New typhie... also new flight model for it?

[PanosGR]

Thanx Moot  and DieHard no more questions i understand now

[Anaxogoras]

There's an update coming?  I'd almost forgotten.

[A8TOOL]

It's going to look right nice but still fly the same....at least that's what I expect.

...and you think that because the flight model of the other planes in AH were not altered after being graphically updated ?

I don't fly it much but I'd expect some changes like the rest of the planes that were redone.

[Ack-Ack]

I don't fly it much but I'd expect some changes like the rest of the planes that were redone.

P-38's flight model wasn't when it was updated.


ack-ack

[jocko-]

Looks great!  Here's hoping all of Hawker's fine products are scheduled for a face lift, the poor Hurri models are very, very dated.

[Karnak]

Looks great!  Here's hoping all of Hawker's fine products are scheduled for a face lift, the poor Hurri models are very, very dated.

Hurri's are not as dated as a goodly number of other aircraft I can name.

[Sunka]

Its all just eye candy.

[B4Buster]

Its all just eye candy.

And it's AWESOME   

[Krusty]

That's a shame... We have a number of super-frankenstein models that were gross mix-matches of many different versions. Our last spit9 was something like this as well, if I recall. Graphics and weapons not matching performance and engine specs.

Our P-40E for example, is kinda messed up. Somehow it hits all the points for a P-40K/L, but has an early E 3D shape, and somehow despite having K/L engine matches an E's climb rate? So if the climb rate is correct, but the engine is more powerful, does that mean the airframe is too heavy? Or does that mean acceleration is off as well? You see my point, some planes need to be redone with higher level of fidelity AS they're remodeled.

I remembered the discussions on the typhoon and was hoping that would be the case with this update. However, P-47s, P-51s, P-38s, 109s, 190s, weren't changed during their graphics updates (it was the air flow recoding later, separate update, that changed some performance issues).

[moot]

All I've heard is Pyro say they like to leave things like FM updates to when they actually get to a model in their schedule e.g. when they update the 3D model - not randomly updating models' FM. Or when he said he'd look at one of the 190s only when he'd redo the whole Fw series. That doesn't imply that any graphic update guarantees a physics update.
Acceleration is probably a systemic thing, cf that not-to-scale comparative chart at wwiiaircraftperformance.org.

[Ruah]

every 5 or 10 rounds had a tracer, the last 50 rounds were all tracers - so you counted the bullets based on tracer rounds and when you got all traicers, you were down to the last bit and you pulled out.

thats how it worked for the u.s. planes according to the literature.

[Karnak]

every 5 or 10 rounds had a tracer, the last 50 rounds were all tracers - so you counted the bullets based on tracer rounds and when you got all traicers, you were down to the last bit and you pulled out.

thats how it worked for the u.s. planes according to the literature.

And pilots stopped that pretty fast once the Germans figured out what lots of tracer meant, or so I've heard.

[Kev367th]

That's a shame... We have a number of super-frankenstein models that were gross mix-matches of many different versions. Our last spit9 was something like this as well, if I recall. Graphics and weapons not matching performance and engine specs.

When flown with the .303 option it was reasonably accurate for a Merlin 61 F IX.

Using the 50cal option ('e' wing) is what made it a frankenstein. F IX's had ceased to exist by the time the 'e' wing appeared mid 1944, having been supplanted by LF IX's in 1943, then LF IXe's in 1944.

[edit] Wasn't there something about as old planes are updated to AH2 standards there are changes to the FM, but it's mainly about the number of points that lift is calculated (or something like that), plus a more discrete damage model?

[AWwrgwy]

I have a Typhoon vs. Tempest question.

Propellers.  80% of the Typhoon pictures I have seen show a three bladed propeller vs. Tempests with the four bladed propeller.  We have a Typhoon with a four bladed propeller.  Was this that common?  When was it changed from three to four?

I imagine we just have thebest option to get the most out of the plane but I'm curious and have not been able to find any info searching the infonet about it.


wrongway

[Kev367th]

I have a Typhoon vs. Tempest question.

Propellers.  80% of the Typhoon pictures I have seen show a three bladed propeller vs. Tempests with the four bladed propeller.  We have a Typhoon with a four bladed propeller.  Was this that common?  When was it changed from three to four?

I imagine we just have thebest option to get the most out of the plane but I'm curious and have not been able to find any info searching the infonet about it.


wrongway

Change from 3 blades to 4 blades took place early 1944.

Only noticeable change in performance was a reduced take-off run when fully laden.

[edit] More info -
Sept 1943 - Bubble hood
March 1944 - 4 bladed prop and Tempest tailplanes.

Which means - A 4 bladed, bubble Tiify can sub for an earlier 3 bladed, bubble Tiffy. (Bearing in mind the performance difference above)

More stuff here - http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?s=3808be0e1ce53d1a2a477fc22efcee98&showtopic=14930&st=0&p=175884&#entry175884