przybysz86

Member
  • Content count

    4,864
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

przybysz86 last won the day on November 24 2016

przybysz86 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,876 Outstanding

2 Followers

About przybysz86

  • Rank
    Just another guy interested in military aviation.

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    aviation, military and especially military aviation.

Recent Profile Visitors

3,364 profile views
  1. I think they have it in form of AD2 and A-26. They were designated attackers of Korean War era and at that time USAF doctrine was moving away from dedicated attackers to fighter-bombers which culminated in F-100 and F-105 later on. Also B-57B was attacker/interdiction plane so that should be counted in too. Overall US have quite nice CAS capability so is it that much of a problem that planes are called fighters instead of attackers?
  2. that what I've talked about but serie 7 is still the more stable one and with new FM serie 3 is not novice friendly
  3. only the latter one (serie 7). earlier one (serie 3) is actually quite unstable (which is historically correct) when you poke it with a stick. It was made even more prominent since 1.67 patch. So to sum things up - M.C.200 yes but I'd suggest later version.
  4. ok - I've checked MC202 briefly - it flies very nice and I love the fact that combat flaps stay with me up to 600kph
  5. I have Saitek X55- and I would not recommend it for long run. It's very nice and so on but wiring in throttle is terrible and after 1-1,5 years of daily use it starte to have phantom signals, some buttons stopped working at some throttle positions and so on. Maybe X52 might be better but I'd advise caution. Depends on budget but if you want good value HOTAS I think Thrustmasters are better choice - lot of people on this forum had lot of good experience. I think you might want to ask here:
  6. yes, they are very easy to fly. So i Ki-43 but in that one if you pull hard at high speeds you can rip wings. Good learner for Japanese tree is Ki-27 in EC1.
  7. Good habit is also to go into test flight with every new plane before going into combat. in EC you pay just for spawning so if you crash taking off it's a wasted cash. Go into test flight, do some take-offs and landing and then go and try some spins and spin recovery. Basic spin recovery (mayb slightly vary from plane to plane but general idea is the same) -cut power to 0% -push stick (nose down) -move rudder to the opposite side vs spin (so if you sin right use full left rudder) -move stick to the same side the plane is spinning (so if you spin right try rolling right) Now wait and hope you have enough altitude. When you suddenly feel plane getting control back just settle it down (yes it will settle nose-down ... that's why you hope to get enough altitude), let it get some speed and gently apply power, when you are at 200+kph/(120mph) IAS pull nose up but not hard enough to fall into another spin. Use combat flaps to speed up recover.
  8. I disagree- while they are easier to fly and so on, from learning perspective they are dead end. After initial experience all you'll learn is point-and-click combat with turrets. take fighter that is easy to master and use that moving to more demanding planes. P-38 have no torque so yeah - it's not a bad start but you need to grind it in EC2 or play EC3 and that is more demanding skill-wise. The planes I've mentioned are all EC2 and are all pretty safe - no brutal spins in them etc. In other words you have to abuse them to make them spin so it's easier to learn where "the edge" is.
  9. it takes experience - there is no substitute. Go into test flight and learn to feel when plane start to wobble and do not pull any harder then, in fact ease off. I also suggest starting in EC2 which is not that hardcore energy fighting and use some plane that is novice friendly like He-112, Ki-43, Hurricane, Yak7B, or P-36G. Only after you learn to fly those gradually learn other and only then go to higher EC (EC3) in that case. If you really need a beginners mode go to EC1 but you will be mostly fighting bots there - not bad place to start.
  10. I think Yaks were exception from that rule - I remember reading that they had 1-part wing (obviously that was about the spar) and there are some videos on YT withYaks are assembled where you see whole wing being pushed below the plane to be bolted on. But yeah - for most planes wings are separate. Just check any plane in transport on the road or via train - wings sit next to it not as one part but each wing separately.
  11. F2A

    actually 50cal+30cal and 3x50cal+30cal are all well documented USN variants but 2x50cal is something new.
  12. F2A

    Feel free to barge in - just keep it factual - we do not have that many threads where mods answer openly so let's not loose that one too
  13. I didn't mean tailgaters only - I just suggested attacking from the front like LW did vs pre-G B-17s.
  14. F2A

    yeah - 2x50cals smells fishy. I also can only find info about additional guns in wings (3d model already have bulges on the wings for that). I know Finland made conversion for twin 50 cals and I also know that other planes like P-36 or P-26 had option to install 30/50cal interchangeably. Again - that's not the proof that F2A-1 in USN ever had those installed. In the meantime - in SB AF area we got confirmation from tech mod that ammo count will be investigated devs - 450x50cal rounds seem a little off as you've said earlier. Quote from tech-mod:
  15. @Hunternz - question about F2A-1: I understand that GJ got some "sikrit dokument" to prove it can and did have 2x50cals (not arguing with that at the moment) but why when gun was switched from 30cal to 50cal ammo count remained the same? One could assume that it would be more like in case of F2A-3 with both guns having 250 rounds in the belt not (as someone pointer out in another thread) one having 250 and another one 450. It's more than those in nose of A-20 or wing guns on P-47. Something someone might take a look at - not having the mentioned document about this rare version it's hard for me to say it's 100% wrong (and submit bug report) but does not look right.
  16. only if you insist on attacking it from rear hemisphere
  17. F2A

    that's totally different story and I believe you are right
  18. F2A

    it was intentional. info from one of the tech mods when someone asked if there was bug report that this change was based on: EDIT: I've done some research and I think he refers to batch of upgunned F2A-1s that were ordered by USN but only 11 made it and rest was renamed as B239 and diverted to Finland. There is contradiction in some sources whether those planes had 2x50cal or 4x50cal but regardless what is true they had twin 50s in nose. Only what I am not sure is if Thach ever fewl in one of those 11 Also one thing is unclear - if those 50cals were mounted by Brewster or already in Finland together with all the other mods they did. Regardless - it was possible without much effort to switch 30cal to 50cal so maybe there is something to GJ's claim.
  19. F2A

    F2A-1s are good but have weak armament (somehow better since 30cal got replaced with 2nd 50cal in 1.67) but F2A-3 cannot out-fly A6M and spitfires unless pilot in those planes is totally incompetent. F2A-3 is a good turner but bleed energy and outside a dive energy retention is not that superb. Sure in pure sustained turn maybe it can keep up with Spitfire (A6M is out of the question) but why would spitfire pilot do that instead of going veritcal where F2A-3 is not F2A-1* and will loose? I think that F2As just fit early game meta where most pilots don't yet have good energy fighting habits and most only do constant turn and more experience also do them vertically. *F2A-1 with 45mins fuel can keep up with BF109E in climb.
  20. keep in mind there is a small "edit mission" button when you click test flight for a plane you own. It alows you to add bots, ground targets, etc. Good for geeting to know your plane.
  21. I disagree - there is nothing worse than creating bad habits from the start. Even it if would be steeper learning curve if you fly with 100%/1.0/1.0 from the start then I suggest you start with planes that are easier to control like Ki-43. A6M, Hurricane, He-112, etc and go from there. Noone ask you to be master of Fw-190 over a weekend. Of course best setup is the one working for you - if you prefer lower sensitivity then use it.
  22. question: <45mm or <=45mm? "up to" suggest that it also includes 45mm but who knows.
  23. hmm - you got me intrigued. I'll have to read more then. I've not disassembled my stick yet so maybe you are right
  24. I am now using Saitek X55 that is a HOTAS but does not have hall sensor(updated based on below inputs), bu my previous stick was 5yo Av8r using simpler technology and it was not a HOTAS. I'd go with 100%/1.0/1.0 setting with it as well. Expensive equipment only useful if you know what you are doing. It's like skiing - I am total beginner and even with top-end expensive stuff I will be left far back by a 15yo on rented worn out skis. It's all abut skill and in both cases you set up tour equipment in the same way.
  25. nice - I'll need to give it a try. Thing is that skin I want to unlock is on A6M2* but hey - little challenge can be a good thing *Yeah in EC3 it also faces up to BR4.7 but frankly 4,3 and 4,7 are rare sight
  26. that's because you give inputs directly and not via some lazy guys who does it slower and not exactly in the way you asked for. In extreme case it's like difference between flying yourself in pilot seat or seating in the back and giving instructions to guy in front.
  27. so much THAT! - if you want one you see go ahead and download hello kitty skin from wt.live but I do not want it on my screen.
  28. that is true for 75% of WT pilots but then again why wouldn't it if I regularly see people turn-fighting zeros or even I-153s but truisms aside, fight at medium to high altitude require totally different mindset. For example IAS is much lower so you might be going very fast and yet your plane might be close to stall and it's much easier to burn energy up there and it's much harder to regain (other than dive which fighting enemy better at lower altitude is a two edged sword). not entirely true - International Space Station need regular re-boosts because it's orbit is decaying due to aerodynamic drag of air particles at the altitude ISS is on. forgive quote from wikipedia but that one is actually true: but that's just me being pedantic
  29. I only see battles for 3.7-4.7 - can I assume that it's current rotation or am I missing something? EDIT: I've also asked in another thread so forgive the "repost" but this one is more recent one: does lobby games allow skin unlock or is it impossible like in EC?
  30. Question - is the pacific event allowing to unlock skins for planes?
  31. RB have bigger problem from what I've heard - most of their kills end up in wings being torn at root (just along the fuselage) even with 7,62s I've not seen this affecting SB (I've checked 6-10 kills both mine and done by others in replays) and found only 2 cases when this happened but in both it was effect of long fire to the fuel tank in wing root so kind of ok but maybe you have different experience. In RB it looks like shooting at plastic model planes
  32. when it comes to sensitivity here is some test. I pull the stick to the right and start shooting. When you hear guns stop it's where I just released the stick and it's being pulled by the spring to centre. I use very soft spring (my preference) so you can see stick go past neutral and then wobble back in centre but obviously that does not happen when I have my hand on the stick when I play. I later change sensitivity to 50% and to exactly the same test: hand to the right, shoot, release stick. See the difference? In combat to stop rolling with 100% all I have to do is put stick to neutral. With 50% I need to put it way left to speed up getting to neutral but even then I will most likely roll too far and will have to correct which can end in overcorrection and so on... You can even see the stick is still moving to the right when I fire at which point my joystick was already in full deflection half a second earlier. I hope this will show you while 100% is better even if it's little harder for less experienced players.
  33. P-40E

    here is some test. I pull the stick to the right and start shooting. When you hear guns stop it's where I just released the stick and it's being pulled by the spring to centre. I use very soft spring (my preference) so you can see stick go past neutral and then wobble back in centre but obviously that does not happen when I have my hand on the stick when I play. I later change sensitivity to 50% and to exactly the same test: hand to the right, shoot, release stick. See the difference? In combat to stop rolling with 100% all I have to do is put stick to neutral. With 50% I need to put it way left to speed up getting to neutral but even then I will most likely roll too far and will have to correct which can end in overcorrection and so on... You can even see the stick is still moving to the right when I fire at which point my joystick was already in full deflection half a second earlier.
  34. P-40E

    same for all axis. I've also add little non-linearity and tiny dead-zone to rudder but not in WT but in Saitek software: but that's because Saitek X55 I have seem not to centre rudder perfectly sometimes - if that issue was not present I'd keep that linear as well. EDIT: Overall I do not like all the non-linearity stuff. Sure it can help you when you begin to learn the plane and you do not know where "the edge" is but then it only cause problems so I prefer to have steeper learning curve with some crashes involved every time when I get to new plane or one I've not flown for months but after I get pass it I like the feel that plane is so much more responsive to even small movements and I do not have to slam my stick all over the place. Nonlinearity is especially bad if you fly with mid stick defletion. Sure it's smooth on the very far ends but in mid-range you have high change for low deflection altering - terrible. Sensitivity is for me basically a lag. My hand does not shake and I do not like when I pull and plane follow with lag becuase I usually overdo my turn then have to correct then correct correction and so on
  35. OK - today I've watched reply of all my aerial kills and so far I only have one case when wing ripped exactly at root/fuselage and it was BF110 that had fuel tank fire resulting in subsequent explosion. Other kills with wings ripping: -Ju-87: wing ripped at the spot where it changes into upward angled part (directly beyond the wheel strut) -BF109: wing ripped again just beyond the wheel well: Other kills did not result in any of the wings being ripped but either enemy crashing, pilot snipe or in one case tail snapped off. I know I have not much to prove my thesis but maybe the problem is more due to RB instructor as people suggest and it's stronger in RB/AB? In all my kills today and yesterday I've been using Yak-1 which as you know have 2MGs and 1 cannon so it's not like it's spitting nukes. I've also watched some other kills from my replays (by thus I mean kills done by others) and so far only one case of wing snapping at root and this again was as an effect of fuel tank explosion. other than that I never saw wing snipping at root and only one more case of wing rip at all. I also saw 6 kills where nothing fell of a plane. I also saw 6 kills where nothing fell of a plane so as said I think this might more more exaggerated in RB and AB.
  36. can't find now but I think Finns did that as field mod. I never heard of that ever done on US, RAAF, RAF, etc plane. @Hunternz - I believe you have access to bug report library - anything on that one there?
  37. I don't even remember of the top of my head what's available in T1 when it comes to planes. mainly play SB GF to grind skins for planes and I have T1 all unlocked already so I don't go there often. Beside - let's not clutter this thread with off-topic. If you need any help with planes (where at least based on stats I am much better than in tanking) just PM me
  38. I don't have much experience with it in SB (or with tanks in general there - I prefer to fly than drive) but I'd say it's too unwieldy for SB. You need to stick 5m of tank just to see what's behind the corner, it take week to traverse hull 90deg and it's impossible to ambush anything or often even to hide the whole bulk.
  39. Your money but I like my T-35. Tons of fun in tank RB and make me return to rank 1 from time to time. Also nice for crew XP grind. I bought mine with 50% discount and never regretted it for 35% it's your call but I'd still go with "buy". I think it would work great coupled with T-26E I plan to buy at some point
  40. after half a year of getting rocket tanks test drive in every huge trophy I finally got something else (Japanese FW190 test) - hardly a progress but at least something.
  41. @Skeptical_Bunny - thanks for videos. I've also watched my last reply and out of 3 kills 2 were wing rips at root indeed. bf110 kill was not that unrealistic - I set his wing-root fuel tank on fire which few seconds later exploded but kill vs Ju-87 I think gets in line with what people discuss here: daka-daka-daka with 2x7,62s + 20s (that ran out in the middle of the burst) and bang - plane flies one direction while wing goes the other way.
  42. if plane in question have such thing where wing snaps
  43. P-40E

    I had wobbliness problem too in the past but what helped me is getting sensitivity to 100%. Basically what sensitivity is not change fact that say 100% stick = 100% deflection - what it does it adds averaging to your inputs. In other words it add lag to your reactions. Try using 100% sensitivity on all axis and if you need something weaker tun down multilplier. Your wobbliness might come from the fact that moment after you release the pull your control takes part of a second to actually reach neutral position. I've just checked it on P-40 by moving from 100% (my default setting) to 70% on all axis and indeed nose float around. With 100% it only does float away due to plane not being perfectly trimmed - so slow pitching up/down or slow yaw to one side or the other but no nose dancing around the speed vector. Of course maybe that's because 100% sensitivity suits me better but try it - it might work for you too. EDIT: for me plane only floats slightly in yaw axis so when you suddenly release the rudder input it will indeed wobble around but pitch and roll are fine
  44. P-40E

    ok - more testing done thanks to @MrBader - it have 1600hp with 100octane fuel. Just quick note - if you use "reference" setup in test flight you will not get 100octane and you will get 1470hp. It seems to be true for all planes in game - reference test flight do not "use" better fuel (if option exists for given plane) so if you want proper test you need to spade plane an use "current" setup. Also 100 octane fuel increases spawn cost by about 50%
  45. have anyone got that on a video? you all got me curious. It's all sounds like something GJ might just do - they are well known for those kind of wrong moves that get later reverted.
  46. Some wings ripped here. Some of them at root and some of those on German planes so there is a chance it was 50cals. EDIT: I do believe it should be rare case and 90% of those should be ammo/fuel tank blowing up but it happens and it was caught on camera so it's not totally ridiculous. If GJ made it too probable is a different story - I have not seen it happen yet but then again it's just me and I won't try to tell you that you've not seen what you had
  47. P-40 was a decent plane for it's BR and with new FM it's now borderline OP. I know it will get BR buff but I am talking at the moment. For me (I play SB if that matters) worst plane in game (by this I mean plane that struggles most vs enemies it meets not one I hate the most) would be (except planes like Po-2 and Kingfisher that are no longer researchable available in shop): -Nimrod mk I - it's by far worst fighter in game - most if not all opponents have 30-50-100% more power than it does, it's slow and while agile it faces mostly other biplanes that are not sluggish either and due to low engine power it quickly bleeds it energy. - SB specific I-16 type 10 and He-112V5. Those planes can either go into EC1 (BR 1.0 - 2.0) or EC2 (1.7-3.3) and if you do not want to spend time grinding spawn points to fly one you need to go to the higher brackets where most planes are BR 2.0-2.7. Sadly vs those enemies both type 10 and V5 are weak - again SB specific - PBY. It's the same situation as above but it's even worse for PBY - you have to grind so long to play it in EC1 that most people play it in EC2 where you can spam it. Sadly vs planes like BF110, BF109E3/4 it's an easy prey and even Japan in EC2 have planes like Ki-45 with 37mm cannons that can deal with it even faster.
  48. P-40E

    I've flown it some time yesterday but I think at SL it capped around 1470 and x-ray said the same. Maybe I've missed something - will do test flight in the evening. I've also played soviet one and maybe they are rated for lower power than us counterpart. Regardless - it's a great plane as long as engine does not explode from all the heat
  49. I am not sure about RB but in SB Typhoon mk Ib (the premium one) is superb SL grinder. It's low repair cost and very high (one of the highest in game) SL reward. It also have Hispanos so there are not problems with firepower if you don't like them 50s. I'm not sure what play-style suits you and how repair cost/reward looks in RB but it's definitely worth checking. In SB vs things like 190A1, 109G2, etc I can easily get K/D of 5/0 and if there are enough enemies around 10/0 is not a problem (my personal best is 12/0 and I got bored )
  50. p-47n

    making wingtips squared is not clipping them and does not magically increase roll rate - just check A6M3 clipped wings are where they are ...well clipped. For example in Spitfires and Fireflies roll rate got better thanks to shorter wingspan which means less rolling drag and less mass (especially the one on wing tips which gives highest reluctance when trying to change roll speed/direction) I think it's more than wing tips squaring that affected roll rate.
  51. I think it was because it was abused too often. At some point in SB at least US teams had more Ki-61s, Ki-43s and A6Ms than native US planes. Given it's low BR, good overall performance and (back then) high earning it was SL grinder that clubbed all the inexperienced players (low BR as said) that didn't know how to fight vs Japanese planes. That's my theory - if I'm right and if it was the same in RB - those are good questions
  52. I think it's something with AB/RB DM - it's well known fact that in RB where (FM and DM is the same as SB according to devs) planes fly with damage that will bring down SB plane 10 times. I am yet to see wing ripped at root in SB while using 7,7s, 12.7 Bredas or US 50s. I've ripped half of wing or so (after substantial 6x50cal pounding) and I've ripped enemy's tail (again high deflection 50cal 6-pack took 1-2s burst to do so) but I've not yet seen wing ripped at root either on my targets or myself. That said in SB with high deflection shooting you not always see clearly what happens to your target if lot of smoke is involved so I will try to look closer next time I fly. I will also get Typhoon mk.Ia with 12x0.303 to check it.
  53. Lagg-3-8 is way inferior to Yak-1 in everything other than speed which is comparable. But it's tougher and better armed. -8 is in my opinion best used as heavy fighter - kind of Soviet BF110. -11 is just -8 with rockets and stuff and with engine that overheats slower. WHen it comes to pure performance it's almost the same. -35 is where the fun starts. It have leading edge slats and this make it much more predictable at high AoA, it's faster than 109E4 by good 15-20kph on deck and faster than 109F1/2 by about 10kph at SL and finally it retains energy nicely -66 is final form of Lagg-3. It was produced in 1944 if memory serves and thus is younger than La-5s. It's much lighter than previous variants (I remember reading it's due to higher use of metal and lighter wood) and this make it comparable in dogfighting to 109E3/4 and only slightly inferior to 109F1/2 and since it's still a Lagg it can still just run away from all of them. only situation where 109 are clearly superior is above 4km (actually above 5km but it starts 1km lower).
  54. that I even think this was suggested more than once.
  55. P-39

    actually not loading ammo was the problem. With ammo spent plane still carried empty cases and that mitigated problem a little (I think that early models did ejected 37mm cases which was later changed to make it less spin prone. Nevertheless as far as I've tested with all 37mm rounds fired plane is not a death trap - all that changes is that elevator need less deflection for the same effect but it's not like with P-51 with full fuel load when at high-G pulls control force reversal happened (this means that at some point plane started to pitch up by it own and moving stick to neutral won't help - pilot had to push stick forward even to keep plane in the same turn radius not to mention to stop it pitching up). After some testing I'd say that after you empty 37mm shells plane flies like in 1.65 (maybe little bit more unstable but nothing significant) and that's it. If in your opinion 1.65 P-39 was unflyable then watch out but if like me you learned how to cope with it then your biggest enemy is not "empty" FM but the fact that it changes during battle
  56. db-3

    Compared to IL-4 (which is basically later variant) it looks like "elephant plane" with snub nose and bulge of the forehead.
  57. P-39

    Emm - P-40 got new FM as well in 1.67.
  58. serie 3 is - as it should be but serie 7 seem ok. EDIT: MC200 seem ok but in case of serie 3 little wobbly but FM change for G50s wil not be liked by people. They are now slower and more wobbly than before. I'd say they feel more realistic but we know that many people do not think realistic is better - for them better = faster, more agile, etc I am not taking MC202 for a spin
  59. P-40E

    it is little bit less "on rails" than it was but come on... it's far from "wobble king". overall it got (and yes, I hate the term) buffed. It's now better plane than it was at 1.65 and I think it feels more disconnected than previous version. We'll see if it ever gets 1600hp at 58"Hg - something that got rumoured.
  60. sorry for my internal OCD but....F2F? asusme you mean F3F or F2A @Karamazovnew?
  61. In other words you are surprised that best turn fighter of the game is better at turn fighting than planes that were worse turn fighters that it was right?
  62. I like stabilisers but I think that it begs the change in cruise control so that 1st speed is the speed at which stabiliser still works. In some us tanks like Stuart or Sherman 1st speed is too fast for stabiliser to keep up. Yes I can switch to manual gear and at 2nd it is ok but one can assume that it would not be that hard to teach drive to go not faster than X kph I don't like the fact that with F3F cockpit update of all possible options (we have few F3Fs surviving) they've chosen one that have least practicality with metal plate. Also despite bug report they had not moved vertical cockpit fairing closer to the sight and iron sights are still 100% obscured by firing and 100% useless. Will post more feedback if I bump onto something worth noting
  63. that's why some time ago I've put a bug report with some sources on how it can be fixed and can remain 100% historically correct but what they did is make it slightly worse - still 100% historically correct but of all the options they've chose worst one.
  64. and guess what - it worked. It meant higher losses but was in long run less risky. People was a resource that Soviets had in abundance even when it comes to skilled personnel like pilots. BTW - nice video.
  65. You ever had doubt? But being half-serious - show me point in change log that tells about cockpit redesign for F3F. It must have skipped me somehow while reading but since change log have ALL changes ...
  66. P-40E

    X-ray is wrong on us model. It have 1470hp@58"Hg at SL - same as soviet one which had correct x-ray
  67. P-40E

    only thing that kept MC202 at 2.3 are RNG Breadas and that's it. Plane is 3.3 airframe with 1.3 armament and thus it gets avg of 2.3 P40 was ok at 2.3 but with new engine it needs at least 2.7 (if it flies like on dev server- will check tomorrow). In SB 3.0 might be too high but then it would be nicely challenging and I bet it can survive EC3 with that engine.
  68. P-40E

    so it finally got 1600? I smell BR increase soon
  69. "Ivan the Invincible" had been transferred
  70. Change log showing all changes - like that ever happen
  71. No, that's not that easy. There are lot of factors involved and it depends what you want to achieve. Please note that below is generalisation - obviously more variables are invovled as airfoil efficiency that adds to drag and prop efficiency that add to power but lets keep things simple for now- it's best I can do. Climb: basically function of power and weight. More power to weight better the climb. Here P47 will not be great below 6km as it weight a lot despite strong engine. At alt above 6km it's not great too but other planes are even worse. Speed: function of power and drag with slight mass involved (more mass require higher angle of attack and thus higher drag to keep level but still drag is main factor). Higher you are, lower the drag and also usually lower the power. Drag decrease over altitude is constant but power decrease is not so plane that keeps power higher will go faster with alt. Acceleration: similar to climb - more power and less weight mean higher acceleration. At higher speed drag is an issue Energy retention: function of drag, power and weight. Heavier the plane, slower plane will decelerate also higher "power to drag" ratio, slower plane will decelerate in other words plane taht is heavy, sleak and powerfull will keep speed longer. Now how it goes I-185 vs P-47 at low alt (low alt is below 3000-4000m for me)? -P-47 will have similar acceleration compared to I-185. It have more power but also more weight. While it will "drop like a stone" faster in dive it will also sooner hit high drag envelope. -after levelling out P-47 have higher mass so it will decelerate slower but also have higher drag that will make it slow down faster. I-185 on the other hand is lighter (so the same drag have less mass to decelerate) but it's more aerodynamic so there is less drag. -when it comes to top speed at low alt P-47 have more power but have more drag to deal with while I-185 is opposite, lower power but lower drag. -when it comes to regaining lost speed at low alt: I-185 have better power-2-weight ration so will accelerate beter overall at low alt I-185 is better (especially with M-71 engine) but P-47 is also good plane and P-47 have better behaviour at high speeds so if you keep P-47 fast and don't turn it will pay off while I-185 will benefit from making P-47 bleed it's energy. Disclaimer: I do not own P-47M (but I plan to) and my I-185 is still stock but general idea sticks and I've done some test flights before I claimed above. If that's enough I leave it to the reader
  72. @Screamingeagles6 you know that's TAS not IAS? higher you go the same IAS will give higher TAS. Also P-47 is turbo-supercharged. It keeps maximum engine power till 8000 or 9000m while I-185 will get weaker above certain altitude and at 9000m might have as low as 2/3 or even 1/2 power it have on SL. So giving high power of P-47 at high altitude with much lower drag (aerodynamics not so important) it can easily get higher TAS. At SL mass is less important - hauling kgs around uses only 15% maybe 20% of power while rest is used to fight of the drag so more aerodynamic plane is the lower power it needs to keep same speed. It's like Bugatti Veyron vs Veyron Super Sport Super Sport is lighter and yet it need 200hp more just to get another 23km/h more while your avg sedan can go 200km/h+ with power of 100-150hp. But as said - the higher you go you get higher TAS while having same IAS (so roughly the same drag) so with altitude it's all about how good planes keep their power and P-47 is in the class of it's own. http://wiki.warthunder.com/index.php?title=Bostwick's_P-47M-1-REThunderbolt/Horsepower_graph http://wiki.warthunder.com/index.php?title=I-185_(M-82)/Horsepower_graph http://wiki.warthunder.com/index.php?title=I-185_(M-71)/Horsepower_graph
  73. who knows. First they "leaked" the graphics prematurely to production version, later they posted this everywhere and in every langauge on site, forum and facebook: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:u7e9K8DPm1oJ:https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php%3F/topic/355524-scheduled-server-maintenance-15032017-0800-gmt/ but later the same day it was gone. I guess there was last minute bug discovered and patch was postponed and if bug was big enough to get release postponed after all been announced then I assume it will take more than day to fix but we will see
  74. regarding saitek X55/56 (X56 is basically a facelift to use automotive terms): sadly lot of true about all the wiring in throttle. Mine got "phantom signals" not working buttons, etc afte about 1.5years. If you have one and suddenly buttons stop to work from time to time and you are near end of guarantee go and ask them to fix it - it will only get worse and even if they disagree back then you will have paper later on that you showed issue while still on warranty.
  75. for Firefly it really helps to abuse combat flaps (sometimes I do not retract them through whole engagement) and add TO flaps as needed (just watch not to rip).
  76. I also think that those planes seem to be underestimated a lot. I mean - they are not superb to anything that flies but people see them as something like IL-2 or Me-410 and what they meet can out-sustain 50% of fighters in turn (Firefly) our out-energy them (Firebrand).
  77. if custom battle is multiplayer than yes. When you create one you can choose on what server it take place I think but please check in game if the option is still there.
  78. yes but expensive do not mean good quality. Check Saitek X55 I have - it's a great HOTS, spot on ergonomics, all the function you want and some you don't (but not annoying) but it's build in such a way that with extensive use (and paying $200 for a stick you want to use it a lot) it will start falling apart in 1-1,5years like mine did. I won't tell you what's wrong but there are lot of forums and YT vids about problem with throttle wirings on X55/X56 and possibly earlier models of the Saitek X5x family - sadly I didn't know about them when I bought mine. On the other hand cheaper HOTAS should be much more better quality even if ergonomics is not perfect. And then there are high-end super-expensive sticks that are both good at ergonomics and quality but you need at least $300-400 to buy a set.
  79. I can't speak much for Firebrand yet (stock) but Firefly in 1:1 combat with equal starting position can outfly captured Yak-1B. I did so with plane that had only 50% of modules researched to my (and Yak's pilot) surprise. f.mk.I can (which is historically correct) give hard time to A6M and at slightly higher speed it can use combat flaps to out-turn it without much effort. Roll rate suck though.
  80. joystick quality will matter later. To start buy a cheap one that have "twist" (rudder by twisting stick) and at least 1 analogue throttle (more the better). After a year or two when this one get all used up you'll know what you need and you'll buy one that suits you. Pumping lot of money into a stick taht does not work as you'd expected is a wast of cash. I've used Saitek Av8r for few years - it was a nice budget stick from times when Saitek cared about stuff. Now I have Saitek X55 - great stick but build quality is terrible - I already got one replaced as it started to fall apart and this things cost 10x of what new Av8r was back then.
  81. @Lukas_SVK - it also depends what type of nonlinearity. I'm not sure what is in game but if I need tweaks my Saitek have better soft for that. And I prefer J type over S type because a. I do not like the "wonky" middle part where there is big jum and b. I don't trust what GJ means by non-linearity Still as you can see I play on linear but of course that's personal preference and everyone should use what suits him/her best.
  82. I don't get peole flying high non-linearity. It's impossible to feel "the edge" doing so. You pull and there is nothing, nothing, nothing and .. bam! - snap into spin or wing rip. I guess that's personal but I prefer 100% sensitivity and low non-linearity if any at all.
  83. p-38

    I love conspiracy therories when 2 planes with exactly the same guns (sometimes in slightly different configurations) suddenly one work and other don't. In FM files M2 is M2 and M3 is M3. There are only 2 versions late vs early and all they differ is belts you can use but other than that this part is copy-paste through whole US plane tree. At least was so last time I've checked around when 1.65 was released.
  84. P-63

    http://wiki.warthunder.com/index.php?title=P-63A-5Kingcobra/Horsepower_graph EDIT: P-63 had automatic supercharger regulation so maybe graph is correct. It's not that hard to make automated blow-off valve or something. There is no mention in plane's manual about supercharger being multi-stage.
  85. Yaks get FM udpate in 1.67
  86. and all that in the day that SB related devblog was posted But I know how you might feel so salute
  87. they also mention that we can choose from RB missions (at least initially) which sadly are mostly somehow like ones I remember from old SB. but indeed - you gave me hope - I've missed it.
  88. looks ok but what I don't like is the "climb-fest". I've recently played SB GF and if you want to play as a plane focused on shooting down another plane it's the contest who climbs better becuase if I have plane that climbs poorly and I spend time side climbing by the time I get there one off two options can happen: -enemy is even higher as he climbs better and he can see me half across the smaller map -half of my team is already dead because they were one plane short as I was not there buyt side climbing. That was the biggest problem with so called "old queue" for me and I hop it does not mean we are back to that. other than that having server browser is nice.
  89. no overreving (I've tested that) and temp looks ok but I've not tested that in depth. All I can say that oil and water rads are separate now.
  90. Yeah, they are fast, and if you stay low (no ventral turret) they are really hard to approach and it can out-run many twin engine dedicated bomber killers. H8Ks are also tough nut - they are surprisingly fast and spongy. in EC2 Sunderlands would be my choice and in EC1 Blenheim
  91. totally it's simple - if you don't know what to do WEP away and rethink the situation Just get above 550-600kph and see BF109 get smaller in shallow dive or level flight. 109E/Fs have problem keeping above 510kph on deck and will quickly loose any speed above that while A-36 can just fly away. When you build distance then just climb back and return to battlefield
  92. A-36 is superb energy fighter in EC2. It can outrun anything on SL (except typhoon but you don't fight those) and retain energy superbly to everything else as well. I once used it as attacker but 99% of time it's a superb dogfighter - you do not need to limit yourself to bomber hunting.
  93. P-40E

    FM feels better. Do not mistake it with plane being better but in that case it is - it seem to be more agile and have additional 200hp
  94. The D-25 won't miss +0.3 BR to 3.7 so that it's not able to join EC2 but that's it if you ask me. The other one on 4.0 is fine where it is now. It also nicely fits with timeline with EC3 being '42-'43 planes mostly MC200 won't spin? I think you talk about the later one. 1st MC200 is quite prone to spin near stall speed. BTW Italian planes get updated (IMO much nicer) FMs in 1.67
  95. I think that sums I-16s best. It's a plane that have lot of draws. Good opponent will be too fast for you to kill and if you get SA right you will be too agile to get kill and basically first one to make mistake looses it but sadly you in I-16 have much harder job keeping situational awareness. He just need to stay fast.
  96. yeah -sadly true but I still felt like I need to vice my concern. Even if not in EC it might get fixed in WWM at least there was not enough time and not enough player to test EC and I've not done any cockpit checks (I do not have VR so there's that too). All I can say is that there are nice FMs for Italian planes and P40s
  97. P47 is very powerful and very heavy fighter that sticks to it's energy nicely but at low altitude it's also very stubby nosed and that big engine works like a parachute. Mass mean that you will loose speed slower but aerodynamics mean that you will stop loosing it sooner. At altitudes below 3000m P-47s engine even injected is not powerful enough to fight against all that drag and you can easily keep up with it in planes like P-39s,Ki-44s, La-5/7s and in case of early P-47D25 even Lagg-3s can to some extent keep up (as long as P-47 don't get above Lagg's wing rip speed). At high altitude P-47 in shallow dive would leave any of those planes eating exhaust fumes but at deck it's not that stellar while I-185 on the other hand is much more more aerodynamic and is tuned for low altitude with engine doing up to 2000HP. P-47 is great but it being able to out-run anything (especially on deck) is a myth that sadly gets lot of people killed.
  98. if you compare any other 1940+ monoplane vs Ishak it will be (with good dose of probability) faster. Ishaks have nice P2W that allows them to do some nice turns but energy retention is non-existent and speed is only better than biplanes for most of the time. I agree with @Warpig_ - it's a problem with your enemy and not plane being so superior. It's the same story with I-153(especially P-variant) and all the A6Ms. Sure they are good planes but all they ask of you if you fight against them is not to turn-fight with it and you'll be good. Yet after 2-3 initial good BnZs 90% of players get impatient and rather than continue BnZs they loop over instantly or even worse do a horizontal turn since I am in this poky little plane and they are in superbly engineered war machine.
  99. P-40E

    I restarted dev client and later it was 1470HP so it's correct now. 1600 was too high.
  100. P-40E

    If it's not a bug then in 1.67 P-40E-1 will get "overboost" WEP at 58" giving SL power of 1,600bhp (compared to 1.65 46" and 1180-1200bhp) so go figure - BR buff imminent
  101. it's broken on current dev server - it now produces 1600hp on take off so it basically flies great
  102. I am looking forward to revisiting SB EC2 with my semi Italian line-up I've tested them little more and they feel more predictable now - they do spin if pushed hard but are easier to recover and give more warning before snapping. And yeas- P40 is nice too on dev
  103. since dev server is now open I've done some testing of new FM for G50s, MC200s and MC202. First good news is that new G50 and MC200's engine are getting proper RPM (2400-2500) on take off WEP. As for acceleration and energy retention they seem more or less the same but the seem to be slightly more responsive to pilot inputs and while it can be placebo effect - they feel nicer to fly overall. You can also no longer overspeed MC202's engine on MEC when whacking from 0% to WEP at slow speed. Thermodynamics are also changed and all mentioned planes have oil radiator control in MEC so most likely they also have thermostats and so on. Too soon to tell - I had no time to do propper testing for that.
  104. patch notes:
  105. who knows - I guess still in March. As for changes: -cockpit lights are not visible outside plane. -mentioned exhaust flames look nice and seem to correspond to mixture and throttle setting.
  106. BTW: 1.67 DEV SERVER is online now. I like the exhaust flames
  107. that's why I said I hope 1.67 will do something about it It was not as much as a rant as it was wish-list post with hint of suggestion
  108. I get what you say but I want to play EC in it. We already are told that if we want skins unlocked we should go elsewhere. Now I am told that if I want to play my IL 2 as an attacker as it should be played I need to play it as a fighter - which is not only not what it's good at but also against all what's left of immersion. Do not get this personally - I know you try to help but that's not the point. Why cant we have it useful in EC?
  109. again - this variant of IL2 is unavilable today
  110. with 100kg bombs it's not that easy to do anything and trust me - any ju87 will out-turn me since I am stock and barely able to take off.. beside today this plane is unavailable and I am not sure I'll be able to play when it is in the mix EDIT: beside - that's not the point. Why can't I do it in SB EC?
  111. I hope 1.67 will add more soft targets for EC. Right now I wanted to spade my totally stock IL2 and I have a problem - my 100kg bombs can't kill tanks reliably, my guns are useless, plane is barely flying stock so no chance for any dogfight and all i can do is spend hour to get to minibase (hoping not to get kill) to drop .... 4x100kg which give little to no RP reward. I do not even talk about SL or anything. I just want to get better bombs and it's now 5 battles and I unlocked 1 module. And yes, I know there are soft targets here and there but it take ages to find them on some maps. there is no system for them - it's like a damn easter egg hunt but without even being sure there are eggs hidden. Most of the time you get intercepted before you find first one. That's pathetic
  112. I'm wondering - what do you think are most underestimated planes? By this I mean planes that are widely considered below avg or even bad for their EC rank but you like to fly them and get good results in them. I'll open list with Lagg-3s, Mig-3s and P-39s Lagg-3: they are sturdy, have decent firepower and are surprisingly fast. -35 and -66 can out-run Emils and Friedrichs without breaking as much as a sweat. All the ask for is that you do not turnfight your enemy yet many do just that and then say that planes are terrible compared to Yaks. I personally for some reason prefer Lag-3-35 and -66 to Yak-1/7. Mig3: it's a damn skyrocket. This plane can Emils hard time in climbing contest. It can easily out-climb most of the opposition and is quite fast in level flight as well. And if you climb you only get better with altitude. Myabe not a best plane in EC2 but again - if you ask me it's a victim of peoples tendency to use it as turn fighter because it's soviet so it mus out-turn 109s P400/P39s: I think they are my favourite "underdogs". Plane have great energy retention and at high speed they can easily rip wings which takes 14G to do. They accelerate nicely, keep speed superbly and have decent P2W at low altitude. Not to mention Porklyshikin's P-39N-0 I've bought today. I had to test it twice with recording software and stop watch but at sea level it accelerates faster than... yak-3(!) and if both planes go vertical at SL while doing 250mph this lightened P-39N-0 will end up 400-500ft higher than Yak-3. For those that does not know it - Yak-3 is BR4.7 whole +1.7 compared to tested P-39. Non-premium variants are great too - they can give 109s really hard time and if you use their roll rate can out-fly A6Ms. Yet, because they are unstable at very low speed when you try to do tight high AoA turn people do not like them. All it takes is to keep plane fast and it does great at low alt where most of the combat happens. And what are your nominees?