syscom3
Pacific Historian
Thats an easy fix to do. The main issue is if the flight sims closely match the flight charachteristics of the real aircraft. In most cases, they do.
Rising Sun warbirds
- Thread starter Aggie08
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
evangilder
"Shooter"
But you can't simulate the feel of the aircraft. Some things are more subtle than others.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
well i guess you couldnt be satisfied no matter what.
If you dont think the simulators are 100% effective, dont bother with them.
Bye the way, how would you know what an Me-110 in a stall feels like? you ever experienced it?
If you dont think the simulators are 100% effective, dont bother with them.
Bye the way, how would you know what an Me-110 in a stall feels like? you ever experienced it?
The Jug Rules!
Airman 1st Class
Of course it could stall, I was just exaggerating the fact that I could turn tightly at high speed without the aircraft showing any tendency to stall.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
syscom3 said:
No, but I could tell you what one feels like a Cub or a Cessna 150 - a lot more violent than 110......
evangilder
"Shooter"
syscom3 said:
Don't get me wrong, there are some that are great. BUt the point is that there are some things that can not be simulated. Some of the aircraft in the simulators are a best guess based on who knows what, especially with aircraft that were one of a kind.
What I am saying is that you cannot completely base how an aircraft performs solely on what you experience in a flight simulator on a computer.
cheddar cheese
Major General
Im looking for a Grob Tutor to download for FS2004 so that when I go up in one ill have a better idea than most of its layout. I should also do the tutorials on how to fly with the instruments...
syscom3 said:
Hello the only reason the Zero was good at first is because it was unknown by the allies. They did not know how to counter it. As you said after 1942 the rate was higher for the allies and you know why because the Zero was not very good!
syscom3 said:
No matter how well a flight simulater models an aircraft flight characteristics you will never get the full effect of an aircraft. There are just too many variables that a home bought computer simulator for you home PC can not simulate. Flying the real deal is totally different.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
cheddar cheese said:
CC - Great Idea! PM me when if you find a download, i could give you some info!
R Leonard
Staff Sergeant
The obvious question is that if the Zero was so good how come the best it could do against such purported inferiors such as the F4F was one to one?
I'd also note that for the first six months of the war, through the Battle of Midway, the score was more like 14 Zeros shot down by F4Fs in exchange for 12 F4Fs shot down by Zeros (actually that's 9 F4Fs for sure and 3 probably - no separate US confirmation, just missing F4Fs and corresponding Japanese claims). So giving full credit, that's 1.167 in favor of the F4F before the widspread adoption of the Thach Beam Defense. Hardly what I'd call an overwhelming performance by the Zero and its supposed commonly acknowledged super pilots.
To put forward that the Zero was such a great fighter plane when the best it could do was not quite 1:1 during the period that was supposedly its heyday is somewhat illogical, i.e., the proof belies the theory.
Regards,
Rich
Really, only that many F4Fs were lost? The impression I get from histories (not aviation histories just general Pacific histories) is there were massive air battles between the USN and IJN during the first 6 months.
I know this is asking a lot but how many aircraft did the USN lose against the Japanese in the first six months up to Midway?
I know this is asking a lot but how many aircraft did the USN lose against the Japanese in the first six months up to Midway?
R Leonard
Staff Sergeant
USN aircraft lost in combat from 7 December 1941 through 6 June 1942:
Carrier aircraft:
To enemy aircraft: 68
To enemy AA fire: 28
Land-based aircraft:
To enemy aircraft: 33
To enemy AA fire: 5
and
Land-based aircraft (USMC):
To enemy aircraft: 22
To enemy AA fire: 4
Rich
Carrier aircraft:
To enemy aircraft: 68
To enemy AA fire: 28
Land-based aircraft:
To enemy aircraft: 33
To enemy AA fire: 5
and
Land-based aircraft (USMC):
To enemy aircraft: 22
To enemy AA fire: 4
Rich
syscom3
Pacific Historian
There were only two big carrier battles in the first 6 months.... Coral Sea and Midway.
Once the Guadalcanal campaign started, there were two more big sea battles between the carriers (Santa Cruz and Eastern Solomons), plus numerous times in which the carrier groups had to deploy and fight from Guadalcanal itself. The whole campaign was a meat grinder for both the Japanese and American air forces
Once the Guadalcanal campaign started, there were two more big sea battles between the carriers (Santa Cruz and Eastern Solomons), plus numerous times in which the carrier groups had to deploy and fight from Guadalcanal itself. The whole campaign was a meat grinder for both the Japanese and American air forces
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
R Leonard said:
Boy - that "Great Zero Fighter" really scored a lot of kills against the US Navy!
You call that a "meat-grinder" syscom? Look at the losses, it's nothing. 123 to enemy aircraft, that's nothing! How can the Zero have any claim to sweep everything from the skies when the whole IJN only achieved 123 air kills against it's main opponent the USN.
evangilder
"Shooter"
Were all those enemy aircraft losses only attributed to the Zero?
Probably not.
evangilder
"Shooter"
That's what I was thinking, so that makes the Zero even less impressive.
Well that's changed my view of the IJN in the first six months completely. Having finished "Burma-The Forgotten War" for the second time, I'm still impressed with the complete ignorance of the Western world about Japan and it's military ability or lack of.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
