28.04.2010, 05:55
This whole fm talk is pointless...because none of us is qualified to say "this fm is realistic/it should be like this"...firstly because there is not enough data,secondly none of us even had a ride in a warbird (I won't even mention piloted a warbird).
So this whole argument is about speed and climb rate....which is a small portion of an fm.
What about roll rate (how much degrees/sec is "insane roll rate"?),turn rate (how much degrees/sec is "I could out turn him with ease"),acceleration (how fast is "I was rapidly closing in on him/it felt like accelerating in a car"),control responsiveness ("it only needs a light push on the stick" to do how much exactly?),energy ("it bleeds a lot of energy" how much?).
So,we don't know what realistic is for these planes or how they should fly,getting correct speeds and climb rate is making it about 15-20% "realistic"
...
Sure,we could make a "realistic" fm for a cessna,because lot of guys are flying one
So this whole argument is about speed and climb rate....which is a small portion of an fm.
What about roll rate (how much degrees/sec is "insane roll rate"?),turn rate (how much degrees/sec is "I could out turn him with ease"),acceleration (how fast is "I was rapidly closing in on him/it felt like accelerating in a car"),control responsiveness ("it only needs a light push on the stick" to do how much exactly?),energy ("it bleeds a lot of energy" how much?).
So,we don't know what realistic is for these planes or how they should fly,getting correct speeds and climb rate is making it about 15-20% "realistic"
...Sure,we could make a "realistic" fm for a cessna,because lot of guys are flying one