Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Manedew on May 28, 2001, 09:15:00 PM
-
Seems to me the Typhoon went from average rollrate to among the worst roller's in AH.(haven't done many tests but think i can spin the p-38 faster than tiffy now ?!?!)
IMO pyro over did it. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) ... also looking for some consitancey in FM ... relearning the tiffy will proably be harder than learning it the frist time(because i already know how to fly the damn thing) ...plus pisses me off to auger because my plane can't handle what i 'know' it can all the sudden.
tiffy was my main ride before ... not flying it much now because i auger all the damn time ...
This is frist thing HTC has done that i don't like (been here since late beta)
How come the n1k can climb like a heli and dive like a rock?, is this right .. and if it isn't why pick on the tiffy and not it? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Well would like to whine more ... but i won't
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif)
-
Manedew,
The Tiffe had a very noticable divergence from its historical performance that was able to be seen with hard data. The N1K2 doesn't have that proble. It is a 5800lb aircraft with a 1900hp engine, it is going to do some incredible manuevers.
About the roll rate reduction being over done, I don't think so. It matches the numbers now.
Now you know why RAF Fighter Command was disappointed in the Typhoon and came within a hairs breadth of canceling it altogether. It juast wasn't a satisfactory air-to-air fighter, which is what they had ordered.
------------------
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother
Bring the Mosquito FB.MkVI Series 2 to Aces High!!!
Sisu
-Karnak
-
Well somebody dug up NACA data showing it should roll poorly. This doesn't jive with test pilot reports or the pilot's notes but there's gotta be something to it.
I haven't done a test to see if the new Tiffy conforms with the NACA data yet. But I flew it once and didn't notice a difference, and got 6 kills. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
PS Karnak the top three REAL problems with the Typhoon were as follows:
1. Engine Reliability.
2. Napier Sabre Reliability.
3. Sleeve Valve Reliability.
"It's the engine, stupid!"
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
And a bad habit of losing the tail section at high speed (corrected with some scab patches on the fuselauge tail section, visibile on the game's plane).
Hans.
-
Yep Manedew, I've been having the same problem. Before it was my main ride but at the moment I'm flying it less and trying out other 'rides'. Some other Tiffy pilots like to BnZ but I use it mainly for Jabo and if in combat then scissoring. Now with Jabo it's very difficult to pull up in time and you often auger. So, still trying to get used to pulling up a hell of a lot earlier. Also the reduced roll rate has made scissoring extremely difficult for me and I can't BnZ to save my life. I do think it has been over done, and yes I agree that it is perhaps the worst in AH now - the IL2 is much more manouvrable!!
Regards
Nexx
-
the P-38L has power ailerons. it should roll quite nicely.
a p-38FGHJ without these will roll quite poorly. similar to the tiffy (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
and as is now the tiffy dont roll bad at all but it is now no longer an fw190 roll wagon with 375mph deck speed.
-
I wouldn't mind so much if the Osties' rate of fire hadn't been increased so much. Now the Tiffy has a hard time getting out of its own way.
If the roll rate is accurate, then so be it. Still one of my favorite planes (was loooong before AH).
-
Originally posted by Dux:
I wouldn't mind so much if the Osties' rate of fire hadn't been increased so much. Now the Tiffy has a hard time getting out of its own way.
If the roll rate is accurate, then so be it. Still one of my favorite planes (was loooong before AH).
Still waiting for a salvo fix for the ostie (I know we are in virtual world but gun don't like being firing endlessy (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif))
-
Yes and No Citabria.
At low to medium speeds where stick forces are not an issue, the P-38L will roll approximately the same as the earlier models.
Its at high speeds were the powered ailerons, overcame high stick forces, that gave the L model a superior roll rate.
I had a long discussion on this issue with a WWII pilot I met one day at the National Air & Space Musuems Garber facility, while we were both on the tour there. He flew the P-38F, P-38G, and the P-38L. He basically said that no matter if it was a F or a L it rolled like a sick dog.
Edit: Hehe and for all you P-38 fanatics that cry "PORKED" all the time, because the stall characteristics don't match pilot accounts, just remember that the Aces High P-38 also does not match the described roll inertia of the WWII vet accounts. There should be a pronounced hesitation from the time that you move the control stick until the time the aircraft begins to roll. THEN its roll rate should be approximately what we have in AH today. So how realistic do we really want the AH P-38L ? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
*gets out stopwatch to see how long it takes Citabria, Tac, or other P-38 Fanatic to respond (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif) *
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
[This message has been edited by Vermillion (edited 05-29-2001).]
-
It's the lack of a good roll at high speeds i really dislike; if i get the wind under my wing with my rudder and airelion's i don't care what kind of airleion's you have, you'll roll fast... buffs can even do this if they can take the stress. Tiffy now seems 'dampened' too this effect.
and btw i can roll any fw190 2-3x faster than tiffy ever could, so don't compare em' (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
but 190 rollrate is almost too fast (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif)
-
FW190 rollrate is for sure not to fast, to me it seems its to low in AH, yet i have not managed to do a 180 degree roll in 1 sec with the A8 at 645 kmph. That is what it should do, it rolled so fast that it could perform the Split-S in a blink of an eye as RAF pilots reported, till they got one to exaim they wondered how it simply disappeared.
The P38 has atm the prob that the control react to fast, for a bird with such a large wingspan (compared to other fighters) it took some time for the roll to be initiated (in the FW190 this at all didnt take enought time to be noted), after that maybe the P38 has some good rollrate.
The Tiffie is also a bird with huge wing area and so roll rate could never get close to the FW190.
Roll rate is only related to wingspan, wingarea and aileron size. For wingspan and -area counts, the smaller the better and for aileron the bigger the better.
Now take the numbers and compare FW190, P38 and Tiffie.
And to do some other test, take 2 a wood boards 1 small and 1 large. No move em through the air and u will see that for the larger board u need much more initiating and maintaing power to move em at the same speed as the small.
-
P38 roll rate at slow speed is almost the same as tiffie NOW. Tiffie does roll a bit faster imo.
At high speeds, above 300mph, the P-38 will roll much faster.
-
Maybe 1.25 sec's for full roll on a-8 nowhere near 2secs maybe even less than 1 second
tiffy's new roll rate = about 4 sec's
tbm's is about 4sec's
most planes are around 2sec's or so
my thoughts say it should take tiffy maybe 2.5-3.0 sec's max.
hope this gets my point across
-
damn netscape 6 posted twice (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
[This message has been edited by Manedew (edited 05-29-2001).]
-
Originally posted by Karnak:
The N1K2 doesn't have that proble. It is a 5800lb aircraft with a 1900hp engine, it is going to do some incredible manuevers.
Um, other then some microfilm library index card teasers, WHAT data has been checked on the N1K2-J? I do not recall this, other then basic power to weight, wing loading, etc. calculations.
I'd love to see something on it's airfoil preformence, clean and CF's deployed. Brute force doesn't always justify a bad airfoil. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
<anal mode>
Its at high speeds were the powered ailerons, overcame high stick forces, that gave the L model a superior roll rate.
YOKE. YOKE. YOKE. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
</anal>
The ultimate reason behind boosted ailerons in the later P-38's was not sole force that had to be excerted to turn the yoke, but the combination of force needed to turn the yoke AND pull it back. In other words, the harder you tried to turn it, the less force you could excerte backwards, due to the nature of the yoke.
Coordination and all that. Bomber pilots had this the worst. Yokes do offer better leverage then sticks as far as roll axis is concerned, but it is VERY difficult to coordinate both control axis' at high speed/forces. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/eek.gif)
Added smilies. It did look rather anal without them.
[This message has been edited by Jigster (edited 05-30-2001).]
-
Manedew, actually the same NACA report that brought up the question of the Typhoon's roll rate indicates that the AH 190 does roll too poorly. Also IIRC the Spits were lacking in roll ability a little (was it high or low speed roll, can't remember...). Also the Zero has a bit better roll rate than what was mentioned in the document.
I bet there are many different sources other than the NACA report too and might have better data. Or worse.
------------------
---
SageFIN
"It´s your god.
They´re your rules.
You go to hell."
---
-
Heres how bad it went too:
Roll a tiffie with 2 x 1000lbers, climb a bit. Drop 1. You'll find the tiffie cannot hold level trim sub 240kias.
-
See vulcan understands (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
-
Sage
I belive the A6M5 Rei-san <zero> was the best roll rate zero they made it was the later version and one of the last models of the plane that did not start adding armor and other non-needed weight to the dogfighter. The zero was made to be a CV multi-role fighter it had a really good roll rate at lower speeds but suffered at higher speeds (280-340) it lost almost all roll rate at above 380 and a 400 which was the desiegn limit on dive speed it would shake and more than likely not pull out of a dive.
I think HTC had the zero a little too slow fo the game but it I will not compain to much because a great many of the planes R slower in the game than in RL :P
Hodo
-
King I think you are confusing it with the A6M3.
-
I haven't adjusted the Tiffie roll rate on my chart to reflect the differences in 1.07, but to give you an idea just how much too fast the 1.06 and previous Tiffies rollrate was ......
(http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/phoenix/images/rollrates.jpg)
And Manedew, note the Typhoon's rollrate at 350 IAS. At about 35 degrees/sec it should take a Typhoon more than 10 seconds to complete a full aileron roll. I suspect the current Typhoon rollrate is STILL too fast to match NACA data.
------------------
Jekyll
"Anything else is just a game" (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by Jekyll (edited 05-31-2001).]
-
Jekyll, great work, but your graph is a total mess due colors. Perhaps a better way is to draw NACA as solid and AH as doted lines, same color in both lines per plane, and very different colors per each plane.
As far as I'm able to see at that graph, AH Spit has its roll rate wide "overclocked" from medium to hi speeds (we dont have clipped wings Spits in AH). And the same for Zeke from lo to medium speeds. Hey!!! In fact all the planes seem overcloceck with the absurd exception of 190, it is uderclocked (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
If AH compensates that way the only real defense of 190A8... ....well... no comments...
-
I wonder if the large differences in roll rate between NACA and AH are intentional.
-
no funked I think I have the right plane in aspects of the speed and dive charecteristics they didnt change to drasticly from the M3 model to the M5 model the only major difference in the 2 were the gun mounts and the fuel tanks, in the A6M5 model they had self seeling tanks in he M3 model they didnt add them to save weight. and as for the guns it was just that the M3 had 2 7mm MGs in the cowl and the usual 20mm cannons in the wings.
Hodo
-
If thats true then I suspect NACAs data is wrong. The tiffie has CoG-trimming problems with various loadouts (including DTs at sub180kias). These were not problems in r/l.
Nobody in reports I see mention the tiffie as being THAT bad (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Originally posted by Jekyll:
And Manedew, note the Typhoon's rollrate at 350 IAS. At about 35 degrees/sec it should take a Typhoon more than 10 seconds to complete a full aileron roll. I suspect the current Typhoon rollrate is STILL too fast to match NACA data.
-
The M3 had clipped wings. It rolled faster then the A6M5 or M2 at basically all speeds.
That particular chart is probably for an A6M2 anyway, which doesn't show its roll rate before 200mph, where it is generally better then most of the US planes anyway. However the A6M2 had aileron problems exceeding 200mph and aileron lock around 280, with the exception of turning into the direction of engine torque, basically due to the size and positioning of the ailerons. They are alot like bomber ailerons, that extend for more then half the wing, and become very stiff at any excessive speeds.
What's weird and stuff, is the N1K2 uses the same basic aileron configuration and airfoil. But oh well. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
That NACA stuff has gotta be outta whack. The Tiffie performs like a Zeke, but the aileron setup is nothing like a zeke - and the tiffie was designed to be a high speed fighter. I'd expect the tiffie to be more like a Jug (or slightly below), which probably is closer to the current setup.
-
The 190 rolls too slowly! Fix it! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
Von Santa
Staffelkapitän 9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
"If you return from a mission with a victory, but without your Rottenflieger, you have lost your battle."
- D. Hrabak, JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://stsantas.tripod.com/stsanta.jpg)
-
THe Typhoon was rejected as an air to air fighter due to its lack of agility and high alt perfomance. A great big part of that agility problem was its horribly unacceptable roll rate and poor overall flying characteristics. It was a very immature/compromised design that wasnt all fixed and made right until the Tempest which was a kick-ass plane.
To all the tiffie guys you basically had an incorrectly modeled plane that left out one of its greatest faults, now u guys gotta bite the bullet and learn to fly with a more correct FM. IMHO this is no different than the changes to the Fw190 A5 FM that corrected some of its poorly modeled features several months ago.
-
GRUNHERZ has it.
And this is from a RAF fan. On this I will backup the Luftwaffe fans.
------------------
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother
Bring the Mosquito FB.MkVI Series 2 to Aces High!!!
Sisu
-Karnak
-
The Typhoon, N1K2, and A6M5 all have alot more in common than you might think Vulcan.
-
BS
The Typhoon was not rejected.
Show me one reference by RAF to poor roll rate in the Typhoon.
The fundamental problem was the reliability of the sleeve-valve engine.
-
From what I read on the Typhoon it was meant to be THE all around British fighter. The design team had high hopes for the plane and put in many innovative features and was basically a very advanced design. Again from what I understand It was supposed/hoped to become the RAFs primary fighter, even over the Spitfire. In service it proved a dissapointment in this role as it had poor high alt perfomance and poor agility. Thus it was rejected for the main fighter role, and used as a ground attack plane and low alt fighter due to its good low level speed.
-
I guess I forgot the cliped wings on the M3 model huh? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/redface.gif) But in other aspects the M3 and the M5 were for the most part the same plane with minor changes to make a "mo' betta" fighter (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) I am still waiting for the Kate and the Val to see if they will put them in but that is for a different post. I am looking for more websites on historical data that is more fact than fiction on planes tanks and guns of WWII anyone know of any. (and I like pictures because I dont like to read much :P )
Hodo
[This message has been edited by Kingonads (edited 06-01-2001).]
-
Another problem with the Tiffie design is that it was based around a wing similar to the earlier Hurricane. Nice and thick, which has many design advantages and disadvantages.
Of course you see what happened when they put a nice laminar flow wing on that beast. The Tempest was born. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
Originally posted by StSanta:
The 190 rolls too slowly! Fix it! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Hehe, how fast does it roll for you at 250-260 IAS?
I'll do some flying in the Tiffie and see what you guys are talking about.
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ:
From what I read on the Typhoon it was meant to be THE all around British fighter. The design team had high hopes for the plane and put in many innovative features and was basically a very advanced design. Again from what I understand It was supposed/hoped to become the RAFs primary fighter, even over the Spitfire. In service it proved a dissapointment in this role as it had poor high alt perfomance and poor agility. Thus it was rejected for the main fighter role, and used as a ground attack plane and low alt fighter due to its good low level speed.
You read wrong, it was because of engine reliability problems, and the tail assembly failures. The Typhoon was quickly withdrawn from active duty after WWII for the sole reason of it's poor engine reliability.
-SW
-
The engine of the typhoon was its main weakness. The tail-plane problems were pretty minor compared to the problems with the Sabre.
Of the 3100 Typhoons built, only 26 were destroyed due to tail-plane structural failure.
It really surprises me that the AH typhoon roles like it does - I can find no mention of its *very* poor role rate in either the pilot's notes or a book on its history.
I used to fly it exclusively for jabo - generally trying to fly it like they did in WW2. I'd wing over at 8000 ft and dive at about a 60 degree angle before releasing on a pull through at about 2000 ft. There are accounts of bomb releases at 1500 ft at speeds in excess of 500 mph. From what I've read, the typhoon doesn't pull out of dives like it did before - anyone reckon that the above technique still works?
As for the NACA data, does anyone know the test conditions under which the experiment was performed? Which model was used and can anyone find data produced by the RAF? Posting data is excellent - but it is meaningless without the conditions under which it was recorded.
-
Grun all the reports I have seen state "awesome high speed agility", and "terrible low speed handling".
Three reasons it was withdrawn: low speed vator flutter; high speed tail departure; engine issues
The tiffie went on to become the "scourge of the panzer". Tell me you think they'd fly an aicraft with a 'lack of agility' at low alt?
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ:
THe Typhoon was rejected as an air to air fighter due to its lack of agility and high alt perfomance. A great big part of that agility problem was its horribly unacceptable roll rate and poor overall flying characteristics. It was a very immature/compromised design that wasnt all fixed and made right until the Tempest which was a kick-ass plane.
To all the tiffie guys you basically had an incorrectly modeled plane that left out one of its greatest faults, now u guys gotta bite the bullet and learn to fly with a more correct FM. IMHO this is no different than the changes to the Fw190 A5 FM that corrected some of its poorly modeled features several months ago.
-
I don't mean just airleion roll only, i'm also and mostly talking about stall/rudder/torque/getting the wind under your wing rolls too.. I feel like tiffy has been dampened to this effect.
posted flim of p-38 useing this idea in an extream manner. The way some planes fly you can control this when tuned down. Tiffy seems to lack this now.
http://members.fortunecity.com/thief5/ahflim/ (http://members.fortunecity.com/thief5/ahflim/)
also main reason typhoon had a bad reputaion was it's tail malfunction. as to not being a fighter it was... just knowen for ground war.
one AAR i read from an early typhoon mission (by the 609th i think) reads something like this:
2 190 kills 1 ju-88 kill
2 typhoon losses due to tail malfunction never pulled out of dive. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/eek.gif)
-
Originally posted by MANDOBLE:
Jekyll, great work, but your graph is a total mess due colors. Perhaps a better way is to draw NACA as solid and AH as doted lines, same color in both lines per plane, and very different colors per each plane.
...
Good idea Mandoble. It's been adjusted accordingly (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
If anyone wants to add to this info, or do some further testing on the new Tiffie rollrate, here is the spreadsheet (http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/phoenix/images/rollrates.xls) in Excel format.
[This message has been edited by Jekyll (edited 06-02-2001).]
-
Vulcan, because they were the only RAF planes that could catch and intercept FW190s at lower alts, basically because they were fast.
[This message has been edited by GRUNHERZ (edited 06-03-2001).]
-
Hi!
There was a discussion about that NACA report in the rec.aviation.military
Should be easily found with the google. Here is couple parts:
data come from: Fw 190, Spitfires, Typhoon, Mustang: RAE TN No. Aero 1231
"It should be pointed out, however that where Frise ailerons are used, there is liable to be a variation in the feel of the aircraft. Our pilots, who have now flown three F.W.190s, have, infact noticed this variation; they report that the machine on which measurements were made had rather heavier ailerons than the other two."
A snip from the RAE TN No. Aero 1231:
"Synchronized, automatically recorded readings of aileron angle and angle of bank were taken at speeds between 200 m.p.h. A.S.I. and 400 m.p.h. A.S.I., using a "rat" to record angles, and a free gyro for measuring angle of bank, the instruments being synchronized by a common electrical timer. Measurements were made both to port and starboard using roughly quarter, half and three quarters full aileron movement, and in most cases the stick force to apply aileron was noted on a Henschel type stick force indicator. All the observations of the time to bank have been corrected to 10000 ft."
Hejdå
Gripen
-
Very nice Gripen!
-
DOWDING (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) .....ahhhhh dowding, dowding, dowding! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Finally you ask for a similar investigation into your chosen ride to what i have asked for with 190 roll.Only im NOT going to call it a whine....even though im tempted to (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
what you are asking for, eg pyro and others to check it out is all ive ever asked for.
You say you've never read about its poor roll rate,read accounts of it performing manouvers that seem impossible to do in AH???
JOIN THE CLUB.
hmmm it seems now i have to think up a suitable insult that makes you mad and pisses you off....let me see......er....
youre from yorkshire right? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) ok here goes...
BAH you Allied whiner!...THATS HOW THEY WERE..AH is infalible...all data is taken from tests and these tests were certified by GOD so they are correct regardless of what you've read anywhere!..all those books are written by historians that lie!!..so go back to your cockpit and KEEP YOUR HANDS OUT OF YOUR POCKETS!!!! we all know a yorkshireman can peel an orange with one hand in those trouser pockets you rummage around in! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
hehe all i need do now is wait for a quote i can take out of context and then wait for you to struggle to re-explain.....Dang nothing usable in that post...have to wait patiently...it will come (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
------------------
Hazed
9./JG54
-
Hazed - screw you and your foreign accent. Because that is what I am sure it will be - not a noble, majestic and down-right thoroughbred accent like mine. Ha! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
I'll answer your post in five parts:
1) The tiffie is not my chosen ride - I used it for jabo (with the 2x1000 pounders) for a couple of tours. Now I use the Il-2 more often than not.
2) My concerns revolved around the supposed changes to the elevators on the tiffie. Which would affect my dive-bombing drastically.
3) But I tried it out this weekend and it didn't seem to affect my style of attack. Even if it was present, I wouldn't attribute to some sort of HTC bias against Allied planes. That would be silly.
4) err...
5) ...that's it. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
But seriously, I don't think AH is infallible; but hard data is the only way anything can be decided. I've only ever seen this NACA data posted in reference to either the tiffie roll rate or the 190. I, for one, would like to see more - because I'm pretty sure it is out there.
Corroboration is the key-word, methinks.
-
I know someone else already stated this - but I'll re-itterate.
Would it make every one happy if NACA charts were used, but all plane performances lowered by 10% respectively?
This would make the relative differences between planes the same as RL, but adjust performance for game play reasons.
Nexus
-
Originally posted by Dowding:
because I'm pretty
no need to brag about it (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
------------------
Hazed
9./JG54
-
IMO this is not so easy Nexus. The only way I see is using NACA charts and reducing 10% of roll rate for all the planes ONLY AT THOSE LEVEL SPEEDS where some plane exceeds the limit imposed by internet connections. In fact, not reducing exacly a 10% but the necesary % to have the exceeding plane roll rate into that limit, and applying this % at all the planes for that speed.
-
Typ. not a turn fighter anyways so, WHERE'S THE BEEF! Seems this typ. is a popsiclecat for everything i've read on it, barely any torque at all and flys like its computerized (oh yeah it is).
-
I've flown the Typhoon quite a bit this tour, and it has been quite a learning curve from previous times I've flown it. Try as I might I can't get used to the delayed reaction in doing just about anything in it having to do with a change in direction. Observations seem to point to a lot more modification than roll rate, though it has been announced that this was the only change.
I'm wondering if Pyro has had the chance to strap one on for awhile, and I'm curious as to what he has to say about its performance now.