[78thFG_Doodle]

This is a piece that I put together of what I think of the American Fighter Aircraft against Luftwaffe opponents such as the 109's and 190's. I don't fly anymore and haven't really been around in IL-2 for the past couple months, but I'll be back to flying very soon. Here's the post, and again this is just opinion of how the Aircraft perform in Combat. Please feel free to add your part on what you think or how you fly these fighters, because I wanted to see what my fellow aviators would think.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hey fellas, I've been a fairly bit busy the past few days and haven't gotten the chance to fly. And scrolling through some other website's I noticed that they have a break down on certain Aircraft broken down into how it performs and etc. And I thought we should have something like this on War Clouds. So this is my take of American Fighter Aircraft, the ones used in the server. And again this is just my opinion on them. And I'd like to see some of my fellow Allied Fighter Pilots opinions on the Aircraft they fly, and just maybe it'll do some good for each other. In conclusion I'm not saying that one Aircraft is better than the other because I am a great believer in a sense that it only needs to be better than the Enemy Aircraft. The photos were taken by me.

Curtis P-40M Warhawk


The Advantages:

The P-40 is actually a very nice and stable Aircraft as far as it goes when I fly it, like other tail dragger's it needs a little bit of Right Rudder to keep it level. The six .50 caliber Machine Guns are very nice with a high rate of fire, it will definitely bring do a great amount of damage to a 109 or Bf-110 and even a 190 if the rounds hit the vulnerable parts such as an elevator or hitting the coolant system. Another aspect that I have a lot of respect towards is the dogged toughness that the P-40 takes, the area around the cockpit takes quite a few holes, the wings can be shot like swiss cheese and it just keeps flying but not very well of course. Also considering the Warhawk dives very quickly, and even though it compresses it still is very controllable in a dive not like the P-51 but it will respond fairly good. Even though it doesn't turn like a Spitfire it isn't bad at all in a turn, depending on the speed it will out turn a 190 and the 109 with plenty of trim.

The Disadvantages:

Because the P-40 doesn't have a Supercharger it really starts to become a harder aircraft to fly above 15,000 feet which eliminates the P-40 as a High Altitude Fighter. At that altitude is where the Fw-190's and Bf-109's have a field day because they have a great edge over the Warhawk. It's a decent medium altitude and low altitude fighter that can definitely hold it's own where it's best at. The visibility is adequate except to the six o'clock position, however some of those problems are solved with the mirror on top of the Canopy Frame.

Overall Summary: I enjoy flying the P-40 against the 109 when it can certainly dance with them below 15,000 feet, but against the 190 it really struggles and it can only out turn the 190. When you have the altitude advantage, dive on your target, fire and then zoom back up. That's really the best way to use your Warhawk in combat from what I've come across.

____________________________________________________________________



Lockheed P-38L Lightning


The Advantages:
The P-38 has an excellent climb and a good turn radius especially when the Airbrake is used, it has a great Concentration of Firepower with Four .50 caliber Machine Guns and a 20mm Cannon in the nose and can even carry two gun pods under the wings giving it eight .50 caliber MG's and that 20mm cannon. It can carry a good load-out, ten rockets and two 1,000 pound bombs or two 500 pound bombs. At high altitude above 15,000 feet the P-38 is excellent at making Slashing attacks, and also because it has two engines if one is shot out or damaged you can still keep on flying with the other one. From what I've noticed that span from the Cockpit to the Tail Boom makes it fairly difficult for Enemy Aircraft to hit the P-38 while firing on it from the Six O'Clock high and low.

The Disadvantages:
The P-38 is a huge target. So there's no beating around the bush, if it looses it's elevator you either have to bailout or fly with a lot of trim. The P-38 has two Liquid Cooled In-Line Engines meaning that if it get's hit to the coolant system you will have no longer than five to ten minutes before your engine seizes. The visibility out of the P-38 is pretty low as far as I'm concerned, thankfully the mirror in the P-38 really covers your Six O'clock pretty well. Because of the two engines part of your visibility to your Nine and Three O'Clock. And of course the Compressibility is the worse trait of for the P-38, even with the Air Brake the P-38 can only do shallow dives because of the shockwave created by the Engine nacelles and the Pilot nacelle in a dive. At low altitude the P-38 seems to preform pretty poorly at lower altitudes and I know some P-38 pilots disagree with me but again this is just my opinion.

Overall Summary: I'm not a P-38 fan at all quite frankly, I think it's an excellent Aircraft in the Pacific Theater but is outclassed by the Luftwaffe Fighters in the European Theater. When I fly the P-38 it is only for Ground attack missions mainly, so my advice for Aerial Combat isn't that great but I can say that at higher altitudes the P-38 is quite good at Slashing Attacks.

_________________________________________________________________

Republic P-47D-10/D-22/D-27 Thunderbolt



Advantages:

The P-47 is a superb high altitude Fighter with it's Turbo Supercharged R-2800 Engine, give it great performance well above 20,000 feet and the higher it goes the better it gets. The P-47 was the most heavily armed U.S. Fighter of WWII with Eight .50 Caliber machine Guns which produce 13 1/2 pounds of lead on a target. You can set your convergence settings for your four inner guns and your four outer guns, and you have the ability to take Extra Ammunition. The Jug can hold a total of 2,500 pounds of bombs and six rockets which is more than adequate for Ground Attack Missions. It's an incredibly tough aircraft that can sustain a lot of damage from Ground Fire and Enemy Aircraft fire, giving you a great deal of confidence of taking damage and still being able to keep on flying. The Bubble Canopy in the Straight Back P-47's give the pilot 360 degrees of visibility and also includes a mirror on the canopy frame to see behind that large armor plate behind the pilot's head. The P-47 will also dive faster than any other German Aircraft, giving it tremendous speed in the descent due to the heavy weight of the Aircraft.

Disadvantages:

The P-47 cannot turn as well as other American Fighters such as the P-38 and the P-51, it seems to loose a considerable amount of speed. The large nose on the P-47 makes dive bombing a little hard compared to the P-38 and the P-51's noses. The Razorback P-47's with the "Birdcage" Canopy has very poor visibility to the Six O'Clock Position and can be hard to spot Aircraft with the Canopy bars surrounding the Cockpit.

Overall Summary: I mainly fly the P-47 for Ground Attack and once in awhile for High Altitude Bar Cap sorties, I like the P-47 above 15,000 feet and try not to fight anywhere below that except for Ground Attack Missions.

__________________________________________________________________

North American P-51B/C/D/Mustang Mk. III



Advantages:

The Mustang is an excellent Fighter at any altitude as far as I'm concerned, the best would be above 10,000 feet. The P-51D has Six .50 caliber Machine Guns, with 1,880 rounds. It's bubble canopy gives it superb visibility and some models also have a Mirror on top of the Canopy Frame. The Mustangs legendary long range let's it roam the skies for quite a long time depending on the fuel capacity. This is from what I've gathered from flying the Mustang for three years in IL-2. The P-51 has an excellent turn radius above 280mph and will out turn any Enemy Aircraft at High Speeds. P-51's also dive quickly without gaining a high amount of compressibility like the P-38 or the P-47. The P-51 can take a decent amount of damage, especially the wings and fuselage along with the armor plate behind the pilot. When your in a stall it's pretty easy to get out of, hit full opposite rudder and it'll pull out.

[Without External Fuel Tanks]
25%-30 minutes
50%-1 Hour Ten Minutes
75%-1 Hour forty minutes
100%-2 hours fifteen minutes

Disadvantages:

The very Vulnerable Liquid Cooled In-Line Engine on the Mustang is the worst on the Mustang as the Coolant System can be taken out by small Caliber fire. The Mustang also has stall problem at high and low speeds, if you yank back on the stick you'll go into a stall.

Overall Summary: The Mustang is my personal favorite and I love flying it in combat, maintain Energy and speed. Try to fly above 10,000 feet where the Mustang performs quite well against the Luftwaffe Aircraft.
___________________________________________________________________

Hopefully this helps some people, I'd love to see other pilots take on the Aircraft they fly for the Allies Team. Again, please keep it to your opinion and please keep from saying somebody's wrong and etc. Let's try to keep clear of that in this thread.

Blue Skies,

-Doodle

[.041 Safety Wire]

The Allison that powers the P-40 was a supercharged powerplant though it did not have a multistage supercharger.

[78thFG_Doodle]

Now that makes sense, because I know the P-40B/C had an integral supercharger.

Blue Skies,

-Doodle

[.041 Safety Wire]

First photo shows supercharger housing with downdraft carb.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/engine ... 15753.html

Actually the shockwave created by the 38 eminates from the wing with its convergence point being right on the elevator. The compressibility brake moves this convergence further aft and allows the pilot to maintain controllability even as the airflow over the top portion of the wing goes supersonic.

One of the stronger points of the Thunderbolt was that they eliminated the need for an intercooler and subsequent weight gain of this component for the turbocharger by mounting the turbo in the aft fuselage, the long piping for the turbo cools the charge to eliminate the possibilty of detonation which can be quite destructive to a powerplant.

[{HVY-E}Jinxx]

The Allison that powers the P-40 was a supercharged powerplant though it did not have a multistage supercharger.

Sorry sir, but you are incorrect.

The P40 was not supercharged. The British experimented with superchargers in the P-40F model, but it was not powered by the Allison. It was a Merlin powered machine.

As noted in Aviation History's Website.....

"The P-40 was initially designed around the Allison V-1710 liquid-cooled inline engine which offered better streamlining, more power per unit of frontal area, and better specific fuel consumption than did air-cooled radials of comparable power. Unfortunately, the rated altitude of the Allison engine was only some 12,000 feet, rendering combat above 15,000 feet a completely impracticable proposition. The P-40's ancestry dated back as far as 1924; the famed Curtiss Hawk fighters being in the forefront of all US warplanes. But its development was hindered from the start. The overall limitations of its design were such that the addition of multi-speed superchargers was considered inadvisable in view of the pending production of superior fighter designs."

The only P40, (Allison Powered), to have an integral Supercharger was the Prototype.

"One of the most significant steps in P-40 development came in 1941, when a British-built Rolls-Royce Merlin 28 engine with a single-stage, two-speed supercharger was installed in a Kittyhawk I airframe to improve its high-altitude performance. The Curtiss H-87-D, or XP-40F, as the Merlin-powered prototype became known, then had 1,300 hp available for takeoff, and 1,120 hp at 18,500 feet, which offered vast improvements over earlier models and endowed a maximum speed of 373 mph. This was reduced slightly in the YP-40F, which, like later variants, had the Packard-built Merlin V-1650-1 and revised cooling, the air intake above the cowling being incorporated in the radiator scoop. Gross weight climbed to 9,870 lb.

Following experiments in cooling-drag reduction in 1943 with a P-40K-10-CU which had its "beard" radiator removed to wing installations, and in rear vision improvements by installing a "bubble" canopy on a standard P-40L, a general " clean-up " programme was initiated, resulting in the sole XP-40Q. With a 1,425 hp Allison V-1710-121 engine, the XP-40Q was modified from the first P-40K-I to have a "bubble" canopy and cut-down rear fuselage, wing radiators and, eventually, clipped wing tips. A four-blade propeller was fitted, and water injection installed. With a weight of only 9,000 lb, the XP40Q attained a maximum speed of 422 mph. This was still less than the speed attained by contemporary production Mustangs and Thunderbolts , however, and the XP-40Q did not achieve production. "

S!

[.041 Safety Wire]

Heavy-E

Having worked on a multitude of V-1710 I can assure you they have internally driven superchargers. If you look at the upper two photos you can see the supercharger case on the rear of the powerplant and the lower photo you can see the impeller and diffuser ring. Allison did play with turbocharging but was never used in P-40s. Most all of the large inlines dating from production in the 30,s had internally driven superchargers but very few had turbo-supercharging.

All 14,000 P-40s got gear-driven superchargers and, as a result, were never first-class fighter planes. Donaldson R. Berlin, the P-40 designer, has said that P-40s experimentally equipped with turbo-superchargers outperformed Spitfires and Messerschmitts and that if it had been given the engine it was designed for, the P-40 would have been the greatest fighter of its era. This may be to some extent the bias of a proud parent, but there is no doubt that the deletion of the turbo supercharger ruined the P-39.

http://www.raafwarbirds.org.au/targetvr ... 710-33.pdf

Look at the fourth line down and you will see Supercharger Type is single stage single speed.


The prototype XP-40, the Curtiss Hawk Model 81, owed its origin to the earlier Model 75 of 1935 vintage. With the standardization of the Allison V-1710 , the P-36 design was reworked to incorporate this engine, becoming the XP-37 which was equipped with a General Electric turbo-supercharger, and featured numerous other modifications, including a rearward positioned cockpit. Thirteen YP-37s were built for service evaluation; but, with increasingly ominous signs of an approaching war, development of this fighter was abandoned in favor of a less complex and more direct conversion of the P-36 for the Allison engine, the XP-40. This was, in fact, the tenth production P-36A with an integrally-supercharged 1,160 hp Allison V-1710-19 (C13) engine, and first flew with its new power plant in the autumn of 1938. Successful in a US Army Pursuit Contest staged at Wright Field, in May 1939 it was awarded what was at that time the largest-ever production order for a US fighter, totaling nearly thirteen million dollars.

The prototype was the only one to have turbosupercharging but all V-1710,s were integrally supercharged.

[.041 Safety Wire]

http://www.thunderboats.org/history/history0323.html

Link gives a good breakdown of specs including supercharger type and ratios. Most of all the turbosupercharged aircraft of WWII also had internally driven chargers that are part of the powerplant but some had additional exhaust driven chargers that were used to boost manifold pressure or in the case of the Wright R-3350 the turbines were coupled directly back into the main crankshaft. These are referred to as turbocompounded powerplants. They powered the Lockheed Constellation. The B-29,s also used turbocharging in addition to the internally driven supercharger but are not turbocompounded. If you read the writeup at the above site you will see that Allison also experimented with turbocompounded powerplants. This is probably a good time to review the termonoloy:

Superchargers are always directly engine driven
Turbochargers are driven by exhaust gases.
Turbosuperchargers are a combination of both of the above. Basically they are all airpumps used to boost manifold pressure. The turbos are making use of some of the heat energy before it passes from the exhaust. Again I will say that all the large in-lines from WWII were supercharged.

Some would probably argue that the V-1710s problems were related to the size of the supercharger and detonation problems in some, You will notice they were fitted with ADI to help alleviate this problem at high boost pressures.

The Allison that powers the P-40 was a supercharged powerplant though it did not have a multistage supercharger.

Sorry sir, but you are incorrect.

The P40 was not supercharged. The British experimented with superchargers in the P-40F model, but it was not powered by the Allison. It was a Merlin powered machine.

As noted in Aviation History's Website.....

"The P-40 was initially designed around the Allison V-1710 liquid-cooled inline engine which offered better streamlining, more power per unit of frontal area, and better specific fuel consumption than did air-cooled radials of comparable power. Unfortunately, the rated altitude of the Allison engine was only some 12,000 feet, rendering combat above 15,000 feet a completely impracticable proposition. The P-40's ancestry dated back as far as 1924; the famed Curtiss Hawk fighters being in the forefront of all US warplanes. But its development was hindered from the start. The overall limitations of its design were such that the addition of multi-speed superchargers was considered inadvisable in view of the pending production of superior fighter designs."

The only P40, (Allison Powered), to have an integral Supercharger was the Prototype.

"One of the most significant steps in P-40 development came in 1941, when a British-built Rolls-Royce Merlin 28 engine with a single-stage, two-speed supercharger was installed in a Kittyhawk I airframe to improve its high-altitude performance. The Curtiss H-87-D, or XP-40F, as the Merlin-powered prototype became known, then had 1,300 hp available for takeoff, and 1,120 hp at 18,500 feet, which offered vast improvements over earlier models and endowed a maximum speed of 373 mph. This was reduced slightly in the YP-40F, which, like later variants, had the Packard-built Merlin V-1650-1 and revised cooling, the air intake above the cowling being incorporated in the radiator scoop. Gross weight climbed to 9,870 lb.

Following experiments in cooling-drag reduction in 1943 with a P-40K-10-CU which had its "beard" radiator removed to wing installations, and in rear vision improvements by installing a "bubble" canopy on a standard P-40L, a general " clean-up " programme was initiated, resulting in the sole XP-40Q. With a 1,425 hp Allison V-1710-121 engine, the XP-40Q was modified from the first P-40K-I to have a "bubble" canopy and cut-down rear fuselage, wing radiators and, eventually, clipped wing tips. A four-blade propeller was fitted, and water injection installed. With a weight of only 9,000 lb, the XP40Q attained a maximum speed of 422 mph. This was still less than the speed attained by contemporary production Mustangs and Thunderbolts , however, and the XP-40Q did not achieve production. "

S!

Supercharger: The engine supercharger (second stage supercharger) is contained in the accessory housing and is driven from the flexible inner member of the hydraulic vibration damper. The impeller is 10.25" diameter with 15 vanes and includes a separate rotating reverse-curved inducer guide vane inlet guide, the relationship with the impeller being maintained by the common splined shaft. The diffuser is cast integrally with the supercharger cover, which also contains the inlet to which the injector throttle body mounts. The impeller is overhung, with the shaft supported by two floating lead-bronze steel backed bearings placed on both sides of the supercharger drive gear. The bearing are pressure lubricated with engine oil.

The auxiliary stage is contained in a separate assembly coupled to the engine accessory section. It is intended to provide a critical altitude of 25,000 ft by delivering air to the engine supercharger at pressures close to sea-level when at critical altitude. This requires large volume of low density air to be handled by the auxiliary supercharger -- because of the density of the air at 25,000 ft the supercharger must move 2.23 times more air volume than the engine supercharger, and compress the air to about 2.7 times to deliver sea-level conditions. The auxiliary stage drive was obtained by a power-takeoff from the starter gear which connects to a driveshaft incorporating a universal joint, the driveshaft being contained in a tube coupling the engine accessory section with the remote auxiliary stage. The driveshaft hydraulic torque converter connected to the step-up gears contained in the auxiliary supercharger housing. The torque-converter provides variable speed for the supercharger by varying the amount of oil and therefore the coupling of the torque converter. The speed controlled by a boost-regulating system, permitting infinitely variable control of the speed of the auxiliary stage which was used to control manifold pressure so that power could is controlled while the throttle remains wide-open. The auxiliary supercharger consumes 490 hp from the crankshaft at the 2250 hp WER rating.

[{HVY-E}Jinxx]

I understand about the single stage S/C, but the reference you're quoting on Hydro Boats is talking about a 2nd stage. These engines appear to be modified by that group. ie. Brought up to current day expectations.

[.041 Safety Wire]

I understand about the single stage S/C, but the reference you're quoting on Hydro Boats is talking about a 2nd stage. These engines appear to be modified by that group. ie. Brought up to current day expectations.

They were not modified by the hydro guys but by Allison as this is a G series. F series were used in P40 and P38 and the E,s were for the 39 and 63,s .
The last iterations of the V-1710 powerplants were two speed, two stage supercharged where as the orginals that powered the P-40 were single stage single speed which is the point Im trying to make. The P-40 powerplant is supercharged but it is not turbo charged.

The power unit on the "E" and "F" engines were identical, with crankshafts, connecting rods, pistons, cylinder blocks, valve gear, and intake manifolds among other components completely interchangeable. The "E" featured a remote propeller reduction gearbox for the Bell P-39 Airacobra (and P-63 Kingcobra) driven with a 10 ft extension shaft turning at crankshaft speed between the engine and reduction gear. The "F" had a conventional integral tractor propeller reduction gear Lockheed P-38 Lightning and Curtiss P-40 Tomahawk. A turbocharged V-1710-F17L/-F17R engine equipped with ADI produced a WER of 2,300 bhp at 3,000 rpm with 90 in hg,, developing a BMEP of 355 psi. The "E" and "F" engines were the bread&butter Allisons, with these engines used in large volume on several major fighter programs of WWII. A total of 66,658 "E" and "F" types were built -- 18,998 "E"-type extension shaft engines were shipped, mainly for P-39 and P-63 aircraft, and 47,660 "F" models were shipped, mainly for P-38 and P-40 airplanes.



The ultimate V-1710 was the "G" series which brought together all of Allisons design and manufacturing experience to produce an outstanding engine in almost all respects from earlier engines. The V-1710-G was incorporated a number of desired improvements identified in 1943 by Wright Field (U.S.A.A.F. engineering/procurement organization) and improve performance to 1,725 bhp at 3,400 rpm. To improve performance, the 12-counterweight crankshaft developed in late 1942 was used to increase the maximum rpm to 3,400, the induction path was improved to increase flow, and improvement were also made to the supercharger, cylinder heads, and accessories section. One interesting characteristic of the "G"-series was the large proliferation of features and configurations -- short-nose integral reduction gears or extension shafts, with and without auxiliary superchargers, both 9.5" and 10.25" engine supercharger impellers, one or two-speed supercharger drives, a range of supercharger drive ratio's, three compression ratio's, pressure (injection) carburetor, speed density injection, or port fuel injection, and both left and right hand rotation. These engines became the most desirable to racers because of the high-revving crankshafts and improved detail design. A total of 763 were produced -- a batch of 750 V-1710-G6R/-G6L consisted of virtually all the "G" series production. When this batch of engines were declared surplus in the 1950's, they were said to to have been the engines which powered Unlimited Hydroplanes into the 1990's (Daniel D. Whitney, "Vee for Victory", pg 278). This same source describes how the Unlimited Racers traded performance for engine life, modifying engines to deliver as much as 4,000 hp.

[{HVY-E}Jinxx]

ahhhh

Now I'm tracking like an Iraqi Scud.... 8)


Thank you so much for the info. Always nice to find someone else who actually tries to look for the correct information, and then tell others where to find it.

S!

[.041 Safety Wire]

ahhhh

Now I'm tracking like an Iraqi Scud.... 8)


Thank you so much for the info. Always nice to find someone else who actually tries to look for the correct information, and then tell others where to find it.

S!

Sometimes it just bothers me when I see something in print that I know not to be true. I worked on WWII aircraft for nearly 35 years before I retired so when someone says that P-40,s were not supercharged I felt compelled to set the record straight. I think what your Aviation Website was trying to say is that the P-40 did not have a multistage/multispeed supercharger but nevertheless it did have a single stage/single speed type.

[.041 Safety Wire]

Here is a pretty in depth write up on supercharging and turbocharging and worth the read. He does not cover the combination of the two but still worth the read.

http://www.aerosuperchargers.com/Docume ... o_3.31.pdf

And somemore that speaks of the lack of oomf at the upper altitudes.

The V-1710 has often been criticized for not having a "high-altitude" supercharger. The comparison is usually to the later, two-stage, versions of the Rolls-Royce Merlin built by Packard as the V-1650 and used in the P-51B Mustang and subsequent variants. The US Army had specified that the V-1710 was to be a single-stage supercharged engine and, if a higher altitude capability was desired, the aircraft could use their newly developed turbosupercharger as was featured in the P-37, P-38, and XP-39.

The benefits of a two-stage supercharger eventually became so clear cut that Allison did make some efforts in this direction. Allison attached an auxiliary supercharger in various configurations to the existing engine mounted supercharger and carburetor. Early versions of these two-stage supercharger engines were used on the P-63. No intercooler, aftercooler, or backfire screen were incorporated into these two-stage V-1710 engines (except for the V-1710-119 used on the experimental P-51J, which had an aftercooler). The two-stage Merlin engines had all of these features, which were designed to prevent detonation from charge heating and backfire into the supercharger. The G-series V-1710s installed on the F-82 E/F/G models had only anti-detonation injection to deal with these problems, and not surprisingly had severe reliability and maintenance problems. In one record, it was stated that the F-82 required 33 hours of maintenance for one hour of flight.[1]

[{HVY-E}Jinxx]

I really wish there was a way to model some of these problems in Il-2. (detonation, backfire, random mechanical failures etc).
While there is much that Oleg did well, there are glaring issues in the game that look like he just threw something together and
said "hey, this looks good enough".

Hopefully SoW:BoB (although I still think it's vapor ware ;-)) will address these issues. Just not sure if it's possible to simulate
all the actual problems air crews had with their planes with the current A.I. and without changing the way the game engine
uses it's flight models.

[.041 Safety Wire]

Allison eventially solved the detonation problems in their original designs and the powerplants became much more reliable. In the case of their latter model they probably would have eventually overcame its problems with something other than antidetonation injection. Probably the E and F series did not pull excessive manifold pressure and had fairly precise wastegate control with regard to the turbosupercharged versions. I think all these companies eventually started seeing the handwriting on the wall and started putting their research into jets rather than trying to get more horsepower out of the recips. It is definitely possible to pull more hp from the RR and allison engines as evidenced by what they do with the racers at Reno but the reliability always suffers.

[Fireskull]

Hello, 328th_Doodle


This is a fine topic. I think that it is not Reference forum material, so I moved it to this Open Forum.



Fireskull