Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 2 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
#2886862 - 10/24/09 02:32 PM Re: The Wonderful Fokker Dr I [Re: FlyRetired]  
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 587
MIG77 Offline
Member
MIG77  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 587
Finland
Originally Posted By: FlyRetired

You stated "all german scouts".


Yes, but the context was to Dr.I and planes that flyed with/against it.

Quote:
The German Jastas fought mostly on the defensive during WWI, and utilized efficient early warning systems to detect enemy incursions, they didn't need long-range fuel loads, and with altitude superiority and surprise could choose the time of their attacks. When the Fokker Dr.I ventured across the lines, inversing the traditional encounter, it was totally disadvantaged by it's lack of range and airspeed. The problem that occurs when expecting the Fokker Dr.I to be the killer of yore within a flight simulation, arises when players try to fight it without the inherent historical advantages fighting defensively allowed it.

Of course mixing it up in dogfights is what so many players enjoy, but then there's no historical advantages in DF modes.....and then the consequences have to be reckoned.


Yes, but what this has to do with Dr.I max speed?


You can get used to everything, but icicle in the a**. It melts before you get used to it.
Inline advert (2nd and 3rd post)

#2886864 - 10/24/09 02:37 PM Re: The Wonderful Fokker Dr I [Re: Pooch]  
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 587
MIG77 Offline
Member
MIG77  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 587
Finland
Originally Posted By: Pooch
There' no question that the Dr1 was one of the most interesting airplanes of the First World War.
However, the fact that only 320 of them were built, shows that the German Air Force was not happy with the type. Compare that number to the 5,269 SE-5s that were completed.
As was said, the Fokker tripe was designed to combat earlier war types, so that it was outclassed by newer British and French designs almost as soon as the first one reached it's assigned squadron.
Obviously, as has been noted in many discussions about fighter planes of every era,the pilot makes the difference, and it was dangerous in the hands of guys like VonR, and Voss.
Interest aside, it did not have a large effect on the war effort due to it's small numbers. Of the 320 built, some were certainly destroyed in flying accidents before they reached the front, a few retained at the factory for tests, and some assigned to training , so let's guess that a little over two hundred Fokker Triplanes ever saw combat.
The airplanes fascination is all out of proportion to it's actual use.
That all said...I'm buying it!!


There is very simple reason for low production numbers. Castrol Oil (or lack of). It was best german scout until Fokker D.VII came (with inline engine so no need for castrol oil).


You can get used to everything, but icicle in the a**. It melts before you get used to it.
#2886869 - 10/24/09 02:41 PM Re: The Wonderful Fokker Dr I [Re: MIG77]  
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,380
FlyRetired Offline
Senior Member
FlyRetired  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,380
Originally Posted By: MIG77
Yes, but what this has to do with Dr.I max speed?

Sometimes it's just easier to repeat oneself. hahaha

Originally Posted By: FlyRetired
In the subjective realm of WWI combat pilot impressions, and aircraft vs. aircraft reports, the Fokker Dr.I is never mentioned as having anything but marginal airspeed.

Using the diving attack was very important for it to be able to intiate engagement.

Analysis of how the Fokker Dr.I was campaigned will note that the type had to have superior altitude in order to close up in the dive against its contemporary scout opponents.

#2886870 - 10/24/09 02:46 PM Re: The Wonderful Fokker Dr I [Re: FlyRetired]  
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 587
MIG77 Offline
Member
MIG77  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 587
Finland
I dont see anything that says anything about Dr.I top speed??? Germans used same tactic with every plane type they had.


You can get used to everything, but icicle in the a**. It melts before you get used to it.
#2886893 - 10/24/09 03:25 PM Re: The Wonderful Fokker Dr I [Re: MIG77]  
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 27
PeterGrozni Offline
Junior Member
PeterGrozni  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 27
Originally Posted By: MIG77
Peter, Im interested why you think so? Sopwith Camel with 130hp Clerget perfomance numbers are pretty much equal to Dr.I conservative numbers (in best numbers, Dr.I has much better climb).


I know what the numbers are, but I base my estimate for the RoF Dr.I on how the Fokker D.VII is modelled right now and past experiences how the Dr.I and Camel were modelled in other sims.
So far they (NeoQb) did a lot of poor research on many aircraft and equipment, so I have no reason to assume this will improve just yet, since they're overwhelmed by work right now and are put under a lot of pressure by many in the community.
You can plainly see that many in the community will perpetuate the myths of how the Dr.I was slow and was outclimbed and outturned by the Camel, etc. The devs must put up with such pressure. If this wasn't enough, RoF beta testers might have the same ideas on performance of the Dr.I and Camel as many in the community do... Anyway, you'll see soon how these two lovelies fly in RoF. smile

Originally Posted By: FlyRetired
In the subjective realm of WWI combat pilot impressions, and aircraft vs. aircraft reports, the Fokker Dr.I is never mentioned as having anything but marginal airspeed.

Using the diving attack was very important for it to be able to intiate engagement.

Analysis of how the Fokker Dr.I was campaigned will note that the type had to have superior altitude in order to close up in the dive against its contemporary scout opponents.


You are mixing sensible tactics with aircraft performance. Diving on an enemy is the quickest way to get on its tail, whether you're slower or faster than him. By itself it doesn't tell anything useful about the performance of the aircraft.
If you'll read Camel and S.E.5a reports you'll see that they often mention:“The Hun dove away from us.“ Even more often you'll read how they haven't found „Huns“ who'd stay to fight with them. Using your logic and looking from the p.o.v. of these British pilots we could say the German aircraft were so fast the British couldn't fight them. smile Don't jump on me now. I am just trying to make a point. biggrin

From what I know about the Dr.I I'd say it was a very good fighting machine. It was not individual aircraft performance of the era that made the Dr.I seem so outclassed, but the larger tactical and strategic picture. I think it's pointless getting into more details here, but I will conclude by saying that all these negative myths don't do justice to a great combat aircraft.


I scooted for our lines, sticky with fear. I vomited brandy-and-milk and bile all over my instrument panel. Yes, it was very romantic flying, people said later, like a knight errant in the clean blue sky of personal combat.
— attributed to W. W. Windstaff, an alleged pseudonym of an American pilot flying with the British RFC.
#2886932 - 10/24/09 04:06 PM Re: The Wonderful Fokker Dr I [Re: PeterGrozni]  
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 587
MIG77 Offline
Member
MIG77  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 587
Finland
Originally Posted By: PeterGrozni

I know what the numbers are, but I base my estimate for the RoF Dr.I on how the Fokker D.VII is modelled right now and past experiences how the Dr.I and Camel were modelled in other sims.
So far they (NeoQb) did a lot of poor research on many aircraft and equipment, so I have no reason to assume this will improve just yet, since they're overwhelmed by work right now and are put under a lot of pressure by many in the community.
You can plainly see that many in the community will perpetuate the myths of how the Dr.I was slow and was outclimbed and outturned by the Camel, etc. The devs must put up with such pressure. If this wasn't enough, RoF beta testers might have the same ideas on performance of the Dr.I and Camel as many in the community do... Anyway, you'll see soon how these two lovelies fly in RoF. smile


Well I dont know. There are also planes modelled very optimistically (like Pfalz DIIIa). Also they have numbers that are close to Camel (you can see that already from Dr.I info data from game files), so I think these two aircraft will be very close in perfomance.

From ingame info files:

  • Fokker Dr.I

    Climb speed

    1000 m - 3 min.
    2000 m - 5 min. 30 sec.
    3000 m - 9 min. 18 sec.
    4000 m - 14 min.
    5000 m - 22 min.

    General performance

    Top Speed (km/h): 185
    Endurance (h): 1h 30 min.

    Sopwith Camel

    Climb rate:

    1981 m - 6 min.
    3048 m - 10 min. 35 sec.
    4572 m - 20 min. 40 sec.

    General performance

    Maximum airspeed (km/h): 182
    Endurance (h) 2 h.


So according to those, they will be very close to each other (but then again ingame info has been different to ingame perfomance some other planes).

Also they list these sources what they have used (IMHO not so bad research)



  • 1) Fokker Aircraft of WW I, by Paul Leaman, The Crowood Press.
    2) Fokker Dr.I, Windsock Datafile Special, Albatros Publications.
    3) Fokker Triplane, Windsock Datafiles 5.
    3) Fokker Dr1, website www.fokkerdr1.com.
    4) Archive "Fokker-Team-Schorndorf", www.collectors-edition.com.
    5) Fokker Dr.I Aces of World War I, by Norman Franks and Greg VanWyngarden.
    6) Fokker Dr.I in action, by H J Nowarra, Aircraft Number 68.
    7) The Fokker Dr.I, Profile publications, Number 55.
    8) The Fokker Triplane, Magazine "FLY" 14 March 1918.

    1) Sopwith Aircraft Blueprints, WWI Aero Magazine.
    2) The Sopwith Camel. Profile publications Number 31.
    3) Sopwith Camel. JM Bruce Windsock Datafile 26.
    4) Sopwith Camel Aces of Wold War I. Norman Franks, Osprey №52.
    5) Flying the Camel in 1918. FLIGHT International, 2 May 1968.
    6) A History of No.10 Sq. RNAS in WWI. Mike Westrop, Schiffer Military History.
    7) Sopwith Camel Specification.


You can get used to everything, but icicle in the a**. It melts before you get used to it.
#2886991 - 10/24/09 05:46 PM Re: The Wonderful Fokker Dr I [Re: Pooch]  
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 210
MattM Offline
Member
MattM  Offline
Member

Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 210
Originally Posted By: Pooch
However, the fact that only 320 of them were built, shows that the German Air Force was not happy with the type.

Well, they were happier with the Dr.1 than with the DVa, which is the most numerous german aircraft and probably the worst, that's in ROF right now. The reason why they didn't built too many Dr.1 was because of lack of oil and generally bad relialbility of the Oberursel engine. Stability problems in late 1917 didn't improve the production rate either and in 1918, there were better planes on the horizon.

Also you can't compare the numbers of german planes with that of the entente, they just had way more ressources to built those planes. Even the DVa had a low production number, compared to Entente planes.

The speed of course, is relative. It's slow compared with the SE5 or SPAD (even non-BMW Fokker DVII were slow against those), compared with most german planes in ROF, it was pretty much as fast as those. That fact, together with the steeper climb angle and higher manouverability, makes me certain that the Dr.1 will have a bigger impact in ROF multiplayer than the Camel for the Entente.

#2886995 - 10/24/09 05:51 PM Re: The Wonderful Fokker Dr I [Re: MattM]  
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 27
PeterGrozni Offline
Junior Member
PeterGrozni  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 27
Originally Posted By: MIG77

Well I dont know. There are also planes modelled very optimistically (like Pfalz DIIIa). Also they have numbers that are close to Camel (you can see that already from Dr.I info data from game files), so I think these two aircraft will be very close in perfomance.

So according to those, they will be very close to each other (but then again ingame info has been different to ingame perfomance some other planes).


The numbers you've quoted for the Dr.I and Camel seem close, yes, but as you've said yourself, you'll have to see how they'll perform in the game. smile

Originally Posted By: MIG77
Also they list these sources what they have used (IMHO not so bad research)


And how many books and other sources did they cite for the Fokker D.VII and yet, still got it wrong?
Everytime I remember the store page for the Pfalz D.IIIa I roll my eyes... the original 3.25 min (3 min 15 sec) to 1 km (that comes from a British test iirc) becomes 3 min 25 seconds on their page. That might be simply a reading error, maybe an overlook and perhaps those numbers were never used as a reference for building the FM, but you can't say their research looks ok right now, can you? frown


I scooted for our lines, sticky with fear. I vomited brandy-and-milk and bile all over my instrument panel. Yes, it was very romantic flying, people said later, like a knight errant in the clean blue sky of personal combat.
— attributed to W. W. Windstaff, an alleged pseudonym of an American pilot flying with the British RFC.
#2887001 - 10/24/09 05:57 PM Re: The Wonderful Fokker Dr I [Re: MIG77]  
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 8,926
ArgonV Offline
Hotshot
ArgonV  Offline
Hotshot

Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 8,926
College Station, Texas, USA
I will be curious to see what prop they put on the Dr.1, and if it will be a Dr.1a. smile Many seem to forget that another downfall of the Dr.1 was the proness of the top wing to shed its fabric and break up, due in part to poor waterproofing and quality control. This, more than anything else led the build numbers to be low.


"Go Fly A Kite!"
-Jason R.
FS-WWI Project Leader
FS-WWI Plane Pack Site

Intel i9 10900k
Gigabyte Z490 Aorus Elite AC
64GB Corsair DDR4 2933 Vengeance RGB Pro
AMD XFX 7900 XTX Merc310 Black Edition
LG UltraGear 38GN95B-B 38" monitor
Corsair HX1200 PSU
1TB EVO 980 Pro M.2 PCIe x4 SSD
2TB EVO 980 Pro M.2 PCIe x4 SSD
Two 2TB EVO 860 SSDs
Sound Blaster ZxR
Win 10 x64 Pro
HOTAS Cougar #4069 w/Uber II Nxt mod #284 & UTM bushings
#2887009 - 10/24/09 06:13 PM Re: The Wonderful Fokker Dr I [Re: PeterGrozni]  
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 587
MIG77 Offline
Member
MIG77  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 587
Finland
Originally Posted By: PeterGrozni


The numbers you've quoted for the Dr.I and Camel seem close, yes, but as you've said yourself, you'll have to see how they'll perform in the game. smile


True, but that is indication what we can expect. smile

Quote:


And how many books and other sources did they cite for the Fokker D.VII and yet, still got it wrong?


Lets see:


  • 1) Fokker DVII No2009/18. Type C.1 captured and tested by French.
    2) Essais de cellule de lavion Fokker Type D.VII.
    3) Fokker D.VII Aces of World War I. Part1 and 2 and 3 by Norman Franks and Greg VanWyngarden.
    4) Fokker D.VII in action. By D. Edgar Brannon Aircraft Number 166
    5) Profile publications. The Fokker D.VII Number 25


Now problem comes that they used french test data from captured plane, which pretty much is copied to all other sources. So I can understand why they made mistake (they checked several sources, but unfortunately most, if not all, those secondary sources used same primary source). Anyway they know now about this and have said to look it again in future.

Quote:
Everytime I remember the store page for the Pfalz D.IIIa I roll my eyes... the original 3.25 min (3 min 15 sec) to 1 km (that comes from a British test iirc) becomes 3 min 25 seconds on their page. That might be simply a reading error, maybe an overlook and perhaps those numbers were never used as a reference for building the FM, but you can't say their research looks ok right now, can you? frown


Store page uses same text as in game (point that it is just text and nothing to do "correct" ingame perfomance). There have been even more bigger mistakes (If I remeber correctly SE5a top speed was listed 169km/h or someting like that wink It is corrected now.)


You can get used to everything, but icicle in the a**. It melts before you get used to it.
#2887016 - 10/24/09 06:29 PM Re: The Wonderful Fokker Dr I [Re: ArgonV]  
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 587
MIG77 Offline
Member
MIG77  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 587
Finland
Originally Posted By: ArgonV
Many seem to forget that another downfall of the Dr.1 was the proness of the top wing to shed its fabric and break up, due in part to poor waterproofing and quality control. This, more than anything else led the build numbers to be low.


Yes, but that was problem only in early Dr.I (and reason why it was grounded for a while).


You can get used to everything, but icicle in the a**. It melts before you get used to it.
#2887024 - 10/24/09 06:58 PM Re: The Wonderful Fokker Dr I [Re: MIG77]  
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,712
Dart Offline
Measured in Llamathrusts
Dart  Offline
Measured in Llamathrusts
Lifer

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,712
Alabaster, AL USA
Quote:
You are mixing sensible tactics with aircraft performance.


Unfortuntely, in the DR1's case, one can't talk one without the other.

The thing is a huge drag magnet that undoubtably would throw energy away as if its free without careful control and smart tactics.

I'd imagine that getting the text book top performance would also require text book top piloting; with that comes the concern that there will be many cries of under-modelling the plane when it fact it will be under-piloted.


The opinions of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events.

More dumb stuff at http://www.darts-page.com

From Laser:
"The forum is the place where combat (real time) flight simulator fans come to play turn based strategy combat."
#2887030 - 10/24/09 07:05 PM Re: The Wonderful Fokker Dr I [Re: Dart]  
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 587
MIG77 Offline
Member
MIG77  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 587
Finland
Originally Posted By: Dart


Unfortuntely, in the DR1's case, one can't talk one without the other.


Huh?

Quote:
The thing is a huge drag magnet that undoubtably would throw energy away as if its free without careful control and smart tactics.


Huh?? How it is "huge drag magnet"? Do you know something that I dont? (probably, but discussion is not about those "things" :P )

Quote:
I'd imagine that getting the text book top performance would also require text book top piloting; with that comes the concern that there will be many cries of under-modelling the plane when it fact it will be under-piloted.


This can be said from any plane wink


You can get used to everything, but icicle in the a**. It melts before you get used to it.
#2887043 - 10/24/09 07:43 PM Re: The Wonderful Fokker Dr I [Re: MIG77]  
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 8,926
ArgonV Offline
Hotshot
ArgonV  Offline
Hotshot

Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 8,926
College Station, Texas, USA
MIG77,

The problem never fully went away. Even after they were pulled from service and corrected some still failed. And when they were brought back to active duty, full blown production was canceled. So, the build numbers remained low, which was my point in the firstplace. smile


"Go Fly A Kite!"
-Jason R.
FS-WWI Project Leader
FS-WWI Plane Pack Site

Intel i9 10900k
Gigabyte Z490 Aorus Elite AC
64GB Corsair DDR4 2933 Vengeance RGB Pro
AMD XFX 7900 XTX Merc310 Black Edition
LG UltraGear 38GN95B-B 38" monitor
Corsair HX1200 PSU
1TB EVO 980 Pro M.2 PCIe x4 SSD
2TB EVO 980 Pro M.2 PCIe x4 SSD
Two 2TB EVO 860 SSDs
Sound Blaster ZxR
Win 10 x64 Pro
HOTAS Cougar #4069 w/Uber II Nxt mod #284 & UTM bushings
#2887045 - 10/24/09 07:43 PM Re: The Wonderful Fokker Dr I [Re: MIG77]  
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 939
RocketDog Offline
Member
RocketDog  Offline
Member

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 939
Bath, England
Originally Posted By: MIG77
[quote=Dart]
Huh?? How it is "huge drag magnet"? Do you know something that I dont? (probably, but discussion is not about those "things" :P )


Triplanes are just inherently draggy. I guess it's why both sides tried them but the gave them up in favour of biplanes and even monoplanes. IIRC, the Fokker D.VIII had the same engine as the Dr I, but was much faster.

Cheers,

RD

(Fokker D.VIII, now there's an aircraft I've always liked)


Beyond gliding distance
#2887052 - 10/24/09 08:04 PM Re: The Wonderful Fokker Dr I [Re: ArgonV]  
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 587
MIG77 Offline
Member
MIG77  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 587
Finland
Originally Posted By: ArgonV
MIG77,

The problem never fully went away. Even after they were pulled from service and corrected some still failed. And when they were brought back to active duty, full blown production was canceled. So, the build numbers remained low, which was my point in the firstplace. smile


Not any meaningfull numbers. IE all planes that era had failures that could be categorised "structural failure". Also AFAIK there were only one big order made(September 1917 also that was last order).


You can get used to everything, but icicle in the a**. It melts before you get used to it.
#2887057 - 10/24/09 08:10 PM Re: The Wonderful Fokker Dr I [Re: RocketDog]  
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 587
MIG77 Offline
Member
MIG77  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 587
Finland
Originally Posted By: RocketDog

Triplanes are just inherently draggy. I guess it's why both sides tried them but the gave them up in favour of biplanes and even monoplanes. IIRC, the Fokker D.VIII had the same engine as the Dr I, but was much faster.

Cheers,

RD

(Fokker D.VIII, now there's an aircraft I've always liked)


True and biplanes are inherently more draggy than monoplanes smile But point was how Dr.I was "huge drag magnet" when most WWI planes could be categorised as a such. Im not saying that it didnt have more drag than example Fokker D.VII, but "huge drag magnet" is total over statement.

P.S. Profile puplication states D.VIII with 110hp Oberursel top speed as 115mph (USAS test after the war). Not that much faster wink In WWI when there were no constant speed propellers engine HP and propeller type limited max speed. Drag was not that big factor (in top speed) as it was engine that run out of thrust(not power) to give more speed even if you had cleaner desing.


You can get used to everything, but icicle in the a**. It melts before you get used to it.
#2887065 - 10/24/09 08:48 PM Re: The Wonderful Fokker Dr I [Re: MIG77]  
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,712
Dart Offline
Measured in Llamathrusts
Dart  Offline
Measured in Llamathrusts
Lifer

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,712
Alabaster, AL USA
All things being relative, which attracts Draggies* to grab on and pull a plane back more - the DR1 or the SPAD 13? The Nieuport 28 or the DR1?

Blip the engine on a DR1 and one is going to slow down really, really fast.

And then glide very well, if slowly.

It's also got a huge rudder to compensate for the weak aileron authority, which means more than a big sail swishing left and right, but that it will be very hard for a pilot to not yaw the plane. Even a slight slip can really increase the amount of drag on an airframe. It's not just the fuselage sticking in the wind, it's all those big lifting surfaces suddenly taking airflow at an angle, which further reduces efficiency.

It's really a question of responsiveness. While the DR1 might have a top speed that is close to the Camel's, the difference in responsiveness in regaining energy are pretty large. The DR1, due to higher drag, should have less of an ability to sustain and regain energy in a fight (assuming skill of pilots is equal). In a straight line race, the difference between a DR1 and Camel would follow the books; on an air race course with turns and varying altitudes, though, I'd put my money on the Camel.

[edit]

* Draggies, of course, are the magical cousins of Lifties, which are attracted by airfoils when air pushes over them, making planes go up.

Last edited by Dart; 10/24/09 08:49 PM.

The opinions of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events.

More dumb stuff at http://www.darts-page.com

From Laser:
"The forum is the place where combat (real time) flight simulator fans come to play turn based strategy combat."
#2887070 - 10/24/09 08:59 PM Re: The Wonderful Fokker Dr I [Re: Dart]  
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 587
MIG77 Offline
Member
MIG77  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 587
Finland
Dart, I think you are way too much in WWII plane behaviour there wink As I said (edited tought) drag was not biggest factor in plane top speed (altought it ofcourse affected to acceleration, etc). Engine HP output and propellor was. And I still dont get it where you get Dr.I some how much more draggier than other planes (it example didnt have wing wires that most planes had -> big drag factor)?


You can get used to everything, but icicle in the a**. It melts before you get used to it.
#2887073 - 10/24/09 09:02 PM Re: The Wonderful Fokker Dr I [Re: MIG77]  
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,712
Dart Offline
Measured in Llamathrusts
Dart  Offline
Measured in Llamathrusts
Lifer

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,712
Alabaster, AL USA
It could be that I am!

I'm the last to proclaim any amount of expert status on aircraft.

I do know the behavior of the average virtual pilot. He's going to be porposing and slipping like sidewinder through the virtual skies, complaining that the DR1 isn't modelled right, as it's going too slow.


The opinions of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events.

More dumb stuff at http://www.darts-page.com

From Laser:
"The forum is the place where combat (real time) flight simulator fans come to play turn based strategy combat."
Page 2 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Moderated by  RacerGT, Wklink 

Quick Search
Recent Articles
Support SimHQ

If you shop on Amazon use this Amazon link to support SimHQ
.
Social


Recent Topics
Carnival Cruise Ship Fire....... Again
by F4UDash4. 03/26/24 05:58 PM
Baltimore Bridge Collapse
by F4UDash4. 03/26/24 05:51 PM
The Oldest WWII Veterans
by F4UDash4. 03/24/24 09:21 PM
They got fired after this.
by Wigean. 03/20/24 08:19 PM
Grown ups joke time
by NoFlyBoy. 03/18/24 10:34 PM
Anyone Heard from Nimits?
by F4UDash4. 03/18/24 10:01 PM
RIP Gemini/Apollo astronaut Tom Stafford
by semmern. 03/18/24 02:14 PM
10 years after 3/8/2014
by NoFlyBoy. 03/17/24 10:25 AM
Copyright 1997-2016, SimHQ Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0