• There seems to be an up tick in Political commentary in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site we know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religiours commentary out of the fourms.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politicion will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment amoung members. It is a poison to the community. We apprciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

Work on the 67th

Ivan said:
That La-5 looks pretty familiar. It actually looks more like a La-5FN though.... ;-)

- Ivan.
Click to expand...

I recognize the heart below the cockpit...

A nice plane, I have a copy on my ME machine :applause:
 
Screen shots.

~S~ W,

Everything is so clear and crisp in your pictures, what screen resolution do you use in CFS?

j:cost1:
 
smilo said:
that it does.
wonder if the Author gave permission or if w33 knows who the Author is? :redf:
Click to expand...

Actually, I don't know who the author is but I'm assuming its one of you guys.:isadizzy::redf:

And I'll check after for the screen resolution.. I can't remember what it is,
 
Hi Smilo,
I guess the answer to both questions is a 'no'.

Hi P&W,
Did you also get the La-7? Both of these could use some updates.
Pity we don't have more folks who can read Russian. I suspect the markings have some meaning as well.

- Ivan.
 
Yeah,.. I can't really remember where I got it, but the ZIP was nothing at all like the link smilo posted above. It claimed the file was Public Domain. So sorry.. If you want I can take it off.

THAT is the last time I download CFS stuff off a random site. Now it's strictly here, Flightsim.com, and Simviation.:isadizzy::isadizzy: Sorry for that again.:redf:
 
it's easy for me to say, but don't worry about it. I am sure that you are innocent.
Ivan and Hubba are the ones who have their work ripped off by these creeps, who then either delete the documentation, claim it as theirs or even worse, rewrite it to say nasty things about the Author.
sometimes, it's a wonder that these artists even bother to upload their work so some swearword can steal it.
 
Yeah. I don't exactly see what they have to gain by pirating. It's not like the author gets paid for his work if it's freeware like the time I downloaded the B-17F and this case here.:isadizzy:
 
For what it is worth?

~S~ W,

No body pirates my :censored:, and you are free to put it on your site.

AAC_Johnny

Make a copy of this and keep it for your records.
offer may not apply to certain areas of the U.S.A. and Canada and nothing is guaranteed or warrantied without the hand written certification in triplicate and may not be valid on certain days of the week in some other areas, unless expressly noted. Any damage occurring as a direct or indirect use is limited to $ .0001 or one mil or one tenth of 1 cent U.S. monies, not squat. And make sure I did not pirate it from someone else before you post it for upload.:isadizzy:
 
Ivan said:
Hi Smilo,
I guess the answer to both questions is a 'no'.

Hi P&W,
Did you also get the La-7? Both of these could use some updates.
Pity we don't have more folks who can read Russian. I suspect the markings have some meaning as well.

- Ivan.
Click to expand...

Yes Sir I believe I did, although I'd have to double check, I ended up with a rather large library of planes, I think... If I remember correctly, they were short on ammo capacity, poor Russians...

On this machine, I only have maybe 20 or so... I haven't even installed the AAC fleet yet :redf: But I did download it over the weekend, so soon.

If I remember right, your marking is a heart and script "Anna Honey"? Makes them easy to spot :jump:
 
I seen that paint job in a book one time. Did you happen to get it from the book "Aircraft of WWII" by Jim Winchester? I think it was that book but I'll check tomorow...
 
In Russian, it's Anna Love (Lyubov).
In Japanese, it's Ah-Na-Ha-Ni....
In German, I have only put a heart and Anna. Perhaps the future 109 will carry "Liebe Anna" or something like that.

There isn't really a whole lot of consistency, but so far in all the releases, it's in there someplace. I need to work out a way to do like Johnny did with a signature that more difficult to remove. Pity that a notice like that should even be necessary though. And yes, piracy is one of the reasons I don't make a particular effort to see that stuff gets released.

- Ivan.
 
Regarding Ammunition Capacity, The Russians were not great, but the British Spitfires were about as bad and the Japanese Zeros and early 109s were worse. As I was discussing elsewhere, with just 60 rounds of a very low velocity 20 mm, you have about 3 good squirts before you are left with 7.7 mm or 7.92 mm Paint Chippers.

Unrelated note, but what a lot of folks don't realise is that with the 109F, there was actually a substantial increase in gun power even though the gun count was lower. The Co-Ax cannon on the 109E's apparently didn't work well and were often not installed.

- Ivan.
 
Ivan said:
Regarding Ammunition Capacity, The Russians were not great, but the British Spitfires were about as bad and the Japanese Zeros and early 109s were worse. As I was discussing elsewhere, with just 60 rounds of a very low velocity 20 mm, you have about 3 good squirts before you are left with 7.7 mm or 7.92 mm Paint Chippers.

Unrelated note, but what a lot of folks don't realise is that with the 109F, there was actually a substantial increase in gun power even though the gun count was lower. The Co-Ax cannon on the 109E's apparently didn't work well and were often not installed.

- Ivan.
Click to expand...

I punched out calibers for my own reference (I use metric, but I have yet to acquire a feel for it's units)

7.92 ~ .312
7.7 ~ .303 Paint chippers...:icon_lol: They make nice deer rifles (I mean rifles with a caliber ~.30)

I see what you mean... from what I remember, 8 .303's were reasonably effective up close, but at that range you could nearly just as easily saw off his tail with your propeller :costumes:

Obviously just the caliber is not the sole factor in a weapons effectiveness. A 7.62x39 is a different animal than a 7.62x51...

The 1000 rounds in the Spit 1 is disheartening...

To modify the expression: The only time you have too much fuel or too much ammunition is when you are on fire. :isadizzy:
 
Pratt & Whitney,

You just opened a MONSTER can of worms here. There is nominal caliber and actual projectile diameter. Typically nominal caliber is the bore diameter but not always. Typically bullet diameter is groove diameter but not always. A .38 Special for example is not .380 inch in diameter (neither is a .380 ACP).

A 7.92 mm actually uses a .323 diameter bullet
A 7.7 mm or .303 actually uses a .312 diameter bullet
A .38 Special uses a .357 diameter bullet
A 7.62 mm x 51 NATO uses a .308 diameter bullet
A 7.62 mm x 39 uses a .310 diameter bullet as does the 7.62 mm x 54R

- Ivan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top