FM-2 Wildcat performance

[MaxGunz]

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...6169-level.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f.html

It looks like the FM-2 should be faster than the F4F-3 at 14000 ft.

[K_Freddie]

Originally Posted by MaxGunz

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f.html

Surprised to see that it had a telescope sight.. were these ever useful ?

[JtD]

In fighter aircraft of late 1930 they were still state of the art, however, they were soon to be replaced by electric gunsights, which were far better. This is also true for the F4F-3, only the first couple of aircraft were ever fitted with telescope sights. Apparently telescope sights were considered better than iron rings, though.

Speaking of very early F4F-3's, the first two F4F-3 came with a different armament of 2x.303+2x.50, the .303 being installed in the fuselage, the .50 in the wings. One of them is 1845, tested alongside 1848 which is seen in the picture. 1848 would be the fifth F4F-3 to be made, and was written off on March 23rd, 1942, after a crash landing on the Hornet.

[IceFire]

Aha... http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/fm-2.html

Same website. FM-2 performance information. It seems the FM-2 gets back what the F4F-4 lost. Seems like IL-2's performance numbers are pretty damn accurate for the FM-2. The F4F-4 might be a little on the fast side. F4F-3 seems about right too.

[MaxGunz]

Some countries had a pre-WWII doctrine where all the action was to be bombers and interceptors. Forgetting how wrong that turned out to be, telescopes made sense in that view.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by MaxGunz

Some countries had a pre-WWII doctrine where all the action was to be bombers and interceptors. Forgetting how wrong that turned out to be, telescopes made sense in that view.

Yep. A telescopic sight makes sense if you're trying to take "sniper shots" at a relatively fragile and large plane. That would make sense in the 1930s when the conventional wisdom was "the bomber will always get through" and fighters were limited to stern chases or quick diving attacks with light weapons. Telescopic sights are also useful for dive or glide bombing attacks.

They also make some sense if you have the luxury of detecting the enemy before he detects you - since it allows you to identify the foe at a greater distance. Since most kills were against foes who never saw their attacker, realistically, it means that a telescopic sight is an improvement over iron sights.

But, it's idiotic to use a telescopic sight in a dogfight. Since that's the way that most IL2 players play the game, that makes telescopic sights fairly useless.

[Luno13]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

But, it's idiotic to use a telescopic sight in a dogfight. Since that's the way that most IL2 players play the game, that makes telescopic sights fairly useless.

This is a huge misconception in Il-2.

The collimator tube sight is not telescopic. It is simply a method to project a crosshair. You keep both eyes open, one on the target, and one looking through the tube. In that sense, it works like an electric reflector sight, so that your head position doesn't affect your aim.

Some were telescopic, but they only magnified 1.5 or 2 times at the most. They improved accuracy at long range over iron sights, but they were certainly not used for sniping.

It is seriously misrepresented in Il-2 by the large degree of magnification in gun-sight view. If you want a sense of how tube sights really worked, don't use gun-sight view (but you will not have the advantage of the collimating effect).

Theoretically, DT could fix this by removing the magnified view, and simply projecting a black crosshair in the way that a yellow one is projected on all reflector sights in the game.

[JtD]

Originally Posted by IceFire

Seems like IL-2's performance numbers are pretty damn accurate for the FM-2.

I disagree, the real plane achieved around 530 km/h at altitudes between 11000' and 20000' (3.5 - 6km), whereas the il-2 variant only gets that fast at altitudes around 5km. Also top speed at low blower should be around 500, not just 470. Below 5km, the plane's too slow by about 30 km/h average, similar to the F6F-5 before 4.11.

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by JtD

I disagree, the real plane achieved around 530 km/h at altitudes between 11000' and 20000' (3.5 - 6km), whereas the il-2 variant only gets that fast at altitudes around 5km. Also top speed at low blower should be around 500, not just 470. Below 5km, the plane's too slow by about 30 km/h average, similar to the F6F-5 before 4.11.

So... the range of the maximum top speed is too low? Hrmm ok I'm starting to see that better now.

Below 5km is probably where it does most of it's flying. Historically and in online situations... so that is a pretty big issue then. I made the mistake of looking at critical alts only.

I guess it needs some work.

And some HVAR's

[JtD]

Originally Posted by IceFire

And some HVAR's

+1