TLTeo

Member
  • Content count

    55
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

39 Neutral

About TLTeo

  • Rank
    Corporal
  1. I would add this:
  2. I am in fact a scientist. I work in high energy astrophysics, specifically black holes, which makes me familiar enough with hydrodynamics to know you're clueless.
  3. Sakuhzi, you can either a) solve the equations in here https://courses.cit.cornell.edu/mae5070/DynamicEquations.pdf and show that your solution is significantly different from the way planes behave in WT, how it is different, in which regimes it is different or b) stop waving your hands and accept the fact that modelling ANYTHING is very complex, which means that the opinion of someone who doesn't know how to solve those equations (such as you and I) doesn't matter because science is not a democracy. Saying P=mv and calling it a day shows an immense degree of ignorance about anything that concerns physics.
  4. Not to mention the 4.0 and 4.3 P-47Ds, or even lower 3.7 F6F and 2.7 (!!!!!!!!) F4U... pretty much anything that should be in t4 for the US is in t3 instead because of how badly people fly these planes
  5. The D9 carries 48 minutes at full load
  6. It wasn't only that, it's not like the F4 was the only fighter in the theatre. The F100, F104, and have F8 to name a few all had guns and all struggled against it. A lot of it was also a) american pilots at the time had very little ACM training and b) the rules of engagement in Vietnam forced US pilots to only open fire after identifying their targets visually, which on its own made missiles even worse. I do agree about what you said about turn rate though.
  7. I don't know about later jets, but I do know that both the F100 and F105 were much less agile than the F86, which is one of the reasons why Mig-17s had so much success in Vietnam.
  8. I have no problems with it in Air RB with mouse and keyboard. Fantastic performance and mediocre firepower like it's always been and like it should be. Maybe it's because AB flight models are strange and defy the laws of physics?
  9. The problem with this line of thought is that the way planes are flown in WT is so different than what they did IRL (taking off much closer to the fight, spending much less time at higher altitude, having the freedom to engage anything you see rather than pursuing a specific objective like escort...) that any amount of "fairness" you could have had by sticking to historical accuracy is already taken out by the very nature of the game. I do agree that some plane's BR is idiotic (*cough* american t3 *cough*), but I don't think going for full on historical accuracy would necessarily make the game better, particularly because it doesn't pretend to be an accurate simulation. I do agree that they probably shouldn't weight player performance as much as they do in calculating BRs though.
  10. Italy did not operate the ground attack version of the MB326 (or G82). We used the G91 for that same role.
  11. To be fair, if there are multiple targets in a furball doing that may not be the best idea
  12. For ground forces the F8 is probably the best choice since it's the only ground attack variant in the 109 or 190 trees. For air battles, any 109 or 190 in that BR is very good imo. The A8 and F8 are probably the hardest to get good results with though, especially the F8 which has additional armor and therefore is a bit overweight.
  13. You can make similar arguments for the MB326 and the G59; they did have non-trainer versions, but they were never emplyed by the AMI, so it's debatable whether they should be in game or not. It's similar to the He112B really, it wasn't really flown by the Luftwaffe but it's still in-game. Personally I would really, really want to fly an MB326 just to have an MB339PAN skin for it