Author Topic: Issues that have been mentioned so far... (Read 733 times)

gatso · « **Reply #30 on:** September 06, 2002, 09:02:53 PM »

What a productive thread

anyone have the ta-152 graphs while we're at it.

And although I'm not an expert I'm sure someone mentioned the C.202/205 carrying bombs. Not been mentioned yet.

Gatso

BTW, if you want anything testing I'm lucky to have 3 PC's on a LAN all capable of running AH, I can do aircraft/aircraft comparisons pretty easily using H2H LAN. Just shout.

Heinkel · « **Reply #31 on:** September 06, 2002, 09:18:22 PM »

The 202 could carry 320 Kg of bombs, the variant was called the 202CB, as for the 152:

Heinkel · « **Reply #32 on:** September 06, 2002, 09:35:12 PM »

I think I have more about the 152 in one of my books...i'll get it scanned

gatso · « **Reply #33 on:** September 06, 2002, 09:50:09 PM »

Bombs and stuff.

Not at the top of the list I know but thought I'd add a link to this before I go to bed. I have few sites for allied/russian bombs but no where near as comprehensive. I have nothing for Japanese stuff other than the torp data thats been posted by other people.

Sure I read something about this in HT's interview with sabre at this years con. ie modeling ord accurately rather than generically.

Gatso

HoHun · « **Reply #34 on:** September 07, 2002, 07:11:53 AM »

Hi Karnak,

>So you're saying that the AH Fw190A-5's deck speed is more accurate than this chart?

Yes, the value posted in this thread is very close to the one achieved in the US test.

>You're also saying that this chart is not based on flight tests, but rather on paper calculations?

Yes - at least that's what I suspect, though I can't prove it.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

J_A_B · « **Reply #35 on:** September 07, 2002, 01:40:20 PM »

Ok, now who can make sense out of thos eengine charts?

J_A_B