Jump to content

JFM

SENIOR MEMBER
  • Content count

    780
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

12 Neutral

7 Followers

About JFM

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Naples, FL, USA

Recent Profile Visitors

6,918 profile views
  1. I haven't even messed with it, just way too busy in the last few days to do any sort of simming. I'll have more time this week.
  2. Well, for clarity here, Pol showed me where the sound files are, so I went through all of them. None of them sounded as they do when I fly the sim. So something is wonky on my end or my ears just hear them oddly when combined with wind, engines, and the sound of my plane burning.
  3. Hey HS. From what I've read, the in-house plan is (was?) to release FC1 and then implement a campaign/career, just as they did with Rise of Flight. I wish it was all-in-one, but I get the sense FC, the way they are doing it, is almost a toe-in-the-water to see what happens. You know, support the sim and we'll make more. But, then again, every dev says that about every sim. They must be doing alright, though, as they have three different sims in development, at least in some form. As much as I'm looking forward to FC's ultimate development, I'm also stoked for BOP. Me-262? Been waiting for years! Not to mention P-47, P-38, Tempest, P-51. There was an age when WW1 flight sims were stuck in the Western Front. Now, they're stuck in the Eastern Front or BoB. I'm burned out on both and WAY looking forward to BOP.
  4. I do, but I'm waiting for the map to really fly it a lot. But I don't know where you got the info about "no campaign of any kind planned." I've read Jason talking just the opposite. Unless something happened recently that I missed, in which they stated "no campaign is planned anymore." If so, please point me in that direction, if you remember where you saw it. I agree, the Dolphin is a great plane. It's no more blind in back than the DH2 or FE2, but for some reason those planes are never denigrated in the same fashion as are the Dolphin and DH5. Still, with TrackIR, people are able to look 180 degrees behind them, which would be humanly impossible when strapped in with shoulder harnesses without inertia reels, as with WW1 planes. Unless you are Linda Blair.
  5. I hope someday they either replace or allow us to mod the sound of the Maxims.
  6. Since we're speculating, maybe they're just waiting to video SP until the massive campaign upgrade arrives in December? The one that brings it up to the ROF-style SP career. That's what I'm waiting for.
  7. The DH.5 always gets lambasted for its poor rear vision. The DH.2's was just as awful, but it never gets the same criticism for it. FYI, "Airco" is a post-war label. During the war the company was known as AMC, for Aircraft Manufacturing Company.
  8. Who Is This?

    You guys need to choose harder photos!
  9. Perhaps so! But, you know, to expand upon that a bit, I think the whole "scalding via radiators" thing has been overblown somewhat. All Alb DIIs with an airfoil radiator had them centrally located. As did many DIIIs. And all of the Austrian Albs; I don't think they ever offset them (although I have seen photos of one or two offset). And all the Alb C.IIIs, and C.VIIs, and C.Xs, and C.XIIs, and the Albatros J-types, as well as DFW, Phoenix D.Is, D.IIs, etc. Centrally located rads were quiet common and posed far less danger than gallons of fuel a few feet away with no firewall, or in a tank upon which one sat! I've seen claims that the rads were offset in Albs so that the pilots wouldn't be scalded if the radiator were punctured, but if so, why not move ALL the rads on ALL the models? Were the pilots and observers of Albatros C.XIIs less likely to be scalded by a centrally located radiator than pilots of D.IIIs? And how much scalding would actually occur, anyway? They were wearing uniforms and bundled in heavy flight clothing, gloves, goggles, scarves, and a helmet, with only perhaps part of their faces exposed, surrounded by a 100 mph wind in air often well below zero. In the photo above it's easy to agree that the rads were offset to get rid of the aiming obstructions caused by the radiator plumbing. Two-seaters hadn't the same aiming needs as did single-seaters, so no need to offset them. But this begs the question, why didn't the Austrians offset them? I can't answer that. Here's some interesting information gleaned from Paul Strähle's comments on flying Albatros Ds: "At full-throttle, takeoff power was obtained at 1500 rpm. As the climb to altitude was established, the water for engine cooling heated and expanded, and the excess vented overboard from the radiator that was embedded in the center section of the top wing. This caused vapor to stream overhead and trail behind the airplane until the excess was gone." Based on that recollection, water/steam went over the pilot's head in the slipstream. At least during normal overflow venting, which was probably via the top of the expansion tank. I can't say the same for undesigned venting via bullet holes, though.
  10. I agree that's a big reason, Elephant. All open cockpit airplanes have the cockpit padding, even civilian planes never used in combat.
×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..