Free Play Account
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Green Tag

About fufubear1f

  • Rank
  • Birthday
  1. Looks like an a6m2 but seeing all of those that did get me excited for the very very longterm of this game.
  2. I am fairly confident in my ability to get air kills in the e4. I don't see a problem with the Luftwaffe fighter wise. I would still like a low tier 190 though (but without the outer mg ff/m cannons). Db7 by design is more maneuverable than a 111. This is the forefather to the A20 and A26. Both of which engaged in ground attack missions (strafing and such) during the war. Meanwhile all the 111 ever did was level bomb. If the Luftwaffe had a Ju 88 or Dornier and the differences were still huge then it would be a FM issue but they simply have bombers designed for different purposes.
  3. Repairing could serve as an alternative to grinding those air ranks because after t1 the players flying in E1s start to get severely disadvantaged. Just food for thought.
  4. It's more fun though
  5. Youre right, the p47 will get better with the paddle prop and power upgrade but it will still be overall inferior to the German types in low altitude combat. I'm speaking of 1v1 btw in a 2v2 or more the p47 is much more viable due to drag and bag tactics.
  6. P47 (assuming early D variant with razorback) will be a dog at low altitudes. It will be completely outclassed by the 190 except in max dive speed (and the 190 will win initially). P47 will only start to get good at low altitudes with overboosted late D models pushing 2800 hp (that's like late 44) or the M variant (about the same time). US best option for low altitude combat is the Mustang, P39N, P39Q (although I'm pretty sure these were not common on the west), or maybe a P40N.
  7. If p51 arrived tomorrow it wouldn't be the worst plane since it would have speed and high speed agility but it wouldn't shine for sure. Spit mk9 would be better in 90% of situations because the meta of the air is to fly from close airfields to support the ground. If bombers had bigger incentives to fly those long range RDP missions maybe that could change (and cutting down the amount of Db7/Havoc mk1s in exchange for proper level bombers like wellingtons or b25s) and we'd could start seeing cool things like fighter sweeps and high altitude escorts. I have no idea how to increase incentives though. I'm relatively new to the game so I haven't experienced the old iterations of the air war but I do know that this version is basically a slightly better version of the wings of liberty server in IL2 bos. In other words it gets boring fast for anyone who wants more than high intensity dogfights. Sidenote can there be an increase in xp gained. I've killed multiple planes in one flight to barely be rewarded any xp. Gaining ranks and better planes is a real pita for any new pilot.
  8. Incorrect unless you are comparing different manifold pressures. I picked the B because finding a chart for the P51D running anything but 67" is very hard and I'd rather not bug my friends to help me find one. Anyway even if the D was slower than the B (which is possible due to its bubble canopy but I haven't seen data that confirms that only the words of very knowledgeable people), it wouldn't drop +20kph to the point that the 109K could catch it. The US wouldnt have put that in service (or they would have just skipped to the P51H). P51B (make sure to look at the 67" line). P51D (the furthest line) Both are tested with wing racks so they are actually faster than this. This is also with around 1600hp for 67" HG with the V1650-7. I know I said I was done before but this post was too facepalm worthy that I had to respond to it. You don't compare speed with a Mustang unless you are a Jet or a Tempest. Well youll probably find some way to squeeze out of accepting the facts somehow like claim the Mustang D never ran 72" or 75".
  9. It is faster... Power curve http://kurfurst.org/Engine/DB60x/DB605_datasheets_DC.html Speed So 2000 ps and still slower than the Mustang doing just over 1800 hp (I'm comparing sea level speeds since that's the best way to test aerodynamics). Sorry all for dragging this off-topic. This is my last post on that matter.
  10. Look at my first link. There is a RAF test which compares it to both the spitfire and 109E to the Hawk (which it out turned both). My second source was the only one about feelings but that was in support of my first one. I've posted real world data. Ahh another off-topic tangent. Pro tip do not compare the Mustang and the 109. The 109 looses in almost every aspect (especially in speed).
  11. Lol really not worse? Is that why the 2 cleanest planes of ww2 (yak 3 and p51) both did not use the wing radiator and both used the same type of radiator in the same place? Benefiting from the Meredith effect isn't special either. Just because it benefits doesn't mean it's an efficient design. If the wing radiator was actually as good as you are making it seek then there would be no way a yak 1 could catch a bf 109. The yak is bigger and has a lower powered engine. Hawk 75 was stated to be close in maneuverability with the Ki 43. It should turn circles around any 109. https://www.warbirdsforum.com/topic/6689-curtiss-p-36-hawk-75-performance/ Yes it's a forum page but this guy (Corsning) only posts official documents. Also this quote "Despite the loss of two Mohawk I've, both JAAF and RAF pilots felt that the curtiss was almost as maneuverable as the Ki-43" - Ki 43 'Oscar's Aces of World War 2 I might also have a TAIC report about a test between a P36 and the captured A6M2. Either way I think what I posted was enough. The Ki 43 danced around the spitfire and Hurricane over Burma. If the Hawk was close to this than the 109 stands no chance in turns.
  12. Those are not proportional. The 109s wing has higher drag than planes of a similar wing size because of things like the wing radiator and it's slats (when extended).
  13. I agree with this statement having flown in IL2 1946, IL2 BOS, and War thunder. These planes all retain energy very well.
  14. To be fair the tiger is in much higher numbers than it really should be for 1942. For example in the North African campaign, the allies encountered tigers twice. I'd be all fine with it staying where it is and removing 1944 kit as long as it's numbers could be limited.
  15. Offtopic: Warthunders balancing is abysmal. Planes dominate ground vehicles and planes are placed at battle ratings that make them blatantly overpowered. On topic: personally I don't think the air balance is that bad fighters wise. Bomber wise I think the issue stems from the fact that the allies and axis have different types of bombers. Allies have attack bombers while axis has a level bomber and a dive bomber. Axis would need something like a Dornier or a Ju 88 to bridge that gap. It should be noted though that even after a flight model audit the db7 will still be more agile than an He 111.