![]() |
|
|||||||
| IL-2 Sturmovik: Birds of Prey Famous title comes to consoles. |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
![]()
__________________
XBL GT: - Robotic Pope HyperLobby CS: - Robot_Pope Last edited by Robotic Pope; 06-13-2010 at 01:31 AM. |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
![]() This is one of the Spitfire replicas powered by an Allison V-1710, and as you can see, there is no air intake above the engine. I'll try to find a picture of an Allison engined P51D for you. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
I believe the P-51D at Wanaka in New Zealand, is Allison powered.
|
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
Well there you go. I learned something new lol.
Did a bit of searching and reading. Can't find any mention on why the allison engine suddenly didn't need to have then airscoop on top rather than underneith the engine. It seems to me to be part of the modification that gave the allison a two stage supercharger though. I now know that most the Twin Mustangs went back to using Allisons (even though they were weaker) for political reasons. I expect these fake engined Mustangs are from old F-82's and are all in the US then and why Ive never come across one. One thing I can't understand. I still count 6 exausts in the photos? Quote:
__________________
XBL GT: - Robotic Pope HyperLobby CS: - Robot_Pope |
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
|
Haha found it. I was right. Page 13 http://www.enginehistory.org/Convent...ingAllison.pdf
The post war, two stage supercharged allison engine doesn't have a carburetor and so doesn't need the air intake. Well that was fun detective work, gave me something to do while watching Le Mans 24h lol
__________________
XBL GT: - Robotic Pope HyperLobby CS: - Robot_Pope |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why I dislike IL-2 games..
Because I just got beaten by some bloke flying an A-20 on a realistic dogfight with my useless ass sat in an La-5FN.............. boo hoo. He beat me 5-4....... |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
P.S. I feel another long post by Soviet Ace. |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
i think the light(example:il10)or the heavies(example:a20)are really outclassed in this game:impossible to attack it behind cause the rear gunner can open the fire in the dead angles!!!!totaly not realistic!!if during ww2 the bombers were as dangerous as in il2 game i think all the countries in war stopped to built fighters and built only a bombers!! ...in the front attack many bombers have a great fire power too and equal to the fire power of the fighter or same better(il10 with guns and rockets!!!)!!!!lo!!!crazy but i think it is a question of tacticals and the player in the fighter must find a way to destroy the bomber...it is not easy but a good challenge and a good way to progress... during the game i do versus the bombers i try to do a boom and zoom attack and i must say i use rockets versus the bombers,only for one reason:i find that the bombers are outclassed in this game...but it is just my opinion... |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Something else I found out about civilian Mustangs is that removing the military equipment (guns, armor, surplus fuel tanks and WWII vintage radio equipment) shaves off around 2,500 lbs from the Mustangs weight, which is roughly a quarter of the loaded weight of a wartime P51D. If the guys who made the Flight 1 P51 for FSX used one of these Mustangs for their flight characteristics, then no wonder it flies so well |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|