Jump to content

Blackbird12

Members
  • Content Count

    25
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Blackbird12

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday 05/15/2002

Personal Information

  • Flight Simulators
    DCS World, Il-2 GB, Il-2 1946, Il-2 COD
  • Location
    Switzerland
  • Interests
    Aviation

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Don't forget there is a lot of differences between early and late G6, the early version didn't performed very well, but later version with MW50 became a very good aircraft. From what I remember it's slower than a K4 but more manoeuvrable and it had slightly worse climb
  2. The A8 was still a fighter, without the rack, wing canon (like earlier anton with fighter purpose), without wing canon you save 180 kg + less drag, the only big differences with earlier anton is the MG131, some radio equipement and the auxialiry tank in rear fuselage, armor for standard aircraft seems to be the same. I think it loses his energy a bit too fast, I still habe doubt about the top speed, but it's another subject
  3. It lacks some kit, like the R2 (30mm) there is still bugs like you can't drop your BR21 after launching them, there are performance issue, notably at 2400 and 2100 rpm, about 15 km/h missing...And no news about that, there are anton lovers who point these things and ED seems to not see them, I found the oil temperature limits in the manual was completly wrong (it says max 130°C and the strip on the indicator says about 95°) and I don't know the P47 well but it seems that it has much love than the anton and it's quite frustrating I can understand that dev need time, no problem, for
  4. It's my favourite plane and I did a lot of research about it and I hesitate to make a huge post about it (notably the speed), but I think it will be only a waste of time for me
  5. For me it's still in EA, still bugs, lack of content...
  6. If you change the prop pitch and go above 2700rpm you can damage the engine now but it seems there is no time limit for the wep and I don't know if it should get one or not, the time limit seems to have been set because of the temperature of oil and engine and not of the engine limit (rpm, ata), they cleared higher ata for higher time without big changes on the engines, there is no injection so hard to tell
  7. I would love a late G6 so much I think there are 2 things : first the plane, I think ED should make them with all (or the most important)of their options, kits, possibilities like 150 octane for P51, kits for the 190 and 109 and second, the players,servers should allow them or not. For exemple we can remove MW50 for the D9 and the k4 in the mission editor
  8. On test sheet, I found 7-9 km/h but the ETC 504 wich had better aerodynamic make 10 km/h loss on D9 so I don't understand, for C3 it's only for Jabo-rei variant ( G8/F8 ) but for fighter is erhöhte notleistung and no news about that from ED
  9. From my latest test, yes for aerodynamic but I'm looking since one week for the speed loss of it, seems to be on a calculations sheet wich says 12 km/h, in game it is 14 km/h @SL from latest test
  10. So captured aircraft... I'm not very confident with those aircraft test because of the wear. And for the "forget", there is a bug since march for the BR21
  11. Me too, but I have the feel that they didnt searched too much, the Anton seems to be forget. There are some thread about speed and the engine but no news about that and as a customer I'm a bit disappointed, that's why I looked a lot for the 190 family and obviously there isn't much data exepting from aircraftperformance
  12. I totaly agree with that, so why ED don't use all the data we have and not 1 or 2 ?
  13. I agree with you, but some variables can be missed and affect the TAS (conversion between IAS and TAS)
  14. I don't think it's very fair to use only one source, and as I say above on a test with a D9 they managed to be 5 km/h slower than calculations, so many things can change the speed in real test flight, I think we can assume that calculations are better but a good indication, because calculations can be very precise if we take a littlle margine of course, (there is nothing more precise than mathematics I think) All sources calculations, test flight should be observed. For the d9 http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/Fw_190_D-9_210001_FB_Nr3.pdf For traduction look for Flight Report FW
  15. So how do we know these are calculated values ? Because for me "Flugleistung" is "Flight performance" and that says what it says, and for the test flight (notably the 4 we have on http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a8.html) we don't even know how they could transform (accurately) the values from IAS to TAS (wind, temperature, airspeed indicator accuracy), the state of the radiators flaps (cause I think they can't go with ATA 1.42 2700rmp with them closed for too long) so wich is the more imprecise ? I think we should take all of these charts and make something like an average.
×
×
  • Create New...