When it comes to flight model, I have to completely agree; there's a difference between a stock flight model, and a stock flight model that is completely broken. I think it should be repaired, but that would break the cardinal rule here.
So we'd have to see the admins for that one.
Yeah, these planes really aren't usable as is. I hope some decent FMs show up that are so badly needed for ALL the flyable AI planes now, even as new plane slots. I found the TBM to be great compared to the Jill and Kate, but still nowhere near realistic. Sheesh.
This really limits what cmpn projects and misns can be made or at least enjoyed. We really appreciate all the vast work that is done regarding this BTW, and realize that this takes a bit of time.
I agree that the Jill and Kate are not really flyable....and barely controllable at best. I am fairly sure that the Jill did not require almost full rudder and aileron in one direction in order to stay in level flight in real life. Sorry for the bit of a rant, but I really hope that someone will at least fix the FM for the Jill and Kate just a little bit to make it somewhat controllable and allow the poor joker flying it to have a little bit of a chance to attempt evasive action rather then doing all he or she can to keep it in level flight.
The Jill and Kate MIGHT be acceptable as is, if they were given trim in all three axes. Would that be considered an alteration of their FM?
Yes it would, unfortunately.
I remeber my first landing in a kate. god i can't belileve how they landed.
I feel that the view out of the TBF-1C and TBM-3 cockpits are just fine the way they are. I wish that the F2A-2's cockpit had been used instead of the B-239 Buffalo. The canopy opens on the F2A-2, and all of the instruments are in English. I would gladly accept the telescopic sight over the reflector, but I am told that it can be easily changed out for a reflector if the F2A-2 cockpit were used.
hock: Now I realize that I've got nothing to whine about at all! No wonder the Japanese lost the war. :roll:
