Well- Considering IRL the p39 sucked and the f6f-5 was decent, its pritty easy to make the association. Thank you WBFH for giving us a uber p39 that flys on the spirit of vodka. I await execs' flame.
And you base your "facts" about P-39 to what? US origin sites, rumours and that kind of shit. Russian server, russian rules. Learn to live with it or get the hell out of dodge.... Why the hell did Russia even used that plane with such a good success if it's all that bad? Or didn't US army just know how to use it properly? airfax
You don't know jack shit about planes do you Allsop? After reading the same replies over and over again one would assume you've at least got some basic knowledge by now... Apparently you don't. The P39 was good for the Russians and not for the Americans because at the Russian front the plane was flown at low to medium altitudes. Altitudes where it's lack of (or was it just a bad one?) a supercharger wasn't felt as painfully. The Americans and British couldn't do much with a P39 because they had to fly their planes high in the sky. The F6F actually started off as a Wildcat with a bigger engine. It's less maneuverable than it's smaller brother, but it's alot faster. This speed was put to good use against the much slower Zekelings. <Z>
@allsop: Even me i learned some things, and i started from knowledge=0. If you brag so much about planes' knowledge, you should listen to Z and others.
hugo The problem with finding data, online is the information 99.5% of the time doesn't specify exactly the type of Aircraft,the types are bewildering. Take the spitfire for example or Bf-109's, many different marks/types, Engines of varying power and size with or without turbo chargers or carburators/fuel injection, load-outs/weight, wing-spans, fuel octane level, speeds at different altitudes. it can be bewildering. One source should be used. but unfortunately at FH is seems like a recipe with a little of this and a little of that thrown in to suit to taste. FH had original 2.76 version of warbirds to build on and add new aircraft accordingly, but instead chose to do this and that like a kid playing with the nobs on of fine stereo system/equaliser in a store and forgetting how to set it back. IMHO Janes world war two aircraft wouldn't be a bad source to use. But the original 2.76 or 2.77 FH had should be the base. but hey we know how it goes around here. But that won't stop me from trying to help the community for a better product.
there is no such a magic 'one source for all' except 'another game simulator'. for four years i propose the format that is proved to be effective. why? because i suggested something to change and tried almost all methods of reporting fm mismatches. if you want to know. and found the only way to make one clear, brief and undeniable format. but people don't want to hear me (even some of fh consultants!), preferring speculating with 'feeling of flight', 'belles-lettres/memoirs illustrations', 'obvious logics'. so, "chaika is über, how it would be outdated in real ww2 when we see übercraft in the game until the very 1944. luftwaffe veterans did not reported to have problems with chaika. so i don't want to have problems with i-153 flying my 109f-2 as well. it must be remodelled to worsen it to correspond the feel of overwhelming of german aviation over russian at least in the biginning of the war. besides, it must not carry rockets until 1988 because i did not managed to find texts stating that it had rs-82 since 1939-40, but i'm flawless therefore that data does not exist in the universe at all and remove rockets then" is a just waste of breath. "fw190 given nickname würger (butcher) by allies was a terror in the sky according to... uh... well... the literature not specified, but it's a common knowledge that fw190 was beaten only by numbers of mustangs. the nick würger is not given out of nothing, right? so i want to feel safe in the sky when playing fw190. but yesterday i tried to zoom from furball and was chased up by i-16 that explained that he was diving and had a plenty of E, but that's shit because i-16 cannot have E ever. also 190 could carry torpedoes, guided bombs, schrägemusik and even ju88, all 'en mass', so please equip fw190 appropriately, and finally do something to 190 to allow me sleep with a shiny conqueror thoughts in my head" is a crap too. but all 4 years people mostly ignore me preferring to keep complaining in forms i just typed above. some of them are even feel insulted, because an 'impossible' thing is required, that 'demonstrates' that developers don't want to hear their 'objective despite absence of data' opinion. so now arrive days when only hohun left that knows the matter and can talk intelligible about fm.
bizerk, can you post all data that janes says about la-5/la-7 line? i have not bad compillation of data (not excellent though), and i'd like to compare it with 'universal' source. who knows, may be janes will be good indeed.
Well, I've got Janes as well... and it pains me to say... they have accurate data on the models they use, but they only have basic info. They are very in depth as far as the engines goes, but they don't have much real flight data. Maybe I should buy a more extensive Jane's, only got the 'Fighters of World War II' one <Z>
Jese zembla- this makes me wonder if you know anything about planes. Are you trying to say the f6f is little more than a f4f with a bigger engine? Becaise reasearch says otherwise- including a changed fuselage and wing. Just the fact that ordanance was in existance "in your case the rs-82 rocket" you say its fine to put such load on an i153. But at the same time you say it is illogical to request invented technology onto planes such as the 109 or 190. And reds seem to hate our poor mk108 cannon while they fly without heavy heart a p39 which nose cannon frequently jamed with damage can survive the worse of it here and fire a 37mm shell with much acuracy. Not to mention 1-2xhispano deaths from d8...that wouldnt make up for the mk108 cannon which often doesnt even kill in 1 hit anymore. You guys are just as contradicting as anyone else here. But- Long live mother russia as they say in "dodge".
as far as d8 i see 190s and 109 starting to do this same thing, sprying at d8, was maby that u ? ill spray d8 d10 once in awile just to say "Hello im still back here we gonna do this or what?" ive on maby 3-4 ocaiosn acualy scored a kill and felt vey bad about it. "with the exception of trying to lob 37mms up to d10 on a strait flyer. this i did do with intent to kill but with only small success. in ho im already shooting at d 10, but this is to give me time to adjust my deflection on fast closeing cons. right now. with a 12mm plane like p40 or f6f with a stabe trget max ill open up for when atempting a kill is d5, unless buff, or d3 in any plane with 20mm cannos, but this is prefernce to me as to what seems efective in scoring a clean kill and not waisting your ammo. I hate waisting ammo. my last 30% i consider defencive disingage and rtb insurence. if im under 30% and clr, and wings are clr ill rtb, under 30% and wings not clr ill skert action at what i consider safe distance, and clr wings if they start running home con 6. If not clr i use that last 30% to fight my way out . so i hate wasitng 1/2 my ammo to gethalf a doven hits at d8. but agin thats prefrence. some pilots dont think nothing of dieng. in general ill give up scoring a kill not to die, but again if im sure there no escape, i become sucidal berzerker, and somtimes with alittle luck and bad aimming by foes. trying to take as many as u can with u leaves u clr but damger and all foes burning.
damn lol join date for me 2003, for allsy 2004 post 500+ me 1,700+ for alssy and i thought i posted a read forum maby a bit overlymuch
Why do yo just say the same thing over and over and over? You just throw out a few insults and then prattle on with what ever shit you think of and do not address whatever was said by whoever you are replying to.
i153 isn't uber IRL why: -it is slower than german bombers -it has poor fire power -8xorxs is nice, but flak 20mm is too deadly for slow biplanes it is slowest plane in the game, HO is deadly for chaika, turning isn't way to win. US army pilots were attacked more by enemies than navy pilots, bad logistic, a few parts of planes, a lot of planes were damaged, bad situation to win in fight. Janes? What is it? Where is it? Some aircraft comparsion on net?
http://www.aafo.com/library/history/polikarpov/ For info on the timeline of the Russians fighting the Japanese in Mongolia, look here; http://www.thehistorynet.com/ahi/blsovietfighter/index2.html Here is a pic (undated) but which looks fairly old; Again in 1939, from a Japanese pilot; http://www.warbirdforum.com/nomonhan.htm Proving that rockets were in use early in the war, albeit this pilot talks about them being on the I-16. Further proof; http://www.russianspaceweb.com/rnii.html All from Google btw.
I see one picture- but no written proof of an i153 carrying rockets- I do find proof of the rs-82 rocket being developed at the time of early war, and that i16's used them. As far as i153 not being uber- Yes it should turn well- it does, Yes it should climb well with high power/weight- it does, its armament is good enough to kill early war planes pritty easily- it does. But a plane such as the 109f2 "im not a big fan" often catches fuel fires which is respectible as no self sealing fuel tanks were around till the 109f4 as far as I know. but why is a canvas biplane wonder with plenty of fuel in it never catches a fuel fire even though I cant find anything to suggest i153 had self sealing tanks. To exec- who will never learn? I already know that no change will be made to WBFH unless it benifits the allied cause- abiously that implys some knoledge somehwere. It angers me though as someone who beleives in the historicle aspect while you cant usually ever provide proof to aid what you say. Like in the fw190 loads page- its been prooven that the option kits to include a 500kg and 4x50kg bombs on the fw190 starting at the a3 were available, but you fight it and say that there isnt enough proof or some other bunch of shit..... Any intelligent conversation I try to have with all the data in the world isnt good enough for your pompus ass....so whatever you say man, whatever you say.
I said it's design came forth from the desire of a more powerful Wildcat. Are you gonna twist my words some more? Please, read up on the F6F, see how effective it was, and why. Then come back here when you've got a clue, because I'm getting tired of arguing with somebody as clueless as you. Don't know if you realise but I'm Belgian. Belgium ain't exactly a neighboring country of Russia. <Z>
