Why does the Breda 88 get shit on so much

[pops-paolo]

Everything I read talks about how garbage the Breda 88 was from commando supermo to Wikipedia. The war thunder wiki gets in the fun even saying the sm79 would be a better attacker. But when I used it in-game (I don't play arcade I play simulator or realistic) it's not terrible and I have a lot of fun with it. It was such a beautiful plane and it could fly and I think it was adequate
I need an explanation for why it was ssooo bad because as you can see I think it was cool.

 

[buffnut453]

It was the exception that proves the rule...that if it looks like, it flies right.

IIRC the Ba.88 was too heavy and underpowered. It seems that the basic airframe was good...it just turned into a dog when loaded up at military weights.

 

[pops-paolo]

It was the exception that proves the rule...that if it looks like, it flies right.

IIRC the Ba.88 was too heavy and underpowered. It seems that the basic airframe was good...it just turned into a dog when loaded up at military weights.

but it still could go pretty fast and flew ok no?

 

[buffnut453]

but it still could go pretty fast and flew ok no?

I believe the handling was negatively impacted at operational weights. Dunno about speed.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Okay...

1. Do not use War Thunder (or any sim) for that matter to accurately portray the performance of an aircraft or how good it was. Why? Its a game. Don't compare real aircraft using War Thunder Wiki.

2. The only data you should use is real factual performance charts and data.

3. Computer Sims and the word realistic should not be used in the same sentence. Thats like saying a war movie is realistic when you are sitting in a theater slurping on a coke and eating buttery popcorn.

 

[pops-paolo]

I believe the handling was negatively impacted at operational weights. Dunno about speed.

yeah but I feel like it garners so much bad rep that it doesn't deserve

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

but it still could go pretty fast and flew ok no?

Just because an aircraft is fast does not make it operationally good. There is so much more to flying than speed. Especially in operational configurations.

 

[pops-paolo]

Okay...

1. Do not use War Thunder (or any sim) for that matter to accurately portray the performance of an aircraft or how good it was. Why? Its a game. Don't compare real aircraft using War Thunder Wiki.

2. The only data you should use is real factual performance charts and data.

3. Computer Sims and the word realistic should not be used in the same sentence. Thats like saying a war movie is realistic when you are sitting in a theater slurping on a coke and eating buttery popcorn.

I know they might be off but they obviously would not fake anything

Just because an aircraft is fast does not make it operationally good. There is so much more to flying than speed. Especially in operational configurations.

then what made it sooo bad

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

then what made it sooo bad

Personally, off the top of my head I do not know. I will have to do research. But actual scholarly research should always use official data, and never a computer game.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I know they might be off but they obviously would not fake anything

It has nothing to do with being fake. You can not replicate everything that occurs in real life such as how performance degrades at altitude, CG effects, weather, temperature, or pilot skill and condition. What about the maintenance of the aircraft? Are the spark plugs fouled? Is the number 2 engine firing on all cylinders? How many hours does the engine have?

What about the forces on the pilot?

I'm being overly simplistic here too...

Point? It's a game that will never accurately portray real combat flying or performance.

I'll let FLYBOYJ chime in further. He always does it nicely.

 

[pops-paolo]

Personally, off the top of my head I do not know. I will have to do research. But actual scholarly research should always use official data, and never a computer game.

ik I'm just saying they also

It has nothing to do with being fake. You can not replicate everything that occurs in real life such as how performance degrades at altitude, CG effects, weather, temperature, or pilot skill and condition. What about the maintenance of the aircraft? Are the spark plugs fouled? Is the number 2 engine firing on all cylinders? How many hours does the engine have?

What about the forces on the pilot?

I'm being overly simplistic here too...

i think the engines are probably at top maintenance

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

ik I'm just saying they also

i think the engines are probably at top maintenance

How do you know? I used to be an aircraft mechanic and engines from one aircraft to another will be in various condition. No two are alike. I also was an air crew member in a combat zone. In combat you keep your aircraft mission capable, but no two aircraft of the same type will operate at the same performance because they are not maintained the same as in a peacetime setting.

No two mechanics have the same skills either. I have 20 years of experience in maintenance, but FLYBOYJ can run circles around me (hence why I usually shut up and listen when he talks maintenance).

 

[Capt. Vick]

To my mind it was a sharp looking airplane.

 

[pops-paolo]

How do you know? I used to be an aircraft mechanic and engines from one aircraft to another will be in various condition. No two are alike. I also was an air crew member in a combat zone. In combat you keep your aircraft mission capable, but no two aircraft of the same type will operate at the same performance because they are not maintained the same as in a peacetime setting.

No two mechanics have the same skills either. I have 20 years of experience in maintenance, but FLYBOYJ can run circles around me (hence why I usually shut up and listen when he talks maintenance).

yeah I guess but people don't care about that they care about the design

 

[pops-paolo]

To my mind it was a sharp looking airplane.

same

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

yeah I guess but people don't care about that they care about the design

Not true at all. Not in the real world.

Without a good maintainer, an airplane is nothing more than a huge paper weight.

 

[pops-paolo]

Not true at all. Not in the real world.

Without a good maintainer, and airplane is nothing more than a huge paper weight.

no I meant when people crap on the plane they don't talk about mechanics who serviced it they shit on the plane itself

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Let's turn this into a lesson. You are in luck kid, there are some real knowledgable people here.

Let's start with performance 101.

What do you know about aircraft performance? What makes a plane fly, and what affects performance?

Not insulting your intelligence here. These are serious questions, and I think we can really turn this into a valuable teaching opportunity here.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

no I meant when people crap on the plane they don't talk about mechanics who serviced it they shit on the plane itself

But that affects the performance of a plane (among a million other reasons) and why you should never use a computer game to rate an airplane.

Bust out a performance chart and compare your airplane to another one at various alltitudes. What about handling characteristics at specific speeds, configurations, conditions, and altitudes?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

no I meant when people crap on the plane they don't talk about mechanics who serviced it they shit on the plane itself

But to your point, you are correct in the laymans world. People that do not understand aerodynamics, aircraft performance, or mechanics only care about how a plane looks or the data spec sheet on Wikipedia.