Nah asraam yes
Yeah I remember watching that vid, it’s quite nice how he conveyed it through a parabolic graph.
Really goes to show how fine tuned everything is, and that the mechanics, though over simplified, are fairly realistic.
Essentially 30m is meta
Makes it very easy for the average person to visualise it. Good content for sure.
Yeah, though only really possible to stay in on a limited selection of maps. And if you’re multi pathing it should be the last thing in your bag of tricks to survive, typically you’ve either made some mistakes earlier down the line or you’ve lost SA and have been surprised by a new threat.
1 Like
Can it be measured in game using only the default figures in local host? It is repeatable? Then maybe, don’t see any existing reports to date that have tried to correct the normal force coefficient so can’t say for certain.
I see Cn is almost equal to Cl for conditions under buffet however Cl is a bit higher.
Cn is lift coefficient but 90 degrees to the body axis (in simple terms)
I was looking through the old Challenger 2 thread and this caught my eye.
It states that the Chieftain 900 uses the Macaroni GCE 628 gun control / stab system. Ingame the Chieftain 900 has the same gun handling as the Chieftain Mk.5, which is quite bad. According to the stats here, the gun handling should actually be:
Turret traverse: 20.0 deg/s → 36 deg/s
Gun elevation speed: 4 deg/s → 11.25 deg/s
That would be a huge buff for the vehicle if implemented, if anyone has any more info or the full document i’d appeciate you sharing it so I can make a report
19 Likes
Make it so.
1 Like
The issue youll have is thats statistics for a 16 ton turret
iirc chieftain is heavier
My first question would be what’s the weight of the 900’s turret?
1 Like
It’s obvious from the design that this is a janes, and it’s not suitable for a report.
1 Like
900’s turret would probably only br 500kg or so heavier than mk.5s
The whole tank is only 1 ton heavier, and that weight is split between turret and hull
I’ve seen things to suggest it had chobham irl.
I can’t be asked to contact the IWM archives again but they have a full in-depth video about the C900 from 1983.
As of 1982 the Chieftain 900 definitely only had mock Cobham Armour. I guess It might have had real armour added later, but I’ve not personally seen anything to suggest that was the case.
Yes, I’ve only seen bits here and there.
The thing I was talking about is the C900 video that is held by the IWM archives.
That would have a lot of information. If anyone goes and requests it, they would then know for sure.
Same way I got the full instructional video on the Sea Harrier HUD.
Except that took like 7 months.
Apparently the Supermarine Scimitar will finally get period-correct bombs in the next major
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/fteSOmcbaxM0
Hopefully the Hunter and Wyvern get actioned eventually too.
It’s a bit weird seeing so many of the post-Korea, to Aden-era aircraft still carrying WW2 bombs, while most of their predecessor 1st gen jets now have more modern ordnance.
Still hoping for a Red Beard nuke carrier for ground though
8 Likes
Wonder if they will ever fix its rudder
1 Like
Is there any evidence that rudder is actually incorrect?
It was a bad interpretation.
The pilots notes said that the rudder stiffens above X speed gaijin decided to effectively lock the rudder.
The harrier, Hunter, swift, any other plane we made had this same characteristic.
1 Like
The pilot’s notes says:
The rudder feel is moderately light at low speed but becomes progressively heavier as speed increases until the rudder is almost immovable above 520 knots.
Gaijin’s position is that the rudder does become progressively stiffer in game until it is “almost immovable” at about 520 it’s, so it matches the behaviour described in the manual. And TBH it is pretty hard to argue with them based on what the pilot’s notes say.
4 Likes