Quote:
Originally Posted by Flanker35M
S!
Osprey, the fighter pilots can judge how a plane behaves, jet or not. Not sure how RAF or others train but here they have to fly against propellor/turbo prop planes to simulate a slower target that still can pose a threat if it gets guns on you even for a short time.
An example. Finns bought from RAF Hurricanes 1939-40. The Brits themselves told during evaluations that planes in service lost 10-20mph from their speed fairly quickly due wear/tear and fatigue, especially those Hurricanes that still had fabric covered wings. Those wings caused problems to Finns as well, they "ballooned" in a dive and at least one plane was lost due the fabric was torn off. So restrictions had to be set for their dive speeds. Just an example.
In game we do not have wear/tear or fatigue that cumulates. Still the same old "Refly with a factory fresh plane". So if this could be modelled in some believeable way then CEM and how you fly would become much more important. Now it is not. Just balls to the walls, fiddle a bit here and there and good to go. Again..a GAME.
|
Most air forces have Dissimilar Air Combat courses; the NATO air forces, for example have flown several exercises, mostly jet v jet
http://www.rtbot.net/dissimilar_air_combat_training
http://www.100squadronassociation.org.uk/history6.html
The turbo-prop Tucanos in the RAF are used for Basic Fast Jet Training -they don't seem to be used to train jet pilots in attacking slower targets;
http://www.raf.mod.uk/currentoperations/training.cfm
All aircraft would have their critical areas, where too much wear and tear, or badly fitted fairings etc could have a drastic effect on achieving maximum performance; one problem with the Spitfire I remember reading about was that as the engine cowlings were constantly removed and replaced, they could be bent slightly out of shape, leaving gaps which could reduce top speed by 15-20 mph. Sometimes rubber hammers were needed just to fit them back in place and secure the Dzus fasteners. The German system in which the engine cowlings used built in stringers to provide strength and structural stability, and strong quick release latches which almost automatically closed gaps to a minimum, was much better from an engineering and maintenance pov. I wouldn't have the foggiest idea of how such factors could be replicated in IL2.