Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Copprhed on May 22, 2012, 04:41:23 AM
-
I experienced this twice in the MA tonite....a Lancaster turnfighting and OUTURNING a Spit 8 AND a Spit 16. I don't believe this to be possible under any situation...the wings would have ripped off, PLUS...there's NO WAY possible that a Lancaster is as agile as ANY fighter....outrageous! I'd like some specific reasoning from someone from HiTech how this could be modeled, please?
-
if you were just a random newb i would say, go learn some ACM...
but since i know how you can turn... definiately interesting... :headscratch: do you have a film about it?
-
Good news for you:
The Lancaster isn't agile as any fighter. Not in real life and not in AH as well. :P
Of course, when empty it has quite a tight turning radius due to a low wingload. But neither roll rate nor sustained turn rate hold a candle to any fighter, particularly Spitfires. Sorry to say, but if a Lancaster outfights two Spits, the fighter pilots really sucked.
Sounds blunt, but that's how it is. Been there, done that ;)
And concerning the "wings should have ripped of" - why? Or more precisely - what was the exact situation and how many G did the Lancaster actually pull? Wings don't fall off because "it's a Lancaster", but because G load is getting too high, with the exact limit also depending on load status.
I suppose there is no film available of that incident in question?
-
i've dog fought in lancs and JU-88s, they will out turn some poorer turning fighters but SPITFIRES?? err no, those guys must have been pretty poor or know no throttle control whatsoever.
film or it didn't happen.
-
I doubt the turnfight statement but I have seen more Lancs performing low alt high speed turns more and more lately...OR I should say I have seen the same guys driving the same birds doing the same things lately.
-
Given that fully laden Lancs were able to pull the 'corkscrew' evasion maneuver, I really doubt the Lanc in question here should have lost its wings. Lancs were rolled and looped successfully. Just because it is a four engined bomber doesn't mean it couldn't do anything but fly sedate and level.
-
The key (or problem) here is agility and flying qualities. As pointed out, pulling the wings off is a function of G load and there's no reason that you can't perform BFM at 3G. The real question is whether or not the pilots would be able to perform these maneuvers or not given issues such as control forces, control power and stability. In particular, these airplanes really were designed primarily for stable straight and level flight, a requirement for all the big bombers in WWII in order to deliver their ordnance more precisely. This static stability must be overcome to maneuver any aircraft and that's why fighters tend to be less stable (I.e., more "hands on") than bombers.
Also, those great long wings with four heavy engines slung far out from the fuselage create their own issues including very negative aspects to maneuvering flight. I've flown two much smaller and older aircraft that were designed for stability over maneuvering performance (DeHaviland Beaver and Otter) and they can be a real bear to maneuver with tons of adverse yaw and proverse roll along with very heavy control forces and even control reversal.
I cannot state this for a fact since I've never flown a Lanc and I'd be perfectly happy to be proven wrong, but their agility is somewhat suspect to me. Perhaps someone else has evidence of the really dynamic maneuvering that we see in the game? By evidence, I mean something else besides a descending spiral (a "corkscrew" which is certainly not a very dynamic maneuver. Even a loop isn't very dynamic unless you get too slow over the top.
-
corkscrew is a bit of a misnomer for that maneuver, cant remember the details but its more like 4 or 5 break turns to keep the bird out of plane with the attacker, descending first and finishing with a zoom iirc. more of a 3D zigzag than a helix that the name would suggest.
when the BBMF did a dambusters reenactment over derwent water for the anniversary a couple of years back I just couldnt believe the way they were chucking that big, heavy and very old bomber around. with a fresh airframe, engines running at full WEP and people trying to kill you I can see the lanc being alot more capable than you might imagine.
-
A fully loaded Lanc @ 72,000 lbs has a wing loading of 55 lbs. For comparison a P-38 is 53 lbs/sqft. A lightly loaded Lanc @ 45,000 lbs has a wing loading of 34 lbs which is similar to an F6F. I've read the elevators and ailerons were easy to move from 100 - 290 MPH. Granted it won't handle like a fighter but it seems like it should be pretty maneuverable when it's not loaded with bombs.
-
corkscrew is a bit of a misnomer for that maneuver, cant remember the details but its more like 4 or 5 break turns to keep the bird out of plane with the attacker, descending first and finishing with a zoom iirc. more of a 3D zigzag than a helix that the name would suggest.
when the BBMF did a dambusters reenactment over derwent water for the anniversary a couple of years back I just couldnt believe the way they were chucking that big, heavy and very old bomber around. with a fresh airframe, engines running at full WEP and people trying to kill you I can see the lanc being alot more capable than you might imagine.
That would be great to see, sort of like Tex Johnson's barrel roll in the 707 prototype.
-
That would be great to see, sort of like Tex Johnson's barrel roll in the 707 prototype.
I saw that on film,incredible!
:salute
-
(http://www.429sqn.ca/acmem01.jpg)
Figure 1. Corkscrew maneuver
How to:
1. The pilot (originally cruising at 200-225 mph) opens his throttle and banks at 45 degrees to make a diving turn to port (because the enemy aircraft is on the port � reverse the maneuver if enemy is on starboard.); descending through 1,000 ft in six seconds, the bomber reaches a speed of nearly 300 mph. After the 1,000 ft descent, the pilot pulls the aircraft into a climb, still turning to port.
3. He reverse the turn, halfway through the climb which has caused his speed to fall sharply, possibly forcing the attacking night fighter to overshoot.
4. Regaining his original altitude, with speed down to 185 mph and still in the starboard turn, the pilot pushes the aircraft down into another dive.
5. Picking up speed in the dive, he descends through 500 ft before reversing the direction of the turn.
6. If the fighter is still on his tail, he stand by to repeat the maneuver. The physical effort required by the pilot has been compared with that of an oarsman pulling hard in a boat race.
ack-ack
-
Well, unfortunately, ack-ack, I didn't film, as I didn't see a reason to on a basic flight to "uncap" a base, and folks, I may not be able to keep up with some, but I can hold my own, and I'm not too bad at ACMs. This Lanc did maneuvers that HAD to be close to 3 G's, but I can't swear to it. All I know is that at the end, i was totally flabbergasted that this pilot performed some hi G turns and such. lesson learned, I guess. Thanks to all who responeded, and for not calling this a whine, it surely wasnt' =S= to all!
-
Well, unfortunately, ack-ack, I didn't film, as I didn't see a reason to on a basic flight to "uncap" a base, and folks, I may not be able to keep up with some, but I can hold my own, and I'm not too bad at ACMs. This Lanc did maneuvers that HAD to be close to 3 G's, but I can't swear to it. All I know is that at the end, i was totally flabbergasted that this pilot performed some hi G turns and such. lesson learned, I guess. Thanks to all who responeded, and for not calling this a whine, it surely wasnt' =S= to all!
I didn't ask to see any film or anything else, I posted in response to Mace.
ack-ack
-
Apologies, ack-ack...you're correct. It was Debrody who asked about film. Although I've fought you too, under the nick Copprhed. You whooped me like a red-headed step child. =S=
-
A fully loaded Lanc @ 72,000 lbs has a wing loading of 55 lbs. For comparison a P-38 is 53 lbs/sqft. A lightly loaded Lanc @ 45,000 lbs has a wing loading of 34 lbs which is similar to an F6F. I've read the elevators and ailerons were easy to move from 100 - 290 MPH. Granted it won't handle like a fighter but it seems like it should be pretty maneuverable when it's not loaded with bombs.
Wing loading is not directly related specifically to maneuvering performance. Yes, it is definitely related to turn and climb performance but those are many other factors that enter into maneuvering. For instance, the 109's slats have a positive effect on turn performance but can be detrimental to maneuvering performance as they pop in and out, particularly in rolling maneuvers, and degrade flying quality. Maneuvering performance, or agility, relates to the rates at which changes can be made to an aircraft's flight path and flying qualities. How quickly can an aircraft reverse from a right to left turn for instance? What is the aircraft's stick force per G? What compensation must be applied by the pilot for a certain maneuver (countering adverse yaw for instance)? A good example is the Beaver in the landing pattern. You must use full lateral yoke and then wait about 2 seconds before the airplane actually starts to roll. Then, you have to "capture" the desired roll angle by going full opposite yoke to arrest the roll. The airplane has a low wing loading and can turn very well but its difficult to say it would be very good at ACM.
-
Given that fully laden Lancs were able to pull the 'corkscrew' evasion maneuver, I really doubt the Lanc in question here should have lost its wings. Lancs were rolled and looped successfully. Just because it is a four engined bomber doesn't mean it couldn't do anything but fly sedate and level.
+1...The RAF heavy bomber�s standard evasive maneuver enabled it to continue on course while presenting an attacking fighter with an extremely difficult target. This maneuver is performed any time the attack is from the rear to middle of the craft.
How to:
1. The pilot (originally cruising at 200-225 mph) opens his throttle and banks at 45 degrees to make a diving turn to port (because the enemy aircraft is on the port � reverse the maneuver if enemy is on starboard.); descending through 1,000 ft in six seconds, the bomber reaches a speed of nearly 300 mph. After the 1,000 ft descent, the pilot pulls the aircraft into a climb, still turning to port.
3. He reverse the turn, halfway through the climb which has caused his speed to fall sharply, possibly forcing the attacking night fighter to overshoot.
4. Regaining his original altitude, with speed down to 185 mph and still in the starboard turn, the pilot pushes the aircraft down into another dive.
5. Picking up speed in the dive, he descends through 500 ft before reversing the direction of the turn.
6. If the fighter is still on his tail, he stand by to repeat the maneuver. The physical effort required by the pilot has been compared with that of an oarsman pulling hard in a boat race.
-
I've got the answer:
One spitfire = One merlin engine
One lancaster = Four merlin engines
As to say One lancaster = Four Spits
Simple, Lancaster has the ability of four spitfires :devil
-INCOMING
-
An unloaded Lanc can likely pull a lot more than 3 g's. Civilian aircraft without even a utility rating can pull 3 g's, and even they can do some aerobatics (such as Tony Levier in planes like the Shrike business plane). As has been said, Lancs have been looped and rolled. American bombers, too, have done things like that. Unloaded bombers and C-47's and the like could possibly outturn fighter aircraft under certain conditions. They have low wing loading without carrying bombs or cargo and can sometimes also fly very slowly. As Mace says, turn radius or rate is not a function only of wing loading, stall speed, etc., but as a general trend, the lower the wing loading and lower the stall speed, the smaller the turn radius will be.
-
I saw Cobia kill several fighters in a row in a Lanc, spits, La-7, and a Jug all in the same fight. We were in a deep canyon, he has individual throttles and plays with them a lot. That's nothing though...watch him in an A-20...wow :rolleyes:
-
An unloaded Lanc can likely pull a lot more than 3 g's. Civilian aircraft without even a utility rating can pull 3 g's, and even they can do some aerobatics (such as Tony Levier in planes like the Shrike business plane). As has been said, Lancs have been looped and rolled. American bombers, too, have done things like that. Unloaded bombers and C-47's and the like could possibly outturn fighter aircraft under certain conditions. They have low wing loading without carrying bombs or cargo and can sometimes also fly very slowly. As Mace says, turn radius or rate is not a function only of wing loading, stall speed, etc., but as a general trend, the lower the wing loading and lower the stall speed, the smaller the turn radius will be.
Its a category in the W&B envelope. In my 172 I *think* it is 3.8gs in the normal category and 4.2 in the utility category. (if i am operating under 2k pounds and within a certain envelope i am in the utility category) I have no desire to find out if those numbers are accurate, though. (plus it's damn hard to do 4gs in a 172 because its so stately)
-
From the cockpit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIEg27PNL5U
Pretty cool.
-
I saw Cobia kill several fighters in a row in a Lanc, spits, La-7, and a Jug all in the same fight. We were in a deep canyon, he has individual throttles and plays with them a lot. That's nothing though...watch him in an A-20...wow :rolleyes:
Pffft, Cobia.... Makes good target practice. Reminds me of the movie scene where the Kung Fu A20 guy does all these crazy moves yelling "heeeya chow whoop" in front of the Spitfire guy and the Spitfire guy whips out the cannons and pulls the trigger....boom. :D
Then I hear on 200..."but you're in a Spitfire and have cannons"....and I say as I'm flying away looking at the falling bomber wreckage... "I know." :P
-
If a Spitfire did, somehow, find itself being out turned by a Lancaster all the Spitfire has to do is go up. There is no way a Lanc will follow a Spit up.
-
Pffft, Cobia.... Makes good target practice. Reminds me of the movie scene where the Kung Fu A20 guy does all these crazy moves yelling "heeeya chow whoop" in front of the Spitfire guy and the Spitfire guy whips out the cannons and pulls the trigger....boom. :D
Then I hear on 200..."but you're in a Spitfire and have cannons"....and I say as I'm flying away looking at the falling bomber wreckage... "I know." :P
lol i never once yelled unfair on 200 about you being in a spit with cannon,but if you like i have plenty of films of said A-20 downing your precious spit :ahand
-
lol i never once yelled unfair on 200 about you being in a spit with cannon,but if you like i have plenty of films of said A-20 downing your precious spit :ahand
:salute Thanx for not sitting this one out. I saw it with my own 2 eye-balls... :rolleyes:
-
The Grob 103 I fly is rated for +5.4 Gs and -2.4Gs And Ive gotten it to +4 and -1.5
-
lol i never once yelled unfair on 200 about you being in a spit with cannon,but if you like i have plenty of films of said A-20 downing your precious spit :ahand
Bazinga! :rofl :rofl :rofl
:salute
-
:salute Cobia38 :rock :aok :D
-
From the cockpit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIEg27PNL5U
Pretty cool.
Fantastic video, thank you.
I once went to Derwent Reservoir where the Dambusters raid was practised. It was the approach to the dam that was the frightening part, let alone the small size of the target and the no room for error business.
(http://i1114.photobucket.com/albums/k526/rwrk2/URDC_00806.jpg)
(http://i1114.photobucket.com/albums/k526/rwrk2/URDC_00805.jpg)
(http://i1114.photobucket.com/albums/k526/rwrk2/URDC_00802.jpg)
(http://i1114.photobucket.com/albums/k526/rwrk2/URDC_00801.jpg)
(http://i1114.photobucket.com/albums/k526/rwrk2/URDC_00811.jpg)
-
The question would be how many negative G should the lancaster tolerate before losing a wing in game.
-
Here's an interesting story on a dive-bombing B-17 in the PTO:
http://www.dba-oracle.com/dive_bombing_b_17.htm
-
Here's an interesting story on a dive-bombing B-17 in the PTO:
http://www.dba-oracle.com/dive_bombing_b_17.htm
:salute the man in the picture with the Japanese sword held over him.
Memorial day :salute
-
This documentary on the Lancaster is quite interesting, also has a bit on the Corkscrew:
Youtube Linky (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnzNJ-RXIi8)
Brave men :salute
-
See rule #4
-
See rule #4
-
See rule #4
-
:headscratch:
-
Fort Pillow :old:
-
:headscratch:
Something I said? :joystick:
-
was commenting on the turn this thread took in general :old:
-
See rule #4
-
Come on, knock that off :old:
-
Come on, knock that off :old:
Always much friendlier fighting in a game than in real life. :aok
-
See rule #4
-
hmm I got a rule 4. Wish I could remember what I said.
Did not mean to bust a rule. :(
-
The question would be how many negative G should the lancaster tolerate before losing a wing in game.
That is A question but certainly not THE question. Negative G is hardly ever used and when it is, you'll only see a fraction of the positive G used. Most fighters are rated at about a third of their positive G rating and they may hit -1G in a fight and that's very, very rare. It's extremely rare to do any more then that and that's usually because you've scared the crap out of yourself with a near midair and your only choice is to push away or smash into someone. In the game, you see negative G way more often but then it's a game and your eyes don't pop out of your head and you don't bleed from the ears from doing it.
-
That is A question but certainly not THE question. Negative G is hardly ever used and when it is, you'll only see a fraction of the positive G used. Most fighters are rated at about a third of their positive G rating and they may hit -1G in a fight and that's very, very rare. It's extremely rare to do any more then that and that's usually because you've scared the crap out of yourself with a near midair and your only choice is to push away or smash into someone. In the game, you see negative G way more often but then it's a game and your eyes don't pop out of your head and you don't bleed from the ears from doing it.
GHI...but I'm on to him...
-
My point is that lancasters will shed thier wings with very little negative G loading..........possibly less than -1g.
I don't see this modeled in game.
If you guys have seen the fire fighting planes who lose thier wings after dropping, then you have seen what negative G will do to wings of a bomber, transport, or cargo plane.
-
My point is that lancasters will shed thier wings with very little negative G loading..........possibly less than -1g.
I would bet that a Lancaster could do more than -1 g. Even a civilian utility-rated aircraft can do more than -1 g.
Also, the Lancaster could carry a very large bomb load and had a very strong wing. Once those bombs are gone, I'd bet that the structure could take a lot of g's.
-
lancasters will shed thier wings with very little negative G loading..........possibly less than -1g.
sources?
I don't see this modeled in game.
film? you have tested this thoroughly offline I assume, exactly how many -g does it take to lose the wings?
-
My point is that lancasters will shed thier wings with very little negative G loading..........possibly less than -1g.
I don't see this modeled in game.
I've read quite a lot about WWII aviation and while it hasn't been Lancaster focused at all I'd still like to see some supporting evidence for this claim as I've never caught a whiff of it.
-
If you guys have seen the fire fighting planes who lose thier wings after dropping, then you have seen what negative G will do to wings of a bomber, transport, or cargo plane.
I agree that the Lanc should certainly be able to take more than -1G without failing. Regarding the water bombers, I've never seen film of one of them failing due to negative G, every single one I've seen has failed due to extreme positive G (well, except for those that hit trees, dirt or water first)
-
What you saw was negative G induced by the pilot who applied forward yoke when the plane surged upward.
I don't think any heavy bomber could tolerage more than 1.5 negative G.
-
It's interesting that the Lancaster design specification was originally for a twin engine bomber capable of dive bombing. Here's a link which shows some construction details.
http://www.avrosys.demon.co.uk/bomber/airframe.htm
And a diagram of the aircraft.
http://www.avrosys.demon.co.uk/bomber/specifications.htm
-
What you saw was negative G induced by the pilot who applied forward yoke when the plane surged upward.
I'm with Mace on this (not that he knows much about real airplanes, that noob! ;) ) -- I've only ever seen video of them pulling too many positive g's. Like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfpwsSIOQck
Who knows -- maybe there are some that pushed too many negative g's, but I suspect that it is quite rare compared to too many positive g's.
I don't think any heavy bomber could tolerage more than 1.5 negative G.
But what is that thought based on? I think they probably could take more than that just because of the strength needed to carry bombs and be able to take g's. But even -1.5 is plenty for maneuvering, and irrelevant to how well a Lancaster turns.
-
What you saw was negative G induced by the pilot who applied forward yoke when the plane surged upward.
You are mistaken, there is no negative G at all and there's plenty of evidence it's all positive G.
First, there is no way on God's green Earth that a pilot will push the nose over that hard, that close to the ground. Second, there's no reason to. Who cares if you balloon after you drop? Third, ballooning after dropping a load is pretty darn minor, and certainly not a reason to stuff the stick forward. What are you going to run into if you balloon? Air. What will you hit if you stuff the nose down? Rock. Air beats rock. .
All that stuff aside, look at the scenario. In every video I've ever seen of this the water bomber is either descending over a ridge line before the drop, climbing over a ridgeline after the drop or both. He does this because fires happen in very inconvienent places and he has to be very low over the fire otherwise the water spreads too much and does little good. In all of these scenarios, his primary concern is to not hit the ground. In some circumstances he may use some pressure on the stick to keep the nose from pitching up but most likely he's pulling.
Last. Again, in every video I've seen the wings fold up, not down. Proof positive it's positive G. If you have one showing the wings folding down I'd love to see it. As I said before, the only time a pilot would intentionally come remotely near his negative G limit is if he's avoiding a midair or in some extreme aerobatics.
-
I've only ever seen video of them pulling too many positive g's. Like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfpwsSIOQck
I remember seeing that video. If I remember correctly it suffered from fatigue cracks at the wing roots and they just pulled off when the pilot started to pull up after the drop. Not surprising considering the age of the plane (built in the 50's) and the heavy load, high G environment it was flown in.
-
My dad's been along for a few of those drops and he discussed the dangers with me as well as what he experienced at the moment of dropping.
He was tempted to do it for a living after he retired from delta.
Go over the basic physics and you will surely see negative G in the flight profile of at least two of the filmed crashes where both wings departed at the same time.
When faced with the opinions of this board vs my dad's opinions, I will side with dad.
His experience level and flight time in combat, civilian, and commercial aviation is way beyond what most will ever accomplish in aviation.
-
My dad's been along for a few of those drops and he discussed the dangers with me as well as what he experienced at the moment of dropping.
He was tempted to do it for a living after he retired from delta.
Go over the basic physics and you will surely see negative G in the flight profile of at least two of the filmed crashes where both wings departed at the same time.
When faced with the opinions of this board vs my dad's opinions, I will side with dad.
His experience level and flight time in combat, civilian, and commercial aviation is way beyond what most will ever accomplish in aviation.
That still doesn't support your claim that the Lancaster, a warplane designed for maneuvering, would shed its wings with any negative G forces.
A quote from one of my books:
"As early as 27 January, only 18 days from first flight, the first prototype was delivered to the Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment at Boscombe Down, where it received the best assessment ever awarded a new aircraft, beginning: "This aeroplane is eminently suitable for operational service.""
You'll need to do better than reference the crashes of some aged fire fighting tankers when claiming that the Lancaster, not the B-17, B-24, B-25, B-29 or A-20/Boston, should lose its wings when applying less than -1 Gs.
-
My dad's been along for a few of those drops and he discussed the dangers with me as well as what he experienced at the moment of dropping.
He was tempted to do it for a living after he retired from delta.
Go over the basic physics and you will surely see negative G in the flight profile of at least two of the filmed crashes where both wings departed at the same time.
When faced with the opinions of this board vs my dad's opinions, I will side with dad.
His experience level and flight time in combat, civilian, and commercial aviation is way beyond what most will ever accomplish in aviation.
If I were in your place, chatting with some guys on an internet forum whose credentials I didn't know and with no personal experience in the matter myself I'd go with my dad's story as well. However, for me, I will have to respectfully disagree with him and go with my own personal experience. If you do have additional videos please post a link. The one Brooke posted is by far the best I've seen and I don't recall any films of any inflight breakup (talking about all films of an inflight breakup) that show negative G except for one. It's old flight test footage from the 60's of the F-4 when the plane was under development and they did a low altitude supersonic run. As the plane approached Mach 1 it experienced what's known as "Mach tuck" and the nose pitched down slightly. Being near the ground the last thing you want is to have your nose pitch down and the pilot made an abrupt nose-up pitch correction that created pilot induced oscillation (PIO). The PIO created an up and down pitch cycle with the amplitude of the pitch quickly growing and on a tremendously big downward pitch on the third or fourth cycle the wings ripped off (downward) and the plane disintegrated. This film was used during training at the USNTPS but I've never seen it on the web. It's a quite interesting film.
-
You are correct and named the phenomenon I couldn't remember.
PIO is what I was referencing and the dynamic, rather than static, nature of the stress often exceeds G tolerance in a couple of "swings" or "bounces".
Since most all airplanes are stressed higher in the positive G direction, you will find failure more often from negative g.
-
If I were in your place, chatting with some guys on an internet forum whose credentials I didn't know and with no personal experience in the matter myself I'd go with my dad's story as well. However, for me, I will have to respectfully disagree with him and go with my own personal experience. If you do have additional videos please post a link. The one Brooke posted is by far the best I've seen and I don't recall any films of any inflight breakup (talking about all films of an inflight breakup) that show negative G except for one. It's old flight test footage from the 60's of the F-4 when the plane was under development and they did a low altitude supersonic run. As the plane approached Mach 1 it experienced what's known as "Mach tuck" and the nose pitched down slightly. Being near the ground the last thing you want is to have your nose pitch down and the pilot made an abrupt nose-up pitch correction that created pilot induced oscillation (PIO). The PIO created an up and down pitch cycle with the amplitude of the pitch quickly growing and on a tremendously big downward pitch on the third or fourth cycle the wings ripped off (downward) and the plane disintegrated. This film was used during training at the USNTPS but I've never seen it on the web. It's a quite interesting film.
Mace,
If you dont mind could you let us know how many hours you have? I'd call you a noob too but then Rodent would just come to your defence! Hope alls well wih you and yours. :aok
:salute
PS: you cant count the swing wing hours cuz that aint flying! :devil
-
I had a good turn fight with Lancs recently. With flaps some of these guys can seem to stop and turn on a dime!!
(http://i842.photobucket.com/albums/zz348/MajChaos/bomberfight-1.jpg)
:airplane: :joystick: :neener:
-
It was fun killing HQ, moving away until base stopped flashing, and coming back to kill the c47s.
I guess asking for a gunner would have yeilded at least 7 dead c47s but I still got a couple before one of the victims upped a la7 and HO'd me.
-
Mace,
If you dont mind could you let us know how many hours you have? I'd call you a noob too but then Rodent would just come to your defence! Hope alls well wih you and yours. :aok
:salute
PS: you cant count the swing wing hours cuz that aint flying! :devil
Howdy Morf. A bit short of 3.5k, counting swing wing of course.
Things are great. Work and travel are driving me nuts and I only do AH a few times a month but life's good! Hope you're doing well also!