PDA

View Full Version : P-47 Roll Rate



XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 09:50 PM
Here's my data:

P-47 Roll Rate incorrect.

http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/P-47%20Data.pdf

All done with the 1.1b patch...

Methodology: 2500-3000m, four rolls per speed increment (2L/2R, averaged data, timed with stop watch). Time started from wings level at control input and stopped when wings returned to level (dvided by 360).

Conducted series of rolls @ 250-500m and noticed no real difference as far as roll rates and IAS were concerned.

Data as compared to AHT 30lbs and 50 lbs stick force.

Go ahead and critique it if you would...maybe somebody else has data, and it's possible I am wrong...so have at it.

Data is, of course, from AHT.

<html> <body><p align="center">http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig3.jpg
<font color=red>If.I.could..just.reach.my.utility.belt!</font> </body>
<center><font color=yellow>BlitzPigMachine<font>

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 09:50 PM
Here's my data:

P-47 Roll Rate incorrect.

http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/P-47%20Data.pdf

All done with the 1.1b patch...

Methodology: 2500-3000m, four rolls per speed increment (2L/2R, averaged data, timed with stop watch). Time started from wings level at control input and stopped when wings returned to level (dvided by 360).

Conducted series of rolls @ 250-500m and noticed no real difference as far as roll rates and IAS were concerned.

Data as compared to AHT 30lbs and 50 lbs stick force.

Go ahead and critique it if you would...maybe somebody else has data, and it's possible I am wrong...so have at it.

Data is, of course, from AHT.

<html> <body><p align="center">http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig3.jpg
<font color=red>If.I.could..just.reach.my.utility.belt!</font> </body>
<center><font color=yellow>BlitzPigMachine<font>

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 11:07 PM
Spot on, Machine. After all the evidence submitted, the roll rate is still WRONG.

But I have to admit, it's faster, dives well, you can pull out of a high speed dive easily, and the guns are deadly.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/SkyChimp2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 11:27 PM
Okay, here is another issue.

The altimeter still isn't fixed on the P47. Someone, please, let Oleg know!

With the current altimeter, there is no way of knowing if you're at 3k, 13k, 23k, or 33k. There is not a 10-thousand foot marker of any sort.

Will someone PLEASE get this information to Oleg before the final patch?



--
Surgeon General

Executive Officer 56th Fighter Group
61st Fighter Squadron
Zemke's Wolfpack
CAVE TONITRUM

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 12:17 AM
Thanks SkyChimp...I agree the P-47s energy management is MUCH better.

SG...you should post that in Isegrim's Bug thread too. Good call.



<html> <body><p align="center">http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig3.jpg
<font color=red>If.I.could..just.reach.my.utility.belt!</font> </body>
<center><font color=yellow>BlitzPigMachine<font>

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 12:33 AM
-- With the current altimeter, there is no way of knowing
-- if you're at 3k, 13k, 23k, or 33k.

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

If you see a Pancake way down, you are at 13k

If you are at 23k, you are playing LOMAC.





Message Edited on 08/12/0311:39PM by LEXX_Luthor

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 12:50 AM
I still think the 47 is still too prone to damage...

47|FC
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p47-6.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 01:17 AM
I think they took the roll rate that was supposed to be added to the P-47, and put it on the Fw190. That thing rolls like an Extra 300.

Buzz_25th
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------47|FC=-
<center>
F-15 Eagle
<center>
http://www.af.mil/news/factsheets/pictures/f-15.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 01:36 AM
Fw roll rate is too high. the Dora rolls 360 degrees in 3 seconds at 863 km/h.

3 seconds? Bull$hit.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/SkyChimp2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 02:17 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
- Fw roll rate is too high. the Dora rolls 360
- degrees in 3 seconds at 863 km/h.
-
- 3 seconds? Bull$hit.
-
- Regards,
-
- SkyChimp
-

LOL, as I said I didn't d/l the thing because I waited for comments first and I'm only on a 56k. But I tell you, this thing sounds just like the 08 beta. Even the sound is still bugged. I was laughing my butt of about the 190 in 08. This thing was the only a/c in the game which suffered from no compressibility whatsover (I know it was a great handling a/c at high speeds, and elevator was imho too heavy at high speeds in 1.0, but NO "stiffening" at all?). All other a/c are suffering from some kind of compressibility / stick force.

=38=OIAE

47|FC=-

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 03:18 AM
did they even change the roll rate?? it looks exactly the same to me. i flew the p-47 all day yesterday, and today i fly it and there's absolutely no change in the roll rate.

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 04:03 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
- Fw roll rate is too high. the Dora rolls 360
- degrees in 3 seconds at 863 km/h.
-
- 3 seconds? Bull$hit.
-
- Regards,
-
- SkyChimp
-


Hey SC, I just ran a very informal test, here are my results after 2 tests per plane, 360' roll @ about 10,000 meters



P-47 D-22 at about 500 Kph 10 sec and 9.5 sec

P-47 D-27 " " " " 11 sec and 10.4 sec


FW190 F-8 " " " " 3.1 sec and 2.8 sec

FW190 D-9 " " " " 3.1 sec and 2.7 sec


That seems a more than "A little off" that's gotta be completely off, and while my test was by no means scientific, anybody can try it, and I dare anybody to say it's correct.




<center>http://www.goobage.com/pics/D_Rat.gif </center>
<center><font><font size=1 ><font color=000000>Visit RatFinks Screaming Pile of Sin and Confusion</font></font size> (http://www.goobage.com/forum.php)</center>

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 06:06 PM
If I had to choose one fix for the P-47 it would be the roll rate without question. But I dont think it will ever be fixed kinda like the 190 cockpit deal. Even know many have posted real world data that shows the P-47s roll rate to be way off.


The damage model is just plain rediculous for the Jug. 1 mg round can take out the engine or a control or cause a fuel leak. This happens on just about every flight. And once again there has been factual information to support that the jug could sustain massive damage, and it still remains unchanged. The 190 is still a flying tank sustaining rediculous amounts of damage. I suppose some of us will just have to learn to face that American planes will never be treated fairly.


What will happen to the P-51? With all the data for the the stang available and all the ones that still fly today how it can even come close to being undermodeled is unexcusable.
-----------------------------------------------------------P47|FC=-

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 06:15 PM
MachineII wrote:
-
- Data as compared to AHT 30lbs and 50 lbs stick
- force.
-
- Go ahead and critique it if you would...maybe
- somebody else has data, and it's possible I am
- wrong...so have at it.
-
- Data is, of course, from AHT.
-

Of course, this gets gradually somewhat tiresome. There is no 50 lb aileron force. Even 30 lb with _both_ hands starts being over the limits. In the case of a long stick, it is even not the best possible position for effective high aileron input force.

here is a chart of maximum exertable force in pounds by the 5 percentile man, from Bernard Etkin's:"Dynamics of Flight" - with other words it's just fine as it is.

http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/Hpim0224.jpg


Maybe luftwhiners should start 100 lb 109 elevator campaign.../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

-------------------------------------
In these locked and shackled neighbourhoods, bridge and tunnel diplomats.
See the golden ghetto's creeper.
Crazy flags from history, songs for the White House gangsters, guns for hellgate railway sleepers.
But there's a man who makes no enemies, a body never breathless, no ambition ever hopeless.
So how stands the city on this winter's night?
The city on the hill or so they said.
The snow is falling down around the armoury.
The city's closing in around my head.

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 06:21 PM
Machine,SkyChimp,et al....

You know I agree with you, but, you have to post this data to the link in the game read me. Please do this.

And, we must keep the pressure up here.

Perhaps we need to have an online test server at some point. Where we can all come to sort this mess out.

<center><FONT color="red">[b]BlitzPig_EL</FONT>[B]<CENTER> http://old.jccc.net/~droberts/p40/images/p40home.gif
</img>.
"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds, wake in the day that it was vanity:
but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act on their dreams with open eyes, to make them possible. "
--T.E. Lawrence

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 06:53 PM
Gents,

In N.A.C.A. confidential bulletin DSAI 23/12117
Comparison of Aileron Control Characteristics of P-36, P-40, Spitfire and Hurricane author wrote:

".The aileron effectiveness of the various airplanes is compared in the following table on the basis of response obtained with the stick force of 30 and 5 pounds. A force of 30 pounds is somewhat less then the greatest stick force exerted by pilot. <u>Repeated flight measurements have shown, however, that this force is reasonably upper limit for maneuvering at high speeds.</u>"





AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

---------------
Ilsa: "That was the day the Germans marched into Paris."
Rick: "Not an easy day to forget. The Germans wore grey, you wore blue."
Ilsa: "Yes. I have put that dress away. When the Germans march out, I'll wear that dress again."

- Casablanca, 1942

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 07:18 PM
well, if i well understand, NACA documents show that FB P47 have a roll rate that isn't very far from real one at 30 pound stick force...

These same documents say that this 30 pound stick force is reasonably the maximum that can be obtained at high speed...

Where's the problem?

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 07:42 PM
Salute

More disinformation from the Luftwhiners.

All the Luftwhiners scream about the D30 test, and point to 30 lbs stick force as the maximum. Of course they don't read the entire report. If they did they would see the following:

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1952/naca-tn-2675/0053.gif


http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1952/naca-tn-2675/0054.gif


What do these charts, in particular the second one show?

Clearly, that the aircraft was tested up to a stick force of 50 lbs for the purpose of determining:

"Variations in in Helix Angle pb/2V and change in aileron stick force with change in total aileron angle."

The claim a P-47 pilot could not apply 50 lbs force is complete nonsense and based on nothing but ill informed speculation.

Actually in regards to the 109, the fact is, that IT is the aircraft where a pilot could not generate lateral stick force, as a British AFDU report on the 109E clearly states:

>>>>>>>>

Ailerons

At low speeds the aileron control is very good, there being a definete resistance to stick movement, while response is brisk. As speed is increased, the ailerons bevome heavier, but response remains excellent. They are at their best between 150 mph and 200 mph, one pilot describing them as an 'ideal control' over this range. Above 200 mph they start becoming unpleasantly heavy, and between 300 mph and 400 mph are termed 'solid' by the test pilots. A pilot exerting all his strength cannot apply more than one-fifth aileron at 400 mph. Measurements of stick-top force when the pilot applied about one-fifth aileron in half a second and then held the ailerons steady, together with the corresponding time to 45 degrees banbk, were made at various speeds. The results at 400 mph are given below:

Max sideways force a pilot can apply conveniently to the Bf.109 stick 40 lbs.

Corresponding stick displacement 1/5th.

Time to 45-degree bank 4 seconds.

Deduced balance factyor Kb2 - 0.145

<<<<<<<<<

And please don't tell me the 109E was different from later models it cockpit layout. It wasn't. The cockpit and stick throw were exactly the same.

As usual Ugly Kid and the other Luftwhiners are wrong. This is the correct chart for P-47 rollrate and these values should be used:

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-report-868/42.gif


It should also be used for the 190, which rolls FAR too well at high speeds, when the actual aircraft was falling off quickly in effectiveness.



RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 07:46 PM
yes where is the problem.

and let the 190 out of this talk here. this have nothing to do with the FW190 here.

The 190, if u would fly it, then you would know that its nearly imposibble to fly it after a bit of hit, even if it looks it take much damage it is nearly not able to hold under controll after a bit of hit.

you should more complain about the La this baby can take hits like nothing and even have no controll problems until they lost a wing.

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 07:52 PM
BuzzU wrote:
- I think they took the roll rate that was supposed to
- be added to the P-47, and put it on the Fw190. That
- thing rolls like an Extra 300.
-
- Buzz_25th
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------47|FC=-
- <center>
- F-15 Eagle
- <center>
<img
- src="http://www.af.mil/news/factsheets/pictures/f-
- 15.jpg">
-

Jeez!
Ar u trying to say that the P-47 rolled faster than the FW 190??????
Get real boy!!

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 07:52 PM
Ugly Kid,

Thanks for the data. And that's a neat chart.

BUT it's not all that accurate when it comes to forces being exerted on the control column. It shows ARM strength being exerted. It does not show COMBINED arm strength, which is not always the combine sum of its components. And more importantly id DOES NOT reflect upper body strenght and/or abdominal strength which would be exerted on the control in conjunction with arm strength.

The report also doesn't seem to incorporate the effects of a pilot juiced up on adrenaline...I know, it's a cheap shot, but it's still something to consider.

The above forces are important and ALSO involve the size and dimensions of the cockpit involved. A P-47 has a huge pit where the pilot can really wrestle the stick, a Bf109 has a tiny pit where the pilot would be more limited in the forces he could apply to a stick...and I would argue that the report might be more accurate in planes that limit the application of upper body strenght...

Also, depending on different control construction, different forces may lead to different results depending on the make and model of aircraft. It may be fully possible to exert 50lbs of force on a P-47 control column and not possible to do so in a P-51 but get similar results based simply on control construction, cable lays, etc.

Honestly, the 50lb and 30lb forces aren't easy to argue about due to the variables. I merely use them because it's the baseline AHT uses and also appears to be the performance one could expect from the aircraft.

And, regardless of these forces, the curves should at least match, even if FB did use lesser stick forces. In fact, the 150mph FB roll rate data uses stick forces higher than either 50 or 30 lb's of stick force. Put another way, I would be happy if the curves matched, even if the performance was off.

Thanks for the chart though.



<html> <body><p align="center">http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig3.jpg
<font color=red>If.I.could..just.reach.my.utility.belt!</font> </body>
<center><font color=yellow>BlitzPigMachine<font>

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 07:58 PM
Also,

I just want to pre-empt any flame wars...I just want to keep this thread focused on the P-47 roll rate v. reality. NOT vs. the 109, 190, etc. They're all great planes and whether they are close to reality or not in FB is not the point of this thread.

Lets just look at the P-47 roll rate in FB. Determine that it is pooched and formulate what it SHOULD be.

The "luftwhiners" are indeed helpful...there's lots of data out there and they have some, USAAFwhiners have others, etc.

If this becomes a flame war, it will instantly become a discredited thread and the P-47 will NEVER get fixed because nobody is going to pay attention to a thread where everyone is flaming everyone else.

A civil thread with lots of data is the ONLY way to fix this.

Now, I am gonna go bump the P-47M thread...if I can find it.

<html> <body><p align="center">http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig3.jpg
<font color=red>If.I.could..just.reach.my.utility.belt!</font> </body>
<center><font color=yellow>BlitzPigMachine<font>

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 08:01 PM
F19_HyperX wrote:
-
- BuzzU wrote:
-- I think they took the roll rate that was supposed to
-- be added to the P-47, and put it on the Fw190. That
-- thing rolls like an Extra 300.
--
-- Buzz_25th

---------------------------------------------------------
-
- Jeez!
- Ar u trying to say that the P-47 rolled faster than
- the FW 190??????
- Get real boy!!
-
-


No, that's not what he was saying. Calm down.


=38=OIAE

47|FC=-

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 08:33 PM
Salute

Further to the D30 report, let's be clear what that report was examining. Here is the Front Page:

<A HREF=http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1952/naca-tn-2675/</A>0001.gif">


Do I need to repeat that?

"Measurements of flying qualities of an F-47D-30 airplane to determine lateral and directional stability and control characteristics"

It's a report on the stability of the aircraft and was commissioned to examine the effectiveness of the dorsal fin added behind the cockpit of the Bubble top P-47's, after the initial P-47D25 and D26 exhibited instability during maneuvering especially when a lot of rudder was applied.

So most of the tests in the report relate to application of rudder.

The use of ailerons is in conjunction with that of the rudder and elevator. Benchmarks for aileron force are set at 30 lbs stickforce in most tests. Not because that was the maximum, but because it was convenient. When more stick force was required, as shown in the two test pages I posted further up the thread, they used more stick force, in fact up to 55 lbs.

The page which shows rollrate at 30 lbs is not a test of maximum rollrate. It is a test of rollrate at 30 lbs, and in fact is entirely incidental to the actual purpose of the test.

For those who actually want to read the entire report, here it is:

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1952/naca-tn-2675/

RAF74 Buzzsaw



Message Edited on 08/13/0307:38PM by RAF74BuzzsawXO

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 08:42 PM
Salute


And for those who actually want to look at a very detailed look by NASA/NACA on what makes a aircraft roll well, a report which includes data from many tests and many aircraft, see this one:

<A HREF=http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-report-868/</A>01.gif">


http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-report-868/


RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 08:55 PM
MachineII wrote:
- Ugly Kid,
-
- Thanks for the data. And that's a neat chart.
-
- BUT it's not all that accurate when it comes to
- forces being exerted on the control column. It
- shows ARM strength being exerted. It does not show
- COMBINED arm strength, which is not always the
- combine sum of its components. And more importantly
- id DOES NOT reflect upper body strenght and/or
- abdominal strength which would be exerted on the
- control in conjunction with arm strength.
-
- The report also doesn't seem to incorporate the
- effects of a pilot juiced up on adrenaline...I know,
- it's a cheap shot, but it's still something to
- consider.
-

Well tell you what that is quite applicable it's not my chart it is from quite a serious source. Etkin is the bible in stability and control but then what the heck, you guys absolutely know it better.

Calculate 1+2 (left and right on the same column) and you can barely manage 30 lb. Nobody is interested actually what Arnold could manage those are quite applicable design criterions for an aircraft and for 5 percentile airman. O.K take another hand then the there should be a script disabling throttle while rolling...

50 lb is used in connection with elevator authority not for ailerons as you can see sideways it is much smaller. If you start insisting on 50 lb on ailerons then it's just as justified to have 100 lb on elevator, hey Bf elevator is undermodeled any adneraline pumped pilot can manage 100 lb.

Face it P-47 roll performance did not meet the army requirements.

Buzzsaw nobody is interested what you can manage with 50 lb it's not practical nor applicable, how many times can you pump 50 lb sideways? Yeah right give it two shakes and then halve the power from _all_ controls. Just read what Bogun wrote.

-------------------------------------
In these locked and shackled neighbourhoods, bridge and tunnel diplomats.
See the golden ghetto's creeper.
Crazy flags from history, songs for the White House gangsters, guns for hellgate railway sleepers.
But there's a man who makes no enemies, a body never breathless, no ambition ever hopeless.
So how stands the city on this winter's night?
The city on the hill or so they said.
The snow is falling down around the armoury.
The city's closing in around my head.

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 09:27 PM
From that naca report:
"The general characteristics of the aileron control were good but the effectiviness of ailerons was below the Air Force requirements"

50 lb that's about 22 kg. How long can you hold that with extended hand resting on your side for example. How many times can you push it up and down? 10 times? O.K how many series?

Your case is based on absolutely nothing, yes it would roll better if you could apply more force, then so what it would roll better with boosted ailerons as well. But it does not because 50 lb is not practicable. Well if aunt had balls she'd be uncle...

http://show.supereva.it/celebritiespictures/lundgren/007.jpg

Start up my Jug, I've warmed up my biceps for some Jugrolls

-------------------------------------
In these locked and shackled neighbourhoods, bridge and tunnel diplomats.
See the golden ghetto's creeper.
Crazy flags from history, songs for the White House gangsters, guns for hellgate railway sleepers.
But there's a man who makes no enemies, a body never breathless, no ambition ever hopeless.
So how stands the city on this winter's night?
The city on the hill or so they said.
The snow is falling down around the armoury.
The city's closing in around my head.

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 09:51 PM
Salute Ugly Kid

I'd believe an NACA/NASA report more than I believe your uninformed speculation.

And I think most people would to.

I have posted the charts from actual tests of the combat aircraft.

You have posted something from a book which uses tests from.....

Nothing.

Go back to flying your 190, and stop trying to sabotage USAAF planes.


RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 09:57 PM
Ugly Kid,

What exactly is it you have to add?

You've merely reiterated your previous argument without adding anything. You have NOT disputed anything posted above, you're just repeating yourself. There's nothing to be gained.

If you don't have any more info, let it go. It's been proven in real life that 30 and 50lbs was attainable...you yourself stated it was a tired argument. Drop it then.

The way you're using that study is ALL WRONG. The data is right, but it only represents ARM strength. Not upperbody strength. Instead of just reiterating your arguments, respond to the critiques.

Instead of insisting that NACA studies and real life are wrong, I'd try to figure out where the misconception is prior to us getting in the same sort of flame fest that always happens.

Up to this point I've given you the benefit of the doubt Ugly Kid, but you've ignored EVERY other view point here. That's not cool at all.


<html> <body><p align="center">http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig3.jpg
<font color=red>If.I.could..just.reach.my.utility.belt!</font> </body>
<center><font color=yellow>BlitzPigMachine<font>


Message Edited on 08/13/0305:00PM by MachineII

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 10:13 PM
MachineII - you are missing the point.
Kid is right - his force chart is correct.
30 pounds represent "reasonable limit" of the stick force, even if higher stick force was "attainable".

Now The Point - even with 30 pounds stick force P-47 roll rate is higher then it is in FB now.


AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

---------------
Ilsa: "That was the day the Germans marched into Paris."
Rick: "Not an easy day to forget. The Germans wore grey, you wore blue."
Ilsa: "Yes. I have put that dress away. When the Germans march out, I'll wear that dress again."

- Casablanca, 1942

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 10:51 PM
No Text

Message Edited on 08/13/0305:54PM by MachineII

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 11:00 PM
Bogun wrote:
- MachineII - you are missing the point.
- Kid is right - his force chart is correct.
- 30 pounds represent "reasonable limit" of the stick
- force, even if higher stick force was "attainable".
-
- Now The Point - even with 30 pounds stick force P-47
- roll rate is higher then it is in FB now.

Bogun,

The POINT is that the chart is correct, but it's being used wrong. Why do I get the feeling you never read the rest of the thread? If you had, you'd realize I am not arguing against Kid's chart, just how it's applied. The chart does NOT include measures beyond arm strength. I would be thrilled if there was more data on that, but the chart posted is hardly an all inclusive measure of stick force.

<html> <body><p align="center">http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig3.jpg
<font color=red>If.I.could..just.reach.my.utility.belt!</font> </body>
<center><font color=yellow>BlitzPigMachine<font>



Message Edited on 08/13/0310:46PM by MachineII

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 11:26 PM
Ugly_Kid wrote:

- Well tell you what that is quite applicable it's not
- my chart it is from quite a serious source. Etkin is
- the bible in stability and control but then what the
- heck, you guys absolutely know it better.


But you are perfectly content with the fact that every other plane in this game is modelled at 50 lbs, or in the case of the Fw-190, significantly more?



- Calculate 1+2 (left and right on the same column)
- and you can barely manage 30 lb. Nobody is
- interested actually what Arnold could manage those
- are quite applicable design criterions for an
- aircraft and for 5 percentile airman. O.K take
- another hand then the there should be a script
- disabling throttle while rolling...

5th percentile man. Again, impressive. Anything person lower than that is a cripple.

Also, your excerpt does not say that the forces were MAXIMUM forces that the test subject could apply. What was the test aircraft, and the speed at which the test was conducted? At 100 mph, a lateral force of 10 lbs may be entirely sufficient to fully deflect a Cessna's ailerons.

In short, you excerpt adds little to the discussion. Without details of the test, it really means nothing.



- 50 lb is used in connection with elevator authority
- not for ailerons as you can see sideways it is much
- smaller.

Tell that to the USAAF, NACA and RAF. 50lbs was the standard test force.



- If you start insisting on 50 lb on ailerons
- then it's just as justified to have 100 lb on
- elevator, hey Bf elevator is undermodeled any
- adneraline pumped pilot can manage 100 lb.

Again, Huck. Why are you perfectly content to have 50 lb ailerons on EVERY other plane, EXCEPT the P-47. Your crusade ought to be to tone down the German fighters a bit. But that will never happen, will it?





- Face it P-47 roll performance did not meet the army
- requirements.

So what. This is a used-car saleman argument. You cloud the issue with an irrelevant point. The point is regardless of the army standard, the FB P-47 is not even modelled to the performance it could achieve.



- Buzzsaw nobody is interested what you can manage
- with 50 lb it's not practical nor applicable, how
- many times can you pump 50 lb sideways? Yeah right
- give it two shakes and then halve the power from
- _all_ controls. Just read what Bogun wrote.

Nobody is claiming that 50 lbs is a sustainable force. Most people can't hold their arm outstretched for 30 minutes, even with nothing in their hand. But a short application of 50 lbs is absolutely achievable. And that's all that's necessary.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/SkyChimp2.jpg



Message Edited on 08/14/0302:35AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 11:29 PM
Ugly_Kid wrote:

- From that naca report:
- "The general characteristics of the aileron control
- were good but the effectiviness of ailerons was
- below the Air Force requirements"

More irrelevance.



- 50 lb that's about 22 kg. How long can you hold that
- with extended hand resting on your side for example.
- How many times can you push it up and down? 10
- times? O.K how many series?

How many times do you need to in air combat? You front the moronic argument that the pilot needs to apply and maintain 50 lbs of force. Not so.



- Your case is based on absolutely nothing,

Sure, huck, sure.



- yes it
- would roll better if you could apply more force,
- then so what it would roll better with boosted
- ailerons as well. But it does not because 50 lb is
- not practicable. Well if aunt had balls she'd be
- uncle...

Then you are advocating the castration of German planes in this regard? You are a paragon of fairness, Ugly, er Huck, er Ugly. I know you agree, then.


Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/SkyChimp2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 11:34 PM
Bogun wrote:
- MachineII - you are missing the point.
- Kid is right - his force chart is correct.
- 30 pounds represent "reasonable limit" of the stick
- force, even if higher stick force was "attainable".
-
- Now The Point - even with 30 pounds stick force P-47
- roll rate is higher then it is in FB now.


Bogun, YOU miss the point. That test is a LOW speed, read again, LOWWWWWW speed test. 30 lbs of force was all more than enough to achieve the aileron deflections desired. In some case, much less than that was needed. If 30lbs of force fully deflected the ailerons, then 50lbs of force would have been a wasted effort. This was not a roll test, those results are INCIDENTAL to the purpose of the report. Had this been a roll rate test, then the standard 50lbs of force applied throughout the speed range would have been applied.

You need to keep the purpose of the test in perspective. Ugly has completely lost sight of that fact.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/SkyChimp2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 01:06 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
- Bogun, YOU miss the point. That test is a LOW
- speed, read again, LOWWWWWW speed test. 30 lbs of
- force was all more than enough to achieve the
- aileron deflections desired.

Sorry SkyChimp, not the NACA test I quoted for "reasonable stick force for maneuvering at high speed" being 30 pounds. That test was about "Comparison of Aileron Control Characteristics" "throughout the speed range" not just at low speed.
More then that - NACA testers concluded:
"The aileron system of Spitfire and the Hurricane were less effective then the ailerons of the P-40 airplane at high speed because the <u>large control force limited the obtainable aileron deflection</u>".
I read it as - no full deflection with 30 pounds and testers did not try to consider higher stick force for this test.

MachineII, I am trying to follow the thread, don't get angry. My advise - do not try to argue with the Kid - he is in the industry, he knows how to apply or interpret data. I would advise you to listen to him.

Anyway, all specific to P-47 data mentioned is either for unnamed or different version of P-47 from what we have in the game. This alone undermines some of our arguments.
I am sure it is close to -10, -22 or -27, but not having exact data would disqualify some of the conclusions.

What I want from P-47 in the game - to be able to repeat the textbook example of what P-47 was capable of, like Johnny Johnson's mock dogfight vs. Spitfire. I know that one of great assets of P-47 was good roll rate and I am also looking forward to seeing it in the game. Cool down a little please.


AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

---------------
Ilsa: "That was the day the Germans marched into Paris."
Rick: "Not an easy day to forget. The Germans wore grey, you wore blue."
Ilsa: "Yes. I have put that dress away. When the Germans march out, I'll wear that dress again."

- Casablanca, 1942

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 01:19 AM
i repeat here the post i dropped in the GD

-------------------------------------------

you should indicate this as a reference, rather than that 1952 study

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-report-868/


this report is much more precise, and definitely on topic...


well, when i have a look at this document, i find that my razorback should have a roll rate of about 80?/second at a speed of 220 mph at 3000m altitude...

when i check in game, with a P-47-D-10, i find myself closer to 90?/second, somewhat better than chart, but it seem still rather correct (i think the difference have more chances of coming from my measure than from real game data)...

so, what's the problem? isn't the ability to roll 360? in four seconds enough?

(by the way, the other infos i found about the jug roll rate give a lesser value for the D series with bubble canopy, something to do with an heavier wing, it seem to induce a 10% drop in roll rate)

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 01:45 AM
Uhoh, careful, providing a manual refference or technical data to Oleg can get you screamed at by the little whining defenders of Socialism.

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 03:56 AM
Bogun,

I'm not angry, but Kid's study continues to be incorrect. Certainly being in the "industry" gets nobody a pass here, especially when reasonable objections go unanswered and unchallenged. Besides, unlesse that "industry" was history I find its relevence remote. And I have yet to see information from him that would make me feel as though he had a credible argument. I am sure that Kid can speak for himself. I would welcome that information...I just haven't seen it.

REGARDLESS, the fact that the P-47 roll rate is dificient in FB remains unchallenged...we're too busy nitpicking inconsequntial data about control column forces that have already been proven historically via NACA and the RAF. I find it hard to argue with that data.

Eh...I knew that illogical argument style sounded familiar...I gave Ugly the benefit of the doubt...but now that I know it's Huck...pfft...typical circular half-arsed logic. /ignore

Just couldn't help yourself when you saw this thread, eh?


<html> <body><p align="center">http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig3.jpg
<font color=red>If.I.could..just.reach.my.utility.belt!</font> </body>
<center><font color=yellow>BlitzPigMachine<font>



Message Edited on 08/14/0311:57AM by MachineII

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 06:20 AM
MachineII wrote:
- Eh...I knew that illogical argument style sounded
- familiar...I gave Ugly the benefit of the
- doubt...but now that I know it's
- Huck...pfft...typical circular half-arsed logic.
-
You do. Gee, you guys crack me up. What's next, I am Cowboy. You might notice that I've produced some postings before in order to be Huck's second alias he'd really have to be terribly productive and busy with this forum. Salutes to Huck.

Etkin took his chart from the flight safety foundation human engineering bulleting 56-5H. 5 percentile is admittedly too low for a military pilot but then on the other hand you might want to search for the same chart for 50 percentile and show that indeed 50 lb is applicable for one hand both inward and outward /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

You missed also the sentence that it is applicable to unrestricted movement, once you're buckled up it isn't unrestricted anymore.

Chimp, you claim 30 lb and 50 lb were standards now proove that. The _30 lb_ was mentioned in that NACA report as an air force requirement, a requirement that P-47 did not fullfil.

How often do you need stick movements? Quite often, particularly in the combat. Note also that it isn't just the force to deflect the controls it is also the force to keep them deflected. Already waving 30 lb around continuously would be pushing the envelope in quite a short time. You can try this on your very local gym. Post the tracks...

Listen, you should really take up your beef directly with Oleg directly via e-mail. You will find his direct e-mail address from this forum. Then you will get an answer and you can post his answer on this forum. I am pretty much sure that he does not read this forum if not at all then not at least tiresome repeated whines. FW cockpit has pretty much taken care of his endurance. Otherwise you will propably get no answer and have to continue this for awhile.

Another thing is that if some other planes are terribly ueber then they should be toned down not vice versa. Otherwise they would have to match all the flight models to perform relatively to FB 1.0 Hurricane.

Anyway happy weekend I'm out of here.

-------------------------------------
In these locked and shackled neighbourhoods, bridge and tunnel diplomats.
See the golden ghetto's creeper.
Crazy flags from history, songs for the White House gangsters, guns for hellgate railway sleepers.
But there's a man who makes no enemies, a body never breathless, no ambition ever hopeless.
So how stands the city on this winter's night?
The city on the hill or so they said.
The snow is falling down around the armoury.
The city's closing in around my head.

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 06:28 AM
Thanks to Buzzsaw's excellent NACA roll-rate chart, I decided to do some testing of my own, flying as many planes as I could, at the altitude of 10,000 feet, and converting kilometers/hour into miles/hour when necessary.

My results:

P-39N-1: At 300 mph, a little faster than the P-39C on the chart. Of course, it's a later model so it probably does roll better.

P-47D-10: My GOD. This plane is seriously porked as currently modeled in-game. At 300 mph, it rolls at a horrendous rate of about 32 degrees per second, compared with roughly 82 degrees per second for the P-47C-1 on the chart. This is a pretty big discrepancy.

P-40E: This plane is likewise porked. At 270 mph, it rolls at about 40 degrees per second, compared with 95 degrees per second for the P-40F on the chart. I sure hope the F model didn't roll THAT much better than the E...

Fw 190A-4: For as extreme as the roll rate of the patched Fw is, it's pretty much right on. At 280 mph, it does nearly exactly 143 degrees per second- right on the mark.

The verdict, loud and clear:

Not only the P-47, but the P-40's roll rates are severely crippled. Fixing them should be among the top priorities of the Alpha version of patch 1.1.

***************************************

"Oh no, the V-1 Doodlebug is heading for our bunghole!" ---David

"...I possess the wings of faith. Though heavy on my shoulder (no measurement can prove their weight), still a burden are they not to me. I am the challenger of gravity." ---Emperor

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 06:36 AM
Follow-up:

Fw-190A-4: At a speed of 390 mph, it rolls at almost the exact same speed as it would at 280 (143 degrees per second), whereas it should be more like 77 degrees per second.

***************************************

"Oh no, the V-1 Doodlebug is heading for our bunghole!" ---David

"...I possess the wings of faith. Though heavy on my shoulder (no measurement can prove their weight), still a burden are they not to me. I am the challenger of gravity." ---Emperor

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 07:10 AM
Ugly_Kid wrote:

-
-
- Listen, you should really take up your beef directly
- with Oleg directly via e-mail. You will find his
- direct e-mail address from this forum. Then you will
- get an answer and you can post his answer on this
- forum. I am pretty much sure that he does not read
- this forum if not at all then not at least tiresome
- repeated whines. FW cockpit has pretty much taken
- care of his endurance. Otherwise you will propably
- get no answer and have to continue this for awhile.
-
-

To bad Oleg does not have the cajones to admit that his so called proof was no proof at all and there is a mistake in the graphics in the Fw's forward view that restricts the pilot's vertical view by 60mm.

To bad he can't find someone that can do English-Russian translations. He does not have a clue what people are trying to tell him what is wrong, as can be seen in the transcript of one of his interviews.


OK, back on topic now.

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-stormclouds2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 07:25 AM
MiloMorai wrote:
- To bad he can't find someone that can do
- English-Russian translations. He does not have a
- clue what people are trying to tell him what is
- wrong, as can be seen in the transcript of one of
- his interviews.
-
I suppose translation help should be no problem with these resourcefull chaps. Try Luthier...I wonder whether the delayed appearing of P-51 is in anyway connected to the highly positive welcome of the previous US fighters. I would be really keen to throw that into my game and give it to wolves /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


-------------------------------------
In these locked and shackled neighbourhoods, bridge and tunnel diplomats.
See the golden ghetto's creeper.
Crazy flags from history, songs for the White House gangsters, guns for hellgate railway sleepers.
But there's a man who makes no enemies, a body never breathless, no ambition ever hopeless.
So how stands the city on this winter's night?
The city on the hill or so they said.
The snow is falling down around the armoury.
The city's closing in around my head.

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 03:16 PM
Not that I'm especially angry or bitter about the roll rate of these two machines...it's just a pretty large discrepancy that a game in the league of FB should hopefully avoid. Remember the "b" in "version 1.1b" stands for "beta".

***************************************

"Oh no, the V-1 Doodlebug is heading for our bunghole!" ---David

"...I possess the wings of faith. Though heavy on my shoulder (no measurement can prove their weight), still a burden are they not to me. I am the challenger of gravity." ---Emperor

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 03:18 PM
Snootles has some good numbers there.

need more test like this

S!
609IAP_Recon

Forgotten Wars Virtual War
Forum: http://fogwar.luftwaffe.net/forums/index.php
Website: http://forgottenwars.dyndns.org
Visit 609IAP at http://takeoff.to/609IAP

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg

Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 03:42 PM
Snootles wrote:
- Follow-up:
-
- Fw-190A-4: At a speed of 390 mph, it rolls at
- almost the exact same speed as it would at 280 (143
- degrees per second), whereas it should be more like
- 77 degrees per second.


Yes, this is pretty much what I have found as well.

Above 350mph there is no corresponding decrease in rate of roll for the FW190 series as the speed increases.

However, this does not appear to be limited the FW190 series. Aircraft with high roll-rates such as the B-239 Brewster and the Mig-3 seem to do this as well, though I haven't had time to fully test them.


My tests using a stopwatch and the roll + slip indicator of the FW showed a linear 120 deg/sec above ~350mph with no drop-off as speed increases. It just stays the same.

Hopefully this can be adjusted as the roll-rate in the original FB was very accurate.


<center><img src= "http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-A0-52.jpg" height=215 width=365>

<center>"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 05:53 PM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
-
- Actually in regards to the 109, the fact is, that IT
- is the aircraft where a pilot could not generate
- lateral stick force, as a British AFDU report on the
- 109E clearly states:
-
- >>>>>>>>
-
- Ailerons
-
- Max sideways force a pilot can apply conveniently to
- the Bf.109 stick 40 lbs.
-
- Corresponding stick displacement 1/5th.
-
- Time to 45-degree bank 4 seconds.
-
-
- And please don't tell me the 109E was different from
- later models it cockpit layout. It wasn't. The
- cockpit and stick throw were exactly the same.
-

It seems 109 roll rate still itches you. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Yeah true that the sideways limits was about 40lbs because of the narrow cocpit, exactly like in the Spitfire. And the 109E roll very badly at high speeds, both in real life and the game - again like the Spitfire I it was tested with, which needed 4.5 seconds to cunduct a 45 degree bank. In Il-2 109E rolls very slow at high speeds as well.

But, thankfully, ailerons on the 109F/G/K were much improved, and required much less force. Tested by pilots, 20 pounds were required to make 80-90 degree roll at 300mph/450kph for the 109G-2 "Black 6". This is the exact same value as given in Messerscmitt`s own documents, ie. 4.5sec for a 360 degree roll at 450 kph.

BTW, tested the P-47`s roll, and it still seems to be off.


http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 07:37 PM
additionally, the p40 roll rate is off as well.

S!
609IAP_Recon

Forgotten Wars Virtual War
Forum: http://fogwar.luftwaffe.net/forums/index.php
Website: http://forgottenwars.dyndns.org
Visit 609IAP at http://takeoff.to/609IAP

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg

Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 07:38 PM
Yes, quite off: 40 deg/sec as opposed to the actual 95 deg/sec. Roughly, that is.

***************************************

"Oh no, the V-1 Doodlebug is heading for our bunghole!" ---David

"...I possess the wings of faith. Though heavy on my shoulder (no measurement can prove their weight), still a burden are they not to me. I am the challenger of gravity." ---Emperor

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 08:06 PM
The P-47's.

There are only three things that bother me about this ac. The roll rate on all three versions, the tough to see tracers (present on many of the .50 cal or small caliber weapons in FB, especially when compared to the Bright green and large tracers of the Russian guns.) and the over done tinting of the gun sight on the P-47 D-22. (Of the three versions, it's seems to have it the worst and at times makes it difficult to see the target your after. The tracer situation doesn't help.) Compare it's view against any other, and you'll see what I mean.

As for the roll rate, admittedly I'm not a flight engineer, but I do have a stop watch and I can pretty much tell when some things right or wrong. The following are the figures I recorded and are approximate.

1.1b, with no rudder assist:

FB P-47D-10 @ 350kph.
5,000m: 8 sec to complete a roll.
1,000m = 5 sec to complete a roll.

FB P-47D-22 @ 350kph.
5,000m: 9 sec to complete a roll.
1,000m = 6 sec to complete a roll.

FB P-47D-27 @ 350kph.
5,000m: 10 sec to complete a roll.
1,000m = 6 sec to complete a roll.

8 to 10 second roll rates seem kinda slow to me. What's the real figure supposed to be?


Leutnant Jaeger, Jagdgeschwader 3 "Udet" I/Gruppe

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 08:32 PM
von...check my first post.

<html> <body><p align="center">http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig3.jpg
<font color=red>If.I.could..just.reach.my.utility.belt!</font> </body>
<center><font color=yellow>BlitzPigMachine<font>

dux-1
08-14-2003, 09:44 PM
yahnnnn........

Nothing better to think in your life ? It's only a game...
I'll bet you spend very little of your time PLAYING this game..

S!

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 11:10 PM
Oh, I spend a lot of time enjoying this game. I just think it's an important issue to bring up and address.

***************************************

"Oh no, the V-1 Doodlebug is heading for our bunghole!" ---David

"...I possess the wings of faith. Though heavy on my shoulder (no measurement can prove their weight), still a burden are they not to me. I am the challenger of gravity." ---Emperor

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 11:51 PM
Snootles wrote:

- P-47D-10: My GOD. This plane is seriously porked
- as currently modeled in-game. At 300 mph, it rolls
- at a horrendous rate of about 32 degrees per second,
- compared with roughly 82 degrees per second for the
- P-47C-1 on the chart. This is a pretty big
- discrepancy.

And a discrepancy that big should do away with any silly notion that the wing pylons have anything to do with it.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/SkyChimp2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 03:09 AM
Chimpy & crew, you guys should all quit whinning now about the P-47 roll rate. It has been brought up countless times in countless threads. Get a life. We got the same deal so far with the forward view of the Focke-Wulf 190 cockpit, so we are even thank you.

Do217P

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 03:41 AM
do217s wrote:
- Chimpy & crew, you guys should all quit whinning now
- about the P-47 roll rate. It has been brought up
- countless times in countless threads. Get a life. We
- got the same deal so far with the forward view of
- the Focke-Wulf 190 cockpit, so we are even thank
- you.
-
- Do217P
-
-

BS, you can go to wonderwoman view. What can we do?

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/SkyChimp2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 04:24 AM
Who gives a soaring rodent's dierriere how much hummin' stick force has to be applied to achieve what effect? If the 109 and yak meet their envelope with 5 lbs of stick force then the jug should too.
The fact is in test after test the roll rates of certain aircraft have been established.

Oleg isn't going to listen to anybody with a different opinion, I don't know why I even bother to read these boards anymore. I find myself playing the game less and less for many reasons and the failure to address the jug roll rate being one. There has been a lot of improvement in the jug and I am thankful for it, but to not even touch the most glaring abberation from the correct flight envelope goes past incompetency and smells of deliberateness. Especially since according to those with them, some of the leaked betas had the roll rate corrected.

I may fly FB occasionally still and I may check out the next patch, but you can bet your daughter's virginity that I will NOT purchase another Maddox product. I don't even bother to read of lOMAC or the others because FB has taught me what they will be like. Stunning graphics and disregard, dare I say disdain for correctness in gameplay.

I looked forward to FB. I went out and spent nearly $2,000 dollars on computer and accessories in anticipation, all because I thought they would deliver such a wonderful Jug.
I can sympathize with the FW whiners cause we are in the same boat.
Oleg has pretty much told us to kiss it.
I am such a Jug fan I have to try it once in a while but always get disgusted before it is over. Don't get me wrong, I can use the Jug to the best of it's present abilities, but why should we jug fans be hampered in such a fashion?

Before someone jumps in there and says "oh yeah, go to MS and get their patch?" I don't have any MS sims on my hard drive anymore but I am about to put them back on, and a patch that doesn't address one of it's most glaring and oft complained of needs is no better than no patch at all. If anything it is worse.

WYS
AB_Onedoc




Message Edited on 08/15/0303:31AM by AB_Onedoc

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 09:31 AM
Bump for the world to see.



<img src=http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-6/219643/GCS0705copy.JPG>

<center><table style="filter:glow[color=black,strength=3)"> Warning: My intense sense of humor may tug at the stick crammed in your shaded spot. If you treasure your lack of humor please refrain from reading my posts as they may cause laughter.</table style></center>



<Center> In case you need it spelled out, I am still a Blitzpig. That's B-L-I-T-Z-P-I-G</Center>

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 11:42 AM
Before you guys despair, try to remain positive, this is after all only a beta patch. Im sure that in the upcoming patches the roll rate will be tweaked for the better /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



-Ad augusta per angusta.

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 12:44 PM
AB_Onedoc wrote:

- I looked forward to FB. I went out and spent nearly
- $2,000 dollars on computer and accessories in
- anticipation, all because I thought they would
- deliver such a wonderful Jug.
- I can sympathize with the FW whiners cause we are in
- the same boat.
- Oleg has pretty much told us to kiss it.

Has he? Don't think so. And did he hold a gun to your head, forcing you to spend $2000 on your PC? No.

If people even in this thread can't agree on what exactly constitutes correct stick forces for tests, whom are we to believe about which roll rate is correct?

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 01:36 PM
Yes, he has told us to kiss it. Of the Jug he said we shouldn't expect it to be a fighter just because it was a cool looking plane.

No, no one forced me to buy the equipment. By mentioning that, I was explaining how I was looking forward to having a flight sim with a decent Jug in it and to explain the level of dissapointment at having the situation unresolved.

Again, stick force is irrelevant. The planes average performance has been proven too many times and too much documentation has been sent to Oleg for him to 'forget about it" I believe this is purposeful. He has taken it personal and refused to fix it.

I have owned or managed too many business for too many years to believe anything else. Repeat business is what keeps you adding to your retirement account and dissatisfied customers are not repeat customers. It is not just a few whiners that voice concerns over the Jugs roll rate. This is almost across the board.

Sure, 99.9% aren't going to let it affect their future buying habits for computer games. But I will and I have no illusions about my actions being felt in the Maddox or Ubi bank accounts but I refuse to continue to fund this attitude towards customers.

WYS
AB_Onedoc

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 01:40 PM
i realy would agree with SkyChimp in the p47 roll issue here

The problem is its hard for me to do so becouse SkyChimp was not very nice in the past in Luftwhinners threads.
As i can remeber he always tryed to say the opposide,
and called all "Luftwhiners" and stop whinning learn to fly and it was seem that very funny for him.

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 01:48 PM
Let's see the link where Oleg is saying it's right.

I'm convinced it's not right - and there has been some good responses to the issue in this post.


S!
609IAP_Recon

Forgotten Wars Virtual War
Forum: http://fogwar.luftwaffe.net/forums/index.php
Website: http://forgottenwars.dyndns.org
Visit 609IAP at http://takeoff.to/609IAP

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg

Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 02:04 PM
Check THIS out:

http://oldsite.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=98;t=002877

<html> <body><p align="center">http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig3.jpg
<font color=red>If.I.could..just.reach.my.utility.belt!</font> </body>
<center><font color=yellow>BlitzPigMachine<font>

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 02:12 PM
Interesting thread except for some people whining about Skychimp's comments - which his comments are to the point and provide information that is legit.

So far, Skychimps evaluation is right on target.

A response from Oleg would be good at this point , until then, we keep this thread at the top of the forum http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

S!
609IAP_Recon

Forgotten Wars Virtual War
Forum: http://fogwar.luftwaffe.net/forums/index.php
Website: http://forgottenwars.dyndns.org
Visit 609IAP at http://takeoff.to/609IAP

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg

Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 03:30 PM
I agree with Onedoc My wallet's gonna stay closed till the problem is solved. Which really sux cause that new WWII rts Oleg has comming out was my to buy list.
maybe if they start lossing customers, thing will change.
But that would be really sad. The P-47 in FB is wrong. there can be no argument about it. I read in another thread some one say "what data should they (dev team) use?
Russian? english? German? American?"

Answer: USE the Data from the manufacturer. Or at least the aircrafts country of origin. To use one of my dad's saying's
"No one knows the crop better than the farmer that planted it."
Any test data from any other country would be inconclusive at best.

<CENTER>http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p809.jpg
<CENTER>><FONT COLOR="blue">Please visit the 310thVF/BS Online at our NEW web site @:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="orange"> http://members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron/
<CENTER>A proud member Squadron of IL-2 vUSAAF
<CENTER>310th VF/BS Public forum:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW"> http://invisionfree.com/forums/310th_VFBG/
<CENTER><CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW">
Proud Sponsor of IL-2 Hangar Forums
<CENTER> Visit the Hangar at:
http://srm.racesimcentral.com/il2.shtml

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 04:05 PM
I think that is a bit extreme.

Simply present the data (although this was presented after release of FB as well) and wait for a response.

The game is still good, 1C is still good - don't use threats to make a point.

S!
609IAP_Recon

Forgotten Wars Virtual War
Forum: http://fogwar.luftwaffe.net/forums/index.php
Website: http://forgottenwars.dyndns.org
Visit 609IAP at http://takeoff.to/609IAP

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg

Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 04:11 PM
Functio wrote:

- If people even in this thread can't agree on what
- exactly constitutes correct stick forces for tests,
- whom are we to believe about which roll rate is
- correct?
-
-


You didn't understand the whole thing yet, did you? OK, I see it is not that easy (even when common sense should tell the Jug should roll better than a He111 with 2 wing engines), because some ppl liked to bring in confusing "stick force" issues to keep the Jug screwed. I don't know for sure if it was this thread or another one concerning the issue, but there was a point where SkyChimp debunged Ugly Kid, who admitted the Jug rollrate was relatively too low by saying "then whine about that the rollrates of the other planes are to high". I'll explain it to you:

There is that famous 50lb stick force NACA chart. It shows the Jug should roll about twice as fast from on medium speeds as it does in FB. Now there are two possibilities - let's consider Ugly Kid is right when he says a 50lb stick force was not obtainable. Then you have to wonder in the first place why NACA would make a combat-comparison chart of airplanes under a 50lb stick force for aileron. The next thing you have to wonder about is why the 190, which is also shown on that chart, has a rollrate on the chart which corresponds to the game (but at high speeds the in game rollrate of the 190 doesn't drop at all, while on the chart it does) with that 50 lb stick force, but the Jug is only at about 50% rollrate compared to the chart. So, if 50lb is not obtainable and the Jug is modelled correctly in the game, then 190 and various other planes roll too fast.

If Skychimp is right when he says 50lb stick force was an obtainable force, and that's why it's in a NACA combat comparison rollrate chart, then the Jug in game is simply wrong. In both cases, regardless whether the stick force naysayers or Skychimp etc. are right, in both cases the P-47 rollrate is too slow in comparison. That's the funny thing. And again, I bet the chart is correct, because there is no explanation for anyone with common sense that the Jug rolled like a He111 like it currently does in game.

Regards
heartc



=38=OIAE

47|FC=-

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 06:34 PM
Oleg, Ian, and the rest have been nearly buried in the data sent them. I would say 9 outta 10 of the documents provided show the FB jug to be WAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYY too slow on the roll.
Funny how they always want documentation, you provide it and it is thrown out or ignored, yet they always have some explanation why they can't provide data.

Anybody who thinks the Jug is right is beyond my help.

Maybe Oleg is tired of people's attitude towards this, but hey maybe we're a little tired of his attitude towards it too.

Sure, any change hacks off half of the people. But this is one of those few issues where there is almost total agreement from the players (customers). And, it should be a relatively quick and easy fix.

You know, some of us will put up with a little less graphics to have our favorite plane correctly modeled (not uber, just correctly).

I am not threatening anyone, just stating fact, and I have already said I know the loss of a game or two that I would buy isn't going to affect Oleg or Ubi's decision making.

To you P51 fans, I sure wouldn't buy a add on CD until I heard how bad the Stang is porked and decided if I could live with it.

Heart_C explains it in non technical terms better than I. The zoom is now good, the top speed is close enough I certainly wouldn't gripe about it. But the roll rate is ridiculous.


At this point, I have no hope of it being fixed. From what I have read from Oleg and Ian they feel it is correct due to the wing pylons. Well, since the Jug didn't come with them. Take them off!!!!!!!!
Even with the wing pylons it sholdn't be as bad as it is.
Good grief!!!!
This has passed the point of aggravation and become surreal. It is apparently a personal thing and will never be fixed. I guess those of you that can live with it will continue to play the game.
Somebody email me at abonedoc@absquad.net if they fix it.
WYS
AB_Onedoc

The_Blue_Devil
08-15-2003, 08:02 PM
Do these charts represent the safe limits of operation Or actual forces used during combat? I just want to know..not speculating. It seems to me that combat pushes All a/c to their peaks as pilots will often break factory limitations to save their lives/ take the life of the enemy pilot. So is 30lbs. of force the limit? Or what they stated as the safety/comfort point?

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center>
<center>[b]"Pilots who liked to dogifght could do it their own way. I avoided it. I always attacked at full speed and I evaded a bounce in the same manner. When you were hit from above and behind, and your attacker held his fire until he was really close, you knew you were in with someone who had a great deal of experience.-Erich Hartmann"[b]</center>


<center> <img src=http://www.angelfire.lycos.com/art2/devilart/MySigII.gif> </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 11:12 AM
guys. oleg had the chance to change the jug and he didnt. it isnt going to get fixed in another patch. which will be in six months or he will just release a new game again. the jug will NEVER be fixed. they refuse to make an american plane that dominates. it wont happen. too much bad blood in past i think. our only hope now is the mustang. and i bet its got the lightest damage model of any plane in the game. anyone want to take bets on that one?

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of the 11 time Champions Team AFJ. 6 Years Flying http://www.world-data-systems.com/aerofiles/albums/userpics/p47-22.jpg 47|FC=

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 12:35 PM
S!


NACA & USAAC information was sent to Oleg way before the patch. Then again just before the release of the patch.

All documentation, history books, combat operational logs, pilot's testimonies both foriegn and domestic--concur with each other.

The data available clearly shows the P47 Thunderbolts roll rate is WAY to SLOW !



Oleg---Please fix it !

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 01:11 PM
I wouldn't say it won't be fixed. When they release the addon will be a perfect time to make any bug fixes and code updates.


S!
609IAP_Recon

Forgotten Wars Virtual War
Forum: http://fogwar.luftwaffe.net/forums/index.php
Website: http://forgottenwars.dyndns.org
Visit 609IAP at http://takeoff.to/609IAP

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg

Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 01:13 PM
This sim/game is about airplanes, not eye candy. All this latest 'bonus' eye candy' is just a smokescreen to divert attention away from the a/c.

Did not work 1C/Maddox Games. Spend your time better, that is, on the primary reason for this sim/game >> the a/c. Do some code optimization as well to get rid of the 'rats nest' there is now.


How 1C/Maddox Games could screw-up on the P-47's roll rate with all the documentation they had on the P-47 is beyond comprehension. Did they not think after all the posts/threads previous to the beta patch release on the P-47's roll rate that this would be one of the first tests, if not the first test, people would do.


Here is a warning 1C/Maddox Games, get the P-51 and Spitfires correct, for they will be dissected to the nth degree. There is just too much documentation out there and it is not covered by any NDA. Your credibility rests on getting them correct.


Should be interesting reading the lame excuse given (if and when) for why the P-47 is still not correct. Expect something along the lines like the pathetic quickly kluged together excuse as given for the Fw's forward cockpit.

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-stormclouds2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 06:02 PM
I posted this in the other P-47 thread.

Ianboys:

There are a couple of things that are a bit disturbing at this time in the debate/development process.

1.There have been a few respectful requests that Oleg's team post the data or source material for the current FM of the P-47.

This will put a stop to the endless data posts, since we all could just 'see' what the current FM is based on and the veracity of this source.

This is no minor issue at this point because Oleg has requested source material of a credible nature and got it. However, his lack of posting the same material for his JUG is questionable at best. This should be priority one because at the very least the veracity of his source material is at issue.

2.I think it would be better to just forward the data sent directly to Oleg's team and 'NOT' continuously debate these issues 'personally' in the forums. Frankly, you begin to look bias by doing so and if you are not the one making the final determination on FM, why try to prove folks wrong? That does not serve any purpose. This should 'NOT' be a pizzing contest mates.

This is not a flame or whine, it is a reasonable request for the benefit of the Il2-FB community.
S! all virtual pilots.

Despite what you Luftwhinners say, not all Americans are making unreasonable demands. Some of us just want it right and have backed the issue regarding roll rate with 'well known' sources of data regarding the FM of the real life JUG. There is no doubt in the veracity of the source material posted here about the JUG's FM by members.

What has happened is the Oleg's team has up to this point refused to provide the data and sources for the FM of his JUG in FB. This is the crux of the issue. Why doesn't Oleg's team post the data/sources and stand behind it if he believes that it is correct and has no doubts about the veracity of said data/sources?

It is a reasonable request that has yet to be addressed. Until the issue is properly addressed, you will have folks asking Oleg where he got 'his' source material from. In addition, the doubts surrounding the veracity of said source material are understandable because the current FM does not match the 'well known' source material presented here. S!


<center>
http://sunstarentertainment.maddsites.com/images/1asig3.gif

http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat/
JOIN OUR SQUAD TODAY!
http://sunstarentertainment.maddsites.com/images/1banner.gif

http://sunstarentertainment.maddsites.com/il2homepage.html

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 07:04 PM
MachineII wrote:
- Here's my data:
-
- P-47 Roll Rate incorrect.

That and than some! I have to admit, Im starting to loose faith in the Oleg team.. Is it just me.. or do you guys notice that when the patch(s) comes out the have the readme.txt file... That goes into GREAT detail about what they fixed on everything EXCEPT the flight model stuff.. There they just say "made adj to the FM that effects all".. I dont know.. I can understand why they wouldnt want to get into the detals.. What with all the rants people go on based on FEELING.. But.. that is no excuse.. The details should be mentioned.. What really concerns me is when people go to GREAT LENGTHS to get more than FEELINGS and collect DATA like this and it gets ignored.. A good example is the Fw190 forward veiw.. Im afraid that this P47 is going to end up the same way...

"We know it is broke, but dont have any plans to fix it"

And at the same time... people want telephone poles and name tags on the shirts of the men manning the AAA.. *SIGH*



TAGERT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 07:09 PM
Poor P47 I realy wanted to fly this bird I read some great war stories about it But the Roll rate is so bad its not even funny even the Huricane out rolls it....


I seen someone post saying it dosent take enough damage

Well im heer too tell you it takes tons of damage & keeps on flying, the other night I slamed one with multiple 108 hits & mg fire from the FWa9 & I couldnt bring it down untill dam near the Last round was spent from my Wolf

I was amazed at all the punishment that 47 took!!!

On another account I was in Greatergreen server & was bombing a base with the p47, there was tons of aa/flack.
I was able to get in... strike a flack batterie Bomb an ac that spawned, take multiple aaa hits & make it home while being chased by the guy I bombed & landed, I was limping badly but I made it.....

on the way home I had massive wing damage in bolth wings & missing a few parts hear & there

It takes plenty of damage

<center><FONT COLOR="white">ӚFJ-M œ R D ˜ ӡ[/i]</font>

<center> http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_109_1059752328.jpg </center>

<center><FONT COLOR="white">The "Ace Edge"(c).
With my incremental trim
I am actually able to turn so quickly that, I never turn at all.
In Fact the Planet Earth rotates around the Axis of My PC, thus giving me the optimum turn rate and insuring that you
the bandit are promptly fraged !!!
In memory Of Ray R.I.P.[/i]</font>

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 07:21 PM
UCLANUPE wrote:
- 1.There have been a few respectful requests that
- Oleg's team post the data or source material for the
- current FM of the P-47.

problem is I dont know if that would help... In that this is not a look up table flight model, it is a dynamic flight model.. And the way I understand it (which could be wrong) is the differance there is you dont feed in data like

ROLL_RATE_AT_00000KFT = XXX;
ROLL_RATE_AT_00010KFT = XXX;
ROLL_RATE_AT_00025KFT = XXX;
ROLL_RATE_AT_00050KFT = XXX;
.........................
ROLL_RATE_AT_40000KFT = XXX;

There is only one flight model, and the coeficents for each type of ac are feed into it, and the coeficents are not of the lookup type I mentioned above. It is more like...

speed = FW_190_A8_MAJIC_NUMBER*(x^2+4*x+1);
speed = P47D10_MAJIC_NUMBER*(x^2+4*x+1);

note this is a really bad example, but in a nut shell it should work. And from this I think you can see where if they gave us those MAJIC numbers... it wouldnt do us much good in comparing to existing data/results.





TAGERT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 07:33 PM
Ive flown them bolth & theres no doubt that the p47 roll is too slow & the a9 is about 1.5 / 2.0 seconds too fast

I think @ 10.000 Feet @ 500 mph a9 should be closer to 5 seconds in a 360 degree roll & p47 somewhere near 7.5

Instead of this 3.0 & 10.0 second disparagy wich makes no sence imo.

Im still trying to figure out what Oleg is thinking when he aproves these rates

<center><FONT COLOR="white">ӚFJ-M œ R D ˜ ӡ[/i]</font>

<center> http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_109_1059752328.jpg </center>

<center><FONT COLOR="white">The "Ace Edge"(c).
With my incremental trim
I am actually able to turn so quickly that, I never turn at all.
In Fact the Planet Earth rotates around the Axis of My PC, thus giving me the optimum turn rate and insuring that you
the bandit are promptly fraged !!!
In memory Of Ray R.I.P.[/i]</font>

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 09:28 PM
S!

I agree with Murdoc :

Ive flown them bolth & theres no doubt that the p47 roll is too slow & the a9 is about 1.5 / 2.0 seconds too fast

I think @ 10.000 Feet @ 500 mph a9 should be closer to 5 seconds in a 360 degree roll & p47 somewhere near 7.5

Instead of this 3.0 & 10.0 second disparagy wich makes no sence imo.

Im still trying to figure out what Oleg is thinking when he aproves these rates.

______________


I have flown them both and feel the same way. I do disagree about damage modeling though. I have repeatedly exploded the P47D with 1 pass of a 190d9. If your parked on the 47's six of course it is tougher but so are most planes. Try a high side pass and the 47 seems to explode everytime. I'm not sure if it is a bug or what, it just doesent seem right.

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 11:05 PM
two points

first : most of you just don't know how to roll a P47... no, it is not only a matter of taking the stick and throwing it violently right or left... your figures are higher than what is attainable in game (by something like 2 seconds)...

second : skychimp datas aren't based on actual data.. he is only presenting what he think is correct, from extrapolation he made from the naca datas.. but no actual, real data...

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 11:32 PM
Hoarmurath wrote:

- second : skychimp datas aren't based on actual
- data.. he is only presenting what he think is
- correct, from extrapolation he made from the naca
- datas.. but no actual, real data...
-
-

#1 The data I've presented on the P-47C-1 is NACA data. The transposed line on my graph corresponds precisely too it.

#2 The P-47D-30 data is also NACA data, for a 30lbs stick force. Should the plane not roll at a faster rate at higher speeds with a greater stick force? That report, and the other, indicates higher stick forces were possible. I've asked that question of you several times, you refuse to answer, dancing around it in a manner that would surely please Augustus Juilliard.

I've never claimed my "extrapolation" is perfect, but it's better than anything presented on these boards. The manner in which I extended the rising roll line to 85 degrees per second is absolutley correct. Sure, there may be a small margin or error regarding the speed, but if there is, it will cause the roll rate to peak at an even higher speed, not lower.

In short, Oleg modeled the roll of the P-47D-27 in FB in a way that resembles the P-47D-30 NACA chart. In fact, it doesn't even roll that well. It needs to be corrected.

I'd be suprised how much "actual, real data" was used to model any of the planes in this game. I mean, just what document is available to suggest the Fw-190D-9 could roll in 3 seconds at 863 km/h TAS?


Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/SkyChimp2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 11:37 PM
Hoarmurath wrote:
- two points

two questions of your fist point

first: What percentage of the people in your poll of how they do roll the P47 do you consider to be "most".. 51%?

second: Where are the results of your poll where you ask eveyone how they do roll the P47?

Or.. is it safe to assume that your "most" statment is.. how did you put it? aren't based on actual data? And you just... how did you put it? Extrapolated from your FEELINGS that most people are not doing it the way you FEEL they are?



TAGERT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 11:42 PM
Hoarmurath wrote:

- first : most of you just don't know how to roll a
- P47... no, it is not only a matter of taking the
- stick and throwing it violently right or left...


Actually, had you read the report you referred me to, you'd see that is more or less the very manner in which roll is tested.

"The rolling performance of of an airplane usually is determined from abrupt aileron rolls made from laterally level, trimmed, straight flight, at different indicated airspeeds. ...altitude should be mainatined approximately constant."

"Each test roll is made by moving the control abruptly to some predetermined deflection and by holding the control at that deflection until maximum rolling velocity occurrs."

This is the manner in which I, and Buzzsaw, achieved the results we obtained.


- your figures are higher than what is attainable in
- game (by something like 2 seconds)...

Please post a track.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/SkyChimp2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 03:33 AM
Hoarmurath wrote:

- first : most of you just don't know how to roll a
- P47... no, it is not only a matter of taking the
- stick and throwing it violently right or left...


Here's what you do Hoarmurath.

Start quick combat as the only plane.
Start at what you think is a good alt.
Get your speed up and do your rolls.

Save the track.
Play it back at 1/4 speed while watching the stick, attitude indicator and the horizon. The time index is in the bottom right corner. AS soon as you see the stick move or as soon as you see the indicator move, doesn't matter, note the time on the time index. As soon as the plane has returned to level flight, even if it is still rolling, check the time index. WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYY too long.
At about 200 IAS the plane rolls quickly but somewhere just above that, it suddenly slows the roll. I have tried it descending and gaining speed, I have tried it ascending and losing speed, right, left, power on, power off, with and without the rudder. And, all of these effect it, but the fact is, at that magic number it rolls like a TB3. The change is sudden, it is swift and it is without fail.
Now, I remember Oleg saying in a message in the ready room the Jug roll rate would be fixed. Either he forgot, he changed his mind, or somebody who was suppose to see that got done, missed his assignment.

Does make me think of an interview I read of "Gabby" though. He saw a FW above him at 15,000 feet going the opposite direction and he was low (don't remember how low) and headed home alone. But he knew what was best to do. He said he chopped his airspeed to about 200 indicated and waited and sure enough the FW came down to attack. Gabby side slipped him and the FW decided to turn and fight instead of zooming away. Gabby had him then. He said low and slow with the paddle blades he could outmanuever the FW.

Sure, maybe the Jug rolled faster at lower speed, but the high speed roll test done show results much faster than the FB jug.

You get that jug to roll to specs at speed and then zip that ol track up and mail it to me at abonedoc@absquad.net and I will post that little jewel on the internet and bow five times a day to you and Oleg and shut the you know what up about the whole thing.

AB_Onedoc


http://home.bellsouth.net/coDataImages/p/Groups/145/145395/folders/95392/Thumbnails/642279christensen2.jpg


http://home.bellsouth.net/coDataImages/p/Groups/145/145395/folders/95394/Thumbnails/642287P47Portrait.jpg



Message Edited on 08/17/03 02:50AM by AB_Onedoc

Message Edited on 08/17/03 02:56AM by AB_Onedoc

Message Edited on 08/17/0302:57AM by AB_Onedoc

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 04:30 AM
Is it just me or does the P-47 seem to mush up at high speeds..I thought the D was the one that had the fix of the compression problem at high speeds..I still like it better than the original though.

<CENTER>http://www.world-wide-net.com/tuskegeeairmen/ta-1943.jpg <marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"Straighten up.......Fly right..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee> http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat

<CENTER><FONT COLOR="ORANGE">vflyer@comcast.net<FONT COLOR>
<Center><div style="width:200;color:red;font-size:18pt;filter:shadow Blur[color=red,strength=8)">99th Pursuit Squadron

The_Blue_Devil
08-17-2003, 08:09 AM
AB_Onedoc wrote:
-
- Oleg isn't going to listen to anybody with a
- different opinion, I don't know why I even bother to
- read these boards anymore. I find myself playing the
- game less and less for many reasons and the failure
- to address the jug roll rate being one. There has
- been a lot of improvement in the jug and I am
- thankful for it, but to not even touch the most
- glaring abberation from the correct flight envelope
- goes past incompetency and smells of deliberateness.
- Especially since according to those with them, some
- of the leaked betas had the roll rate corrected.
--
Test 07 had the Jug the the most accurate I have seen to date. The roll rate was still not up to code..but My God was it improved..it had to have been only a few seconds under real life because I tell ya..at 10km and at low/high speeds she had no problem changing direction and sticking with the LW planes..as in real life. In test 08..they re-porked the Jug for some unknown reason.

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center>
<center>[b]"Pilots who liked to dogifght could do it their own way. I avoided it. I always attacked at full speed and I evaded a bounce in the same manner. When you were hit from above and behind, and your attacker held his fire until he was really close, you knew you were in with someone who had a great deal of experience.-Erich Hartmann"[b]</center>


<center> <img src=http://www.angelfire.lycos.com/art2/devilart/MySigII.gif> </center>



Message Edited on 08/17/0307:09AM by The_Blue_Devil