PDA

View Full Version : for Oleg: Please fly online!



BSA 650
05-28-2006, 04:46 AM
Hi Oleg
Please fly online, so that you are informed by the dogfight situation.
I am not a weiner, but it is something wrong.
Please check the Spitfire turn, she do`not lose speed, it is real?
And the Temest turn as like a Spitfire!

I would not like to discuss this here am addressed to Oleg and team, because the majority is Spitfire fan here!

Please check this for the next patch so IL2 is a Sim not a Game!

BSA 650
05-28-2006, 04:46 AM
Hi Oleg
Please fly online, so that you are informed by the dogfight situation.
I am not a weiner, but it is something wrong.
Please check the Spitfire turn, she do`not lose speed, it is real?
And the Temest turn as like a Spitfire!

I would not like to discuss this here am addressed to Oleg and team, because the majority is Spitfire fan here!

Please check this for the next patch so IL2 is a Sim not a Game!

joeap
05-28-2006, 05:40 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Tempest does not turn like a Spitfire.

Brain32
05-28-2006, 05:48 AM
Yes Tempest indeed does not turn like a Spitfire(and it should be nowhere near), BUT Spitfire really IMO turns a bit too well, should it outturn with ease everything on the western front? Yes, it definitely should. But what it can do now is, well...erhm...

jermin122
05-28-2006, 07:04 AM
Yes, Please fly online to check the balance of your sim.

BSA 650
05-28-2006, 07:32 AM
please understand me, it should not to cry be only one examination like that it is a good game / sim.

the Tempest turn very well with the trim cheat, better like the 109G models!
and Oleg please check the 190G2 too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

which want their, historical fight or fun game?

VW-IceFire
05-28-2006, 07:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSA 650:
please understand me, it should not to cry be only one examination like that it is a good game / sim.

the Tempest turn very well with the trim cheat, better like the 109G models!
and Oleg please check the 190G2 too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

which want their, historical fight or fun game? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ok you need to stop making things up. What you say shows only a very slight understanding of how these aircraft types work. What you need to do is provide some proof in the form of tracks, charts, and information to back it up.

Where do you get these crazy ideas?

LEBillfish
05-28-2006, 08:02 AM
It's my understanding Oleg and many of the team have flown online.....Why wouldn't they simply for their own enjoyment if they choose to fly. In fact, I can tell you for a fact I have flown with a number of the modellers and testors online....and have been "told" Oleg was on at this time or that.

However, I'd never expect to see Oleg or often other notables ever use their real names. Most of us don't, yet most of all...They would be swamped with chat and page messages wanting this that or the other thing, or be treated rudely by some of the primadonna's there.....

So they may be there, yet don't expect to ever know it would be my guess.......

As to what the planes do online and off remember, they know EXACTLY what they do more then any here.........They made them.

RCAF_Irish_403
05-28-2006, 08:31 AM
I just wanna get shot down by Oleg http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

BSA 650
05-28-2006, 09:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSA 650:
please understand me, it should not to cry be only one examination like that it is a good game / sim.

the Tempest turn very well with the trim cheat, better like the 109G models!
and Oleg please check the 190G2 too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

which want their, historical fight or fun game? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ok you need to stop making things up. What you say shows only a very slight understanding of how these aircraft types work. What you need to do is provide some proof in the form of tracks, charts, and information to back it up.

Where do you get these crazy ideas? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"What values? Oleg doesn´t show his FM values so a comparison is impossible.
The Tempest is a fighterbomber and it´s weight of 6142 should make tight and agile turns impossible!"

Brain32
05-28-2006, 10:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The Tempest is a fighterbomber and it´s weight of 6142 should make tight and agile turns impossible!" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Complete and utter BS, please inform yourself about the Tempest before talking like that. You are obviously talking about Typhoon, which was the fighter-bomber. Second, about turning, any plane can outturn any plane in certain circumstances, Tempest most certanly is not a turn fighter and is only able to outturn a 109 at higher speeds where 109's elevator becomes very stiff...

BSA 650
05-28-2006, 11:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The Tempest is a fighterbomber and it´s weight of 6142 should make tight and agile turns impossible!" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Complete and utter BS, please inform yourself about the Tempest before talking like that. You are obviously talking about Typhoon, which was the fighter-bomber. Second, about turning, any plane can outturn any plane in certain circumstances, Tempest most certanly is not a turn fighter and is only able to outturn a 109 at higher speeds where 109's elevator becomes very stiff... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


that is which I means

"I would not like to discuss this here am addressed to Oleg and team, because the majority is Spitfire (Tempest) fan here!"


i talking about Tempest MKV and turn fighter in the IL2 game!

joeap
05-28-2006, 11:54 AM
The Tempest is not a turn fighter and does not turn like a Spitfire.

Read and repeat.

Oh and you can make tests (on the Crimea map) ask some fot eh guys here and make some tests yourself then post the results and say why you think it is wrong...find some good sources to back you up. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

VW-IceFire
05-28-2006, 12:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSA 650:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSA 650:
please understand me, it should not to cry be only one examination like that it is a good game / sim.

the Tempest turn very well with the trim cheat, better like the 109G models!
and Oleg please check the 190G2 too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

which want their, historical fight or fun game? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ok you need to stop making things up. What you say shows only a very slight understanding of how these aircraft types work. What you need to do is provide some proof in the form of tracks, charts, and information to back it up.

Where do you get these crazy ideas? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"What values? Oleg doesn´t show his FM values so a comparison is impossible.
The Tempest is a fighterbomber and it´s weight of 6142 should make tight and agile turns impossible!" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ok...lets stop making things up shall we?

The Tempest is NOT a fighter-bomber. Let us dispell that myth right away. The vast majority of operations undertaken by 2nd TAF Tempest squadrons operating under the control of 122 Wing RAF were fighter sweeps and armed reconnaisance (in other words low altitude sweeps for enemy fighters, bombs, recon aircraft, light armored vehicles, trains, trucks, and other targets of opportunity). I would highly recommend Christopher Shores History of the Second Tactical Air Force series (VOL 1 through 3) for details on day to day operations by all 2nd TAF units.

Tempests were rarely equipped with bombs and never operationally equipped with rockets. Not a fighter-bomber. Clear this out of your head right now. To quote Oleg "put that book away and never open again".

The Tempest weighs 6142kg. In comparison:
Spitfire XIV 3885kg
Bf-109K 3374kg
FW190D-9 3973kg
P-38L 9798kg
P-47D 8800kg
(weights varry depending on sources)

So the Tempest is a heavy weight fighter to be sure. You're not wrong about that. What you are wrong about is your assumption that weight is the sole deciding factor in how a plane handles in the sky.

What does the Tempest do well to offset its weight? Engine power is a big one...the Sabre II engine produces well over 2000 horsepower at very high revs. Even at lower revs the engine is still producing significant horsepower...much higher than other engine types. This is because of the 24 cylinder H block sleave valve design. Pingu I'm sure can quote some parts from the Napier engine book he has about how this is a beneficial design when done right.

Secondly the Tempest has a big wing...a much wider wingspan than the average fighter and quite a bit like the P-47 in this regard. The Tempests wing has less loading on it than the P-51 or the FW190. The FW190, despite its ligher weight, has a higher wingloading because its wings are much smaller.

Thirdly the Tempest has a very low drag co-efficient. The wings are laminar flow like the Mustangs. The fuselage is very streamlined like the P-47s and the only major source of drag is the chin radiator which was a necessary evil given the engine. So when entering into a turn or conducting a boom and zoom pass the Tempest is very good in terms of its aerodynamics in not bleeding speed unecessarily. The only disadvantage is the wing profile...the laminar flow...which bleed more speed than the Spitfires or 109s.

Fourthly...the Tempest has control designs with similar techniques used in the P-51. The controls are optimized for higher speed operation and the elevators and ailerons do not unnecessarily get heavy at high speed like the 109 or the Spitfires do.

So how can a Tempest, despite its weight and laminar profile wings out turn a 109? The answer is complicated. The Tempest performs very much like the FW190 or Mustang...optimized for high speed manuevering. The FW190, the Mustang, the Tempest, and others can out turn Zeros, nevermind 109s, at very high speeds because of their design. At high speed these types of planes can pull lead over short periods of times leveraging their energy/speed advantage in an attack position to put their reticle ahead of the target for a quick burst.

The 109 and Spitfire (and Zero) win against these types of fighters when they enter a protracted turn fight. The Tempests weight and wing design (same with the Mustang and FW190) serves to bleed speed quicker than the 109 with its lighter weight and higher lift wings. So if a 109 and a Tempest were to enter a fight at 400kph at 180 degree angle to each other and begin to turn around and around until one wins then the 109 wins the fight ...the Tempest (or Mustang or 190) cannot hold its energy in a tight turn so it continues to bleed its energy despite its engine power. The 109, is also bleeding speed, but even at the lower speeds its wings are producing more lift and its weight is not bringing it down as much so its able to use its lesser engine power to bring itself around in a slightly better turn until the 109 achieves a 6 position on the Tempest and can open fire.

A smart Tempest pilot breaks out of a turn after 90 degrees of the turn made.

Weight is a component but you cannot use it to determine how a fighter fights or how it flies soley based on that. You have to compare wing profiles, aerodynamics, and the like before you can even begin to understand how the type flies in the air.

Even if Oleg does not produce charts you can easily test (and record tracks) in the game using the games track recorder and see if it lives up to historical values. I can assure you that the Tempest performance is quite good in terms of its historical values for the type of engine and boost level modeled for it.

Please close the book your reading because you have it so completely wrong that you need to learn some humility and take a step back and do some learning. Not surface learning either...you need to get into the subject before you can start making claims about this stuff.

I don't pretend to actually know how to conduct aerodynamic calculations but I've asked enough questions on this forum and others to understand a bit about how a plane travels through the air. Reading some guides on air combat, pilot memoires, and learning about the subject says to me that things are generally right with the software (not always) and generally wrong with people who make too many assumptions and don't listen enough.

For some good online refreshers of the Tempest and its capabilities I suggest you head to the following links:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/tempest/temptest.html

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/tempest/tempestafdu.html

http://www.hawkertempest.se/

Of special note from the ADFU Tactical Trials:

"Turning Circle
47. The Tempest is slightly better, the Me.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall."

This is apparently a 109G-6 with MG151/20 cannons underneath which was typical of the Western Front 109s (bomber interceptors) so its not in peak condition but it gives you an idea anyways.

anarchy52
05-28-2006, 01:12 PM
Tempest shouldn't even come close to outturning the 109G unless at (very) high speed

- 109G has much better power-to weight and wingloading and liftloading (High lift + slats increasing the critical AoA). I don't know what condition was that 109G tested by RAF but the test doesnt make sense. Test also claims that there is no practical difference in turn between Tempest & FW-190. That is certainly not true in the game, Tempest being considerably better in turn (although care must be taken to coordinate the turn).

In 4.04 Tempest did outturn 109G6 even at 230km/h flaps down turnfight. Just ask the guys from 303rd which did the test with me online . I did not test in 4.05 but I do not know if there has been a change in relative performance.

The root of the problem is that IL-2 does not use table based FM . Devs can tweak it by changing parameters, but they can not fine tune (example: plane climbs too well, you add mass and suddenly it turns worse then it should). Many planes "suffer" from FM anomalies.

Some examples of anomalies:

I-185 is an UFO. Turns like a Spitfire while having higher wingloading then FW-190A9.

MiG-3 - The real thing being high wingloaded, unstable, high-alt optimised interceptor while in-game models are pretty good dogfighters.

LaGG-3 (early) in 4.04 exceeds russian climb test data by almost 80%. It's turn rates are ridiculous (awful powerloading, high wingloading for comparison imagine a 109G-10 with Emil's engine minus some 75HP)

La-5 turns like a Spitfire while having wingloading of 109 G-10

and so on and so on...

MB80
05-28-2006, 01:17 PM
I don't want to talk about the tempest... but the Spit has some strange characteristics. A real dogfighter... in the hands of a good pilot. But it's also strange that the Spit is the most used online fighter. I would say there are some things I couldn't understand.. why the manual of the Spit IX contains so much differences between the model in Il2, particularly in some speed things... And why I also believe that some partiotic reports from allied test pilots are converted to the sim. For example the "hard to fly FW190.." and the very very very easy to fly Spitfire. Maybe these are some problems of the different developments of the game.

So Oleg, if you fly online, try a FW190A (9) and don't wonder why a Spit can kill your Pilot from your 6 with the same alt, far behind, with a 3second shot. I think there's something like a bug in the armor http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Because it doesn't happen with a 109.. but very often with the FW190As.

VW-IceFire
05-28-2006, 05:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
In 4.04 Tempest did outturn 109G6 even at 230km/h flaps down turnfight. Just ask the guys from 303rd which did the test with me online . I did not test in 4.05 but I do not know if there has been a change in relative performance.

The root of the problem is that IL-2 does not use table based FM . Devs can tweak it by changing parameters, but they can not fine tune (example: plane climbs too well, you add mass and suddenly it turns worse then it should). Many planes "suffer" from FM anomalies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Anarchy...be very skeptical of that test. I went and redid that test and every 109 beat the Tempest in a turn fight at speeds under 300kph (above that it was harder to guage). We had a few guys go and do it ..the Tempest lost every time even with WEP on, flaps down, rads closed, whatever we did.

It is true that anomalies show up and some planes are a bit unusual but don't always take some peoples words for it. I'm skeptical and did tests myself and they often turn out to be true in only one very specific and unusual circumstance. One complaint that was on here ages back was that the P-51 could do endless loops (3.04 I think the version was). It was true but you had to do it in a very specific way (power, trim, rudder work) and it had very little value in terms of combat.

WWMaxGunz
05-28-2006, 05:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSA 650:
Please check the Spitfire turn, she do`not lose speed, it is real?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Every plane has turns it does not lose speed in. You have doghouse chart of the Spitfire in
question to say it sustains G's too long, too well? Or you have just 'an opinion' based on
what, it is too competitive against another plane being flown wrongly?

Sustained turn is wing loading and power loading both. 109 high lift wing with slats for
more AOA is also high drag to go with the lift. It is NOT a turn fighter design at all.
Why when there is 20 things to consider do people go posting about 1, 2 or maybe 4 things
and saying that is all? And telling an aero engineer to get it straight! Whatever about
his models is not just so I can bet these people cannot make an FM that begins to approach
them yet people want to TELL instead of ASK and maybe learn something. It is disrespect.

Would you have an 8 year old tell you how to drive because that's what these posts equal.
You may not corner perfectly within a hand width or get expert driver gas mileage but you
know d@mn well the stupid kid watching would wreck the car if he was at the wheel.

VW-IceFire
05-28-2006, 05:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB80:
I don't want to talk about the tempest... but the Spit has some strange characteristics. A real dogfighter... in the hands of a good pilot. But it's also strange that the Spit is the most used online fighter. I would say there are some things I couldn't understand.. why the manual of the Spit IX contains so much differences between the model in Il2, particularly in some speed things... And why I also believe that some partiotic reports from allied test pilots are converted to the sim. For example the "hard to fly FW190.." and the very very very easy to fly Spitfire. Maybe these are some problems of the different developments of the game.

So Oleg, if you fly online, try a FW190A (9) and don't wonder why a Spit can kill your Pilot from your 6 with the same alt, far behind, with a 3second shot. I think there's something like a bug in the armor http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Because it doesn't happen with a 109.. but very often with the FW190As. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Now you don't want to talk about the Tempest...but you did earlier.

Why is the Spitfire the most used online? Because its easy to fly, its very recongizable (its one of the most recognizable fighters alongside the Mustang - everyone knows it), it has decent enough firepower, and its fast enough to work well. This appeals to the average pilot who doesn't know how to manage energy well or shoot well because the Spitfire makes up for some of that. And guess what...that was a big deal for Battle of Britain pilots who had 9 hours on Spitfires (sometimes less) and who very much welcomed the Spitfires ease of handling. Thats pretty universally accepted...never seen anything to the contrary including from modern day pilots flying them.

Speed things...please show charts to show that it is not lining up to the speed charts. Please specify which type, engine, and boost level. No plane will be perfect but the last time we did a test on the speed (4.04) it was close (as any other). Perhaps its time to test it again? But it sounds like you already have...so show us the charts or tell us the numbers.

Spitfires have nothing to do with FW190 pilot armor. As a FW190 pilot (I fly all types but the FW190A-6, A-8, and D-9 are the most common types I fly) I get shot at quite a bit and have not died from a pilot kill in some time except against a B-17 formation offline. Which FW190 did you notice the problem in and how many times have you been pilot killed from dead six at long ranges? FW190s have all sorts of DM bugs...the gunsight bug, the fuel tank bug, but those have been fixed in patches.

Again...stop making it up...show us something.

Brain32
05-28-2006, 05:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> In 4.04 Tempest did outturn 109G6 even at 230km/h flaps down turnfight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
IIRC that test was done in v403 when Tempest indeed turned better, after the wobble fix, handling of many planes changed, and so did the Tempests. I remember just few days after 404 came out, one of the 303 guys was assuring me the Tempest can turn with 109's and told me about doing that test with you, and I said: yes, but you did it in v403, not in v404. He didn't believe me until turning with one got him shot down. As for the FW190's you will outturn them, BUT very though with the A6 and not so easy with the Dora, I had a recent fight against a good Tempest pilot, he was eventually gaining but after complete 6, yes 6 circles. The thing is, or atleast that was my conclusion, we are both pretty close but Dora will bleed speed quicker and thus will have to ease the turn off in order to avoid stalling, I also did it low-level with the Ta152 and couldn't outturn it...
Maybe I'm really not a person to talk about turnfights as I always avoid them and thus I may be lacking enough skill, but occasionally I decide to make a test of a certain plane vs. plane match and I came to above conclusions...
Also Tempests stall speed(according to the manual) with flaps and weels up was 85mph/136,765kmh IAS, I would qualify that as not bad.
If you wan't to look at faults, look at the relation between 109 and a Spitfire which IMO is ridiculous...

WTE_Galway
05-28-2006, 06:40 PM
I remember Oleg coming into a server on Ubi a few years back in a G6AS.

jermin122
05-28-2006, 06:48 PM
Mods, please name this forum Allied dedicated forum. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Maggi_4
05-29-2006, 04:57 AM
I tottally agree with BSA 650. I don't think he wanted to say that Tempest turn exactly like Spit, but it turns quite well....at least it can loose energy in cosntant turning, not like the Spit http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif...

I would vote for the realistic sim too, which is tottally objective and historical, where:

1. weight and aerodynamcis are modelled (I mean a shorter wing span for example)
2. Planes's altitude performances are modelled (P51, P47, Ta152, Jets)
3. 109 and 190 are not from paper (some Yak piss on you and your 'Dienstspferd' is nearly unflyable) (But wooden planes such as Yak eat dozens of 20mms)
4. Allied planes are quite hard to spot (Im playing 640x480 on a 19 inch monitor with custom settings), even they have minimal differneces in sizes between OKL planes, and this is tottally independent from camouflage (its much better to fly with an obvius skin, at least your squadmate can easily check you)

This is all what was on my mind now, its massive luftwhining, bon apetite Uk Dedicated aces http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Sorry for my english

WWMaxGunz
05-29-2006, 07:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jermin122:
Mods, please name this forum Allied dedicated forum. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny but just now it is calling itself Blue Whiner Forum.
Where is the evidence apart from supposition and tears?

Spit 25 lbs has not only less wingloading but high powerloading just to name two factors.
It is uber without exaggeration. What is the top speed though? Can it outclimb all others
at 400kph IAS and better?

Aerial combat with different strengths planes the trick is to get the other to fly to your
plane's strengths. It is easier when the dweeb you are fighting only knows how to fly to
your plane's strengths rather than being someone who exploits where his plane is better.

Turn babies, turn. Maneuver hard after you've gotten yourself into yet another tight spot.
Keep it down to the speeds where that Spit works best. Those other guys need the target
practice.

At Farnsborough where they compared the 190A-3 climb to the Spitfire in combat conditions,
the pilot who flew the FW forced the speed to 400+kph and outclimbed the Spitfire. That is
how the FW's were used in the cross channel fights so that is how the Brit pilot flew the
FW. He flew to where the strength of the FW was greater than the Spit and tested better.
At best climb speed of the FW it goes the other way but he did not sit and whine and do
nothing different. He did the smart thing.

25 lbs boost Spit faced what model FW?

anarchy52
05-29-2006, 08:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:


At Farnsborough where they compared the 190A-3 climb to the Spitfire in combat conditions,
the pilot who flew the FW forced the speed to 400+kph and outclimbed the Spitfire. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I haven't see that in the report, insted it said that best climb speed of FW-190 and Spit were similar but FW could climb at a steeper angle and outclimbed the spit. Could you point me to the section of the report where it said that FW outclimbed the spitfire by using shallow high speed climb?

joeap
05-29-2006, 08:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jermin122:
Mods, please name this forum Allied dedicated forum. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Instead of mocking why not present some facts and tests to prove your point.

Nubarus
05-29-2006, 09:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jermin122:
Mods, please name this forum Allied dedicated forum. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Instead of mocking why not present some facts and tests to prove your point. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What?

And actually do some work?

It is soooooooo much easier to whine here, talk trash to the online Spit pilots and develope the "better then you because I fly blue" attitude. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

Kwiatos
05-29-2006, 10:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> In 4.04 Tempest did outturn 109G6 even at 230km/h flaps down turnfight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
IIRC that test was done in v403 when Tempest indeed turned better, after the wobble fix, handling of many planes changed, and so did the Tempests. I remember just few days after 404 came out, one of the 303 guys was assuring me the Tempest can turn with 109's and told me about doing that test with you, and I said: yes, but you did it in v403, not in v404. He didn't believe me until turning with one got him shot down. As for the FW190's you will outturn them, BUT very though with the A6 and not so easy with the Dora, I had a recent fight against a good Tempest pilot, he was eventually gaining but after complete 6, yes 6 circles. The thing is, or atleast that was my conclusion, we are both pretty close but Dora will bleed speed quicker and thus will have to ease the turn off in order to avoid stalling, I also did it low-level with the Ta152 and couldn't outturn it...
Maybe I'm really not a person to talk about turnfights as I always avoid them and thus I may be lacking enough skill, but occasionally I decide to make a test of a certain plane vs. plane match and I came to above conclusions...
Also Tempests stall speed(according to the manual) with flaps and weels up was 85mph/136,765kmh IAS, I would qualify that as not bad.
If you wan't to look at faults, look at the relation between 109 and a Spitfire which IMO is ridiculous... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yea its true that in 4.03 Tempest turn better then Bf109 G-6 even at low speed. These was changed in 4.04 and now Tempest is dead meat in dogfight against Bf109. If Bf109 will catch Tempest at low alt tempest pilot usually have no chance to survive. Fighting with Fw190 is also no easy bread expecially with Dora. Dora still better climb then tempest and is usually faster. Turn rate is similar - tempest has little adventage, but Dora have better roll rate. And overheating in Tempest is much worse. The worse thing in Tempest is it's rear view which is wrong in game. In Tempest you see nothing in rear. I hope that we will get in game Tempest with 11+ Boost which was the common version of these plane in use.

RCAF_Irish_403
05-29-2006, 12:01 PM
Why are you guys even debating with this BSA fellow. He's either insane or has all the switches turned off in the realistic settings

there is no way that a Tempest V can out turn a Spit http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

RCAF_Irish_403
05-29-2006, 12:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jermin122:
Mods, please name this forum Allied dedicated forum. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

que?

MB80
05-29-2006, 12:23 PM
Hey listen http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif , I didn't wanted to talk about the turning speed of the spit or the tempest. Both planes have advantages like any other planes in the game, also the spits are an easy kill if the pilot has no experience http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif And I really don't like to fly them because black-outs are spit pilots friend.. But there are some things which I don't understand, and don't tell me the Spit was a fighter for young pilots.. the Luftwaffe also wasted unexperienced pilots, and the Fw190 had also it's "easy fly" auto modes via the known "Kommandoger¤t"..

So I have here the "Pilot Notes for Spitfire IX, XI, XVI; RR Merlin 61,63,66,70 to 266 engines" 3rd Edition, 1946

Some interesting things you can read here:
"44. Diving
(i) At training loads the aircraft becomes increasingly tail heavy as speed
is gained and should, therefore, be trimmed into the dive. The tendency
to yaw to the right should be corrected by accurate use of the rudder
trimming tab control.
25"

"45. Aerobatics
(ii) The following minimum speeds in m.p.h. (knots) I.A.S.
are recommended:
Loop .. .. .. 300 (260)
Roll................................ 240(206)
Half-roll off loop .. 340 (295)
Climbing roll .. 330 (286)
(iii) Flick manoeuvres are not permitted."
"

Now to the things I've tested, because I allways wonder why axis planes should be flown with care if you want to land:

"(a) Aircraft without " rear-view " fuselages
Engine assisted Glide
Flaps down................................ 95(82) 105 (90)
Flaps up .............................. 105(90) 110(95)
(b) Aircraft with "rear-view" fuselages
Engine assisted Glide
Flaps down .. .. .. 100--105 115-120
(86-90) (100-104)
Flaps up .. .. .. 115(100) (120-125)
(104-108).......

52. Flying limitations
Flaps down €"160 (138)"

In the sim you get problems with your Flaps at 229,9mph in a Spit IXc/43, and I don't have to tell you what happens in a FW190 or Me109 if you use your landing flaps at this speed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif . The landing gear of a Spit IXc gets damaged if you try lower it above 242mph (390kph). Did the spit really had this strong landing gear? I also played around with it, 2 times it was no problem to start with one of the front wheels broken off, the left wing tip in use as 3rd wheel.. I never had a chance to do this with a 109 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

"51. Engine data : Merlins 61, 63, 66, 70 and 266
(i) Fuel€"100 octane only.
(ii) Oil€"Sec A.P.1464/C.37.
(Hi) The principal engine limitations are as follows:
Temp. € C.
Sup. R.p.m. Boost Coolant Oil
MAX. TAKE-OFF
TO 1.000 FT. M 3.000t +18* 135 €"
MAX. CLIMBING -
1 HOUR LIMIT M/S} 2850 +12 125 90
} 2650 + 7 105 (115) 90
, €ž,
COMBAT
5 MINS. LIMIT MS} 3000 +18t 135 105
The figure in brackets is permissible for short periods.
With interconnected controls there is a tolerance on " maximum "
r.p.m.€"see para. 20.
* +12 lb./sq.in. on Merlin 61 and 63 engines.
t +15 lb./sq.in. on Merlin 61 and 63 engines."

So a Spit Pilot was able to fly for 5min at full speed with full boost and an oil temp of 105.. I just took these ones because I've the feeling a Spit doesn't have the "overheat" problem like the FW190.. if you overheat the engine in a 190, it takes a long time to get the temp back to "normal", in a Spit, you've just to turn off the boost and take the throttle back and very fast, the temp is "normal". The 190s didn't have cooling flaps, the cooling system behind the prop was able to cool it perfect also if you climb.. but this isn't simulated, so why has the spit such a "feature"?

These are all "little things", nothing much have to do with maneuverability, but with "too easy to fly". But if other planes have some "problems", there's no reason to say: "The spit was perfect, that's why it's the best plane in the game and that's why the most people prefer it..". Have a look at the american ones, the P51, the P47, the P38.. not worth to fly these good ones because "the spit was the one build for unexperienced young pilots"? Can't be true if you keep in mind that some things are wrong simulated for a "fair play game". Alot of the full real servers have banned the Spit IX 25lbs... because it's perfectly simulated.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Nothing to whine, but something to think about.

The FW190A9 and the one shot kills.. Are the pilot figures in the game the points where one hit kills the player? So have a look at the Fw190A9 from outside, if you take a side view, everything seems to be normal, but if you have a look from 6 o clock you see the full upper (back-) head of the pilot.. maybe a reason for the fast kills? I don't know...

WWMaxGunz
05-29-2006, 12:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:


At Farnsborough where they compared the 190A-3 climb to the Spitfire in combat conditions,
the pilot who flew the FW forced the speed to 400+kph and outclimbed the Spitfire. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I haven't see that in the report, insted it said that best climb speed of FW-190 and Spit were similar but FW could climb at a steeper angle and outclimbed the spit. Could you point me to the section of the report where it said that FW outclimbed the spitfire by using shallow high speed climb? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's because it wasn't in the report. At SimHQ there was posted an account of the deal by
the guy who piloted the Spitfire. He was supposed to have gotten to fly the FW and was a
bit miffed until he saw how his buddy flew the Focke, in the manner that the Germans were
doing, and knew that the other guy was the better pilot for that plane.

There is one sentence with two points of data in it that leaves sloppy readers to tie the
points together. You want to find the best climb speeds then go find the charts. Oleg
and others had pointed the facts out years ago but fanboy blinders are bigger than mere
charts.

Any faster plane will outclimb the slower one in a steeper climb at speed where the slower
one has less specific power. Just how freaking shallow do you think an FW 190A-3 climbs
at 400kph anyway? Top speed is not just 450 for instance.

MB80
05-29-2006, 12:39 PM
Oh, I forgot to mention the "Spit have no wings at far distance" thing.. But you all know this bug. But I also wonder why a Ju88 can be spotted as a white cross from far distance (if it has a green skin), the most other axis planes are black and the Spit has a color like the terrain, nearly invisible if you fly above the 3 style pattern flat (Olegs special, I really like these performance trick) trees...

anarchy52
05-29-2006, 01:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:


At Farnsborough where they compared the 190A-3 climb to the Spitfire in combat conditions,
the pilot who flew the FW forced the speed to 400+kph and outclimbed the Spitfire. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I haven't see that in the report, insted it said that best climb speed of FW-190 and Spit were similar but FW could climb at a steeper angle and outclimbed the spit. Could you point me to the section of the report where it said that FW outclimbed the spitfire by using shallow high speed climb? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's because it wasn't in the report. At SimHQ there was posted an account of the deal by
the guy who piloted the Spitfire.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The sentence in the report seems pretty straightforward to me. And I do not have much faith in post on the internet forums about alleged recollections pilot of the events 64 years ago...
It is quite clear that faster plane can outclimb slower plane in shallow high(er) speed climb. Anyone could write that.

Targ
05-29-2006, 02:39 PM
I remember Oleg on an UBI server many years ago as well in a 109.
I also remember shooting him down in a fly by http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
He was a good sport about it and I took a screenshot.
I wish I had backed that up http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
Aristo was with me as I remember getting him to log on to the UBI server after pestering him via MSN mssgr.
Ahh the memories http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VW-IceFire
05-29-2006, 04:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Maggi_4:
I tottally agree with BSA 650. I don't think he wanted to say that Tempest turn exactly like Spit, but it turns quite well....at least it can loose energy in cosntant turning, not like the Spit http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif...

I would vote for the realistic sim too, which is tottally objective and historical, where:

1. weight and aerodynamcis are modelled (I mean a shorter wing span for example)
2. Planes's altitude performances are modelled (P51, P47, Ta152, Jets)
3. 109 and 190 are not from paper (some Yak piss on you and your 'Dienstspferd' is nearly unflyable) (But wooden planes such as Yak eat dozens of 20mms)
4. Allied planes are quite hard to spot (Im playing 640x480 on a 19 inch monitor with custom settings), even they have minimal differneces in sizes between OKL planes, and this is tottally independent from camouflage (its much better to fly with an obvius skin, at least your squadmate can easily check you)

This is all what was on my mind now, its massive luftwhining, bon apetite Uk Dedicated aces http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Sorry for my english </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
1) They already are modeled...but not as well as all of us would like them. I hope you won't be amongst those complaining of Storm of Wars higher system specs because you can bet that Oleg will be dedicating far more CPU cycles in the new game than any of the older ones to that sort of thing.

2) Altitude performance is modeled. Please describe how it is not? If you're refering to the "poor" altitude modeling...that happens above 10,000m or 32,000 feet. Let me know the last time anyone had a fight at above that altitude.

3) I fly the FW190 ALOT...its not made from paper. Thats for sure. Its not pleasant to fly when hit in the wing...but the Yak's have the same problem. Granted that the LaGG-3, the Yak, 109, and several other fighters suffer from having an older damage model that is sometimes (or often in the case of the LaGG) a little bullet resistant so I understand where your coming from but please try and fly a Yak effectively after a FW190 hits you with a 20mm or two. Its not plesant...and people make it out to be far more than it is.

4) This is a legitimate problem. I think it has alot to do with how the LOD's have been handled over the years. Particularly by third party modelers. Its a little different.

Finally...again with regards to the Tempests turn rate...you're mistaking a very good initial turn rate with a sustained turn rate. The Tempest was fairly well known historically for its good initial turn rate. The Hellcat, FW190, and P-51 also fit into the category. The larger wings and lower wingloading are a definitive benefit in making the initial 90 degree turn on target which is what most Tempest pilots leverage. At 180 degrees where you start turning with your target for a protracted period of time and its like in a Mustang...a bad idea. This is the advantage of the aircrafts design...not some overmodeled fluke. FW190D-9 pilots know what I'm talking about in this regard...as this is how they/we have been shooting Yaks and Spitfires down for years. Similarly...Hellcats VS Zeros works the same way...initial turn rate at high speed is EXCELLENT in the Hellcat which lets you get on their tail or in a good position to fire. But just for a short period of time.

An aircraft in a turn is not one fixed rate or speed or anything like that...its variable and is highly specific to the way that the aircraft is designed. Lots of books gloss it over saying one plane turned well while another did not. The reality is that its much more complicated and nuanced. BSA 650 is not yet aware of these details...but I'm sure with practice, experience, and some open mindedness he will come around like I did. Believe me...I came from Aces of the Pacific...every plane turned at a fixed rate and that was it. It took me a while to figure things out here.

Taylortony
05-29-2006, 06:16 PM
He used to under his own name but got hounded by tongue dragging, drooling, question asking people he more or less had to give it up, or at least under his own name..... A bit like his room on here, the do this do that brigade must haunt him.................

He always came across as a really nice person in real life on the times I have met him and when he was demonstrating I think FB to us, he was holding my hand on the 262 throttle to stop me setting fire to the damn thing and showing me how to creep it up................ in that he failed miserably as I still make like the Human Torch every time I fly it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif I got to admit he was proud of his game and it showed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The one person I felt sorry for was the chief designer of Lock On who was demostrating his game opposite, he never seemed to get the same level of interest......... I still have the UBI press packs for them somewhere http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

MB_Avro_UK
05-29-2006, 06:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSA 650:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSA 650:
please understand me, it should not to cry be only one examination like that it is a good game / sim.

the Tempest turn very well with the trim cheat, better like the 109G models!
and Oleg please check the 190G2 too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

which want their, historical fight or fun game? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ok you need to stop making things up. What you say shows only a very slight understanding of how these aircraft types work. What you need to do is provide some proof in the form of tracks, charts, and information to back it up.

Where do you get these crazy ideas? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"What values? Oleg doesn´t show his FM values so a comparison is impossible.
The Tempest is a fighterbomber and it´s weight of 6142 should make tight and agile turns impossible!" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ok...lets stop making things up shall we?

The Tempest is NOT a fighter-bomber. Let us dispell that myth right away. The vast majority of operations undertaken by 2nd TAF Tempest squadrons operating under the control of 122 Wing RAF were fighter sweeps and armed reconnaisance (in other words low altitude sweeps for enemy fighters, bombs, recon aircraft, light armored vehicles, trains, trucks, and other targets of opportunity). I would highly recommend Christopher Shores History of the Second Tactical Air Force series (VOL 1 through 3) for details on day to day operations by all 2nd TAF units.

Tempests were rarely equipped with bombs and never operationally equipped with rockets. Not a fighter-bomber. Clear this out of your head right now. To quote Oleg "put that book away and never open again".

The Tempest weighs 6142kg. In comparison:
Spitfire XIV 3885kg
Bf-109K 3374kg
FW190D-9 3973kg
P-38L 9798kg
P-47D 8800kg
(weights varry depending on sources)

So the Tempest is a heavy weight fighter to be sure. You're not wrong about that. What you are wrong about is your assumption that weight is the sole deciding factor in how a plane handles in the sky.

What does the Tempest do well to offset its weight? Engine power is a big one...the Sabre II engine produces well over 2000 horsepower at very high revs. Even at lower revs the engine is still producing significant horsepower...much higher than other engine types. This is because of the 24 cylinder H block sleave valve design. Pingu I'm sure can quote some parts from the Napier engine book he has about how this is a beneficial design when done right.

Secondly the Tempest has a big wing...a much wider wingspan than the average fighter and quite a bit like the P-47 in this regard. The Tempests wing has less loading on it than the P-51 or the FW190. The FW190, despite its ligher weight, has a higher wingloading because its wings are much smaller.

Thirdly the Tempest has a very low drag co-efficient. The wings are laminar flow like the Mustangs. The fuselage is very streamlined like the P-47s and the only major source of drag is the chin radiator which was a necessary evil given the engine. So when entering into a turn or conducting a boom and zoom pass the Tempest is very good in terms of its aerodynamics in not bleeding speed unecessarily. The only disadvantage is the wing profile...the laminar flow...which bleed more speed than the Spitfires or 109s.

Fourthly...the Tempest has control designs with similar techniques used in the P-51. The controls are optimized for higher speed operation and the elevators and ailerons do not unnecessarily get heavy at high speed like the 109 or the Spitfires do.

So how can a Tempest, despite its weight and laminar profile wings out turn a 109? The answer is complicated. The Tempest performs very much like the FW190 or Mustang...optimized for high speed manuevering. The FW190, the Mustang, the Tempest, and others can out turn Zeros, nevermind 109s, at very high speeds because of their design. At high speed these types of planes can pull lead over short periods of times leveraging their energy/speed advantage in an attack position to put their reticle ahead of the target for a quick burst.

The 109 and Spitfire (and Zero) win against these types of fighters when they enter a protracted turn fight. The Tempests weight and wing design (same with the Mustang and FW190) serves to bleed speed quicker than the 109 with its lighter weight and higher lift wings. So if a 109 and a Tempest were to enter a fight at 400kph at 180 degree angle to each other and begin to turn around and around until one wins then the 109 wins the fight ...the Tempest (or Mustang or 190) cannot hold its energy in a tight turn so it continues to bleed its energy despite its engine power. The 109, is also bleeding speed, but even at the lower speeds its wings are producing more lift and its weight is not bringing it down as much so its able to use its lesser engine power to bring itself around in a slightly better turn until the 109 achieves a 6 position on the Tempest and can open fire.

A smart Tempest pilot breaks out of a turn after 90 degrees of the turn made.

Weight is a component but you cannot use it to determine how a fighter fights or how it flies soley based on that. You have to compare wing profiles, aerodynamics, and the like before you can even begin to understand how the type flies in the air.

Even if Oleg does not produce charts you can easily test (and record tracks) in the game using the games track recorder and see if it lives up to historical values. I can assure you that the Tempest performance is quite good in terms of its historical values for the type of engine and boost level modeled for it.

Please close the book your reading because you have it so completely wrong that you need to learn some humility and take a step back and do some learning. Not surface learning either...you need to get into the subject before you can start making claims about this stuff.

I don't pretend to actually know how to conduct aerodynamic calculations but I've asked enough questions on this forum and others to understand a bit about how a plane travels through the air. Reading some guides on air combat, pilot memoires, and learning about the subject says to me that things are generally right with the software (not always) and generally wrong with people who make too many assumptions and don't listen enough.

For some good online refreshers of the Tempest and its capabilities I suggest you head to the following links:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/tempest/temptest.html

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/tempest/tempestafdu.html

http://www.hawkertempest.se/

Of special note from the ADFU Tactical Trials:

"Turning Circle
47. The Tempest is slightly better, the Me.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall."

This is apparently a 109G-6 with MG151/20 cannons underneath which was typical of the Western Front 109s (bomber interceptors) so its not in peak condition but it gives you an idea anyways. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excellent post http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Buster_Dee
05-29-2006, 07:35 PM
Interesting little side note I just read in Allied Aircraft Piston Engines of World War 2. The Typhoon (yup, pre Tempest) was the only plane that could hope to deal with the 190 when it was introduced. That is not to say it was stellar or that improvements to the 190 (and of course the Spitfire) did not change that. But I like the beast, with it's wonderful (if plagued) 24-cylinder Sabre and cavernous air/coolant chin scoop. The Sabre made about 2000 hp in the Typhoon, and 3000 in late Tempests. It was capable of 4000 rpm! That's one way to throw around a big airframe.

And, I'm a Yank. Go figure!

WWMaxGunz
05-29-2006, 07:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
The sentence in the report seems pretty straightforward to me. And I do not have much faith in post on the internet forums about alleged recollections pilot of the events 64 years ago...
It is quite clear that faster plane can outclimb slower plane in shallow high(er) speed climb. Anyone could write that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was a letter written AT THE TIME not 64 years later.

And I am sorry you have little respect of the community at SimHQ. The letter and thread
did get a good going-over and cross-check. They are much better behaved and the general
level of knowlege is higher there. To them and other forums, this is "The UBI Zoo".
So go ahead and disrespect what came from there.

And it doesn't matter. And neither does your attempt at deriving logic from a conclusions
section of a non-technical report. You want to see technical report, look up RAEE or NACA,
or Rechlin or the Russian agency.

What matters is the actual flight test results of the planes which Oleg did point out when
the Spit V's first came into the series.

But by all means, do not get the charts since you know better.

WWMaxGunz
05-29-2006, 07:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
An aircraft in a turn is not one fixed rate or speed or anything like that...its variable and is highly specific to the way that the aircraft is designed. Lots of books gloss it over saying one plane turned well while another did not. The reality is that its much more complicated and nuanced. BSA 650 is not yet aware of these details...but I'm sure with practice, experience, and some open mindedness he will come around like I did. Believe me...I came from Aces of the Pacific...every plane turned at a fixed rate and that was it. It took me a while to figure things out here. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Short version, Energy for Angles?

mynameisroland
05-30-2006, 03:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSA 650:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSA 650:
please understand me, it should not to cry be only one examination like that it is a good game / sim.

the Tempest turn very well with the trim cheat, better like the 109G models!
and Oleg please check the 190G2 too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

which want their, historical fight or fun game? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ok you need to stop making things up. What you say shows only a very slight understanding of how these aircraft types work. What you need to do is provide some proof in the form of tracks, charts, and information to back it up.

Where do you get these crazy ideas? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"What values? Oleg doesn´t show his FM values so a comparison is impossible.
The Tempest is a fighterbomber and it´s weight of 6142 should make tight and agile turns impossible!" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Im not going to jump on your head as its an easy mistake to make - The Tempest was actually a very good, fast and manuverable fighter. It ranks with the La7 and Focke wulf 190 D as the best fighter below 25,000ft in WW2.

The Typhoon was the fighter bomber.

ImpStarDuece
05-30-2006, 04:17 AM
Well, the Typhoon won't roll, climb, dive or accelerate as well as a Tempest, but it should actually turn just slightly better, at least according to the ADFU Tempest tactial trials:

"Turning Circle
18. Very Similar. Any difference appears to be in favour of the Typhoon. This is too slight to alter combat tactics."

The Typhoon was a few hundred pounds lighter and had a slightly higher lift wing.

P.S.

The Tempest wqas undoubtedly a heavy weight, but it didn't weigh "6142" kg. Mean combat weight was 10,700 lbs / 4854 kg. Maximum take off was 13,600 lbs / 6,150 kg, which would of only been approached with a 2 x 1000 lbs bombload-out and the extra nose tanks fitted.

If your going to argue something, be sure you have your facts correct first.

WOLFMondo
05-30-2006, 05:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
The Tempest weighs 6142kg. In comparison:
Spitfire XIV 3885kg
Bf-109K 3374kg
FW190D-9 3973kg
P-38L 9798kg
P-47D 8800kg
(weights varry depending on sources)
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry to correct you but 6142kg is the gross overload weight, 4,195kg is the empty weight, 5,226 kg is nominal gross weight.

edit
oops, ISD got there before me, should have read the whole thread.

RCAF_Irish_403
05-30-2006, 06:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buster_Dee:
Interesting little side note I just read in Allied Aircraft Piston Engines of World War 2. The Typhoon (yup, pre Tempest) was the only plane that could hope to deal with the 190 when it was introduced. That is not to say it was stellar or that improvements to the 190 (and of course the Spitfire) did not change that. But I like the beast, with it's wonderful (if plagued) 24-cylinder Sabre and cavernous air/coolant chin scoop. The Sabre made about 2000 hp in the Typhoon, and 3000 in late Tempests. It was capable of 4000 rpm! That's one way to throw around a big airframe.

And, I'm a Yank. Go figure! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Couldn't the CW Spit handle (not best) the Antons? At least in the Roll Rate dept.....

blackpulpit1970
05-30-2006, 06:19 AM
If your turning your tempest like a spitfire you are doing something wrong be sure. If thats the case then you must be bleeding a hell of a lot of speed and then getting owned which i can then see why the whining.

rnzoli
05-30-2006, 06:30 AM
I wish I knew which side he wants Oleg to fly for http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

He wants to shoot him down by a Spitfire or a Tempest? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Friendly_flyer
05-30-2006, 06:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buster_Dee:
Interesting little side note I just read in Allied Aircraft Piston Engines of World War 2. The Typhoon (yup, pre Tempest) was the only plane that could hope to deal with the 190 when it was introduced. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This was probably because the FW-190 was faster than contemporary Spitfire Mk.Vb, the then top British fighter. The book "Tally Ho!", about the Norwegian pilots flying for the RAF (the highets and fift highest scoring squadrons of RAF in 1942) mentioned that the FW-190 when introduced caused a lot of concerns. It was called the Fock-Wulf scare or Fock-Wulf crisis. At the time they where flying Spifire Mk.Vb. However, the squadrons was soon issued the new Mk.IX, which took the magic away from the Fock-Wulf to quote the author.

karost
05-30-2006, 07:05 AM
Hey why not let Oleg fly a real spitfire or Tempest and tell us how it feel, but after he finish BOB http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

S!
http://www.simhq.com/_all/images/all_019a_009.jpg

Friendly_flyer
05-30-2006, 07:37 AM
I'm sure he'd love to, but there's cetain practical problems conected to flying a tempest, like where to find one.

PBNA-Boosher
05-30-2006, 07:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSA 650:
Hi Oleg
Please fly online, so that you are informed by the dogfight situation.
I am not a weiner, but it is something wrong.
Please check the Spitfire turn, she do`not lose speed, it is real?
And the Temest turn as like a Spitfire!

I would not like to discuss this here am addressed to Oleg and team, because the majority is Spitfire fan here!

Please check this for the next patch so IL2 is a Sim not a Game! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I love Bullsh!t arguments! Please, tell me more!

HayateAce
05-30-2006, 07:50 AM
109G2


G A M E P L A Y

TgD Thunderbolt56
05-30-2006, 07:52 AM
I've flown with Oleg a number of times (as well as a few others of the dev team). He's a good pilot...be sure. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


TB

Lucius_Esox
05-30-2006, 01:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I've flown with Oleg a number of times (as well as a few others of the dev team). He's a good pilot...be sure.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

R U serious,,,... I would love to know,, how good is he?

justflyin
05-30-2006, 02:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lucius_Esox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I've flown with Oleg a number of times (as well as a few others of the dev team). He's a good pilot...be sure.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

R U serious,,,... I would love to know,, how good is he? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, to be perfectly honest, he's not that good because he doesn't "game the game" like online flyers do. You can tell he doesn't use trim to turn tighter, flaps on a slider or any of the other "tricks" ALL online Aces and online Ace Killers use in this game.

Although, I must admit that not having flown against him for a few years now, maybe he's gotten better.

As for the Tempest out turning a Spitfire in this game, "Close this book forever and do not open anymore!".

Lucius_Esox
05-30-2006, 03:37 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I'm glad he's not hardcore, or didn't used to be, would somehow be kinda sad if he was..

VW-IceFire
05-30-2006, 04:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
An aircraft in a turn is not one fixed rate or speed or anything like that...its variable and is highly specific to the way that the aircraft is designed. Lots of books gloss it over saying one plane turned well while another did not. The reality is that its much more complicated and nuanced. BSA 650 is not yet aware of these details...but I'm sure with practice, experience, and some open mindedness he will come around like I did. Believe me...I came from Aces of the Pacific...every plane turned at a fixed rate and that was it. It took me a while to figure things out here. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Short version, Energy for Angles? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Absolutely http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

If energy equalled dollars and angles was consumer items we may get more people to understand http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

BerkshireHunt
05-30-2006, 05:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
Tempest shouldn't even come close to outturning the 109G unless at (very) high speed - 109G has much better power-to weight and wingloading and liftloading </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, the Tempest V had a somewhat lighter wingloading than a 109 G6 (38 lbs/sq.ft. against 40 lbs/sq.ft.). These figures are for normal loaded weight. [The Tempest's wings were huge compared to those on a 109].
The Tempest's power-to-weight ratio was only slightly less than that of a 109 G6 (0.19 hp/lb against 0.21 hp/lb). These figures are for rated power, ignoring emergency boost.
Frankly, it's not at all clear which machine would have had the advantage in a turn at medium height and combat speeds.

HayateAce
05-31-2006, 10:20 AM
Time for 109ers to start another campaign to once again decrease the turn radius for their Klownwagons.

Brain32
05-31-2006, 10:36 AM
Yes you are right in the next patch we should get a proper Me109's.
First of all 109's had no elevators, ze Germans used airstarts.
Also Erich Hartmann didn't shoot down 352 planes in a 109, that's a myth, he was the on shot down 352 times as were the other aces.
Also the P51 was so superiour to 109, that once a P51 pilot got so pi$$ed he cutted two 109's in half and created 109Z.

justflyin
05-31-2006, 11:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Also the P51 was so superiour to the 109, that once a P51 pilot got so pi$$ed, he cut two 109's in half and created a 109Z. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehehe, good one.

However, as recent tests have also proven, the 109-G2 is climbing far above it's RL counterpart. IIRC, on the order of a G-10 with MW-50 engaged.

It turns almost as good as a Spitfire VIII CW or IXc/e CW, but that part I can accept. It's RL turning circle is not that far behind the Spitfires, but it can't have it both ways. Only one aspect allowed to be overmodeled at a time.

I always laugh online when I'm in a late-war server and the majority of LW guys are flying the 1942 Bf-109-G2. Think they know something?!?! lol

Brain32
05-31-2006, 05:09 PM
Hehe I "pulled" that one out based on the Chuck Norris jokes.
As for the G2, ok it does seem strange but some Finish tests(yes I know, the weather, the method bla,bla) showed awsome climb rate results.
As for the reason why people choose G2 over late models on late war scenarios, just try to fly a late109 you will perfectly understand why. Elevator is heavy as he11, even at 450kmh which is really not some speed you are seriously disadvantaged against any(western) allied plane except P38, at 500kmh+ you are as good as having no elevator, but ofcourse the speed bleed is here http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif. I'm no aero engeener but can someone explain to me HOW if my elevator does not allow high AoA, how can I bleed so much speed?
I don't know, maybe I'm heavily dissapointed becasue I have no sliders to use(I can't give up the throtthle lol) I trim with keyboard, also many Spit pilots I fight against when flying blue use the flaps on a slider feature/exploit can you guess the effect of that when fighting with 109? Personally I think Spit pilots that get dragged into a slow fight made a mistake, but unlike RL no they did not. Also constant dive and zoom, type of fight I often succeed getting Spit pilots in does not work at all becasue I will overheat soon, they will overheat never..
To some it may not seem as a bad thing but I think 109vsSpit match is a bit out of order, Spit was superiour, I'm not disputing that, but this is just a bit too much. Small, very small changes could improve the match a lot and still leave Spitfire in superiority and thing much more historical than they are now...

Werg78
05-31-2006, 09:02 PM
i hate all spitfires (when flying blue)
and i hate all fw190s (when flying red)

HayateAce
05-31-2006, 09:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
some stuff.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You should try using your namesake more often.

La7_brook
06-01-2006, 01:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Hehe I "pulled" that one out based on the Chuck Norris jokes.
As for the G2, ok it does seem strange but some Finish tests(yes I know, the weather, the method bla,bla) showed awsome climb rate results.
As for the reason why people choose G2 over late models on late war scenarios, just try to fly a late109 you will perfectly understand why. Elevator is heavy as he11, even at 450kmh which is really not some speed you are seriously disadvantaged against any(western) allied plane except P38, at 500kmh+ you are as good as having no elevator, but ofcourse the speed bleed is here http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif. I'm no aero engeener but can someone explain to me HOW if my elevator does not allow high AoA, how can I bleed so much speed?
I don't know, maybe I'm heavily dissapointed becasue I have no sliders to use(I can't give up the throtthle lol) I trim with keyboard, also many Spit pilots I fight against when flying blue use the flaps on a slider feature/exploit can you guess the effect of that when fighting with 109? Personally I think Spit pilots that get dragged into a slow fight made a mistake, but unlike RL no they did not. Also constant dive and zoom, type of fight I often succeed getting Spit pilots in does not work at all becasue I will overheat soon, they will overheat never..
To some it may not seem as a bad thing but I think 109vsSpit match is a bit out of order, Spit was superiour, I'm not disputing that, but this is just a bit too much. Small, very small changes could improve the match a lot and still leave Spitfire in superiority and thing much more historical than they are now... </div></BLOCKQUOTE> flying late mod 109.s is hard work and you can make no mistakes in them , which is fun , u can watch spits make mistake after mistake and still have hard fight on your hands , and your post well said / http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif sad for the blue team but we take what we get and live with it

Badsight.
06-01-2006, 02:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by justflyin:
However, as recent tests have also proven, the 109-G2 is climbing far above it's RL counterpart. IIRC, on the order of a G-10 with MW-50 engaged. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>care to link those "proven tests" here then please

what has been posted on this board is that the G2 is climbing at the correct RoC from 0 to 4K & that its RoC climb doesnt drop off as much as it should over 4K giving faster time-to-climb times for the 0 - 6K test

justflyin
06-01-2006, 07:51 AM
It's in a post a few months back. I don't have the time nor the care to find it. It also may have been pre-v4.04, I forget.

Most importantly, it matters not. I was speaking very matter-of-factly, as I just laugh at 109s online anyway. I could care less if it climbed like a K4. My only concern is when it is placed within its historic planeset. Pure rubbish and unrealistically, overmodelled climb.

Scen
06-01-2006, 12:05 PM
I've already brought this up before but this is a bit more of a relavant thread.

I've seen several posts about the most commonly used planes so I thought I would chime in with my own Agenda.

Even though the P-38 has had some attention and for the better it's still lacking quite a bit. Since just making comments don't really make changes I thought I would post some numbers.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/p-38/fighter-comp-chart.jpg

Oh and here is an excellent example of how goofy the numbers are in the game compared to the real thing.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/5211031444/p/17


A few posts down.

The bottom line is the 38 we have now in the game isn't even close. She locks up way too early and the numbers are way off below 12k. It could have to do with the lack of atmospheric conditions but it's still off.

It basically forces the 38 to be a very formitable Strike aircraft. It's not to say you can't dog fight in it but it should be giving guys in Bfs and FWs a much harder time.

Scendore
AKA Capt Stubing

carguy_
06-01-2006, 02:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by justflyin:
It's in a post a few months back. I don't have the time nor the care to find it. It also may have been pre-v4.04, I forget.

Most importantly, it matters not. I was speaking very matter-of-factly, as I just laugh at 109s online anyway. I could care less if it climbed like a K4. My only concern is when it is placed within its historic planeset. Pure rubbish and unrealistically, overmodelled climb. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The climb shows a 1943 1.42AtA 109G2.
It is lighter and has better power to weight ratio than late 109.It turns similary to F4 models as its construction is not that much changed from the F variant.The real G6 was a bit of a revolution that made 109 a different plane.

So we have more power,still good T&B performance and we don`t have to force ourselves to use MK108.The only thing we don`t have is good rear visibility.

Old_Canuck
06-01-2006, 07:08 PM
Back on topic: Doesn't Oleg use the name CrazyIvan1970 online?

Eagle_361st
06-01-2006, 07:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Old_Canuck:
Back on topic: Doesn't Oleg use the name CrazyIvan1970 online? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually no, CrazyIvan is AKA RayBanJockey, I have witnessed his use of trim on a slider. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Old_Canuck
06-01-2006, 07:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Eagle_361st:
... CrazyIvan is AKA RayBanJockey, I have witnessed his use of trim on a slider. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is proof enough for me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Xiolablu3
06-01-2006, 08:09 PM
I have noticed 109's doing 'batturns' recently, is this by using trim on a slider?

Anyway, I think the later 109's should be allowed the option of 20mm or 30mm, this would eliminate some of the 'noseheavyness' in the later 109's.

I find flying 109G10-109K4 terrible, as you are usually flying fast versus Yak3's or La5/7's and the 109 just will not turn at fast speeds. I always take a FW190 if there is no 109G6A/S on 1944 scenarios or later.

I guess I just need to start using trim on a slider so that I can turn.

Seems like a kind of cheat to me actually, did real pilots use trim like this?

WTE_Galway
06-01-2006, 08:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I have noticed 109's doing 'batturns' recently, is this by using trim on a slider?

Anyway, I think the later 109's should be allowed the option of 20mm or 30mm, this would eliminate some of the 'noseheavyness' in the later 109's.

I find flying 109G10-109K4 terrible, as you are usually flying fast versus Yak3's or La5/7's and the 109 just will not turn at fast speeds. I always take a FW190 if there is no 109G6A/S on 1944 scenarios or later.

I guess I just need to start using trim on a slider so that I can turn.

Seems like a kind of cheat to me actually, did real pilots use trim like this? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I think the trim on a slider exploit still works on the original IL2 if you can find someone playing it online.

The trouble with the current "delayed trim" fix is it makes trimming correctly by keyboard in combat almost impossible, the fix if anything disadvantaged keyboard users even more than HOTAS users.

Badsight.
06-02-2006, 12:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by justflyin:
It's in a post a few months back. I don't have the time nor the care to find it. It also may have been pre-v4.04, I forget.

Most importantly, it matters not. I was speaking very matter-of-factly, as I just laugh at 109s online anyway. I could care less if it climbed like a K4. My only concern is when it is placed within its historic planeset. Pure rubbish and unrealistically, overmodelled climb. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>see heres the thing - your claims are just that . claims

zero proof

on the other hand the G2 has been PROVEN to climb correctly up to 4K , whether you like it or not , whining is always eaiser tho . . . . .

Brain32
06-02-2006, 08:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Most importantly, it matters not. I was speaking very matter-of-factly, as I just laugh at 109s online anyway. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ofcourse you laugh, who doesen't with the current modelling it's not suprising, elevator is too stiff for any significant manouvers even at mediocre speeds, rendering "energy for angles" useless, at slow speed 109 sucks big time, Spitfire is much more manouverable and even has an extra(if Spit pilot is extremely bad) it can use flaps on a slider, at all speeds Spit virtually makes circles around 109's, E-bleed is enourmus comparing this two, not to mention overheat model, did you know that every SpitMkIXe including the uber-ufo Spit25 can get to its MAX speed at only 85%throtthle+WEP, no need to ever run on 100% in level flight EVER, in other words this little 1C feature enables Spitfire to "cruise" at it's max speed for as long as it has fuel, not to mention that Spits are really not prone to overheating even at max power setting.
All this and some more leads to one logical conclusion BF109G6-K4 are completely inadequate for fighting Spitfires, and pretty much anything besides the also very porked P38 which 1C obviously pictures as a heavy bomber http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
If O.M. and 1C believe their Spit vs. 109 relation is correct and continue with such modelling in BOB, well we are up for a fun and historically accurate game - NOT.

justflyin
06-02-2006, 08:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
The climb shows a 1943 1.42AtA 109G2.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That makes sense. 1943 FM with a 1942 model. It must be mislabeled as a 1942 109-G2 and should be in the 1943 plane set. Cool.

As for actual numbers, I only need my eyes and my Mk. VIII CW Spitfire to tell me something changed in the 109-G2 around V4.xx. I saw the charts, too, from robban or one of the respected testers around here. However, there were some "hidden" changes 1C made from V4.03 to V4.04. They cleaned up quite a few issues.

justflyin
06-02-2006, 08:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Most importantly, it matters not. I was speaking very matter-of-factly, as I just laugh at 109s online anyway. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ofcourse you laugh, who doesen't with the current modelling it's not suprising, elevator is too stiff for any significant manouvers even at mediocre speeds, rendering "energy for angles" useless, at slow speed 109 sucks big time, Spitfire is much more manouverable and even has an extra(if Spit pilot is extremely bad) it can use flaps on a slider, at all speeds Spit virtually makes circles around 109's, E-bleed is enourmus comparing this two, not to mention overheat model, did you know that every SpitMkIXe including the uber-ufo Spit25 can get to its MAX speed at only 85%throtthle+WEP, no need to ever run on 100% in level flight EVER, in other words this little 1C feature enables Spitfire to "cruise" at it's max speed for as long as it has fuel, not to mention that Spits are really not prone to overheating even at max power setting.
All this and some more leads to one logical conclusion BF109G6-K4 are completely inadequate for fighting Spitfires, and pretty much anything besides the also very porked P38 which 1C obviously pictures as a heavy bomber http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
If O.M. and 1C believe their Spit vs. 109 relation is correct and continue with such modelling in BOB, well we are up for a fun and historically accurate game - NOT. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spitfires overheat. The part that I think helps them the most is that all CEM is automatic in the late-war Spitfires, until you switch to manual pitch. Auto radiator, auto supercharger stage, auto mixture. I think the code helps the plane stay a little cooler than their LW counterparts. It used to be that Spits not overheating was an issue, but the Mk. VIII seems to overheat right around where it should for me.

Any plane in the game can map flaps to a slider, so that's not really a valid argument, it's a feature.

I'm not trying to say all 109s are overmodeled this or FWs dead six shooting that, just noticed the 109-G2 changed within the last few patches and got a boost from where it was.

As for dead elevator, funny how the 109 flyers I come up against don't seem to have any problems turning circles with a Spitfire until they stay in it too long. All 109s will lose that battle eventually. However, entering at speed the 109 can get around pretty damned quickly for the first 180? to 270? of the turning circle.

109s biggest advantage is scissors and the ability to lose speed very quickly, causing overshoots of the bogey behind them. Of course, all of the above from my experience. Your mileage may vary and I only speak for me.

Brain32
06-02-2006, 09:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Spitfires overheat. The part that I think helps them the most is that all CEM is automatic in the late-war Spitfires </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The problem is not the overall overheat, Merlin was a great engine, problem is in the speed at far less than max throtthle setting with WEP, Spitfires can achieve max level speed at sea level with only 85%+WEP, do you understand me correctly; 85%+WEP=100%+wep=max speed, it's like WTF???
The only difference is climb you can not climb as effective at 85% as you can at 100%
Esentially our Mk9E(those I tested) spits, can run at 85%+wep with no overheat and with lesser fuel consumption but at max speed. Am I the only one that finds that strange?
About flaps, yes putting flaps on a slider is a feature, but real Spitmk9e had only two flap settings, no flaps and landing flaps, su this "feature" is giving them an advantage they did not have. As you mantioned 109's biggest advantage is causing opponent to overshoot try that with flap on a slider Spit pilot - insta-death...
As for the elevator, I know 109 had stiffening at higher speeds, but many accounts say that that was a problem only at speeds exceeding 600km/h, stiff did not mean unusable, something you can not say for the in game 109. Also I admmit that big factor in my dissapointment with 109 may be in the fact that I have no sliders to use, but that does not mean this is correct.

justflyin
06-02-2006, 09:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Spitfires overheat. The part that I think helps them the most is that all CEM is automatic in the late-war Spitfires </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The problem is not the overall overheat, Merlin was a great engine, problem is in the speed at far less than max throtthle setting with WEP, Spitfires can achieve max level speed at sea level with only 85%+WEP, do you understand me correctly; 85%+WEP=100%+wep=max speed, it's like WTF???
The only difference is climb you can not climb as effective at 85% as you can at 100%
Esentially our Mk9E(those I tested) spits, can run at 85%+wep with no overheat and with lesser fuel consumption but at max speed. Am I the only one that finds that strange?
About flaps, yes putting flaps on a slider is a feature, but real Spitmk9e had only two flap settings, no flaps and landing flaps, su this "feature" is giving them an advantage they did not have. As you mantioned 109's biggest advantage is causing opponent to overshoot try that with flap on a slider Spit pilot - insta-death...
As for the elevator, I know 109 had stiffening at higher speeds, but many accounts say that that was a problem only at speeds exceeding 600km/h, stiff did not mean unusable, something you can not say for the in game 109. Also I admmit that big factor in my dissapointment with 109 may be in the fact that I have no sliders to use, but that does not mean this is correct. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm almost positive that I read in RL, Spitfire pilots could indeed "stall" their flaps movement in any position by toggling the switch lever back and forth while lowering.

In your first post, you mentioned the +25lb as making top speed at "85% something, something, something (I'm not sure I understand what you are saying on that), but I really don't fly the 25lber. Are you saying at 85% throttle, you can engage WEP and maintain max level speed? Does the boost go to 25lbs at that time, too? Maybe due to auto pitch, cruise settings are at 85% + WEP? I don't know because I've only flown them in a game and have to admit I only research what makes me curious, as opposed to having to get "everything" historic.

I leave that for the others.

I'll have to check that later as my favorite ride is the Mk. VIII CW and will remain such until they release a +25lb IXe CW. hehe

No sliders?!?! I'm surprised you still even fly online. It must be frustrating. Almost everyone and their grandfather uses trim, flaps and pitch on a slider. I do. And it is quite easy to tell who doesn't. I don't run into too many of the ones who don't these days, unless they are truly new and just don't know yet.

Brain32
06-02-2006, 09:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> In your first post, you mentioned the +25lb as making top speed at "85% something, something, something (I'm not sure I understand what you are saying on that), but I really don't fly the 25lber. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I tested 25lber, but I also tested MkIXe(my favourite Spitfire) and I tested MkIXeCW all of them obtained max speed at sea level by using only 85% throtthle and WEP. This can not be correct.
As for the flaps I never heard of such usage but that's how I use it when things go rough for me and my Spitty, pressing and de-pressing my flaps buttons.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> No sliders?!?! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't need them, keyboard works perfectly fine for all planes but I'm having extreme difficulties flying either P38 or ME109 in combat, worst planes in the game, P38 is atlest good as a bomber. I rely on my SaitekEVO and my keyboard for flying and fighting online I don't need anything else becasue this works perfectly fine. You trim by clicks and adjust prop pitch by 5% increasements, I guess it probably is a bit easier with sliders...

justflyin
06-02-2006, 09:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
I guess it probably is a bit easier with sliders... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed it is.

Thanks for clarifying about the Spits tested by you. I'll have to check out that 'max speed" aspect tonight for the IXes.

Scen
06-02-2006, 10:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> In your first post, you mentioned the +25lb as making top speed at "85% something, something, something (I'm not sure I understand what you are saying on that), but I really don't fly the 25lber. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I tested 25lber, but I also tested MkIXe(my favourite Spitfire) and I tested MkIXeCW all of them obtained max speed at sea level by using only 85% throtthle and WEP. This can not be correct.
As for the flaps I never heard of such usage but that's how I use it when things go rough for me and my Spitty, pressing and de-pressing my flaps buttons.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> No sliders?!?! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't need them, keyboard works perfectly fine for all planes but I'm having extreme difficulties flying either P38 or ME109 in combat, worst planes in the game, P38 is atlest good as a bomber. I rely on my SaitekEVO and my keyboard for flying and fighting online I don't need anything else becasue this works perfectly fine. You trim by clicks and adjust prop pitch by 5% increasements, I guess it probably is a bit easier with sliders... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep I agree with a lot of your comments especially about the P-38 being still porked. According to the dive charts you should still be able to pull a solid 4gs at 400mph indicated and in game you can't even come close to that. I do admit they made some positive changes but for the most part the 38 is still way off in terms of it's real capabilties.

It will always be overlooked when comparing Spits and 109s and the more popular fighters.

F6_Ace
06-02-2006, 10:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RCAF_Irish_403:
I just wanna get shot down by Oleg http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No chance of that. Oleg flies the 190 but he can't hit anything because he can't see sh*t out of the cockpit http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

justflyin
06-02-2006, 11:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F6_Ace:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RCAF_Irish_403:
I just wanna get shot down by Oleg http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No chance of that. Oleg flies the 190 but he can't hit anything because he can't see sh*t out of the cockpit http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was just thinking that if Oleg did fly the 190, the bar would have already been fixed, lol.

We need an online session where Oleg joins us and is forced to fly only the "troubled" planes. Ya know, FW, P-51, P-38...the main planes that are complained about constantly. hehe

Brain32
06-02-2006, 11:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> No chance of that. Oleg flies the 190 but he can't hit anything because he can't see sh*t out of the cockpit </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
OMG ROTFL http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Scen
06-02-2006, 11:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by justflyin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F6_Ace:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RCAF_Irish_403:
I just wanna get shot down by Oleg http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No chance of that. Oleg flies the 190 but he can't hit anything because he can't see sh*t out of the cockpit http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I was just thinking that if Oleg did fly the 190, the bar would have already been fixed, lol.

We need an online session where Oleg joins us and is forced to fly only the "troubled" planes. Ya know, FW, P-51, P-38...the main planes that are complained about constantly. hehe </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Honestly not a bad idea... What is odd though is there are many well published documents with all the numbers needed to create somewhat accurate flight models.

Most sims do boast they have the most accurate FMs based upon real data. I'm not sure why some of the numbers just don't add up.

The reality is we are playing in a limited Medium.

faustnik
06-02-2006, 11:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Scen:
I'm not sure why some of the numbers just don't add up.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Scen,

The reality is that most people think that either their favorite plane is porked or the other guy's plane is overmodeled, or both.

You can't take one performance chart and say, this plane does not match this chart. Many people try to cherry-pick flight tests and use that as a basis for complaining. There are many tests out there, and all should be considered. On top of that, the testing agencies accepted a 3-4% variation between individual aircraft in climb and speed. Making matters worse is the pilot accounts, which are all over the place and never contain information on all the variables needed to reach any conclusions.

1C's job certainly isn't easy.

Brain32
06-02-2006, 11:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> 1C's job certainly isn't easy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nobody ever implied that it is, but some things are pretty obvious, namely FW190 bar, you look at the picture of the real thing, you look at the picture of in game FW cockpit and the thing does not add-up, there are no charts and pilot accounts there...

BTW once I saw you wrote: "Worst data---&gt;TRUTH&lt;----Best data", and IMO we have that in game but in a different form, some planes are modelled by best data, some by worst data, on all sides, you get somewhat expected results in overall, but some matches turn up rather strange...

justflyin
06-02-2006, 11:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Scen:
I'm not sure why some of the numbers just don't add up.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Scen,

The reality is that most people think that either their favorite plane is porked or the other guy's plane is overmodeled, or both.

You can't take on performance chart and say, this plane doen not match this chart. Many people try to cherry-pick flight tests and use that as a basis for complaining. There are many tests out there, and all should be considered. On top of that, the testing agencies a accepted 3-4% variation between individual aircraft in climb and speed. Making matters worse is the pilot accounts, which are all over the place and never contain information on all the variables needed to reach any conclusions.

1C's job certainly isn't easy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey! I'm sorry, but this forum is no place for wisdom or calm rationalization. Please retract your well-thought, well-worded post and post something more indicative of these forums. Thanks!

True, there are whiners, but then there are "whiners" about everything. Certain aspects of this sim are strange at best, but overall I don't see any show stoppers, just little "idiosyncracies". Most noticeable when things change between patches, as my only reference is my 6 years flying this game since the IL-2 beta.

Scen
06-02-2006, 11:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Scen:
I'm not sure why some of the numbers just don't add up.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Scen,

The reality is that most people think that either their favorite plane is porked or the other guy's plane is overmodeled, or both.

You can't take on performance chart and say, this plane doen not match this chart. Many people try to cherry-pick flight tests and use that as a basis for complaining. There are many tests out there, and all should be considered. On top of that, the testing agencies a accepted 3-4% variation between individual aircraft in climb and speed. Making matters worse is the pilot accounts, which are all over the place and never contain information on all the variables needed to reach any conclusions.

1C's job certainly isn't easy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can buy into that as a very reasonable explaination... but I want to WIN damit! JK

Yeah makes sense such a shame that a happy medium can't be found. Really I don't think this sim is in the middle for the most part. I'm sure it's being bounced around by several outside factors.

Bottom line is I would like mimic some sense of tatics used during that era for the given plane. And I don't mind if one plane has an advantage over the other.


Scen
AKA Capt Stubing

Lucius_Esox
06-02-2006, 12:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No sliders?!?! I'm surprised you still even fly online. It must be frustrating. Almost everyone and their grandfather uses trim, flaps and pitch on a slider. I do. And it is quite easy to tell who doesn't. I don't run into too many of the ones who don't these days, unless they are truly new and just don't know yet.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

?? Hmm,,,, you sure about this

BfHeFwMe
06-02-2006, 05:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:

The reality is that most people think that either their favorite plane is porked or the other guy's plane is overmodeled, or both.

You can't take one performance chart and say, this plane does not match this chart. Many people try to cherry-pick flight tests and use that as a basis for complaining. There are many tests out there, and all should be considered. On top of that, the testing agencies accepted a 3-4% variation between individual aircraft in climb and speed. Making matters worse is the pilot accounts, which are all over the place and never contain information on all the variables needed to reach any conclusions.

1C's job certainly isn't easy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

P-38 with fire extinguishers, oop's P-38 without fire extinguishers, no with, oop's back to none. Fifties this, no that, nope this way. Combat flaps at 10% of axis, though IRL the position was half. Flap speeds off 25% at half position, well that's close enough to 3 or 4%.

For any reasonable person basic meat and potato errors like this surely inspires confidence in correct modeling. How is it Spit's can obtain corrected flap positions and functions, all sorts of specialized dive breaks can be modeled from auto Stukas to split TBD's. How is it even blow up flaps can be applied to Cats yet 38's can't even get close.

There really can only be one obvious conclusion, it's the source for such hideous abominations. Come on, did they grab these numbers and systems out of their "hat" or what? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Copperhead310th
06-02-2006, 06:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEBillfish:
It's my understanding Oleg and many of the team have flown online.....Why wouldn't they simply for their own enjoyment if they choose to fly. In fact, I can tell you for a fact I have flown with a number of the modellers and testors online....and have been "told" Oleg was on at this time or that.

However, I'd never expect to see Oleg or often other notables ever use their real names. Most of us don't, yet most of all...They would be swamped with chat and page messages wanting this that or the other thing, or be treated rudely by some of the primadonna's there.....

So they may be there, yet don't expect to ever know it would be my guess.......

As to what the planes do online and off remember, they know EXACTLY what they do more then any here.........They made them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well as for the last few years i havn't seen Oleg online. But i have flown in the same server with him a number of times.
Mostly back in the ORIGINAL il-2 days.
He favors the 109's a bit. anyone care to take a guess what his Call Sign is?

1st one to guess gets....well..nothing.
lol i'm much too broke for prizes. lol

But as i said it's been a looong time.
I also havent seen Ian Boys on in a while either. lots of ppl from the old days have long gone. or given up Playing flight sims for making them. which isn't a bad thing IMO.

Copperhead310th
06-02-2006, 06:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RCAF_Irish_403:
I just wanna get shot down by Oleg http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm guilty. was in a P-39. got me trying to scissor with him.
man was a such a noob. lol

Copperhead310th
06-02-2006, 06:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RCAF_Irish_403:
I just wanna get shot down by Oleg http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm guilty. was in a P-39. got me trying to scissor with him.
man was a such a noob. lol </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Edit Correction:I was in a P-39. not sure but i think he was in a G-2.