PDA

View Full Version : Oleg, one last plea for the P-47D-27 roll rate

SkyChimp
12-27-2003, 08:42 PM
I know I'm pi\$\$ing into the wind here, but here goes:

You have the P-47D-27 ROUGHLY modelled to roll consistently with this roll chart:
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/p47roll.jpg

As I've stated (and the chart clearly shows), this chart reflects a 30lb stick input. I've further stated that this should not be interpreted to mean that this was the maximum possible stick input - which it seems you have done. If it were, then this would be the maximum roll velocities obtainable.

But as you know, there exists a roll chart for the P-47C that clearly indicates roll performance with a 50lb stick force. You must then know that 50lbs could be applied in the P-47D-27 as well.

Therefore, I must ask, why do you insist on limiting the P-47D-27 to 30lbs, when the other P-47Ds (as well as every other plane in FB) is modelled to roll consistent to at least 50 lbs stick input?

The P-47D bubble top series had 50lb roll rates equal to that of the razorback series, just at a higher speeds. The top roll velocity of the P-47D-27 should be about 85 degrees per second. Currently, it's much MUCH lower. At 50lbs force, the roll chart would look something like this.
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/50lbs.jpg

I have a roll chart for the P-39D-1 that shows
roll rates with a 30lb stick force and a 50lb stick force:
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/p39roll.jpg
Aside from showing that you have the P-39 in FB rolling way too fast, it also goes to show that MY roll chart for the P-47D-30 with a 50lb stick force reflects accurately the roll rate increase one should expect with the increase in stick force.

Oleg, many of the planes in FB have HIGHLY suspect roll rates. The Fw-190 still rolls at something like 180 degrees per second at 800 km/h. And most of the Soviets planes can easily equal the Fw-190 in roll at lower speeds - even though none that I know of were reputed to have roll rates competetive to the Fw-190. I'm not asking you to overmodel the P-47D-27 roll rate, but why must getting it at least correct be so hard?

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

SkyChimp
12-27-2003, 08:42 PM
I know I'm pi\$\$ing into the wind here, but here goes:

You have the P-47D-27 ROUGHLY modelled to roll consistently with this roll chart:
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/p47roll.jpg

As I've stated (and the chart clearly shows), this chart reflects a 30lb stick input. I've further stated that this should not be interpreted to mean that this was the maximum possible stick input - which it seems you have done. If it were, then this would be the maximum roll velocities obtainable.

But as you know, there exists a roll chart for the P-47C that clearly indicates roll performance with a 50lb stick force. You must then know that 50lbs could be applied in the P-47D-27 as well.

Therefore, I must ask, why do you insist on limiting the P-47D-27 to 30lbs, when the other P-47Ds (as well as every other plane in FB) is modelled to roll consistent to at least 50 lbs stick input?

The P-47D bubble top series had 50lb roll rates equal to that of the razorback series, just at a higher speeds. The top roll velocity of the P-47D-27 should be about 85 degrees per second. Currently, it's much MUCH lower. At 50lbs force, the roll chart would look something like this.
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/50lbs.jpg

I have a roll chart for the P-39D-1 that shows
roll rates with a 30lb stick force and a 50lb stick force:
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/p39roll.jpg
Aside from showing that you have the P-39 in FB rolling way too fast, it also goes to show that MY roll chart for the P-47D-30 with a 50lb stick force reflects accurately the roll rate increase one should expect with the increase in stick force.

Oleg, many of the planes in FB have HIGHLY suspect roll rates. The Fw-190 still rolls at something like 180 degrees per second at 800 km/h. And most of the Soviets planes can easily equal the Fw-190 in roll at lower speeds - even though none that I know of were reputed to have roll rates competetive to the Fw-190. I'm not asking you to overmodel the P-47D-27 roll rate, but why must getting it at least correct be so hard?

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

p1ngu666
12-27-2003, 08:46 PM
bump
fix the asymetric gun rof too plz http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VW-IceFire
12-27-2003, 09:45 PM
Lets do it and be done with it...the P-40 got fixed so lets have a last round with the D-27 and get her set to go. Time to move along...

- IceFire
http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/spit-sig.jpg

faustnik
12-27-2003, 10:03 PM
Would be great to see this fixed! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig

Recon_609IAP
12-27-2003, 11:36 PM
Bump http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

S!
609IAP_Recon

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg
Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem

kyrule2
12-28-2003, 12:07 AM
I agree, P-47 roll rate still seems too slow. Actually the change/increase was barely noticeable.

The P-39 rolls too fast.

Don't know about the P-40 but man that thing can roll now. I'm glad either way as I would like to see more people fly the Warhawk into battle. Its a nice, mean looking plane.

The 190 rolls a little too fast right now. It should still be the fastest but as it is now it makes the plane twitchy and seemingly unstable at times.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors" by Nicolas Trudgian

CARBONFREEZE
12-28-2003, 02:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kyrule2:
I agree, P-47 roll rate still seems too slow. Actually the change/increase was barely noticeable.

The P-39 rolls too fast.

Don't know about the P-40 but man that thing can roll now. I'm glad either way as I would like to see more people fly the Warhawk into battle. Its a nice, mean looking plane.

The 190 rolls a little too fast right now. It should still be the fastest but as it is now it makes the plane twitchy and seemingly unstable at times.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors" by Nicolas Trudgian<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. It would be nice to see all aircraft get their true historical performance/characteristics.. "Realistic."

The sim is great now but it has alot of room for improvement.

Creating a very Complex Damage model for the Focke Wulf would be a good place to start

Russian aircraft require skill to fly.
German aircraft require ten times that skill, and one hundred times the patience!

WUAF_CO_CRBNFRZ on HyperLobby

Boandlgramer
12-28-2003, 03:00 AM
Skychimp wrote:
I know I'm pi\$\$ing into the wind here, but here goes .

especially kids under 5 years like it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

RED_Boandl
http://www.707tkbn.org/members/sites/schmidt05.jpg

VMF-214_HaVoK
12-28-2003, 03:20 AM
Ya Oleg. the JUG is very close to being correct and you have done a GREAT job on the P-51 and P-40 both of them being as accurate as they could probably be. So just fix the rollrate of the P-47 (all version not just one) and we would be all set and satisfied http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

SeaFireLIV
12-28-2003, 04:07 AM
GAAAH! Not this again! Will it never end? I thought everyone was finally happy with it!

Extreme_One
12-28-2003, 07:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>_Russian aircraft require skill to fly.
German aircraft require ten times that skill, and one hundred times the patience!_
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I disagree in the strongest possible terms!
I fly "red" planes far more than "blue" and when I do ocasionally jump into the cockpit of a "blue" plane I'm almost always amazed with the ease in which they fly!
They are easier to control and tend to out-gun the "red" planes too!
Just my 2 pence worth.

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

S! Simon

http://extremeone.4t.com/images/ex1_soon.jpg

VW-IceFire
12-28-2003, 08:42 AM
SeaFire - oh its much much improved. Previously the Jug rolled so slowly that it was not capable of being a fighter...its quite capable now...but it still isn't quite up to what the tests were supposed to be showing it as being able to do.

Red and Blue planes each have their quirks and they each have their strenghts and weaknesses...I don't see either as having an advantage or disadvantage. Turn planes are easier for the traditional dogfighting tactics - no matter Blue or Red.

- IceFire
http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/spit-sig.jpg

CARBONFREEZE
12-28-2003, 01:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Extreme_One:
I disagree in the strongest possible terms!
I fly "red" planes far more than "blue" and when I do ocasionally jump into the cockpit of a "blue" plane I'm almost always amazed with the ease in which they fly!
They are easier to control and tend to out-gun the "red" planes too!
Just my 2 pence worth.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Havent played Il-2 very long have you =)

Russian aircraft require skill to fly.
German aircraft require ten times that skill, and one hundred times the patience!

WUAF_CO_CRBNFRZ on HyperLobby

12-28-2003, 01:50 PM
I agree roll rate is one of the most important aspects in fb, and this is something that really needs to be finely tuned, in fb with the snap roll which is to easy to induce with the slightest rudder movement makes the game look really unrealistic to me,

Also roll rate tests are done by one complete roll and 90 180 etc that certainly does not mean the equal reverse rate of roll speed at any angle.

also if you look at the best rolling aircraft the 190 vs the poorest rolling fighter the zero which in reality is noticable but not as severe in FB like a f16 compaired to a fully loaded c130. Also the stuka he111 il2 are rolling much faster then the zero,

Quick alieron movement by a aircraft in a jink looses effectiveness, there is also not bleed in speed from full alieron use equal air restistance to extended flaps in An interesting quote from chuck yeagaer years ago at Melbourne Florida Airshow explaining how stick pressures felt was hold a 50lb weight with one hand and see how fast you can move it left and right up and down and you will see how pilots can get fatigued quickly from a dogfight minus the effect of g's which added more fatigue and total exhaustion

Having experience "CASPA" I can tell you that fb fms fly like modified stunt planes as opposed to a vintage warbird. Oleg really needs to talk to more vintage pilots which is hard since many are not around anymore and the airworthy vintages are certainly not flown to the limit but are babied.

Oleg really needs to add some people with experience in flight to the closed beta tests and i would be confindent that would get rid of many of the overlooked problems

[This message was edited by LeadSpitter_ on Sun December 28 2003 at 12:59 PM.]

CARBONFREEZE
12-28-2003, 02:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
Having experience "CASPA" I can tell you that fb fms fly like modified stunt planes as opposed to a vintage warbird. Oleg really needs to talk to more vintage pilots which is hard since many are not around anymore and the airworthy vintages are certainly not flown to the limit but are babied.

Oleg really needs to add some people with experience in flight to the closed beta tests and i would be confindent that would get rid of many of the overlooked problems
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree

Russian aircraft require skill to fly.
German aircraft require ten times that skill, and one hundred times the patience!

WUAF_CO_CRBNFRZ on HyperLobby

p1ngu666
12-28-2003, 02:12 PM
pilot fatigue will be in bob ?

SkyChimp
12-28-2003, 03:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
pilot fatigue will be in bob ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It already is. Oleg thinks every other pilot in every other plane in FB was capable of exerting 50lbs or more of force. But the Jug pilot was too tired even when he first gets in the cockpit. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

Menthol_moose
12-28-2003, 09:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I disagree in the strongest possible terms!
I fly "red" planes far more than "blue" and when I do ocasionally jump into the cockpit of a "blue" plane I'm almost always amazed with the ease in which they fly!
They are easier to control and tend to out-gun the "red" planes too!
Just my 2 pence worth.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dont !
im still a new pilot and find the "red" planes so much easier to handle.

The 190 is such a tough thing to get used too.

VW-IceFire
12-28-2003, 09:28 PM
Its hard to generalize Red and Blue team aircraft - I agree that Red is typically easier to learn how to fly. Aiming is a bit harder in an aircraft with only center mounted guns but I guess firepower goes up due to the concentrated firepower.

Depends ALOT on style.

- IceFire
http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/spit-sig.jpg

VMF513_Wolf
12-28-2003, 10:40 PM
u know what I think.....The only Oleg who cares abou it and who read this forum is !ME!....the ither one who clames to be OLEG (maddox)dont cares about it..I think.........http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
and he calls him self an Oleg !?!:P

VMF513-Flying Nightmares (http://www.vmf513.com/)

12-29-2003, 01:48 AM
Skychimp have you done any testing or checked in to the P-47 High & low speed stall rates to see if they are on que with the historical data avalible? I thinkl the stall rate is off on all models of the p-47 & that may be the main culprit for it's poor perfomance.

P-40 top speed still needs to be increased by 20kph in all models.

US Browning .50 Cal MG's convernies need to be fixed. the p-40 with 6 gons hit's harder than the P-47 with 8. Also hit's harder than the P-51 with the same guns.

kyrule2 Wrote:
"The P-39 rolls too fast."
Ummm NO IT DOSEN"T> it's fine the way it is. It was actually better BEFORE the add on. IMO
It got a little nutered in the last patch.

http://imageshack.us/files/380th%20siggy.jpg

CARBONFREEZE
12-29-2003, 12:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
kyrule2 Wrote:
"The P-39 rolls too fast."
Ummm NO IT DOSEN"T> it's fine the way it is. It was actually better BEFORE the add on. IMO
It got a little nutered in the last patch.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How do we know it is accurate? Lets see some sources?

Russian aircraft require skill to fly.
German aircraft require ten times that skill, and one hundred times the patience!

WUAF_CO_CRBNFRZ on HyperLobby

Willey
12-29-2003, 03:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CARBONFREEZE:
How do we know it is accurate? Lets see some sources?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

SkyChimp posted some for the 39. They should also roughly apply to the N-1 model. In FB, strangely, all three models seem to have the same roll rate. But different guns settings in the wings should result in a different roll rate.

Good thread BTW. Especially MiGs amaze me with their roll... quite big ailerons, just like the A6M or I-16. Those ailerons grant a high roll rate at lower speeds. But at high speeds much more power is needed to deflect them because they are so big (more air hitting them) which means they should stiffen to conctrete ailerons above 400 quite quickly. That also was the issue with the Zero. Now it's undermodelled. It rolled fine at 300kph in that RC patch, but it was way too good at higher speeds like 500kph. Now it's correct at 500 but way too low at 300. IMHO it's done quite well in the 109s...

BfHeFwMe
12-29-2003, 07:38 PM
While your at it, check the tire pressure on the right main, seems about 5 psi low. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

SkyChimp
12-29-2003, 07:44 PM
I'd like to see some roll charts on some Russian fighters. Seem almost all of them rolled at 180 degrees per second - at least according to FB. Wonder how accurate that is?

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

kyrule2
12-29-2003, 08:28 PM
LOL Copperhead. I try, I really do. I say the P-47 needs to be improved. I say the P-40 is cool and that I hope more people fly it. I say the 190 rolls too fast.

But you pick out my one comment about the P-39 rolling too fast as if I'm luftwhining. Nice try. I try to be fair but you make it hard. Anyway, my comment was just going by the roll charts from Skychimp. You might want to look at the fact that he thinks the P-39 rolls too fast as well, funny that you didn't address your comment to him as well. As someone else said in another thread; What are you smoking?

Oh, and Skychimp I would like to see roll charts for VVS planes as well. I'm not complaining, just curious though.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors" by Nicolas Trudgian

kyrule2
12-29-2003, 08:33 PM
And please Oleg, look at increasing the P-47 roll-rate one more time.

I didn't mean to get off track or to highjack this thread by defending myself.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors" by Nicolas Trudgian

SkyChimp
12-29-2003, 09:39 PM
I definately agree the P-39 rolls too fast (at least at low speed - haven't really noticed at high speed).

And about the Fw-190 roll rate: it's fine at low speed, but WAY too high at high speed. I don't see this really as an unfair advantage, though. The thing rolls so fast its ALMOST a disadvantage (you can roll too far too easily). At high speeds it needs to be toned down. I think the plane feels too "flitty" with such a high roll rate.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

zodicus1
12-31-2003, 02:08 AM
bump to get her fixhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

GR142_Astro
12-31-2003, 02:50 AM
I quote from "We Were Fighter Pilots":

"We never dared to pull back our throttles. Maintaining every last ounce of speed would be the only way we would survive the day. As a fighter, the Thunderbolt was at best a mediocre machine. We were taught from day one that boom and zoom was the only way we would ever get a kill. If an enemy ever got near, we were going home in a paper sack. So our Thunderbolt couldn't roll or turn, but man o' man could she dive! Not as fast as a P51, but almost. And the firepower! Not as good as those P40 bastages, we were jealous of them. I never scored any kills, but I did wreak havoc on their control cables."

Lt. Biggan Fat, 12th Air Corps.

BaldieJr
12-31-2003, 08:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
I quote from "We Were Fighter Pilots":

"We never dared to pull back our throttles. Maintaining every last ounce of speed would be the only way we would survive the day. As a fighter, the Thunderbolt was at best a mediocre machine. We were taught from day one that boom and zoom was the only way we would ever get a kill. If an enemy ever got near, we were going home in a paper sack. So our Thunderbolt couldn't roll or turn, but man o' man could she dive! Not as fast as a P51, but almost. And the firepower! Not as good as those P40 bastages, we were jealous of them. I never scored any kills, but I did wreak havoc on their control cables."

Lt. Biggan Fat, 12th Air Corps.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Lt. Shorten Doomb of the 14th Air Fiasco claimed that the P-51 was only slightly slower than modern jets and that its .50's were of a hotter load, increasing velocity of the round to the point where a single round could decimate a tiger tank if bounced off a gravel road.

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
______ _____
(, / ) /) /) , (, /
/---( _ // _(/ _ / __ ,""""]
+----/ ____)(_(_(/_(_(__(__(/____/__/ (__--------,' /---+
| (_/ ( / ,' NR / |
| ..-""``"'-._ (__/ __,' 42 _/ |
+-.-"" "-..,____________/7,.--"" __]-----+

</pre>

01-01-2004, 09:31 AM
Im wondering what they are going to do with the p63 since its roll was superior to the p39 also the kingcobra was able to climb 10,000 feet higher then the p39.

Arm_slinger
01-01-2004, 11:03 AM
How the hell can a P40 pack a bigger punch with 6 .50's when a P47 has 8 .50's of the same gun (M2) and the same amount of propellant in the cartridges http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

01-01-2004, 02:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Arm_slinger:
How the hell can a P40 pack a bigger punch with 6 .50's when a P47 has 8 .50's of the same gun (M2) and the same amount of propellant in the cartridges http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Beats me http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif but it does in FB.
I belive it has a lot to do with the convergencies of the guns on the 2 planes. the P-40 has a tighter gun convergency than the P-47 in FB. So it's in a tighter package...it's going to hit harder.

http://imageshack.us/files/380th%20siggy.jpg

Arm_slinger
01-01-2004, 02:46 PM
But if the guns of the 40 can be set for 250 yards for example, whats stopping the 47's being set to that distance as well?

kyrule2
01-01-2004, 03:22 PM
Arm, its not the convergence, as you said any plane can have the same convergence. It is the dispersal that is the problem. All of the bullets/rounds may meet at 200m but some may be much higher or lower as opposed to more tightly packed vertically speaking. Hope this makes sense.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors" by Nicolas Trudgian

p1ngu666
01-01-2004, 09:59 PM
yes, the jug has fake spread, some guns fire faster/slower than others so it scews the plane http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
.303 is hopeless too
did a headon with a 190 and it wasnt even damaged, im sure i must of hit a fair amount

Kirin_9.JG54
01-02-2004, 02:57 AM
Alright, I might cut into my own luftwhiny flesh with this one - but credit given where credit due:

We flew together in formation, and then I decided to see just what this airplane had to its credit.
I opened the throttle full and the Thunderbolt forged ahead. A moment later exhaust smoke poured from the Spit as the pilot came after me. He couldn't make it; the big Jug had a definite speed advantage. I grinned happily; I'd heard so much about this airplane that I really wanted to show off the Thunderbolt to her pilot. The Jug kept pulling away from the Spitfire; suddenly I hauled back on the stick and lifted the nose. The Thunderbolt zoomed upward, soaring into the cloud-flecked sky. I looked out and back; the Spit was straining to match me, and barely able to hold his position.
But my advantage was only the zoom - once in steady climb, he had me. I gaped as smoke pured from the exhausts and the Spitfire shot past me as if I were standing still. Could the plane climb! He tore upward in a climb I couldn't match in the Jug. Now it was his turn; the broad elliptical wings rolled, swung around, and the Spit screamed in, hell-bent on chewing me up.
This was going to be fun. I knew he could turn inside the heavy Thunderbold; if I attempted to hold a tight turn the Spitfire would slip right inside me. I knew, also, that he could easily outclimb my fighter. I stayed out of those sucker traps. First rule in this kind of a fight: don't fight the way your opponent fights best. No sharp turns; don't climb; keep him at your own level.
We were at 5000feet, the Spitfire skidding around hard and coming in on my tail. No use turning; he'd whip right inside me as if I were a truck loaded with cement, and snap out on firing position. Well, I had a few tricks, too. The P-47 was faster, and I threw the ship into a roll. Right here I had him. The Jug could outroll any plane in the air, bar none.With my speed, roll was my only advantage, and I made full use of the manner in which der Thunderbolt could whirl. I kikced the Jug into a wicked left roll, horizon spinning crazily, once, twice, into a third. As he turned to the left to follow, I tramped down on the right rudder, banged the stick over to the right. Around and around we went, left, right, left, right. I could whip through better than two rolls before the Spitfire even completed his first. Every time he tried to follow me in a roll, I flashed away to the opposite side, opening the gap between our two planes.
Then I played the trump. The Spitfire was clawing wildly through the air, trying to follow me in a roll, when I dropped the nose. The Thunderbolt howled and ran for earth. Barely had the Spitfire started to follow - and I was a long way ahead of him by now - when I jerked back on the stick and threw the Jug into a zoom climb. In a straight or turning climb, the British ship had the advantage. But coming out of a dive, there's not a British or a German fighter that can come close to a Thunderbold rushing upward in a zoom. Before the Spit pilot knew what had happened, I was high above him, the Thunderbolt hammering around. And that was it - for the next few moments the Spitfire flier was amazed to see a less manouverable, slower-climbing Thunderbolt rushing straight at him, eight guns pointed ominously at his cockpit.

http://www.fw190.info/pics/kirinsig.jpg

VW-IceFire
01-02-2004, 07:52 AM
I hope to god that the Spitfire's roll rate doesn't get modeled accordingly to the present D-27. That would be a shame indeed.

The test pilot is incorrect in that the FW190 is probably the best in roll manuver out of any WWII that I've ever read about but that puts the P-47 likely in second or third place.

- IceFire
http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/spit-sig.jpg

aGunfighter
01-02-2004, 11:12 AM
It depends on the speed.I believe the FW rolls too fast at higher speed. I expect the p-47 should roll faster than it does at high speed and I am VERY sceptical about the ki-84s roll-rate at all speeds.

BfHeFwMe
01-02-2004, 04:50 PM
Unsyncronized guns always have varied fire rates, not every gun works at exactly the same ROF unless regulated. All the multi gun planes that fire through the arc feature syncronization, the rest don't. You want realism, don't you? What attention to detail, what connection to ROF variance and accuracy could you make besides worse vibration. If they modeled it to that level how could one possibly ***** about that, freakin amazing. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

p1ngu666
01-02-2004, 08:20 PM
hmm, dunno how disimiler they would be

GR142_Astro
01-02-2004, 08:21 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kirin_9.JG54:
Alright, I might cut into my own luftwhiny flesh with this one - but credit given where credit due:

That's a good book, Kirin. Written a long time ago with very simple language, but an interesting read. It was originally published in 1958 so his memory couldn't have gotten too terribly fuzzy on the events.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1885354053/qid=1073099760/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/104-1082564-3607156?v=glance&s=books#product-details

Kirin_9.JG54
01-03-2004, 02:33 AM
Actually I do not own the original book - I quoted out of Robert Shaws "Fighter Combat: Tactics and Manouvering" - which is highly recommended for every (virtual) fighter jock.

I seen a movie/documentary called "Thunderbolt!" once it showed the daily "work" of a P47 squad in Italy I think. Very impressive colour(!) footage.

I always figured the P47 and the FW190(A) being of the same kind - sturdy, fast, deadly, workhorses - and my heart bleeds seeing it neutered to a unrecognizable level. It is still a good plane to fly but does not live up to its reputation in any way. Maybe it's the lack of high alt modelling or being on the wrong frontline but it's kinda funny how in Olegs world things are upside down from what we ever heard, read or seen.

http://www.fw190.info/pics/kirinsig.jpg

SkyChimp
01-04-2004, 08:09 PM
bump

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

GR142_Astro
01-04-2004, 11:08 PM
Could someone tell me why the performance of the D10/22 is so vastly different than the D27? I know the latter suffered a few instability problems due to the bubble canopy, but if I recall, those were slow speed landing issues.

I haven't access to the proper research materials, and I am skeptical of most info found on the net.

01-05-2004, 04:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kyrule2:
Arm, its not the convergence, as you said any plane can have the same convergence. It is the dispersal that is the problem. All of the bullets/rounds may meet at 200m but some may be much higher or lower as opposed to more tightly packed vertically speaking. Hope this makes sense.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thx Kyrule. you put in better words than i did. but that's what i was trying to say. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BUT still...IMHO the stall rate needs to be checked on the thunderbolts. it's snap rolls are horrible. even worse in the D-27. it's just not right. & i'd bet my big toe that if you compare the stall rates to the ones in FB it would be clear that they are off signifficantly.

http://imageshack.us/files/380th%20siggy.jpg

VW-IceFire
01-05-2004, 06:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
Could someone tell me why the performance of the D10/22 is so vastly different than the D27? I know the latter suffered a few instability problems due to the bubble canopy, but if I recall, those were slow speed landing issues.

I haven't access to the proper research materials, and I am skeptical of most info found on the net.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm under the impression it was fuel. I *think* that the D-27 has more fuel than the other two but don't quote me on it. Nonetheless, the D-27 manuvers MUCH better at 25% fuel than at 100% and so much so that its perfect when you want to have a short dogfight run on a DF server (infact 25% should be something like 1 hour of fuel).

- IceFire
http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/spit-sig.jpg

Aaron_GT
01-05-2004, 07:06 AM
Leadspitter - is the Zero really as slow
at rolling as the He111 (which is around
30 to 40 degrees/second).

Hunter82
01-06-2004, 08:32 PM
"Flying the P-47 in Forgotten Battles is like stepping in a time machine. It's been 60+ years since I flew one of those fire breathing hot rods but Forgotten battles made it seem like yesterday. Forgotten Battles is a fine recreation of the W.W.II pilots experience."

LT. Chuck Walters, P-47 pilot E.T.O 1943/44

something to be said about that I would gather http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

==============================
Mudmovers (http://www.mudmovers.com)
ATI Catalyst Beta Tester
Catalyst Feedback (http://apps.ati.com/driverfeedback/)