Jump to content
Welcome to the virtual battlefield, Guest!

World War II Online is a Massively Multiplayer Online First Person Shooter based in Western Europe between 1939 and 1943. Through land, sea, and air combat using a ultra-realistic game engine, combined with a strategic layer, in the largest game world ever created - We offer the best WWII simulation experience around.

waldojr

i refuse to fly or use an AAA gun.

Recommended Posts

madrebel
5 minutes ago, bmbm said:

While WarBirds isn’t a yardstick for fidelity I never hesitated to turn with FWs in my Jug, at any altitude. They’re pretty well matched, as history witnesses. It’ll be a while yet before we see that match in WWIIOL tho.

as they should be.

 

slightly lower wingloading for the jug and slightly higher power loading for the 190. its a fat girl versus a full back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
madrebel
29 minutes ago, stankyus said:

I don't care if its inferior at low alts TBH, I want better hi alt performances. We have spits for the lower alts, I was just saying that it would be ok at lower alts, not superior. I'm not looking for superior just competitive.

the funny thing is the spit was the altitude fighter for the brits. they had to significantly alter the super charger on the merlin to get good low altitude performance as all of merlin's engineering cards were put into altitude performance. As an example, you could justify a spit7, 8, or an early mk9 as early as tier2. all of these spits used the merlin 61 and here is a quote from wikipedia describing the early spit9 (from a 42 test)

 The performance of the Spitfire IX is outstandingly better than the Spitfire V especially at heights above 20,000 feet. On the level the Spitfire is considerably faster and climb is exceptionally good. It will climb easily to 38,000 feet and when levelled off there can be made to climb in stages to above 40,000 feet by building up speed on the level and a slight zoom. Its manoeuvrability is as good as a Spitfire V up to 30,000 feet and above is very much better. At 38,000 feet it is capable of a true speed of 368mph and is still able to manoeuvre well for fighting.

the catch of course, the early spit9 wasn't any faster than the Vb we already have at game altitudes. a little faster, but not much. the 7 and 8 on the other hand slightly faster at all altitudes and significantly faster at high altitude as i recall. Which is just how those engines were configured. later the merlin 66 was geared for lower maximum altitudes as nobody was flying 'that' high. its this gearing iirc that is what the Packard Merlin's (all based off the merlin 70 iirc) are based on giving a sweet spot for rammed air performance at 27.5K feet.

 

for lower altitudes the RaF have the Typhoon/Tempest. as much as i'd love to see the a36, i'd much prefer to see the organic RaF medium altitude fighters as they were far more iconic. it wasn't a rocket fired from an a36 that reportedly knocked out Whitmann's tiger tank, it was a typhoon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stankyus
13 minutes ago, madrebel said:

the funny thing is the spit was the altitude fighter for the brits. they had to significantly alter the super charger on the merlin to get good low altitude performance as all of merlin's engineering cards were put into altitude performance. As an example, you could justify a spit7, 8, or an early mk9 as early as tier2. all of these spits used the merlin 61 and here is a quote from wikipedia describing the early spit9 (from a 42 test)

 

 

the catch of course, the early spit9 wasn't any faster than the Vb we already have at game altitudes. a little faster, but not much. the 7 and 8 on the other hand slightly faster at all altitudes and significantly faster at high altitude as i recall. Which is just how those engines were configured. later the merlin 66 was geared for lower maximum altitudes as nobody was flying 'that' high. its this gearing iirc that is what the Packard Merlin's (all based off the merlin 70 iirc) are based on giving a sweet spot for rammed air performance at 27.5K feet.

 

for lower altitudes the RaF have the Typhoon/Tempest. as much as i'd love to see the a36, i'd much prefer to see the organic RaF medium altitude fighters as they were far more iconic. it wasn't a rocket fired from an a36 that reportedly knocked out Whitmann's tiger tank, it was a typhoon.

As for the top part - I just don't know enough to comment. 

As for the Typhoon and Tempest. These and the Mossy are my allied dream planes and TBH I really don't think about them to prevent any game bitterness.  I like low alt fighting and going after ground targets.. I just don't expect to see them for years to come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
madrebel

well, the roll rate on all those RaF planes was pretty poor. Given that, I don't think they'll upset the apple cart so to speak. 109s can out maneuver them easily at lower speeds and at all speeds a competent 190 pilot should be able to absolutely punish them with roll rate. 

 

IMO we need them for escort and anti bomber duty. when we get to the point where RDP and bombing is important, something that historically was never a need will show up IMO as a weakness in the allied arsenal. What is that? The allies never had to arm their planes to face lots of bombers. Germany of course did. This will then land us with a tier 4 and 5 where the germans can have as many as 8 20mm cannons on a 190 versus at most, 4 x hispano from an extremely slow hurricane2c. thats not good for anyone. the typhoon/tempest/mossie all bring that 4 x hispano package that would allow for completely ahistoric scenarios where germany has lots of bombers.

 

without these planes the allies have very little in the way of heavy firepower. 6x50s and 8x50s likely works but its just not as sexy right. RaF also could use an actual long range high altitude escort option. Mossie is that and then some. Technically due to the compressed 1:2 world size you can outfit Spitfires to fly round trip from say Whitecastle to Berlin and back by way of a single 150 gallon ferry tank. 109s too, a single 300L and the secondary tank (the GM1/mw50 tank could be and was used for aux fuel too) accomplish that. P38 as is, P40 with drop tanks, etc all that can do the job in game but none of those options are 'realistic' per se. I'd just like to see a plane on the RaF list that actually made those flights IRL. I'm ultimately fine with drop tanks allowing everyone to have escorts for game reasons, but its just not realistic.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BMBM

Turn rate is over-rated. Get a wingman instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BMBM

Typhoon can hold its own against FWs using lag roll attacks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merlin51
3 hours ago, stankyus said:

TBH the blen is the hardest allied plane to fly. If they ever touched it, its not noticeable. Its very hard to get airborn, hard to keep your air speed up and easily departs because it bleeds E so quick that a turn can stall it out. However I will be flying them more when the HE audit is in.

Oddly enough, i have no problems getting one airborne, ACM i suck at badly and i can get out turned by an HE-111, I guess when you die a lot you get good at taking off.
Speed though, nope it doesnt have any and yes, you have to mind your speed/E or you will turn yourself right into a stall, still i like the thing, its fun
I just wish the Blen MK I was available in more than just 1 brigade, its fun for close ground support and stuff but its hard to find them in play.

I might like the dumb stuff though, cause my pref in fighters is H75, then H81 and not terribly interested after that, and axis i prefer the 110 or the stuka
Im going to die no matter what i am in but those are at least fun to me before i die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...