Author Topic: Look what they've to my 109 !!! (Read 222 times)

Hristo · « **on:** January 07, 2000, 03:33:00 PM »

the name of the topic should be: "Look what they've done to my 109". I guess I was so mad I did not even check that.

The damn propeller graphics are just iritating !!!!!

Do I have to watch that for whole sortie ?

2700 RPM and it's like watching the car wheel at 60 kph

Not to mention climb was not touched.

[This message has been edited by Hristo (edited 01-07-2000).]

Fishu · « **Reply #1 on:** January 07, 2000, 04:20:00 PM »

lol, even C.205 outclimbs 109G10..
Weren't 109G6 and C.205 more comparable, with the exception that C.205 didnt outclimb it either?

gatt · « **Reply #2 on:** January 07, 2000, 04:52:00 PM »

Hum, the C.205 should be comparable to the 109G2 and early G6, as far max speed and climb rates are concerned.

leonid · « **Reply #3 on:** January 07, 2000, 05:02:00 PM »

Hristo:
What about propeller? I tested 109 offline along with C.205, Spitfire IX and La-5FN. Propeller spin are all alike. I don't notice anything distracting

------------------
leonid, aka grisha
129 IAP VVS RKKA

Minotaur · « **Reply #4 on:** January 07, 2000, 05:50:00 PM »

Hristo / Fishu;

Check out new screenshots on the HTC webpage. That ought to help you out with some "109 Shine".

I wonder if the ICON will reflect what the variant is.

Mino

v-twin · « **Reply #5 on:** January 07, 2000, 06:14:00 PM »

To Fishu:

In RL the Mc205 climbed to 6000m in 5'30" (full fuel & ammo).

v-twin

Fishu · « **Reply #6 on:** January 07, 2000, 09:37:00 PM »

V-twin,

Shoulnd't C.205 be comparable to 109G-6, not to G-10, which should climb alot better..

gatt · « **Reply #7 on:** January 08, 2000, 01:54:00 AM »

Yes Fishu, your right. As I posted, IMHO the "Veltro" should climb like a 109G2 and/or early G6. Not like a 109G-10. The time for the C.205 is almost right, it is the G-10 that needs more climbpower.