fu4c is that really a dweeb plane ?

[laz]

(me:laz)"so you don't get in the situations where the cannons do hit you."
(tac) "Laz, the only way to chieve that is to not engage them in combat and stay faaar away from them"

well tac maybe thats what you need to do so you stop crying over a little game.
     

[sling322]

Originally posted by SWulfe:

<snip>
So, the F4U-1C was perked because of whining masses (you dolts do realize that pre-whining the F4U-1C was NEVER as popular, doncha?) and here we are a month and a half later with the same crap being brought up.
<snip>

Ya know SeaWulfe....I brought this up once in the past and was berated for it by someone on this BBS.  I never really liked the Chog myself.  Thing turns like a pig for me....I am too much of a turner and burner type flyer to have the patience to boom and zoom.  But after the whines began, I started to fly it more and more just to hear the whiners whine.  I am sure I wasnt the only one.  

[Naudet]

Toad here u get an answer.

Yes u r right its a minor fault, and also it is corrected which is fine and will should solve the CHOG uber plane discussions.

My point is simply that in WW2 sims such minor faults can have suprisingly impressive influences on the gameplay.

When it is solved there will be no problem any longer.

Btw i learned to like the DHOG much better in the A2G support role, it has more rockets and beside the VH ack the 0.5 cals rip ack to pieces in milliseconds.

[Hooligan]

Toad:

Standard British loadout was half AP/I and half HE/I for the Hispano (according to the book Guns of the Royal Airforce).

Hooligan

[Nifty]

*ROFL*  Last time I checked, the CHog was perked at 8 points.  Stop whining about the damned thing!  Stop whining about it being perked!  Stop whining about the whiners!  

Like I mentioned in another thread, it's all speculation as to why the CHog is perked until HTC comes out and says why THEY perked it (yes, HTC perked it, not the whiners!)  If it was perked for usage #'s, then oh well, it got perked to balance out the usage.  Deal with it.  If it was perked because it was "uber," oh well, it was uber, deal with it (then HTC should perk other "uber" planes to be fair.)

I'm sure more than a few Spitfire/Hurricane pilots said "damned bloody 109's everywhere..." during the BoB.  If Churchill coulda perked Hitler's Luftwaffe, don't you think he would have??  

[Toad]

Naudet,

I'll wager that there are other as yet unknown errors in other aircraft FM's. Given the scarcity of really good germane and unquestionably correct data there almost has to be.

So shall we all get upset over that to? Something is probably wrong... we just don't know what it is yet! Oh my!

I just Play The Game.

Because when Dale and Doug find an error that can be documented as incorrect they fix it.

Guess what? I don't think I've flown the F4U-1C in probably 6-7 tours, maybe more. During that time I'm near certain I killed more of them than they killed me when I was drilling around the skies of AH in "inferior" planes. I know I killed a bunch in the C-205.  

Yet in all that time with F4U-1C uber turbolasers and an incredible 5% error in aircraft weight.....

I still had fun playing AH.

HOW CAN THAT BE?

The game just keeps getting better and the errors keep getting weeded out. Maybe that's how.

Or maybe it's because I don't lie awake at night worrying that the Gestunkena Ray Gun 32.5mm gun shoots 151' too far. Or that the Iron Eagle F91.5 climbs 47 FPM faster than the rate of climb I found for it in a dusty old comic book on WW2.

I just Play The Game; simply because it is STILL, by far, the BEST one available.

YMMV.  

[Toad]

Hazed, let's take a look at this:

"The 20mm mine shell didn't show up quite so well. A comparative test with
the Hispano concluded that there wouldn't be much difference. What the
Hispano lost in explosive effect (only half the HE), it gained in kinetic energy, and it stood a better chance of punching through aircraft structures to reach fuel tanks,
or to inflict structural damage. Once again, it was with wing hits that the
mine shell was most dangerous.

Cheers,

Tony Williams"

Apparently Tony is talking about the Hispano HE/I shell in this comparison with the mine shell which "didn't show up quite so well".

So basically he's saying 1 mine shell is an unknown bit "inferior" to 1 Hisp HE/I.

OK. Now the beltings:

A 100 round belting of MG151/20 would have 40 mine shells. The rest would be 40 Brandsprenggranatpatronen (a HE/I type) and 20 Panzersprenggranatpatrone (a "semi-AP projectile").

I haven't seen a definitive rating on these HE/I or semi-AP but I assume from what's been posted here that both of these were inferior to the Hisp. HE/I and AP/I respectively. Otherwise, no need for the mine shell, right?

Now, the Hispano belt of 100 has 50 HE/I said to be slightly superior to the best of the MG 151/20 shells, the mine shell. It also has 50 AP/I shells that are clearly superior to the "semi AP".

Now, if, and this is a big IF, AH models the belting's OVERALL leathality and NOT "shell by shell" leathality, Hispano belts will be significantly more leathal than the MG151/20 belts.

As I say, this is the way I understand the current modeling. It models overall average leathality, not shell by shell.

It may not be that way at all.