Author Topic: What happened to LW? (Read 20988 times)

Crumpp · « **Reply #540 on:** December 24, 2005, 10:55:43 AM »

Oh that was common, huh?

All the best,

Crumpp

Guppy35 · « **Reply #541 on:** December 24, 2005, 11:13:19 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Crumpp
Oh that was common, huh?

All the best,

Crumpp

LOL of course not Crumpp. Lighten up a bit man, it's Christmas!

I hope the tree is covered in tiny 190s for ya with lots of books and parts for White 1 under it

Glasses · « **Reply #542 on:** December 24, 2005, 03:35:25 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Urchin
I really think it is the guns more than anything that keep people from flying the LW planes. Well, and the view on the 109s is atrocious now, the 190 I seem to have gotten used to (wasnt having problems in H2H anyway).

For those of us that are more aggressively inclined, and like to fight the other guys fight, those guns are a handicap and a half.

Had a decent fight with a guy in a H2H room, he was in a Spit 16, I was in an A5. He screwed up, I landed a quick snapshot along the spine of his plane from the back of the cockpit to the tail with my 20s. No damage. Next revolution of the scissors, he gets a snapshot on me, blam blam, tails gone.

Thanks, GG.

Aye so many times I've had this happen online, you scissor(that's why I don't do this anymore or very few times) the other guy, you cover him all throughout the fuselage with bullets and he flies away without even a pilot wound, next roll with a 190 your engine is on fire and you're tailess or dead, has happened with la7s ,spitfires ,P-51s and insert many other aircraft here. :-(

Bruno · « **Reply #543 on:** December 24, 2005, 03:52:03 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Guppy35
LOL of course not Crumpp. Lighten up a bit man, it's Christmas!

Well he's got a point. A lot folks (look at F4UDOAs reply) see these sensational pictures of 'miracle' planes that survived extreme damage and conclude that all B-17s (or in your case Spitfires) were made of Titanium (or in F4UDOAs case that bombers in AH should be able to eat 50 rounds of 2 cm or 10 rounds of 3 cm).

The reality is you can't judge how 'tough' a particular aircraft type is unlees you examine all losses as well. I would bet that many aircraft were lost with far less visual damage. I could post images of 109s with extreme damage and that made it home but the 109 was hardly a 'tough aircraft'.

Fröhliche Weihnacht...

Guppy35 · « **Reply #544 on:** December 24, 2005, 04:36:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Bruno
Well he's got a point. A lot folks (look at F4UDOAs reply) see these sensational pictures of 'miracle' planes that survived extreme damage and conclude that all B-17s (or in your case Spitfires) were made of Titanium (or in F4UDOAs case that bombers in AH should be able to eat 50 rounds of 2 cm or 10 rounds of 3 cm).

The reality is you can't judge how 'tough' a particular aircraft type is unlees you examine all losses as well. I would bet that many aircraft were lost with far less visual damage. I could post images of 109s with extreme damage and that made it home but the 109 was hardly a 'tough aircraft'.

Fröhliche Weihnacht...

No doubt. The guy asked about fighters. I have lots of Spit stuff. Those images came to mind. Not implying the Spit was tougher then any other bird.

Here's a 109 just to be fair and un biased

Just having fun gents. Can't get too serious about this. Happy Holidays

Urchin · « **Reply #545 on:** December 24, 2005, 08:21:00 PM »

Holy crap! That must have been friendly fire, or on the Eastern Front, cause a 109 that took a Hizooka round to the tail would be toast!

moot · « **Reply #546 on:** December 25, 2005, 09:52:32 AM »

looks toast to me

BUG_EAF322 · « **Reply #547 on:** December 26, 2005, 01:03:31 PM »

Tonight ill light a candle for u all poor lw drivers.

Glasses · « **Reply #548 on:** December 27, 2005, 04:37:46 AM »

You might need to light a whole Cathedral full of candles Bug

batdog · « **Reply #549 on:** December 29, 2005, 02:03:19 PM »

Well..wasnt the airframe for the 109 designed back in the 20's? Dont remember. Yea..they did some modifactions, added power etc but its still the same basic design. They never radicaly departed from it due to the industrial needs and Hitlers folly.

What I'm saying is that you can only tweak an old design but so much.

BTW...I love the 109's but if a 47/51/38/spit etc is a "better" plane in game it would make sense in many ways.

You might not of seen this often in actual combat as the pilots where more interested in staying alive rather than see how tight they could turn before stalling out....zooming and stalling...etc. Most wouldnever consider pushing the envelope.

The luffwaff might of also had "better" more veteren sticks as well, at least early on and mid way through the war. This would help them succeed in combat w/slightly inferior rides ie the 109's?

I take no sides in this folks.... check my past posts if needed....

xBAT

Crumpp · « **Reply #550 on:** December 29, 2005, 02:47:07 PM »

Quote

Well..wasnt the airframe for the 109 designed back in the 20's?

The Bf-109 was laid out based on design requirements issued on 6 July 1933.

Accounts vary but generally put the Bf-109V1 first flight occuring sometime from October 1935 to Spring 1936.

The Spitfire was designed to meet specifcations laid out in 1934. Supermaines entry won and after being modified was flown on 5 March 1936 as the Type 300.

These aircraft are contemprary designs in every sense of the word.

Your statements make no sense whatsoever.

Was the Spitfire Mk XIV an obsolete design? Or was British physics different from German physics?

Perhaps there was a bubble surrounding all axis aircraft, sort of like their own personal Bermuda Triangle, where the laws of science just did not apply?

All the best,

Crumpp

Crumpp · « **Reply #551 on:** December 29, 2005, 02:50:16 PM »

Quote

BTW...I love the 109's but if a 47/51/38/spit etc is a "better" plane in game it would make sense in many ways.

This game is far from reality. The game shapes you "fly" are there for your amusement and have very little in common with the actual aircraft.

They provide customer satisfaction.

All the best,

Crumpp

wrag · « **Reply #552 on:** December 30, 2005, 12:07:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Crumpp
The Bf-109 was laid out based on design requirements issued on 6 July 1933.

Accounts vary but generally put the Bf-109V1 first flight occuring sometime from October 1935 to Spring 1936.

The Spitfire was designed to meet specifcations laid out in 1934. Supermaines entry won and after being modified was flown on 5 March 1936 as the Type 300.

These aircraft are contemprary designs in every sense of the word.

Your statements make no sense whatsoever.

Was the Spitfire Mk XIV an obsolete design? Or was British physics different from German physics?

Perhaps there was a bubble surrounding all axis aircraft, sort of like their own personal Bermuda Triangle, where the laws of science just did not apply?

All the best,

Crumpp

Thinking there was a major design change between the 109e models and the 109f models onward. Think the wings/wing tips and the tail section were redesigned?

Resulted in the wing cannon being taken off the 109s???????

Was the vator and rudder authority reduced as well?

Angus · « **Reply #553 on:** December 30, 2005, 06:09:43 PM »

Ahhmmmm, Crumpp:
"This game is far from reality. The game shapes you "fly" are there for your amusement and have very little in common with the actual aircraft."

A game is far from reality. It's a game. However, this is not a very good remark. HTC has been putting a lot of work into modelling as well as their information allows, and with a lot of ambition.
HT himself is a flyer, and he flew the P51 as well as lighter aircraft.
I fly every now and then, so I get a tad of comparison. Guess what, flying AH rather helps. (the only thing I feel in a little aircraft is that the acceleration in AH should perhaps be more).
Do you fly little aircraft yourself and compare it with AH?
Because if you don't, you should not write stuff like that...

Crumpp · « **Reply #554 on:** December 30, 2005, 06:33:08 PM »

Quote

HT himself is a flyer, and he flew the P51 as well as lighter aircraft.

He flew IN a P 51. Not the same thing, Angus.

Yes I fly.

Quote

However, this is not a very good remark. HTC has been putting a lot of work into modelling as well as their information allows, and with a lot of ambition.

My quote is the truth, Angus. HTC does not have a perception problem, many of the players do. Those who want to compare the game to reality.

Which if you will read the thread was in response to someone with just such a problem.

Please don't take a quote out of context and attach a totally different meaning to it.

All the best,

Crumpp