Are you actually
P-39 Expert
in disguise?just kidding.
In all seriousness though, what kind of changes would you have in mind?
Why does the Breda 88 get shit on so much
- Thread starter pops-paolo
- Start date
-
- Tags
- attack aircraft breda breda 88 italy ww2
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Are you actually
P-39 Expert
in disguise?just kidding.
In all seriousness though, what kind of changes would you have in mind?
You hand them out like candy. lol
There is a reason the highest accolade you can give someone on here is bacon. Heck, we even named our dog Bacon.
On the realism of these online games you need to understand that the programmers are probably not pilots, or test pilots, nor have they flown these particular aircraft (some of which haven't flown since the 40's). What you "fly" while playing these games, is someones guesstimate.
As an airline pilot I go to the sims every nine months for a checkride. Those sims are VERY realistic and a excellent training device. They even use actual aircraft parts (computers, cockpit switches and instrumenuts) but are not totally 100% accurate.
As FlyboyJ said earlier, you can't replicate the experience of being in the plane. The sounds, the sensations, the equipment that's not working or working right, the missed radio calls because you are fighting someone who has the drop on you, clouds, G forces, and literally a million other things.
You have stumbled into a neat little corner of the internet here. There is lots to be learned about this particular slice of aviation history, and this is a great place to do it.
Cheers,
Biff
On the realism of these online games you need to understand that the programmers are probably not pilots, or test pilots, nor have they flown these particular aircraft (some of which haven't flown since the 40's). What you "fly" while playing these games, is someones guesstimate.
As an airline pilot I go to the sims every nine months for a checkride. Those sims are VERY realistic and a excellent training device. They even use actual aircraft parts (computers, cockpit switches and instrumenuts) but are not totally 100% accurate.
As FlyboyJ said earlier, you can't replicate the experience of being in the plane. The sounds, the sensations, the equipment that's not working or working right, the missed radio calls because you are fighting someone who has the drop on you, clouds, G forces, and literally a million other things.
You have stumbled into a neat little corner of the internet here. There is lots to be learned about this particular slice of aviation history, and this is a great place to do it.
Cheers,
Biff
For any change or redesign you have in mind you have to remember that there are four forces of flight you have to account for: Lift, Weight, Thrust, and Drag.
Put very simply, thrust must overcome drag, and lift must overcome weight. If they are not sufficient then performance will suffer, or you won't even fly. So let's say you put a bigger engine into your aircraft, you also have to remember that this will increase weight. So any change you make will likely have both a positive and negative effect (go back to my Bf 109 example).
Put very simply, thrust must overcome drag, and lift must overcome weight. If they are not sufficient then performance will suffer, or you won't even fly. So let's say you put a bigger engine into your aircraft, you also have to remember that this will increase weight. So any change you make will likely have both a positive and negative effect (go back to my Bf 109 example).
Last edited:
The Breda 88 was similar to many designs of the period, like the Do17 and Blenheim and Hampden. Impressive when first flown but by 1940 was underpowered and slow. The concept worked, as with the Mosquito but to work it has to have state of the art aerodynamics and the latest engines (and fuels).
Thumpalumpacus
Major
That's right. When I was in, 90% of the USAF, myself included, were ground support.
Too many civvies forget that every spearhead needs a shaft.
- Thread starter
- #68
pops-paolo
I will love England forever despite Euro 2020!
actually tiger cat in disguiseAre you actually
just kidding.
In all seriousness though, what kind of changes would you have in mind?
to be honest I have no idea cause I'm just a sophmore
- Thread starter
- #69
pops-paolo
I will love England forever despite Euro 2020!
its a gen z thing to do
- Thread starter
- #70
pops-paolo
I will love England forever despite Euro 2020!
ssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeessssssshhhhhhhhhh
- Thread starter
- #72
pops-paolo
I will love England forever despite Euro 2020!
you were a kid tooDagum kids these days...
Bacon is mandatory around here.
- Thread starter
- #74
pops-paolo
I will love England forever despite Euro 2020!
Mandatory?
True, and probably even more of a smart ass.
Pardon my french, I mean you have to have bacon. There is no life without bacon around here. Bacon runs the show around here... (I'll get back in my corner)
Only when you were a kid?
Stop giving out my secrets.
Just asking...
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Here's another example of what happens when you start adding stuff to an aircraft:
The B-17 was good for about 290mph (depending on load and weather, etc.) and someone had the bright idea that they would create a B-17 gunship that would fly in formation with the bombers to provide protection.
So they added a few extra turrets and several more gun stations bringing the total .50MG count to 18 or more. Along with the additional .50s, was a huge amount of ammunition.
On a regular B-17, the existing turrets and gun stations imposed a drag penalty, but it was capable of handling that and it's bombload. On the YB-40 (the B-17 gunship), the additional turrets added to that penalty as well as the weight of the ammunition.
They soon discovered that when the B-17s dropped their bombs and headed for home, the YB-40 struggled to keep up.
It was a great idea on paper, but in reality, not so much.
The B-17 was good for about 290mph (depending on load and weather, etc.) and someone had the bright idea that they would create a B-17 gunship that would fly in formation with the bombers to provide protection.
So they added a few extra turrets and several more gun stations bringing the total .50MG count to 18 or more. Along with the additional .50s, was a huge amount of ammunition.
On a regular B-17, the existing turrets and gun stations imposed a drag penalty, but it was capable of handling that and it's bombload. On the YB-40 (the B-17 gunship), the additional turrets added to that penalty as well as the weight of the ammunition.
They soon discovered that when the B-17s dropped their bombs and headed for home, the YB-40 struggled to keep up.
It was a great idea on paper, but in reality, not so much.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
LMAO!!
Looks like Johnny Carson agrees with Marcel, sorry Chris!
Looks like Johnny Carson agrees with Marcel, sorry Chris!
