A-5 is fine where it is, but the A-10 and C-5 gain so much power with water injection it's not even funny anymore. Let me tell you a funny story about the P-51Ds. Back when I started playing, they flew worse than they do now, and the D-30 was at 67". Their BR was 5.7 in RB, and they were generally doing fine up there, against 190 D-9s running Platzschutzstaffel boost and D-13s.
  37. It's simple, really. Most people never ask for advice, in fact they shun it and accuse you of wanting stuff to be nerfed. It's symptomatic of the times we live in, where instant gratification seems preferable to actually evolving as a human being and learning how to do something from those who have been there and done that. How many times do you see someone like thunderbolt1993 actually asking for advice and genuinely wanting to be helped instead of someone coming in and claming "XYZ IS SO OP PLZ NERF HURRDURR WAAHWAAHWAAH"? Confronted with an attitude like that, anyone would tire of trying to be helpful very quickly, wouldn't you agree?
  38. w0t The D-5 gets outsped at around 5000 m by the A7M2. Above and below that altitude band, it has the higher top speed of the two. We're talking *maybe* 1000 m of altitude here, nothing too egregious.
  39. Okay, I'll write my thoughts below as things play out. Questions in bold. First of all, sideclimbing is your friend. Secondly, even though optimal climb speed is around 265 kph IAS, try to keep the plane around 300 as that will afford you more maneuverability and the little altitude you'd gain by climbing at 265 IAS really isn't worth flying a whale upon enemy contact. Generally, try to ckeck your surroundings more often. So far I'm around 3 minutes in and I haven't seen you look around once (Okay, at 2:55 you start looking around). Keep an eye on your team, check the scoreboard to find out how many enemy players have yet to appear. Around the 4 minute mark you spot an A6M2 near co-alt - since your plane is by now only at 250 kph IAS, it's too much of a whale to even try engaging it, even though the pilot seems to be either AFK or distracted. Yep, he was focused on the P-38 and you could have put pressure on him. He turns around, starts chasing you and you do the smart thing - level out, gain speed. And then he goes for another target, which you see as you glance back once. And then you just fly away. You should have reversed and maneuvered into position to engage the highest enemy in the developing furball. 6:37: A6M helicoptering up at you, low on energy and about to stall out. Served on a silver platter. Bad aim, inexcusably so. Also, what is your convergence? It seems awfully high for the usual engagement ranges. That said, also, tracer belt makes me sad. I prefer stealth, or maybe universal. Good, energy conservative recovery from the dive BTW. Then you go almost vertical - which isn't necessarily a bad thing - but you do so without having checked your six immediately beforehand. That A6M could have slotted in on your tail if it hadn't been engaged by two of your teammates by then. You're using a near vertical reversal when a climbing turn would have been both faster and more energy conservative. 9:07, A6M RTB to carriers - simply put, you were too fast and attacking straight from behind, giving the enemy ample opportunity to get out of your sights due to your control lockup. Also, with the crowded airspace up ahead, I would not have engaged that target. Generally, don't try to go for an immediate killshot on targets like that, give them a burst, make them maneuver, then zoom away turning slightly away from them. Always look back to check if they're trying to latch on. and try to bait them into the vertical if they are. 10:58, you got so focused on the Ki-43 you were completely oblivious to the fact your P-47 teammate was dragging an A6M up for you. Easy kill, and you don't even notice. Situational awareness! (Ogod, you wil hate yourself for having missed that. Guy just went full xxxx trying to kill the other P-47.) This time the vertical reversal is warranted as it gives you an immediate positional advantage over the two enemies. 11:42, again from 6 o'clock with little altitude advantage, you fire at ~600 m, clip him, but since you just sprayed, no concentrated damage is inflicted. The A6M does a split-s to get out of your guns. Tracers are bad, mmk? 12:56, overcooked dive and subsequent crash. To add insult to injury, your target was out of ammo. Not knowing that, I would've tried to lure him into the vertical before dropping on him. I definitely would not have fired the second burst after the first one failed to bring the plane down. Again, target fixation leading to an error in judgement leading to your crash. Since he was out of ammo, that wasn't going to work, so your choice of targets was correct at that time. E: YES! Also, generally speaking, the steeper your dive angle, the more energy you pick up, but the closer you get to sea level, the shallower you have to attack as you will otherwise inevitably faceplant. Against a target that knows you're there and anticipates the attack, I would not go much shallower than 45° in my dive. *rule of thumb*
  40. Why would he, unless I'm completely wrong, it's not against the rules.
  41. That guy just nabbed the completely inconsequential spotter planes that give around 10 times higher score than they should, giving up his altitude so the enemy team has an easy time killing him. These symbols and numbers show squadded players, and whether these squads were automatically created or premade. Also, why are you taking pictures of your screen instead of screenshots?
  42. Reloading smoke dispensers can be done in the field, it's neither complicated nor time intensive. As amatter of fact, every vehicle with smoke dispensers that I know carries a number of reloads internally.
  43. All this talking about undertiered planes an nobody has mentioned the F4U-1a yet.
  44. And to give an example: (Actually, I'm giving two...)
  45. You'd need to run the planes at their respective wartime settings to form any kind of credible opinion, and warbirds are either souped up for races or derated for longevity nowadays.
  46. Objective achieved.
  47. 1. I wasn't trolling. 2. Where's that video or replay? If the only things you have to add to a topic are baseless claims, thinly veiled insults and personal attacks, it means you're the troll. E: On second thought, this isn't going anywhere, so welcome to my ignore list.
  48. This in a nutshell.
  49. As if that magically invalidated his claims. He brought more to the table than you.
  50. Pilot's accounts are highly subjective and should be disregarded as long as properly collated data is available. Your assertion, your burden of proof.
  51. Nope, I'm contesting your subjective assertion you only were in your opponent's sights for 0.1 seconds for the burst he cut off your (previously undamaged) wing. But please, show me a replay in air RB that proves me wrong. I am waiting. E: How about you simply upload a replay file here?
  52. At 7000 m most 109s have no more than 1600 hp, usually less. Now take the P-47M/N with its huge wing and very effective flaps, rocking 2800 hp while at ~30 minutes of fuel and you get a plane with better or comparable p/w ratio and lower stall speed. There is absolutely nothing fishy with the P-47s outturning 109s at altitude, and the N specifically will turn with the 109F even at SL. Shhh =)
  53. Oh, I think I do. For once, you can play without hiding even when stacking the cards in your favor. Again, it's called 'not getting hit'. And it's you who has no idea how many rounds will impact your plane if you give the enemy pilot a good shot.
  54. Yeah, I follow it stringently, and so far, it's working out great for me! You should try it sometime. Probably no less than 20-50, depending on convergence.
  55. There's this awesome thing they invented back when the first bows came to be: Don't get hit.
  56. >circumstantial evidence >proof >choose one E: 0.1 seconds, you say. I doubt that, but let's run the numbers, shall we? The M2 has a rate of fire of around 800 RPM. This equates to ~12 rounds per gun per second, or 96 rounds per second on an 8-gun platform. So even a highly theoretical 0.1 second burst would hit with around 10 rounds.
  57. Depends on the plane, most jets I've tried to go vertical in will stall and flop through the air for seconds before the instructor catches on and recovers it for you. On props it's much harder. The last time I legitimately stalled was flying the 47M with a damaged wing. It actually put me in a flat spin I had to manually override the instructor to recover from.
  58. That just means it has cannons. While I agree the Doras really shouldn't have been downtiered, the Griffon Spitfires did indeed deserve to be put at 5.7. The LF9 sharing that BR makes me sad, though...it's now completely out of its depth against competent opposition. Every 4.x 190A ever, every 5.x 109 ever.
  59. Also, speed matters as well. Nope. At dive angles less than 90° your roll rate won't completely negate his turn, that's where you supplement roll rate with elevator input of your own. The reason you went splat is because your delta-V was way, way too high to engage that target. You should have bled some energy before going for it. There is no good reason to accept a bad attack angle when your energy state is that much higher than your enemy's. E: So we've establised diving from 90° at a target near SL is tantamount to suicide. And we've established a flat angle attack at altitude will give the target ample opportunity to duck underneath. ... I feel like I should put special emphasis on this. Near sea level, the target can only duck underneath your attack if the ground miraculously disappears.
  60. What if I told you even a Zero cannot turn faster than you can roll? Take that piece of wisdom and think about the angle you need to attack from to leverage your roll rate over his turn rate, and how changing that angle lengthens or shortens the lever you can work with. You sound like a smart guy, I'm sure you can figure it out from here.
  61. Again: lolwat You are completely missing the point. BnZ technique is meant to absolutely negate any maneuvering advantage the enemy plane has. As such, in a properly executed BnZ attack it doesn't matter if your enemy is a Lavochkin, a Yakovlev, a Spitfire or a Zero. Which only leaves me with the conclusion you don't know how to properly execute a BnZ attack.
  62. lolwat
  63. Watching this video never fails to bring a smile to my face. =)
  64. You know, Broman has so many videos on his channel that completely emasculate your assertions it's not even funny anymore. You know what's funny about the P-47s? They are actually great at medium speed turning, and they'll keep that up longer than any German or British plane. The N in particular is more maneuverable than any Bf 109, and I'm not talking roll rate here. With flaps, it will outstall any 109. It is also better than any Fw 190A while having roughly comparable roll rate. Oh, and Doras you can outmaneuver any time of the day as long as you keep your speed at or above 400 kph.
  65. That's more a problem with jet gameplay than the guns which were actually quickly replaced after the Korean War because they'd proven insufficient. E: Note the only reason I am not contesting your assertion is the fact I generally avoid playing WT jets like the plague.
  66. You haven't been around for long, have you?
  67. Only, it says realistic on both stat cards. Learn to read. Looks like they upped boost from +21 lb to +25 lb, but I didn't check yesterday and thsi statement is based on conjecture, not fact.
  68. I fully agree with you. If anything, the Tu-4 should be uptiered. I'm just openly amazed at the person you quoted in your post I was originally replying to, and not in a good way.
  69. By imagination and confirmation bias, I would guess.
  70. Brownings are facerolling everything right now. The below was the result of two short bursts, the first of which was slightly off target. The 400 m convergence is evident from the way the damage is spread. This means 4 .50s are capable of ripping wings off with short bursts. 6 should be even more lethal in convergence. E: o7 VanSinn! =D
  71. Can you tell us whether there is still a chance for the P-47M and the late P-38s/P-47Ds to receive the anti-G suit modification?
  72. So the US has no need to have the most numerous straight-wing F-84 version represented in its tech tree? Interesting, and I'm saying this as somebody who generally doesn't care for jet gameplay in WT.
  73. Let me tell you about a magical thing called the burden of proof. It lies heavily with the one making the assertion. In this case, you.
  74. I was going to tell you the guy you're replying to was being sarcastic, then I scrolled up and realized he wasn't. OMG
  75. Emphasis mine. lolnope
  76. Not even going to attempt dissuading you from the notion that this book is actually not a valid source.
  77. Let me check. HEI High Explosive Incendiary Golly, I believe it might be Br. Sprgr. L'Spur. Or Brandsprenggranate Leuchtspur, if you're so inclined.
  78. P-51D

    How do you think a plane weighing in the ballpark of 4 tons and driven by a 1900/1600 hp engine in first/second gear is supposed to accelerate compared against planes weighing 2.5-3 tons with engines that are either just slightly weaker or have the same power output? The P-51's biggest advantage is its high corner speed as well as the fact it bleeds very little energy during maneuvers as long as your energy state is sufficiently high to prevent excessive angles of attack. Yeah, 50 octane fuel for the P-51s would really go a long way to making them 3.0 planes, I'd say. Also implying the D-30 doesn't already have access to 150 grade fuel. That's the only reason it even hits 1900 hp.
  79. P-51D

    Pretty sure that's a typo.
  80. I see the oil radiator's effectiveness has still not been slaved to the water radiator's setting. *le sigh* E: Actually, it's the rear engine oil overheating? That one has a dedicated oil radiator. What gives?
  81. IAI is the HEI round for the MG131. Did I mention the IAI belt consists of 100% HEI?
  82. http://www.avialogs.com/index.php/en/aircraft/usa/northamericanaviation/f-82twinmustang/an-01-60jja-1-handbook-flight-operating-instructions-f-82e-p-82e-aircraft.html The document states maximum permissible dive speed is 505 mph / 813 km/h. (The factor of 1.609 gives you 812.545 km/h - I chose to round up) However, ingame it looks like this: Clog uploaded externally because attachment management on this forum literally makes me want to gouge out my eyes: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/199290542796963850/313637486998061057/2017_05_15_13_05_13__10692.clog Hell, it's been a year since the new forum software was introduced. It's about past time all the little bugs got fixed, to say nothing of features that are still fundamentally broken. EDIT: Also note the 505 mph value is not corrected for PEC. PEC table is on page 49 of the pilot's manual. Add 10 mph at 10k ft.
  83. Was there a BR raised about dive Vne? Which reminds me, I should make one about the F-82.
  84. P-51D

    You're almost a week late to the blame party, stuff will get changed with an upcoming update.
  85. Because people will not let themselves be forced to play competitively in order to win. Look at US teams, common sense dictates weighing down your fighter with bombs is a virtual death sentence for you in short order, but that doesn't deter a lot of players from doing just that. E: Actually read your question the wrong way. What about getting clubbed out of the sky by a team that is made up of an 8 man squad *isn't* negative reinforcement?
  86. Plane durability against attacks from high angles of obliquity will be reduced with an upcoming patch.
  87. I'm sorry @Rapitor, this one is on me. I linked him.
  88. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm That said, Stofferberry is wrong in his assertion that Hispanos and .50s are nerfed more or less than other aircraft guns. As a matter of fact, all guns are underperforming versus planes at high angles of obliquity. @Rapitor confirmed as much in this thread.
  89. http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F-47N_Thunderbolt_SAC_-_17_May_1950.pdf http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F-47N_Thunderbolt_CS_-_17_May_1950_(Yip).pdf The SAC and CS clearly states the ability of the plane to mount up to 3 bombs from 100 to 1000 lb. This is not represented in the game. 2017_05_13_14_21_40__8292.clog
  90. First of all, sources: http://www.avia-it.com/act/profili_daerei/libretti_velivolo/PA_libretti_PDF/Mustang_III_Pilot_Notes.pdf Page 30 http://www.avialogs.com/en/aircraft/usa/northamericanaviation/p-51mustang/an-01-60je-1-flight-handbook-f-51d.html Pages 65 and 93 Maximum permissible flap speed at 10/45° is given as 400/165 mph, corresponding to ~645/265 km/h before factoring in 5% of error margin, which would net us 678/278 km/h, respectively. However, ingame, it looks like this: I would like to add that in both >600 km/h dives, while using combat flaps - which I assume to be 10° - I received flap overspeed warnings, but my screenshots never actually caught them on screen. The near SL test at full flaps had me pushing way past 300 km/h without any kind of flap overspeed warning. As such, permissible flap speeds should be changed according to the sources linked herein. The Mustang Mk III is virtually identical to the Mk IV in regards to wing durability, one being a refinement over the other. That said, on page 2 of the F-51D manual are handwritten limitations regarding 10 and 50° flaps, 390 and 165 mph, respectively. Even with the lower value, adding 5% error margin nets us just shy of 659 km/h permissible speed for 10° flaps. Clog attached. On a personal note, as the laws of aerodynamics apply equally across all airframes, odds are something in general is fishy with the way maximum permissible flap speeds are calculated ingame for lower than maximum angle deployments. 2017_05_13_08_55_38__1616.clog
  91. >P-47N >Do 335 >Ki-100 >Sunderland Yes, these are all Yakovlevs, easily distinguishable by the fact all of these are found in the Russian tr...oh, wait. They're not. You should probably go back to False Claims 101 to learn how to make yours more believable.
  92. Wings of Victory, actually.
  93. Hold on. The rocket tubes were mounted at an angle so the rockets would fly above the sight line and drop through it at a certain distance. These rockets were never intended for use against ground forces, but to break open allied combat box formations of heavy bombers. As such, the plane performing incorrectly is actually the Fw 190 A-5. EDIT: Some more information on how the weapon works: http://www.deutscheluftwaffe.com/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/b/Bordwaffen/21 cm Wurfgranate/21 Wurfgranate BR Gereat.html