Author Topic: Interesting turn times and radius from Soviet sources (Read 2256 times)

Tilt · « **Reply #30 on:** January 04, 2006, 09:33:24 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kurfürst
they note though the 'climb in battle turn' for most planes.

I do find this annoying.............. VVS / Tsagi recorded the combat turn performance of every ac they find yet fail to even look at stuff like roll rate!

x0847Marine · « **Reply #31 on:** January 04, 2006, 10:52:17 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Harry
Me thinks he got mobbed. 10 guys each taking turn to pick on him, and when he retaliates make sure the teacher sees it. This BBS can be so juvenile at times.

They fed the "troll" then ratted him out for being full.

Kinda funny if you ask me... assists stats for all who participated, Skuzzy gets the kill.

Morpheus · « **Reply #32 on:** January 04, 2006, 10:57:54 AM »

See Rule #4

Skuzzy · « **Reply #33 on:** January 04, 2006, 11:13:44 AM »

This forum and attending discussions, have a specific purpose. Imparting information about the various aircraft/vehicles used in WW2. Please get it back on track.

Angus · « **Reply #34 on:** January 04, 2006, 05:28:24 PM »

Well, there are numbers posted from the Russians, and numbers from AH II.
Makes an interesting comparison anyway. Even if the diameters don't match, there is always the percentage and rank calculations, and from a brief look, they don't look too far apart.

pasoleati · « **Reply #35 on:** January 04, 2006, 09:31:35 PM »

See Rule #4

1K3 · « **Reply #36 on:** January 04, 2006, 09:58:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by pasoleati
See Rule #4

LOL you havent see Kurfie attack people.

When i started "Is Spitfire V still the dominant mark in mid-war" kurfie went "free-for-all Tony Montana style" personal attacks on kurfie.

38ruk · « **Reply #37 on:** January 04, 2006, 10:37:50 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by pasoleati
See Rule #4

DID you read that thread before it was edited????

Grits · « **Reply #38 on:** January 04, 2006, 10:47:37 PM »

See Rule #4

Urchin · « **Reply #39 on:** January 04, 2006, 11:46:10 PM »

The P-39 was actually a fairly manueverable plane. The Soviets used it as an air superiority fighter, they felt that it held a marked advantage in the horizontal below I want to say 15,000 ft (not certain on that).

It got a bad rap in the Pacific because it was rather a dog vs the Zeke... the P-63 (P-39 part duex) is the last plane I think that could be introduced into AH that would see any significant use.

Angus · « **Reply #40 on:** January 05, 2006, 03:13:49 AM »

Yeah, the P63 was very agile, rather fast and packed a punch.
They have one at Duxford and they say it is a delight to fly.

Slash27 · « **Reply #41 on:** January 05, 2006, 03:42:53 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Urchin
The P-39 was actually a fairly manueverable plane. The Soviets used it as an air superiority fighter, they felt that it held a marked advantage in the horizontal below I want to say 15,000 ft (not certain on that).

It got a bad rap in the Pacific because it was rather a dog vs the Zeke... the P-63 (P-39 part duex) is the last plane I think that could be introduced into AH that would see any significant use.

Did the P-63's use the 37mm too?

Slash27 · « **Reply #42 on:** January 05, 2006, 03:44:39 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by pasoleati
See Rule #4

You can really smell him in FInland?

Squire · « **Reply #43 on:** January 05, 2006, 04:11:17 AM »

SOVIET LIES I SAY LIES LIES LIES!!!

Sorry, I had to say it.

Hey, dig that Yak-3.

Charge · « **Reply #44 on:** January 05, 2006, 04:38:30 AM »

See Rule #6, #4