PDA

View Full Version : Oleg, Polikarpov I-185 M-82



HelSqnProtos
11-01-2005, 06:44 PM
S~!

Sir,

I don't often make fanboy posts in ORR, however I love this little ship. I wanted express that to you. The cockpit is stunning as is just about everything else on this little pocket rocket.

If anyone has any useful links on where and when these planes were primarily used and in what numbers, I would be very grateful. I think I am in love. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

My only comment would be perhaps why there is no change in view when going Shift_F1 most other fighters have a more marked change, Again thank you for this gem. Really really enjoying it.

VW-IceFire
11-01-2005, 07:34 PM
Well there was something like 4 or 5 I-185's used in frontline operations. Its unclear if they managed to engage in aircombat or not. I believe they were along the Karelian front (near the frontline between the USSR and Finland) for a short period of time before being withdrawn.

Although they did serve in frontline units, much like the MIG-3U, their overall service record is very unclear.

LEXX_Luthor
11-01-2005, 08:06 PM
I had a loooong article about -185 ... I lost the link (typical). It was generally pro-Polikarpov, but in the end, La's design was cheaper, although the -185 might have been a slightly earlier "La-7." That was a ~sweet~ article when run through BabelFish translator (Russian), but I can't find it now. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

Best thing is the visual effects when flying with Rads wide open. That's a fun gunnery challenge, almost Fw~esque.


Shift+F1 or "gunsight view" works to keep head still if you have head shake enabled. Granted it offers no difference in view position, but with the small canopy frames its not much issue. I use gunsight view as a primitive form of pilot head movement to see around canopy frames.

neural_dream
11-01-2005, 08:23 PM
If i recall correctly what i had written in the aircraft reference guide, only four were sent to operational units to be used for a month, but the Soviet pilots were specifically ordered not to engage enemy aircraft (and they didn't). Some say the I-185 was abandoned as a result of the political power of Yakovlev, others say for practical reasons. I think the total production was these four.

Daiichidoku
11-01-2005, 09:05 PM
uncomfortable throttle lever my a s s

wish oleg had a friend whos grandfather flew a p 38 or p 47 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Tooz_69GIAP
11-01-2005, 09:57 PM
BTW, you do know that M-71 model is faster? The M-82 engine was underpowered, but was tested as there were more of them available than the better M-71 engine, if I recall correctly.

Although, the M-71 I don't carries bombs? Dunno. Anyway, try the M-71, I think you'll like it!

Kocur_
11-01-2005, 10:14 PM
After a while of looking for suitable engine for I-185, it was decided to use M-90 engine, but prototype build for that never got its engine, and was used in wind tunnel tests only.
As a replacement I-185 was to get M-71 (2000ps), BUT it wasnt ready, so M-81 (1600ps) engine was installed on second prototype, 1st flight 11 jan. 1941(Vmax @ SL 495kmh).
Third prototype got its M-71 on 16 feb.1941, but engine had 15% less power and 13% more weight than intended.
First flight of I-185 with M-71 engine (second prototype previously with M-90) was on 8 apr 1941, but ooops, it had to emergency land - engine failure.
They decided to built I-185 with M-82 (1700ps) using most parts of fourth prototype built initially for M-71. Redesigned for M-82 it 1st. flew in aug. 1941.
I-185 with M-71 was ready to take state trials in febr.1942.
Not clear if M-71 engined only or both M-71 and M-82 engined I-185's were sent to 18.IAP for combat environment trials. No mention of any fight.
Polikarpov was then ordered to build ONE more I-185 M-71 "etalon", i.e. pattern plane for intended serial production. It flew first on 10 july 1942, but then just stood in workshop waiting for repaired/modified engine until on 18 nov.1942. it was sent for combat environment trials in 728 IAP. No mention of any fight. Not any was intended in those trials! Those were prototypes, sent to combat unit only for purpose of gathering opinion of real combat pilots and trying out in field conditions.

Altogether there were FIVE I-185's built:
- 1st prototype for M-90, never flew
- 2nd prototype with M-81, then replaced with early, (even more than others-) faulty M-71,
- 3rd prototype with M-71,
- 4th prototype initially built for M-71, rebuilt for M-82
- I-185 M-71 "etalon".

Note: I-185 M-71 never passed or even took flight endurance tests, which was official reason for cancellation, looks like M-71 was not able to work properly as long as it would take to fly intended range, i.e 800km. M-71 engine never was in serial production and never powered any serial built plane - it was total failure.

Anyway I-185 never passed prototype status and never fought.

....................I-185M-82..I-185M71...I-185M71("etalon")
empty kg..............2437.......2654........ ?
gross kg...............3328.......3500.......3735
wing area m^2.......15,53.....15,53......15,53
Vmax @SL kmh......549........556........600
Vmax @~6k kmh.....615........630........680
climb to 5k min........5,4........5,2........4,7
wingloading kg/m^2...214........225........240 (btw:does it fly in game like that!?figure like for Fw190A9...)
powerloading kg/ps...1,96.......???........1,88

I-185 powered with M-82 would be the best soviet fighter, conceptually close to Fw190, rather than t'n'burner, worse only to I-185/M-71 actually. But Polikarpov had no political back-up, so was defensless against Yakovlev, who became Stalin's personal aviation expert...and deputy minister of aircraft production. Now Lavotchkin OTOH was Beria's protege...

Badsight.
11-01-2005, 10:38 PM
what is not to like about the I-185 ?

its a super-plane that does nothing bad + its a flying tank concerning its DM

& crazy crazy guns . i used a I-185 in patch v3.04 to equal my 2nd best ever sortie online kill tally (for props) , 10 non-AI bandits on a single ammo load

did i mention its a flying tank ?
im pretty sure i did but repetition for emphasis & all that . . . .

Lazy312
11-02-2005, 07:18 AM
I think I-185 was used in combat. From a book by M. Maslov:

"ПµÑ€²Ñ"' боµ²о' ²Ñ"лµÑ" ˜-185 сосÑ"оялся 9 ´µº?бря 1942 ³., ¿оÑлµ´н¸' - 12 ян²?ря 1943 ³. "µÑ"?л¸ ² ´²ÑƒÑ... ¿?Ñ€?Ñ..., ¿Ñ€¸Ñ"µм ²µ´ÑƒÑ"¸м обÑ"Ñ"но я²лялся оÑ"¸Ñ"*µÑ€ (˜³н?Ñ"ÑŒµ², Ку¿¸м), ? ²µ´омÑ"м - сµÑ€¶?нÑ" (ИоÑ€о²Ñ"Ñ..., Том¸лÑŒÑ"µнºо). ˜ÑÑ"Ñ€µб¸Ñ"µ*л¸ Ñ"?сÑ"о ²Ñ"¿ÑƒÑº?л¸ ² ¿олµÑ", ºо³´? н?´ н?шµ' Ñ"µÑ€Ñ€¸Ñ"оÑ€¸µ' шµл ²оз´ÑƒÑˆнÑ"' бо'. ? ¿олно' сºоÑ€осÑ"¸ ¿Ñ€онос¸л¸ÑÑŒ ˜-185 сº²озÑŒ сÑ"Ñ€о' Ñ"?*ш¸ÑÑ"сº¸Ñ... с?молµÑ"о², сÑ"Ñ€µляя ¸з ¿ÑƒÑˆµº, ? ¿оÑ"ом с Ñ€?з²оÑ€оÑ"ом уÑ...о´¸л¸ н? с²о' ?эро´Ñ€ом. "²? ¿олµÑ"? ²Ñ"¿олнµно н? ¿Ñ€¸ºÑ€Ñ"Ñ"¸µ ´µ'сÑ"²о²?²Ñˆµ*³о ² Ñ€?'онµ ¶µ²? Ñ€?з²µ´Ñ"¸º? КµÑ€Ñ"¸ÑÑ -40 К¸Ñ"Ñ"¸Ñ...?уº. ž´¸н ¿олµÑ" бÑ"л осуÑ"µÑÑ"²лµн н? с²обо´ную оÑ...оÑ"у н?´ н?шµ' Ñ"µÑ€Ñ€¸Ñ"оÑ€¸µ'. По ²ос¿ом¸н?н¸Ñм .П.˜³н?Ñ"ÑŒµ²? .".ИоÑ€о²Ñ"Ñ... ¿Ñ€¸ эÑ"ом сб¸л ¸л¸ ¿о²Ñ€µ´¸л о´¸н нµмµÑ"*º¸' с?молµÑ".

Ку¿¸н лµÑ"?л ¿Ñ€µ¸муÑ"µÑÑ"²µнно н? о¿Ñ"Ñ"ном ˜-185 с œ-71 "6204, ˜³н?Ñ"ÑŒµ² - н? обÑ€?зÑ"*о*²ом, ИоÑ€о²Ñ"Ñ... ¸ Том¸лÑŒÑ"µнºо - н? ˜-185 с œ-82. ' ²оз´ÑƒÑˆнÑ"Ñ... бояÑ... с FW-190 ¸м ²ÑÑ"Ñ€µÑ"¸Ñ"ься нµ ´о²µлось.

"ру¿¿? ˜-185 Ñ"?сÑ"о мµнял? ´¸Ñлоº?Ñ"*¸ÑŽ, Ñ"о ¿µÑ€µб?з¸Ñ€ÑƒÑÑÑŒ ² СÑ"?рую ТоÑ€о¿Ñƒ, Ñ"о о¿ÑÑ"ÑŒ ²оз²Ñ€?*Ñ"?ясь ² СÑ"?Ñ€¸Ñ"*у. ПÑ€µÑлµ´о²?л?сь Ñ"*µлÑŒ соз´?Ñ"ÑŒ у ³µÑ€м?нсºо³о ?²¸?Ñ"*¸онно³о ºом?н´о²?н¸Ñ ¸л*лÑŽз¸ÑŽ н?л¸Ñ"¸Ñ н? К?л¸н¸нсºом Ñ"Ñ€онÑ"µ ¿о ºÑ€?'*нµ' мµÑ€µ ¿олº?, ²оору¶µнно³о ˜-185, сн¸з¸Ñ"ÑŒ ²µÑ€ояÑ"носÑ"ÑŒ ¿оÑ€?¶µн¸Ñ ¸ÑÑ"Ñ€µб¸Ñ"µлµ' ¿Ñ€¸ ²оз*мо¶нÑ"Ñ... н?лµÑ"?Ñ... ¿Ñ€оÑ"¸²н¸º? н? ?эро´Ñ€ом.

'сµ³о º?¶´Ñ"м лµÑ"Ñ"¸ºом бÑ"ло ²Ñ"¿олнµно ¿о 10-11 боµ²Ñ"Ñ... ²Ñ"лµÑ"о². ' лµÑ"ную ºн¸¶ºÑƒ ¿о со*обÑ€?¶µн¸Ñм сµºÑ€µÑ"носÑ"¸ он¸ з?¿¸ÑÑ"²?л¸ÑÑŒ ¿Ñ€µ¸муÑ"µÑÑ"²µнно º?º Ñ"Ñ€µн¸Ñ€о²оÑ"нÑ"µ ² зонµ ?эро´Ñ€ом?."

HelSqnProtos
11-02-2005, 10:54 AM
S~! I put the above through Babelfish.

"the first combat mission I -185 took place on 9 December, 1942, the latter - on 12 January, 1943, of lethal factor in two pairs, moreover leading was usually officer (Ignat'yev, Kupy), and slave - sergeant (Borovoys, Tomil'chenko). Destroyers frequently were let out in the flight, when air battle occurred above our territory. I -185 through the system of Fascist aircraft were carried at full speed, shooting the guns, and then with the turn they departed to its airfield. Two flights are executed to the cover of acted in the region Rzhev intelligence officer Curtiss R -40 Of "kittikhauk". One flight was realized to the "free hunting" above our territory. On the recollections Of n.P.Ignat'eva Of a.E.Borovykh in this case it brought down or damaged one German aircraft. Kupin flew predominantly on experimental I -185 M-71 of "'20ya, Ignat'yev - on the "model", Borovoys and Tomil'chenko - on I -185 M-8. In the air battles with Fw-190 by them to meet it was not brought. Group I -185 frequently changed dislocation, first perebaziruyas' into Staraya Toropa, then again returning to the oxbow. Was pursued the purpose to create in German aviation command the illusion of the presence at the Kalinin Front at least of regiment, armed by I -185, to decrease the probability of kill of destroyers with the possible films of enemy to the airfield. In all by each pilot it was executed on 10-11 combat missions. In the flying book for reasons of secrecy they were written predominantly as training in the zone of airfield."

Kocur_
11-02-2005, 02:21 PM
lol Let me try:

"The first I-185 mission took place on 9 december 1942, the last on 12 january 1943. They flied in two pairs, and leader usually was the officer (Ignatyev, Kupin), and lead - sergeant (Borovyh, Tomilchenko). Fighters often flew to fight when combat was above our territory. I-185s flew at full speed in direction of fascist planes, firing all guns, than made turn leaving towards the airfield. Two flights were covering missions of P-40s on recon mission in Rhzev area, there was one "free hunt" mission over friendly territory. According to A.E.Borovyh's and N.P.Ignatev's memoirs one German plane was brought down or damaged. Kupin flew mainly experimental I-185/M-71 No 6204, Ignatyev flew I-185 "etalon", Borovyh and Tomilchenko flew I185/M82. Fw190s were not met. I-185s often changed disloactions, moving to Old Torop, then back again to Staritsa. The purpose was to create illusion for German command, that there is a regiment armed with I-185 in Kalinin front, to lower probability of destroying them in case of strike at the airfield." (not that I get the idea...)
"All pilots executed 10-11 combat flights. For the purpose of secrecy they were described in flight books mainly as training flights in over airfield."


Flying over friendly territory, with exception of two missions covering P-40s doing recon, i.e. consevatively - as should be expected in case of evaluating experimental planes. And when fought, they appearently did pure bnz. Unfortunately it doesnt say how many times I-185 had opportunity to fire: apart from that poetic description of combat, it mentiones three actual combat missions: two coverings of recon P-40's and one "free hunt over friendly territory". So I dont actually think that flying books were "fasified" for secrecy reasons, if they say their flying was "mainly" training flights. Its been only a month in winter: how many good weather days? How often all of them were ready to fly? I mean two of those I-185 had unreliable M-71 engines. If all of those pilots had 10-11 flights, it means entire group was in air about once per three days.

ElAurens
11-02-2005, 03:47 PM
Interesting. The Kalinin front is also where the few prototype Mig-3Us were sent to end their days.


What map would this be in game?

Kocur_
11-02-2005, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
Interesting. The Kalinin front is also where the few prototype Mig-3Us were sent to end their days.


Yeah...Thats what Oleg says to back his theory of MiG-3U travelling in time from 1943 back to 1942...This (http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/I-230.html) and two very different paper sources are silent about MiG-3U in Kalinin front...Not to mention SILENCE on MiG-3U's existance in 1942 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif
"Be sure!"

Tallyho1961
11-02-2005, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by HelSqnProtos:
S~!

Sir,

I don't often make fanboy posts in ORR, however I love this little ship. I wanted express that to you. The cockpit is stunning as is just about everything else on this little pocket rocket.

If anyone has any useful links on where and when these planes were primarily used and in what numbers, I would be very grateful. I think I am in love. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

My only comment would be perhaps why there is no change in view when going Shift_F1 most other fighters have a more marked change, Again thank you for this gem. Really really enjoying it.

I agree wholeheartedly. I haven't had much time to fly on or offline lately, but I always wished the I-185 would show up in online planesets.

LEXX_Luthor
11-02-2005, 05:48 PM
If these server people had any guts they would use or create airfields near the map edge that offered "prototype" props or "jetson" jets. Players would have to Choose very long flying distance if they chose a less Hristoical dogfighter -- a form of limiting desirability of certain hot airplanes with little or no real production run. They are a great addition to the sim, but right now either nobody is offered them, or everybody chooses them if offered. Make them pay a price for choosing them.

Bf-109Z airfields could be place far off the map edge (Test Runways). http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif It does have the range to still be effective, but the -Z pilot would have to fly an hour alone or with wingperson before finding combats.

Daiichidoku
11-02-2005, 06:15 PM
i agree, lexx

i have made a 44 planeset map with the 262 in it with that very premise, the 262 spawn is WAY far back, so as to counter the "jet whines"

JG54_Lukas
11-03-2005, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
Interesting. The Kalinin front is also where the few prototype Mig-3Us were sent to end their days.


What map would this be in game?

Moscow

Jaws2002
11-06-2005, 02:08 PM
Is not only the fact that I-185 was only prototype that keeps it out of any decent server. It's flight model is too optimistic for a plane with that wing loading. And then is that silly DM too.

LEXX_Luthor
11-06-2005, 04:36 PM
Not sure, these sloppy dogfight fps gamers don't know what a flight model is, although they post here that they know all about WW2 aviation.


Kocur::
Not to mention SILENCE on MiG-3U's existance in 1942 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif
MiG-3 was not requested until early 1943, so it should be considered as late 43. For an alternative dynamic campaign or Online War, with Luftwaffe conducting long range bombing of Urals or something, we may assume MiG-3U would be developed and used in 1942, but the game viewer should still say 1943 for Hristoical reasons.

1943 ~~> http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/I-230.html

Kocur_
11-06-2005, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Not sure, these sloppy dogfight fps gamers don't know what a flight model is, although they post here that they know all about WW2 aviation.


Kocur:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Not to mention SILENCE on MiG-3U's existance in 1942 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif
MiG-3 was not requested until early 1943. Real simmers research their own data, fake webboard slops cry about their little game aircraft viewer.

1943 ~~> http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/I-230.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read again what I posted above, and then you might want to familiarize yourself with my previous posts, such as these:


Kocur_ Posted Sun August 28 2005 23:04
Mr. Oleg!

1. Can you please confirm that MiG-3U will no longer have incorrect €œ1942€ label and in 4.02 it will be correct €œ1943€?
2. Can you please confirm that La-7 3xB-20 will no longer have incorrect €œ1944€ label and in 4.02 it will be correct €œ1945€?

I understand you are a busy man so all Im asking for is YES or NO.


If you were less busy I would ask what is criteria of giving planes their dates in game. Is it time of first flight of prototype? Or first operational use? Or beginning of mass production? Seems that currently its all mixed up, I belive its due to fact that many people were responsible for preparing history background of planes.
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/8371080943/p/24


Kocur_ Posted Mon August 29 2005 09:13
Mr. Oleg! I am deeply worried about person whom you told to prepare historical background for planes in game! I dont think you can leave any work done by this person without thorough check!

Details:


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
These planes has correct dates. MiG-3U was developed in 1942 and send on the Kalinin's front for battle trials in 1942, but in 1943 it was removed fromm a trial service already. There were there in the same regiment like I-185s


OKB MiG was ordered to design improved interceptor basing on MiG-3 on 26 february 1943 (nineteen fourty-three). The prototype of MiG-3U (type known also as I-230 or "D") made first flight on 31 may 1943. In june-july five more were built, including D-04 with larger wingspan. Altogether six MiG-3Us were built (D-1 to D-6)

Also information on unit where they were used is incorrect. I-185 prototypes were tested in two units: first was 18.IAP (I-185/M-82 and I-185/M-71 prototypes, spring 1942), second was 728.IAP (I-185 etalon, since 18 november 1942).
The MiG-3Us were flown by pilots of two combat units: D-02 in 177.IAP shortly, and D-01, D-03, D-04 and D-06 in 12. GIAP from autumn 1943. 12.GIAP was a PVO unit defending Moscow.

sources:"Sowieckie my"liwce wysoko"ciowe, cz.2", Nowa Technika Wojskowa 8/2005, "Samoloty MiG", ISBN 83-206-0606-3. Good site:
http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/I-230.html





La-7s with 3 B-20 cannons was in production from the beginning. Faults of the cannons in the first series was the reason to produce the old scheme like on La-5 in parallel with the 3 cannos version. On the Front La-7 with 3 cannons and La-7 with 2 cannons had ratio like something 1 to 15 in 1944 and greater in 1945. Kozedub after test of 3 cannons La-7 selected two cannons version and it was in 1944...


B-20 20mm cannon was in terms of designing little more than 12,7 UB hmg. It was supposed to be just replacing 12,7 barrel with 20mm one to turn heavy machine gun into cannon. But in practice it appeared that UB mechanisam did not work well much larger and stronger 20mm ammunition. It took Berezin longer that expected to make B-20 reliable weapon, so B-20 cannon was standarised in early 1945. Your source is right on three cannon armed La-7 but due to troubles with B-20 cannon those La-7s were armed with three ShVAK cannons. As soon as problems with B-20 were overcome, it was standarised, its mass production begun and they could replace ShVAK as three cannon La-7s armament. That makes diference because ShVAK weight was 42kg and B-20 weight was 25 kg. That did not happen before 1945 and that is because all 368 La-7 3 x B-20 were produced and used by VVS units from spring of 1945 to WW2 end.

sources: "Squadron/Signal No169: La-5/7 Fighters in Action", ISBN 0-89747-392-2, "Samolot my"liwski a-7", ISBN 83-11-06269-2. Very short note on B-20 here: http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/misc/ram/gun-b-20.html
EDIT:interesting site on La-5/7:
http://www.btinternet.com/~fulltilt/deshist.html


Mr. Oleg! Person (or persons) who were responsible for preparing history of planes has let you down in another case: there is some wrong data in "View Objects" in game. For Bf-109 F to G it gives wrong data on wing span and wing area: 10,6m and 17,3m^2, while correct data is 9,942m and 16,05m^2. That correct data is present only in Bf-109K4 description. Also tako-off weight for Bf-109F4, 2750kg is incorrect, and should be 2900kg.

I sincerily hope that any data provided by person(s) who gave you false information in above cases was used only for dating planes and was not used for modelling!

Mr. Oleg, please verify information I post and all information provided to you by person who gave you incorrect data. I am sure you do not want the game to include false information on planes. Their dating affects plane sets on servers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/8371080943/p/25

Quotations within the latter post are of course by Oleg.

LEXX_Luthor
11-06-2005, 06:51 PM
Kocur::
Read again what I posted above,
Exactly. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif WW2 enthusiast simmers never pay attention to the "game" data viewer, and they research the dating data themselves.

However, if you think Oleg may be using wrong data from the game viewer to model the planes, then that's a very intriguing idea. I didn't see that possibility through your sloppy crying here about the game viewer.

Kocur_
11-06-2005, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Kocur:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Read again what I posted above,
Exactly. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif WW2 enthusiast simmers never pay attention to the "game" data viewer, and they research the dating data themselves.

However, if you think Oleg may be using wrong data from the game viewer to model the planes, then that's a very intriguing idea. I didn't see that possibility through your sloppy crying here about the game viewer. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excuse me? So who am I according to LEXX_Luthor? Am I one of

Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor
fake webboard slops cry about their little game aircraft viewer.
and unable to

Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor
research their own data

as you suggested in your post before you changed it (dont say you didnt - its quoted in original form in my post)?

And would you show me where I did

Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor
sloppy crying here about the game viewer
?
Was it something opposite to

Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor
research their own data
?

FYI this game is not beginning of my interest in WW2 aviation - that started like 15 years before I saw original Il2 first, so if you really need to offend me, find some more effective way, than saying Im among

Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor
fake webboard slops cry about their little game aircraft viewer.
who are unable to

Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor
research their own data . For as can be seen around here my knowledge, although surely limited, is more than object viewer or even web pages only. Im still waiting for apology for, say, your suggestion I didnt know when MiG-3U existed, which you expressed as follows:


Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Not sure, these sloppy dogfight fps gamers don't know what a flight model is, although they post here that they know all about WW2 aviation.


Kocur::
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Not to mention SILENCE on MiG-3U's existance in 1942

MiG-3 was not requested until early 1943. Real simmers research their own data, fake webboard slops cry about their little game aircraft viewer.

1943 ~~> http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/I-230.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



And about pointing out cases like MiG-3U labelled by Oleg as "1942" (is this what you call "crying about object viewer"?): it is worth to tell other gamers what is truth and what is not, because for many this game was begining of interest in WW2 aviation indeed and to make things worse soviet aviation is little known in the west.

Badsight.
11-06-2005, 11:52 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Exactly. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif WW2 enthusiast simmers never pay attention to the "game" data viewer, and they research the dating data themselves.

However, if you think Oleg may be using wrong data from the game viewer to model the planes, then that's a very intriguing idea. I didn't see that possibility through your sloppy crying here about the game viewer. no , tell him how you really feel

Kocur_
11-07-2005, 08:40 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Exactly. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif WW2 enthusiast simmers never pay attention to the "game" data viewer, and they research the dating data themselves.

However, if you think Oleg may be using wrong data from the game viewer to model the planes, then that's a very intriguing idea. I didn't see that possibility through your sloppy crying here about the game viewer. no , tell him how you really feel </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, I dont suppose you mean, he could say something like:

"Gosh! It was late when I read yours >>Yeah...Thats what Oleg says to back his theory of MiG-3U travelling in time from 1943 back to 1942...This (http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/I-230.html) and two very different paper sources are silent about MiG-3U in Kalinin front...Not to mention SILENCE on MiG-3U's existance in 1942 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif<<, so I guess thats why I understood it, as if you said you thought MiG-3U existed in 1942, i.e. exactly opposite to what it says, asuming reader can tell irony and doesnt consider time travelling real. That mistake of mine made me think you needed to be corrected and told that MiG-3U was ordered and built in 1943. So Im sorry for using that patronizing tone in my reply, where I said you were one of >>sloppy dogfight fps gamers (who) don't know what a flight model is, although they post here that they know all about WW2 aviation.<< and one of >>fake webboard slops (who) cry about their little game aircraft viewer.<<. Using that tone was the more silly that, I did it because I didnt comprehend what you said and as I see now, we thought the same since the beginning, but I didnt read you carefully."



To which I would have replied: "No problem, its human to make mistakes."

Daiichidoku
11-07-2005, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
And about pointing out cases like MiG-3U labelled by Oleg as "1942" (is this what you call "crying about object viewer"?): it is worth to tell other gamers what is truth and what is not, because for many this game was begining of interest in WW2 aviation indeed and to make things worse soviet aviation is little known in the west.

this is one of the reasons i despise having such "marginal" (for whatever reason, combat useage, production, ever even being BUILT, etc) type in FB, or info on said types not being correct, and/or having info data mistakes that SHOULD have been proofed first, in an object viewer of cr@ppy interface, and separate from when one is going to actually fly them, as many ppl dont have the 10, 20, 30 or more years of aviation enthusiasm and studying behind them, and assume it is perfectly normal to have 109Zs blowing the **** out of 38Ls (with more like 38"G" perf.) after a dive in which the 38 compresses, yet the Z doesnt....or leave them no doubt as to how there are so many luftwhiners, after all, if the 185 flew like that in 42 vs G2s and A4s, you'd want YOUR planes to be able to at least be competitive http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

most servers, without fail, for a given 44 planeset, will have La7 3xB20s...yet that type should barely be seen in a 45 planeset alone

same for the yak3P, IMO most ppl dont know (and until fairly recently, i did not know positively) that what few must have been flying after march 45 did not see combat...

Jaws2002
11-07-2005, 09:58 AM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
if the 185 flew like that in 42 vs A4s, you'd want YOUR planes to be able to at least be competitive http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

..

Keep your hands off The A4 or i'll smack ya. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Don't even mention it's name in a tread about a clownwagen. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

LEXX_Luthor
11-07-2005, 04:49 PM
Kocur, I noticed in your other thread you were talking about how you think Oleg could be using the incorrect game viewer data for his flight models, which is unlikely but interesting. All I saw here was your sloppy crying about the game viewer. If you want to talk with me, then we may talk, just stop crying.

LEXX_Luthor
11-07-2005, 05:40 PM
Kocur::
Excuse me? So who am I according to LEXX_Luthor? Am I one of

quote:
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor
fake webboard slops cry about their little game aircraft viewer.

and unable to

quote:
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor
research their own data


as you suggested in your post before you changed it (dont say you didnt - its quoted in original form in my post)?
Correct. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif I saw you in the other thread and your research and I could not continue with that description of you. Most Impressive. Apology not coming because your post here looked like a fake webboard slop posting (the sloppy crying). Perhaps a wrong impression, but not very impressive in any case. Something to think about.

Now, as we found when I believe it was Tipo_Man who first came here offering a website with original VVS data last year, and we as a group found the only thing wrong with I-185 modeling in the game is the date. This we found out by translating the offered Russian documents.

LEXX_Luthor
11-07-2005, 05:49 PM
Ah I still have it, VVS papers here ~> http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/faculty/harrison/aviaprom/

You may wish to see this also Kocur.

I am most intrigued by Oleg posting 1942 for MiG-3U. Even Bill Gunsten in his old giant 1983 AIRCRAFT SOVIET book says early 43. I will have to czech out this warwick site to see what they say.

Daiichidoku
11-07-2005, 07:18 PM
apologies to Jaws for what i did...and also to anyone who flies any type that requires one to actually think about how to go about aircombat....totally shameless of me, yes



it is too bad that so many from 1923 or so, up to 1953, at least, before it was slightly relaxed, one had to face the very real possibility of being sent to gulag for coughing up any truth to uncle Joe, provided that said truth was that any aspect of soviet culture, tech, philosophy, et al could be anything less than those outside its own borders...particularly in regards to fascist ones...

this, IMHO, casts a pall over a large portion of soviet a.c. data, as to its perhaps not-quite-being-the-cats-pyjamas in some cases
sadly, there is a lot of things that simply cannot be verified against these today, to confirm the good from the bad

Daiichidoku
11-07-2005, 07:24 PM
ty, Kocur...

ty for making the La7 situation clear to me

i had previously believed there were just over 300 La7s with 3 cannon in 44 and that they really didnt see very much combat until 45, thus "kinda" making the La7 3xB20 a more appropraite 45 type

clear now that it definately needs to be 45 strictly

Daiichidoku
11-07-2005, 07:27 PM
i sure i read this whole thread at least once or twice.....

gonna have to read it yet again....cant figure out what Lexx and Kocur are on about

dunno how the "oleg got his FMs from object viewer data" things came about....hmmmm

i must be far more obtuse than ppl tell me

LEXX_Luthor
11-07-2005, 08:04 PM
I believe I saw that in Kocur's link to the Life of IL2 thread. Not sure, don't care.

Bah, by NOT reading fully the later posts on the last page, I missed paying attention to some of Kocur's postings, but the mixing of claims of "research" with (to me) childish crying is not a good way to present data for this very reason -- I often skip read these posters here because one of them once started an ORR thread claiming -185 was overperforming in level speed inside the game and quoted untranslated VVS document to "back up" the claim. We translated -- bad move -- http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Interesting experiment >> -185 AI wingpersons cannot follow player to high altitude...they max out at (roughly) ~7km and follow along far below as the player climbs further. Now, maybe -185 was a poor altitude performer, but not with player controlling the...throttle. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I am thinking all planes AI controlled have ceilings below player plane. MiG-3 AI can follow you high above 7km, but I never tried to see if they max out at, say, 9km if you fly higher. I never fly MiG that high because no loaded AI bomber can maintain altitude above ~7km. There is so much greater basic issues "at risk" in this sim than non-comfy throttles or aircraft viewer dating games.

Kocur_
11-07-2005, 11:49 PM
Which phrases in my posts sound to you LEXX_Luthor like "childish crying"? Make sure, by reading it many times, there is no irony there, which you seem have hard time to comprehend. Purpose of my plea is of course to avoid such phrases in future, so that I would get your attention, which is extremely important to me. (That is example of irony btw http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif)

On object viewer and modelling:
It is mine impression, and it appears, that not mine only, that handling of Bf-109K4 is, or at least was in 3.04, considerably worse than, say Bf-109G10. K4 worse handling feels like it had higher wingloading than G10. Data in object viewer indicate just that, stating WRONG - to big - wing area for all Fs and Gs and correct - smaller - for K4 only. It may seem looking at object viewer data, that K4 was modified IRL in comparison with Gs, i.e. had wings shortened. Problem is that is not true.

LEXX_Luthor
11-08-2005, 12:16 AM
Your irony got my attention. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif I saw your Silence http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif and Time Travel posts and you looked like you mix research with crying. I ignored everything else.

mmm ...... 4.01+ are supposed to be new flight model for BoB And Beyond. Czech out K4 4.01/4.02 Patch if have them. Kocur, see if your pattern still happens with 4.01+ New FM.

Daiichidoku
11-08-2005, 01:41 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Interesting experiment >> -185 AI wingpersons cannot follow player to high altitude...they max out at (roughly) ~7km and follow along far below as the player climbs further. Now, maybe -185 was a poor altitude performer, but not with player controlling the...throttle. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


yup! thats it! the AI conforms to the readme for 185 (which would otherwise be in the obj viewer), proving that indeed, the only weakness of the 185 is the uncomfortable throttle lever, as the AI cannot bear its feel after the time it take to climb to 21,000ft, thus no more climbing, and thus proving that all FB aircraft perf is based on what is in obj viewer!

its all starting to make sense now http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

LEXX_Luthor
11-08-2005, 06:53 AM
Well okay, it may not be cause and effect, but theoretically there could be a relation between some viewer data and FM. Kocur should experiment with 4.0+ New FM.

Kocur_
11-08-2005, 08:31 AM
Oh I dont know if wrong data in OV has anything to do with modelling. Frankly after reading this analisys (http://www.simhq.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=98;t=004876) I lost any optimism about this game being a true simulation, i.e. something created to replicate reality. I used to think all planes were modelled with the same set of equations with different variables for each type to achieve simulating their RL behaviour in the air, generally speaking. But as Cubes analisys indicates some planes have performance boosted far beyound such idea, i.e. beyound what those equations would indicate...But of course Cube might be wrong..."Be sure"...

Daiichidoku
11-08-2005, 09:14 AM
glad you two calmed down a bit

remember, as the saying goes, "bash the plane, not the pilot"http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Daiichidoku
11-08-2005, 09:22 AM
wow, Kocur....nice link, good reading

LameDuck.
11-08-2005, 10:04 AM
The I-185 is fantastic! It's a delight to fly and I'm glad it's been made available.

crazyivan1970
11-08-2005, 10:10 AM
Ahem... before pointing out signle aircraft...whether it`s La7 or mig3u or whatever it is.... have it actually occured to you that most of the aircraft in this sim are listed by dates of their field trials and not actual starting production dates? The way i look at it...pretty much all aircraft is in question. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

And btw, La-7 - 3cannon one saw action in 1944 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Daiichidoku
11-08-2005, 06:13 PM
If you please, CrazyIvan, just so I can get it right...

by Dec44/Jan45, how many "3xB20" were produced,
and were they in front line action, or merely field test action, etc?

or was the "3xB20" tested in 44, and only in true deployment 45?

tx

crazyivan1970
11-08-2005, 06:54 PM
Field trials mate ( keep in mind that is in combat).
Even if it was in production already, planes don`t go in the front lines right away, especially new models. They being tested after factory assembly, then regiments being pulled off front lines for rest and re-enforcements accept them and do a short training course... then completed regiment is being deployed to the front lines. As you see, process might take a few months...so planes produced in 1944 could see actualy combat in 1945 due to procedure. That applies not only to La7... many others as well.

Daiichidoku
11-08-2005, 08:07 PM
yes, i realize that

of course, its highly subjective to discuss, but...

IMO, a types "year" should be determined by the year of its major, or at least, signifigant combat deployment

naturally, others may see it as being its first flight as unarmed prototype, or even a "proof of concept" et al



in the case of the 3xB20 then, perhaps a "historical" server would limit its appearance or availability to a 45 scenario, nest pas?


pretty much keeps theYak3P outta any "historical" context http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif


anyhow, thanks for the info, Ivan

Kocur_
11-08-2005, 11:35 PM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Field trials mate ( keep in mind that is in combat).
Even if it was in production already, planes don`t go in the front lines right away, especially new models. They being tested after factory assembly, then regiments being pulled off front lines for rest and re-enforcements accept them and do a short training course... then completed regiment is being deployed to the front lines. As you see, process might take a few months...so planes produced in 1944 could see actualy combat in 1945 due to procedure. That applies not only to La7... many others as well.


Ohhh! So I guess you should ask Oleg to remove Yak-3P, since its single prototype had merely its state trials completed in APRIL 1945 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

And why really Fw190D9 with MW50 is labelled "1945"? They were produced in 1944 already! Double standards? Naa that couldnt be! "Game engine limitations" for sure http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

faustnik
11-08-2005, 11:41 PM
If they are serious about realism, it's up to the mission designers to research introdution dates of various aircraft.

crazyivan1970
11-09-2005, 12:06 AM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
Ohhh! So I guess you should ask Oleg to remove Yak-3P, since its single prototype had merely its state trials completed in APRIL 1945 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

And why really Fw190D9 with MW50 is labelled "1945"? They were produced in 1944 already! Double standards? Naa that couldnt be! "Game engine limitations" for sure http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

I don`t really understand your attitude...what it has to do with Oleg? Or anyone else from Maddox games? Why don`t you ask hosts why they put those planes on their servers, those would be the right people to complain to... I am not blind, i clearly see where you headed Kocur.

Kocur_
11-09-2005, 07:18 AM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Ohhh! So I guess you should ask Oleg to remove Yak-3P, since its single prototype had merely its state trials completed in APRIL 1945 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

And why really Fw190D9 with MW50 is labelled "1945"? They were produced in 1944 already! Double standards? Naa that couldnt be! "Game engine limitations" for sure http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

I don`t really understand your attitude...what it has to do with Oleg? Or anyone else from Maddox games? Why don`t you ask hosts why they put those planes on their servers, those would be the right people to complain to... I am not blind, i clearly see where you headed Kocur. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And hosts rely on information which comes with the game, i.e information provided by Oleg and/or Maddox games. And since my interest in those things did not start with and in not limited by Il2 and information provided by Oleg and/or Maddox games I can ask, for instance: why La-7 3 x B-20 is labelled "1944" because of single test plane existed in this year, and Fw190D9 with MW50 is not labelled "1944" even though such planes were serially produced in this year. If that is not double standards, what is?

DaimonSyrius
11-09-2005, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
If that is not double standards, what is?

As I see it, my guess is not "double-standards" or other conspirationist theories, but simply that the developers' criteria for tagging a year label to each aircraft seem to focus on a broad, and possibly a bit vague, idea of when the 'bulk' of development took place.

Kocur, you seem to be very concerned about this dating issue, and you have posted many times about it, and provided interesting production/testing/deployment data for a number of aircraft. However, while I have read many posts by you about 'wrong dates' for Mig-3 and La-7-3B20, I can't recall having read your opinion about the date stamp for Ta-152H-1 in the Object Viewer: 1944.

According to http://www.focke-wulf190.com/die_ta_152_2.htm "Den Werksunterlagen zu Folge ist die H-0 im Dezember 1944, die H-1 im Januar 1945 und die H-2 im M¤rz 1945 in Serie gegangen." If Babelfish isn't failing me, this means more or less that, according to the production documents, H-0 went into serial production in December '44, H-1 in January '45 and H-2 in March '45

Also, this comprehensive listing of FW 190 Orders of Battle (http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/oob.htm) shows the deployment of FW-190 and Ta-152 from September 1941 through April 1945. The earliest date in which Ta-152 is mentioned is March 1945 when unit IV./JG 301 is quoted as "** converting to the Ta 152 H" in a footnote.

So it would appear (if the above is correct) that the Ta-152H-1 may be also affected by the same '1944/1945 date issue' as the La-7-3xB20. What's your opinion about it, Kocur, and more specifically, how would this fit in your 'Maddox's double-standards' hypothesis? Also, should a posting campaign be started in order to request that Ta-152H-1 be correctly labelled (so that it doesn't appear in 44-45 planesets online)?

S.

ElAurens
11-09-2005, 10:43 AM
Kocur flys Luftwaffe.

Are his posts any real suprise?

A pity he carries on like this as he is an excellent pilot.

crazyivan1970
11-09-2005, 10:46 AM
Kocur, as i said, many planes are quilty in this area... And hosts should do their homework http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Chadburn
11-09-2005, 11:13 AM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Kocur, as i said, many planes are quilty in this area... And hosts should do their homework http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Amen, brother.

LEXX_Luthor
11-09-2005, 11:58 AM
References to dates should be seen only within the aircraft viewer written history, and include known dates of first flights, start of manufacture, entry into combat, dated modifications, etc... There is no such thing as single Date Year for real life WW2 aircraft; a point so simple and so totally missed by these clueless "date researcher" computer gamers. Oleg should learn a lesson and not include simple "Year Date" in his future games as the concept does not reveal to anyone real life WW2 aircraft development and usage. Funny, maybe the sim Dev's and amatuer "researcher's" bizzare attraction to Year Date comes from the popular Style Year used by car manufacturers.

Kocur::
And hosts rely on information which comes with the game,
Sloppy Hosts , Sloppy Servers

LEXX_Luthor
11-09-2005, 12:06 PM
The 64.5 Mustang(tm) is a famous example that gives people fits when they play their dating games.



The Mustang was introduced in April, 1964, as an early 1965 model.

~> http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/bv/mustang.htm
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Kocur_
11-09-2005, 01:24 PM
Originally posted by DaimonSyrius:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
If that is not double standards, what is?

As I see it, my guess is not "double-standards" or other conspirationist theories, but simply that the developers' criteria for tagging a year label to each aircraft seem to focus on a broad, and possibly a bit vague, idea of when the 'bulk' of development took place. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If this criteria is "when it flew first" or "when it was tested" than in both cases Fw-190D9 with MW-50 belongs to 1944, since it was even serially produced, though few D9s were fitted with MW-50. Still "few" is more than "none", isnt it. And frankly D9/MW50 belongs to 1944 "more" than La-7 with three B-20 cannons, because there was ONE such plane, the "La-7 etalon 1944 goda", i.e. pattern plane for serial production, yet La-7s serially produced in 1944 had two or, far less of them, three ShVAK cannons.


Kocur, you seem to be very concerned about this dating issue, and you have posted many times about it, and provided interesting production/testing/deployment data for a number of aircraft. However, while I have read many posts by you about 'wrong dates' for Mig-3 and La-7-3B20, I can't recall having read your opinion about the date stamp for Ta-152H-1 in the Object Viewer: 1944.

According to http://www.focke-wulf190.com/die_ta_152_2.htm "Den Werksunterlagen zu Folge ist die H-0 im Dezember 1944, die H-1 im Januar 1945 und die H-2 im M¤rz 1945 in Serie gegangen." If Babelfish isn't failing me, this means more or less that, according to the production documents, H-0 went into serial production in December '44, H-1 in January '45 and H-2 in March '45

Also, this comprehensive listing of FW 190 Orders of Battle (http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/oob.htm) shows the deployment of FW-190 and Ta-152 from September 1941 through April 1945. The earliest date in which Ta-152 is mentioned is March 1945 when unit IV./JG 301 is quoted as "** converting to the Ta 152 H" in a footnote.

So it would appear (if the above is correct) that the Ta-152H-1 may be also affected by the same '1944/1945 date issue' as the La-7-3xB20. What's your opinion about it, Kocur, and more specifically, how would this fit in your 'Maddox's double-standards' hypothesis? Also, should a posting campaign be started in order to request that Ta-152H-1 be correctly labelled (so that it doesn't appear in 44-45 planesets online)?

All the books say Ta-152H1 were produced since january 1945 too, and the only Ta-152 serially produced in 1944 was imperfect H-0. However I have a book which says that three pre-serial Ta-152s, which were considered Ta-152H1 prototypes, i.e. Ta-152V3, V4 and V5 (serial nos: 150003,-4 and -5 ) were all three flown first on 17 december 1944, piloted by Fritz Sander. But I consider that information not confirmed (too much confusion about all that Ta-152 protytypes) and not relevant really. In my opinion Ta-152H1 should be labelled "1945" indeed.
One may ask, why I dont say that half as often as I mention dates or other info on soviet planes? The answer is: western allies and axis aviation is far, so very far better known in the west, than soviet aviation. On the latter I have some good books/articles in military magazines, and seing contradiction between information in those sources and information provided by Oleg I feel need to point those out. That is especially thinking about guys for whom this game is main, of not sole, source of information in that area, bacause Olegs credibility, by his "optimistic" attitude in area of soviet WW2 aviation, is low in my eyes.

Kocur_
11-09-2005, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
Kocur flys Luftwaffe.

Are his posts any real suprise?

A pity he carries on like this as he is an excellent pilot.

Umm I cant fly entire Luftwaffe, can I http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif My preferred ride currently in Fw-190D9. My first plane online was P-47D27, than it was Spitfire, than P-51s, than Bf-109, and since "late" 3.04 its Fw190D9. I used to fly on Ubi as "Botras". I am not on any side of this very silly reds vs. blues conflict.
P.S. Oh, thank you! I dont think I diserve that!

Kocur_
11-09-2005, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
And hosts should do their homework http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Umm to verify Oleg's info? Are you in fact suggesting it needs verification...? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

TooCooL34
11-09-2005, 01:32 PM
Server admins who decide planeset solely with date number should close the server forever and don't open it again. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

p1ngu666
11-09-2005, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
Kocur flys Luftwaffe.

Are his posts any real suprise?

A pity he carries on like this as he is an excellent pilot.

Umm I cant fly entire Luftwaffe, can I http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif My preferred ride currently in Fw-190D9. My first plane online was P-47D27, than it was Spitfire, than P-51s, than Bf-109, and since "late" 3.04 its Fw190D9. I used to fly on Ubi as "Botras". I am not on any side of this very silly reds vs. blues conflict.
P.S. Oh, thank you! I dont think I diserve that! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yeah saw u in a dora, but u wherent flying http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif, u did however have 2200+points http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

maybe u repeatidly watched me balls up taxing, then get bounced, and then crashland a damaged yak3p (both wings very ventilated, very scary to fly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif )

became less useless later on, scored 1000+ before leaving http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

the dates are whack aswell..

DaimonSyrius
11-09-2005, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
In my opinion Ta-152H1 should be labelled "1945" indeed.
One may ask, why I dont say that half as often as I mention dates or other info on soviet planes? The answer is: western allies and axis aviation is far, so very far better known in the west, than soviet aviation. On the latter I have some good books/articles in military magazines, and seing contradiction between information in those sources and information provided by Oleg I feel need to point those out. That is especially thinking about guys for whom this game is main, of not sole, source of information in that area, bacause Olegs credibility, by his "optimistic" attitude in area of soviet WW2 aviation, is low in my eyes.
I see...

Originally posted by Kocur_:
I used to fly on Ubi as "Botras". I am not on any side of this very silly reds vs. blues conflict.
I see...

However, I still don't see how the Ta-152H-1 'datestamp issue' fits in your 'double standards' hypothesis to explain how/why 1C:Maddox assign year labels to aircraft. This is what I was pointing at with my specific question, which remains unanswered. Actually, what I see is that the Ta-152H-1 case goes frontally against your "Oleg and/or Maddox games double standards" argument, that you put forward yet another time just a few posts earlier.

Anyway, the calendar years and dates, while useful as a timeframe for events, should not be the hardest line to be drawn to set up meaningful planesets, I'm very much with what LEXX_Luthor said, the whole process of development of an aircraft is what matters, or is more meaningful to me at least. The aeronautical/engineering/armament developments can be related to the calendar years, but are not actually defined by them.

Going back to this thread's topic, after being digressed into Migs and Las and FWs, I like having prototypes in FB-AEP-PF. IMO as a user, prototypes in a sim/game are a feature, not a bug. Not even a nag. Is good (to me, of course) to have options for more variations on the enjoyment theme. I can choose whether or not I want to 'sinfully' mix I-185s with Spitfires and Gladiators, jets with props, etc. I can choose whether to join this or that server or Coop according to what they offer in planesets, settings, missions... I can choose to (find money and time to) start and maintain my own server with my own 'right' settings. The software even allows me to use 'right' options today and different 'right' options tomorrow, and that feels good.

And flying the I-185 feels good too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Is its FM optimistic? well... maybe, all opinions welcome, others say it's OK. Who's to know, since they are, well, prototypes? All opinions welcome as I said, but from my point of view, some opinions are coming from aeronautical engineer+flying pilot+successful software programmer types who have created hundreds of flight models, while other opinions come from forum poster+dogfight game player+book reader types, just like myself. Further insight on the relative weight of opinions is provided in some cases when opinions may be built upon flawed logic.

Cheers,
S.

crazyivan1970
11-10-2005, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
And hosts should do their homework http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Umm to verify Oleg's info? Are you in fact suggesting it needs verification...? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pointless discussion.

Kocur_
11-10-2005, 10:56 AM
However, I still don't see how the Ta-152H-1 'datestamp issue' fits in your 'double standards' hypothesis to explain how/why 1C:Maddox assign year labels to aircraft. This is what I was pointing at with my specific question, which remains unanswered. Actually, what I see is that the Ta-152H-1 case goes frontally against your "Oleg and/or Maddox games double standards" argument, that you put forward yet another time just a few posts earlier.

As I posted above there is information of Ta-152H1 prototypes flying in december 1945, so even H1 fits this policy of labelling planes by their protypes flying/testing. Or perhaps Oleg decided to think of Ta-152H0 as Ta-152H1 "protypes"?

But Ta-152H1 is irrelevant in case of different standards for labelling of LA-7 3 X B-20 AND FW-190D9 WITH MW-50.

Kocur_
11-10-2005, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
And hosts should do their homework http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Umm to verify Oleg's info? Are you in fact suggesting it needs verification...? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Pointless discussion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My thought exactly after seeing this BS:

Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:

These planes has correct dates. MiG-3U was developed in 1942 and send on the Kalinin's front for battle trials in 1942, but in 1943 it was removed fromm a trial service already. There were there in the same regiment like I-185s.

Or prove me wrong crazyivan1970! Prove me this is something else than a lie! For how possibly could Oleg, the "aeronautical engineer+flying pilot+successful software programmer types who have created hundreds of flight models", to quote DaimonSyrius, have incorrect information and not verify it ever? Even after I made it a click away (http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/I-230.html)!

DaimonSyrius
11-10-2005, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
Or prove me wrong crazyivan1970! Prove me this is something else than a lie! For how possibly could Oleg, the "aeronautical engineer+flying pilot+successful software programmer types who have created hundreds of flight models", to quote DaimonSyrius, have incorrect information and not verify it ever? Even after I made it a click away (http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/I-230.html)!

Come on, Kocur, not again the sources dispute act, please...

1 minute to check Mig-3U data in FB-AEP-PF Object Viewer:
Year: 1942
Engine: AM-35A

5 minutes Googling brought up this clickable bit (http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2072/mig.html) (from Sturmvogel -apparently a LW site-):

The German advance forced Zavod Nr. 1 to evacuate to Kuibyshev in October 1941, but that was the least of the MiG's problems. Its engine and the AM-38 of the Il-2 were closely related and were built in the same factory. When Stalin gave absolute priority to the latter aircraft over the MiG in December, its fate was sealed as the AM-35A production line was converted to AM-38s. Production ceased on 23 December 1941 after 3120 were completed. This decision aborted a number of projects to improve the MiG.

One was to replace the AM-35 with a AM-38 to optimize the MiG for the frontal, low-level role. A MiG-3 was reengined during the summer and performed quite well, not least because of the slightly lighter engine. It was recommended that production switch over, but all AM-38 production was reserved for the Il-2 and the existing production lines could not be interfered with. None the less, some MiG-3s were reengined with overhauled AM-38s in 1942 as stocks of AM-35s were exhausted.

A more systemic series of improvements was planned for the MiG-3U, most notably the substitution of two 20mm ShVAK cannon for the existing armament, much use of metal in lieu of wood, and a more powerful AM-39. But the AM-39 was not yet ready and the usual AM-35 was used, but the cancellation of AM-35 production delayed its first flight until August 1942 as the I-230. It proved to be even faster at all altitudes than the MiG-3, but all existing production facilities were in use for other aircraft and none could be spared. An improved version of the I-230 flew as the I-231 with the AM-39 in February 1943. It reached 707 kph at 7100 meters (439 mph at 23,300 ft.), but the usual lack of factory space prevented it from entering production.

2 more minutes on Google to find this RAF Museum aircraft designation codes list (http://www.mda.org.uk/aircraft/12924.htm), just to double-check:

Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-3U
Use for Mikoyan-Gurevich I-230 , Mikoyan-Gurevich D

My conclusion: The data above seem to indicate that Mig-3U (aka I-230) fitted with AM-35 engine made its first flight on August 1942. This would be in aggreement with Oleg Maddox's statement and in-game data about the engine. Also, this would be in disaggreement with Kocur@ubiforum's insistent claim of 1943 as the right date. February 1943 would seem to be the date for a further improved version with AM-39 engine (designated I-231 according to Sturmvogel) which is not the one in FB-AEP-PF. The Mig-3U with AM-35 in FB-AEP-PF has a max speed of 660 km/h at 7.800m quoted in Object Viewer, while the improved I-231 with AM-39 from February 1943 would make 707 km/h at 7.100m.

Now, I can imagine that this particular horse has probably been beaten to death before and elsewhere, but Kocur, would you please start your own thread about your discrepancies with O. Maddox about soviet aircraft dates and other data? Instead of hijacking every other thread into discussing the years issue? Please?

This way, people really interested in bashing Oleg Maddox's representation of soviet WWII aircraft or in discussing alternative possibilities would have a single, easy-to-find place to dispute sources and waving them at each other.

Thanks,

S.

Kocur_
11-10-2005, 03:03 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif I can give you MANY links to sites saying there were "100 Yak-3s with VK-107 in service in WW2" which will not change a bit fact that it didnt happen, i.e. internet is full of sites on WW2 aviation with errors and mistakes, especially in area of soviet WW2 aviation. That happens especially often in the sites with no bibliography at all or with it including publications based on soviet publictions with all the propaganda you can imagine.

Or should I dismiss DETAILED, i.e. providing DAILY dates, names of institutions, units and pilots, information from http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/I-230.html and http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/i-231.html btw
, where they also give BIBLIOGRAPHY and just belive a site which also says top speed of P.37 was 445kmh (to make it clear that should be 412kmh)? Should I also dismiss entire 1987 "Samoloty MiG" book by Piotr Butowski (as if you knew who he is...)? And do the same with artice in a well respected military magazine in 2005 issue? Sure! I will simply do that and belive your site http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

As much as the discussion is pointless really, bacause Oleg uses sources he likes or information he likes, not minding anything not fitting his "optimism", I will add that I-231, i.e. plane with AM-39 was flown first on 19 october 1943, not as your site says in "February 1943".

crazyivan1970
11-10-2005, 03:12 PM
You are crossing the line with your accusations and disrespect Kocur, don`t pretend that you know it all, ok? Maddox gets his information not from questionable websites and books... he goes right for the sources that you have no access to. They do their homework more often then you think. Lately many posts of yours smell like bias accusations... really irritating if you ask me.

Kocur_
11-10-2005, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
You are crossing the line with your accusations and disrespect Kocur, don`t pretend that you know it all, ok? Maddox gets his information not from questionable websites and books... he goes right for the sources that you have no access to. They do their homework more often then you think. Lately many posts of yours smell like bias accusations... really irritating if you ask me.


Yes, and those sources are kept in secret obviously, so no one can see/verify them. How convenient! So we must assume there are sources I have no access to, which contain proof that Yak-3 pilots manual is wrong on dive speed limit of 650kmh IAS, so it should be increaced in the game by 100kmh+ AND proof that P.11c pilots manual stating dive limit of 696kmh is wrong too, so it should be decreaced by 200kmh in the game...

I happen to be familiar with both soviet era publications on WW2 aviation and post-1990, Russian ones. First contain propaganda: you would read nothing on Yak-3 but the "most manouverable" fighter and certainly nothing on Yak diving speed limit. The latter, of which Stepaniets book on Yaks is a very good example, give DATA, in case of Yak-3 that would be 21 seconds as 360 turn time and 700kmh as speed when wings were ripped off. Now: how things look in the game? Is it closer to soviet propaganda or Russian data?

Dont bother answering to that. The discussion is pointless indeed.



On disrespect:
I do have both respect and gratitude for Oleg, as creator of the best WW2 aviation game yet indeed. But, geez, Im allergic to attempts of offending my intelligence, and that is done a lot in this game unfortunately. So unfortunately...
Do you remember that Ubi site poll? One with choices: do you belive Oleg is "god", "demi-god" or "like a god"? I didnt vote. There is no taboo to protect Oleg or Maddox Games or the game itself from "disrecpect" by me, if "disrespect" is pointing out differecnes between what I know from authors who had access to archives, i.e. history and what is presented in this game.

On bias:
Oh please! As above, and when did you last see a Yak with its fuel tank burning?
The very basic assumpion of this game, i.e. not modelling of quality issues is a stark example of pro-soviet bias! Or perhaps hundrets of Yak-3s and La-7s were not grounded in winter 1944/45 because of quality "problems", not to mention earlier types? The rest is just consequences.


So do your job, whatever you feel it is and keep your beliefs, while I will do the same with mine.

DaimonSyrius
11-10-2005, 05:08 PM
Yet again another chapter in the endless "my source is bigger than anybody else's source in the whole Universe" saga. I guess I'll just wait for this thread to get back into its (more interesting IMO) topic, if this thread and topic haven't already been clogged to death with the 'Oleg is biased' lethany. Just start the n-th thread about it, Kocur, and let's talk I-185 here, please. And don't forget to remind everybody there, in your ultimate-truth-revealing thread what 'double standard' means in English (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/double%2520standard.html), one of the many ways of bashing someone or something. Just in case someone might argue that you're not actually saying the 4-letter word 'bias'.

S.

*Edit* P.S. Oh, I see you're actually well into the bias thing, and also pouring Yak-3's and La-7's all over the place. Would you take it to its own specific thread, please? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Daiichidoku
11-10-2005, 05:47 PM
the less talk about the 185 the better....i stopped laughing over THAT joke long ago

ok, ok, the thread tpoic IS 185, so...ITS A JOKE http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

seriously, tho, it WOULD be most pleasing to, if not see, then at least know WHERE Oleg gets most or all of his data from...especially in regards to, say, P 38 data, seeing as how the Lockheed/NACA/USAAF data is "propaganda"...not flaming there, it honestly would be most interesting to know bout that stuff

Kocur_
11-10-2005, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by DaimonSyrius:
Yet again another chapter in the endless "my source is bigger than anybody else's source in the whole Universe" saga. I guess I'll just wait for this thread to get back into its (more interesting IMO) topic, if this thread and topic haven't already been clogged to death with the 'Oleg is biased' lethany. Just start the n-th thread about it, Kocur, and let's talk I-185 here, please. And don't forget to remind everybody there, in your ultimate-truth-revealing thread what 'double standard' means in English (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/double%2520standard.html), one of the many ways of bashing someone or something. Just in case someone might argue that you're not actually saying the 4-letter word 'bias'.

S.

*Edit* P.S. Oh, I see you're actually well into the bias thing, and also pouring Yak-3's and La-7's all over the place. Would you take it to its own specific thread, please? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

And if only your essays-writing talents were supported with some actual knowledgehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Still site I and not I only gave link to, IS better than one you did. Sorry http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

A moderator has made admonition- that could not have been left unadressed.
But Im all silent now and listening to you: "and let's talk I-185" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LEXX_Luthor
11-10-2005, 07:10 PM
Yefim Gordon::
I-230 (MiG-3U, Type 'D' or MiG-3D)
:
:
By this time an NKAP instruction of 27th <span class="ev_code_yellow">Fnebuary 1943</span> had asked for an interceptor for the PVO with a gross weight of...

MiG's Piston Engine Fighters -- page 63

As Kocur says -- Sovplanes website says Fneb 1943 request for -3U development. Gunsten says 1943, or said it back in 1983. All this is with AM-35.


Daiich::
less talk about the 185 the better....i stopped laughing over THAT joke long ago
Exploring the possibilities of WW2 with a Dynamic Campaign or Online War is exactly why I love I-185 as a possibility. Be careful you don't think the men and women who fought, won, and lost WW2 are a joke, because this includes the designers, workers, and pilots of the prototypes.

Daiichidoku
11-10-2005, 07:57 PM
Lexx, I never mentioned anytime regarding the people, and never would, please dont read into it, or assume, sir

That anyone who designed, built, flew, serviced et al ANY a.c. type did so for any less than the purest motives, very few I would discount, regardless of where, for whom, or when (even if the purest motives are or were askew, but thats for another asbestos lined thread)

sure, the possibilities are endless...too bad we dont have the He-280 (1941!) to beat the living snot outta those 185s....that would kinda put the sovi-fasci a.c. tech balance back into prespective for me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

course, dont suppose we would ever actually SEE those 41 280s in a fraction of servers that have 185s....bad enough the 44 262 (or should that be 43? hehe) is nowhere to be found

would you, my dear Lexx, happen to have a "what if" mission/campaign featuring, say, a scenario with the blessed I-185 facing He-280s (Me-262s masquarading as )?

OT, but ok, if so many ppl are SO scared of 262s....why de heck wont they even consider the He 162? no range, and so little ammo (even tho the 151s ARE more formidiable now)


BTW, what would make the best MiG 15 sub? Goth? excellent alt perf, great turn and manuverablilty, aside from not having the MiGs roll...and heavy guns

Yak 9U, La73xB20 (as La9/11), Il23M (as Il-10)and Gotha (as MiG 15

vs

P 51, F4U1C (as F4U5/6/7), A-20 (as A/B-26), P-80

either that, or wait for about 4 years til BoB rolls around to that time http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

LEXX_Luthor
11-10-2005, 08:30 PM
Daiich, I read what you post, and you make jokes of the real life men and women who fought and toiled in WW2 military aviation.

He-280 would be sweet. Messer was an upstart compared to He, much like MiG, La, and Yak were upstarts compared to Polikarpov. I have been thinking of using some version of Ki-61 for the He-100D for 1941 possibilities in Dynamic Campaign. The -61 looks so like the -100, and indeed the -61 was inspired by it. It was more difficult to manufacture than -109 and that would have some effect on its numbers in a Dynamic Campaign compared to availability of -109s. Our -185 was also more difficult to manufacture than the La series, and this was one reason the -185 was not pursued, beyond just engine problems, and so it too would be Reduced in numbers relative to La's. Best of all, the -61 has an opening canopy. wOOts

Daiich, what MiG-15 are you talking about? You may be including that in your post to make a sloppy fake "angry" webboard post ranting seem impressive. You don't need to. And you don't need to make fun of the people who worked in WW2 aviation. What you can do is post as if you have an interest in World War 2 military aviation. That would be impressive to see.

LEXX_Luthor
11-10-2005, 09:10 PM
Now, I would trip over myself rushing to trade all the prototypes in the sim for all important Flyable bombers and multi-crew fighters ( -3, -210, -410,) over the Eastern Front. But Oleg's Hristoical Perfect Cockpit standards do not permit this (in this sim only) so the only thing left to add after all the single engine dogfight planes is single engine prototype dogfight planes.

That, Daiich, is the only thing to cry about with regard to prototypes being in the sim. I have a grim fascination of all prototypes in World War 2, but I realize they exist in the game only because we largely "used up" the mass produced single engine dogfighters, and the single engine prototype dogfighters are so much easier to add then the much more needed mass produced bombers and multi-crew fighters. This you miss in your rantings here. We are not so different, you and I, so maybe you trash the people who worked in WW2 aviation out of frustration with Oleg's cockpit standards getting in the way of expanding the sim to stunning levels of air warfare simulation far beyond arcade dogfighting. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Badsight.
11-10-2005, 09:42 PM
Originally posted by DaimonSyrius:
And flying the I-185 feels good too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif 100% agree , super fun plane to fly in FB for good reasons


Originally posted by DaimonSyrius:
Is its FM optimistic? well... maybe, all opinions welcome, others say it's OK. Who's to know, since they are, well, prototypes? All opinions welcome as I said, but from my point of view, some opinions are coming from aeronautical engineer+flying pilot+successful software programmer types who have created hundreds of flight models, while other opinions come from forum poster+dogfight game player+book reader types, just like myself. Further insight on the relative weight of opinions is provided in some cases when opinions may be built upon flawed logic. that isnt related to the specs of the I-185 , which dont show a good turning A/C at all <~~~ not opinion

a fact

but its the DM , not the FM , that really makes the I-185 insanely good

Daiichidoku
11-11-2005, 12:25 AM
everyone on the planet are not so different as many would imagine, not at all

the mig 15 would be part of a korean set, ive wondered if the goth would make a decent stand in for the mig 15, not counting its appearance, obviously, otherwise, a korea map woul dhave to be what? early 51 or something, while p 80s had ashort stint as topdogs, before mig 15s arrival

yea, the ki61 indeed looks much like the he 100 (yet another heinkel that SHOULD have been made, instead of a messer), but isnt the wingloading/topspeed between the two make for a very different type altogether?...couldnt tell you a better alternative off the top of my head though, anyhow

if you feel i have disparaged, or otherwise made fun of WWII aviation ppl, please quote me, that i may see what you are talking about, and apologise, put into context, or justify( http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif ) my words

DaimonSyrius
11-11-2005, 09:11 AM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DaimonSyrius:
Yet again another chapter in the endless "my source is bigger than anybody else's source in the whole Universe" saga. (...)

(...) Still site I and not I only gave link to, IS better than one you did. Sorry http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sheesh... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Ok, your source is bigger, fatter and harder than anyone else's, no one is interested in disputing that.

I should better say, speaking for myself only, that I'm not interested, anyway, in seeing that point being discussed forever all over the forums regardless of what the actual discussion topic for the victim thread may be. More so when you have recently stated that, even when sources provide their bibliographic references, you will dismiss them if they contradict your opinions, and you will request original documents even when you haven't got same original documents to support your views either. Remember this recent thread about La-7 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/26310365/m/2231076263/r/7431074363#7431074363)? The general case is:

-Internet source X says some data D is 'white' and provides bibliographic reference, but no scanned original documents.
-Internet source Kocur@ubiforum says data D is 'black' and provides bibliographic reference, but no scanned original documents either.
-1C:Maddox doesn't seem to dedicate a lot of time to arguing on internet forums but, however, they do real work on the subject and have produced an objectively huge and complex, and IMO splendid even with the inaccuracies it may contain, piece of work that we enjoy as a hobby. So we all have in our hands an actual showpiece of their experience/competence in the matter, and each of us can form his/her opinion about a real piece of work on the subject.

Which is not the case for most internet sources, including Kocur, from whom we (I mean, I) only know his insistent/persistent posts, whose bottom lines appear to be arguments on the line of "devil must be in the details" or "Maddox's obvious double standards" when scratched a bit in their logic; conveniently skipping/dismissing other referenced sources quoting other data from NII-VVS, or skipping that a 1944 Ta-152-H1 just invalidates the 'double standard' accusation made upon the 1944 La-7-3xB20. By the way, saying 'double standards' is quite another (nastier) thing than saying 'different standards' as a quick dictionary look up will show. IMO, the whole concept of intentional unfairness, the 'look what wicked Oleg is doing, he's unfair to me/my plane/my Blue/Red side, he's unfair to History' is childish, not to mention pointless (more about this shortly).

Generally, I would tend to just think 'hmm, seems to be a controversial matter' and leave it there. However, Kocur's data turn out to be magically (as in not logically) better, harder, bigger, heavier, etc., and the magic seems to rely ultimately on devils in the details, double standards, etc. (your idiom choice). Well, at least the discussion was mostly about La-7 (on topic) on that thread, but the actual subject being discussed was effectively shifted (a summary here (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/26310365/m/2231076263/r/6361046563#6361046563) for whomever might care) to how big and authoritative Kocur's books and sources are, and how unfair and biased 1C:Maddox are and how the obvious bias undermines the intellectual value of their work (and this, btw, is where the respect that CrazyIvan alluded to plays a part IMO, as in intellectual respect for any great work even if you, as a hobbyist, disaggree with parts of it).

As I said on that thread, I'm no aviation history expert, and I'm not trying to establish a particular Truth about this or that plane or date or specification. Just pointing out where the logic is flawed IMO. And the 'long essay' (hardly that, just 5 short paragraphs and reaching conclusion) brings me to the specific points:

Quoting the closing words from the 'mission accomplished-said last word' final post (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/26310365/m/2231076263/r/9391071963#9391071963) in the La-7 thread 3 weeks ago:

Originally posted by Kocur_:
PS. But seing MiG-3U still "1942" plane in 4.02 I dont really feel like discussing such things anymore...What would be point of that...?


Quoting yesterday's post in this, I-185 thread:

Originally posted by Kocur_:
As much as the discussion is pointless really, bacause Oleg (...)


So if it was pointless three weeks ago, and hasn't ceased being pointless... why bringing it again here in the first place?
OK, Kalinin front was mentioned as the place where both I-185 and Mig-3U were field-tested... but how does this change the pointlessness of discussing dates for Mig-3U and La-7 and MW50 on FW's and the generally off-topic sources dispute act? I can see how Kalinin may serve as a stirrup to aid jumping onto tall horses, but the whole thing remains pointless nevertheless.

So my point is, please start a thread about Maddox's treason to History and/or the better sources to substantiate that, instead of unloading the same whole thing once and again and again on every thread that appears to provide with a suitable stirrup.

I wish the forum admins would set a specific sub-forum for 'Sticky Disputes' and would keep moving there the disputes that are already sticky just because people stick to them. I realise that this would be too much of a workload, so just wishful thinking here http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Over & out
S.

Kocur_
11-11-2005, 09:44 AM
And still I can give you Werknummern of planes being Ta-152H1 prototypes flown in 1944, and Werknummern of Fw-190D9 with MW-50 produced and flown in 1944. That makes Ta-152H1 "1944" fit Oleg's standard of date labelling after protypes and unfortunately makes Fw-190D9 with MW-50 "1945" treated unevenly. No matter how long essays you post. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Discussion with "no aviation history expert" who wishes to have his plane and its modelling justified and left unquestioned in terms of reality is pointless indeed (but fun sometimes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif). But there are also others, who are not in desperate need to have undisturbed their belief that their beloved La-7 or I-185 or any other is modelled to be like IRL. Sharing information with them is not pointless! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

DaimonSyrius
11-11-2005, 10:38 AM
Since you insist in having the ultimate pointless word, so be it, go ahead http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Originally posted by Kocur_:
...who wishes to have his plane and its modelling justified and left unquestioned in terms of reality (...) in desperate need to have undisturbed their belief that their beloved La-7 or I-185 or any other is modelled to be like IRL.


If you are referring to me, it's your invention completely. I don't think that aeronautics or history are matters of faith at all, which seems to be your implication. Real or simulated aircraft, specific ones or generally, just don't exist in a love/hate continuum in my understanding of reality. I simply enjoy the simming of them in PF-EAP-FB, and sometimes am in the mood to point out in forum discussions that our opinions are just hobbyist opinions (yours too) about a professional work until proven as better than that, and that sound logic is a requirement for that, besides sources.


Originally posted by Kocur_:
Sharing information with them is not pointless!


My point precisely, one specific thread to share your strong opinions would be the most efficient way to share them, that's why forums are designed this way, also more convenient for whoever is interested... no need to hijack every other thread.

S.

SD_Fugazi
11-12-2005, 01:04 AM
I do not know maybe my translation is really bad (my russian is not good at all... worst than my german...).

On the B20s, and La-7 3xB20s or Yak-3P...

Before the end of 1944 150 La-7 B20s were ordered in production (along with 150 Yak-3s):
50 in November 1944 by plant 381
50 in December 1944 by plant 21
50 in December 1944 by plant 381

In regard of Yak-3 with B20s...
50 in November 1944 by plant 292
100 in December 1944 by plant 292.

Notice that on November 1st '44, the drawings for the installation of the 3rd B20 gun for La-7 was provided to plant 21 and 381.

So... it maybe that the La-7 3xB20s was produced in '44 and likely that it was delivered before the end of the year to VVS units.... and same for Yak-3...
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Remark: Apparently the B20 was definitely accepted for production (meaning fixed) from October 10th 1944.

Edit: Remove the P for the Yak-3... documents do not show the version... sry. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Kocur_
11-12-2005, 08:12 AM
Oh I can help with Yak-3P http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
OKB Yakovlev was ordered to prepare Yak-3 with B-20 cannons not sooner than 29 december 1944. A single Yak-3P prototype was in state trials between 23 march to 9 april 1945. After those serial production was ordered, but full production begun on 1 august 1945.

Could you please post or guide us to the source? In two books I have, B-20s on La-7 appear not sooner than early 1945.

DaimonSyrius
11-12-2005, 09:44 AM
Can someone tell me please when was I-185 introduced in FB-AEP-PF?
I was trying to find out what were the specifications given for the two in-game variants. Usually I go to Harball's Aircraft Viewer to check specs for the planes that are missing in the Object Viewer, but I was curious to see what data did 1C:Maddox tell about I-185's at the time they were released. So I went to check the several readme's that come with the patches, but there's nothing about I-185 in the ones I have. After a few patches and reinstalls, those are the different versions readme's that I've got now in my HD:
1.22 (FB)
2.0 (AEP
3.0 (PF)
3.03
3.04
4.01
4.02

I'm suspecting that it must be some of the AEP patches that I never applied because I went from FB (1.22) directly into FB+AEP+PF (3.0) and patched from there on. So I'd be missing the 2.0x patches and readmes.

Could some kind soul post here the readme that introduced I-185 to the series please? Guess it won't be a very long file.

Cheers,
S.

P.S. Also checked the AdvancedManual.pdf, no I-185 info there.

p1ngu666
11-12-2005, 10:30 AM
im not bothered much about yak3p,la73x20 cos there n00b arcade df planes.

want yak9u with 3x20mm, and 1x23 2x20mm and other armament options if it had any http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Kocur_
11-12-2005, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:

want yak9u with 3x20mm, and 1x23 2x20mm and other armament options if it had any http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Not to my (coming from Stepanyets) knowledge. Yak-9U started and finished career with a ShVAK and two UBS.
Only Yak-9P in its mature version from 1947 had armament of two B-20 above engine plus optionally B-20 or NS-23 or N-37 or N-45 cannons firing through hub. Btw: according to Stepanyets there were NO all-metal Yak-9Us. Even early Yak-9Ps had all-metal wing only, fuselage still had plywood skinning.

p1ngu666
11-12-2005, 03:14 PM
yeah, but you dont fly yaks cos of there construction, u fly them cos they look cool, the 9u looks espcialy secks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif and its a workin class plane.

plus dont wanna fly some ubern00b la7 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

SD_Fugazi
11-12-2005, 04:04 PM
Oops I took some time to make some translations...

Let's go back to the La-7 B20s, and Yak-3 B20s.
OKB N 6681 October 10th 1944:
About the B20, tested on La-7, Yak-9 and IL2 for the turret version (and installable in LA-7, Yak-3, Yak-9 and IL2).
Notification for plants 21, 381 and 292 to ensure the release of 300 planes (La-7 & Yak-3) armed with the B-20 before the end of 1944.
1) Plant 381, 50 La-7 per month in November and December '44, and plant 21 50 La-7 in December. Gk had until November 1st to transmit drawings of the installation of the 3rd B20 guns ont the La-7 to plant 21 and 381.
2) Plant 292, 50 Yak-3s B-20s in November, 100 Yak-3s B-20s in december.

Also curiously I have the 29 December 1944 as a date for the Yak-3, it is about the production of the Yak-3 VK-107A with metallic wings at the plant 31... and Yak-3 with N(S)-37 and 2 B20s, and Yak-9 VK-107A plus N(S)-37 and 2 B20s.... Altogether with the release of Yak-9UT (65152), Yak-3P (65177), Yak-3T (65178) and Yak-3 Vk-107A with metallic wings (65188) and Yak-3 VK-107 full metal (65192)
[GKO 7223, 7224, 7225, 7226, 7228, 7229, 7230, 7231]
Sources:
Chronology Soviet Aircraft Industry (http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/faculty/harrison/aviaprom/ver5/)

Kocur_
11-12-2005, 04:29 PM
Well "ensuring" is not equal to making real as the planes they mention didnt materialize till considerably later:
Yak-3P: as mentioned above,
Yak-3 with VK107 with metal wing: in Plant No31 (Tbilisi) - nothing like that happened! Tbilisi produced all metal Yak-3/VK-107 in summer/autumn 1945, the prototype was in state trials 25 may - 9 june 1945. Yak-3 with metal wing only was manufactured in Plant No 292 in Saratov, but that happened not before march 1946! good, detailed site with bibliography (http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/yak3/yak3vk107/yak3vk107.html)
Yak-3/NS-37 or Yak-3T: single prototype in state trials 17 january - 27 april 1945, never produced serially,
Yak-9/VK-107/NS-37: as mentioned above.

SD_Fugazi
11-12-2005, 11:25 PM
I agree with you, it is not making sure the planes are actually made... furthermore we need to know what has really been produced in 1944 in those plants (according to informations prepared on January 6 1945).

In plant 381, 874 La-7 have been planified for the whole year, on december 31st that plant has produce 834 planes... Coming 40 La-7 shorter than what has been planned/ordered. If we take in consideration OKB N6681, and assume that the plane missing are all La-7 with 3 B20s, then we still come up with the fact that 60 (50+50-40) La-7 3B20s were produced.
In plant 21, 5004 La-7 have been ordered in '44, and 4981 have been effectively produced by December 31st. Here again, assuming that all the missing planes would have been La-7 3xB-20s, we ends up with an effective production of 27 La-7 3xB-20s...
If those informations are correct, we had then at least 87 La-7 B-20s produced by December 31st '44.

For the Yak-3 we have the similar observations... 292 was producing both Yak-3 and Yak-1 (in fact they were switching the fastest possible from Yak-1 to Yak-3), and during '44 2850 Yaks have been ordered. In reality, on December 31st, only 2718 have been produced. If we take the same logic, and assume that all the missing planes were Yak-3 with B-20s... we still ends up with a number of 18 Yak-3 B20s being produced by the end of '44 in plant 292.

Notes:
It is not clear to me that the Yak-3T was embarking a NS-37... I have numerous reference for a Yak-3T with 2 B20s (100 rds) and 1 N-37 (25 rds) that is specifically notified that the aiming was not lost after 3-4 shots like the NS-37 of the Yak-9T...

It is funny that you come with that site for the Yak-3 VK-107, because I remember that you did not like at all the story about Yellow 32 in a previous thread...

I am sure your Russian is way better than mine (or the translation I was able to get on the web), take some time to check the documents that I provided to you... I do not think I invented anything, and therefore I am not so sure that "nothing like that happened!". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Between my shortsighted vision was to try to produce some new data that tend to agree with the fact that the La-7 3xB20s could have been indeed a '44 plane... Which by the way has no importance whatsoever http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Kocur_
11-13-2005, 11:51 PM
In plant 21, 5004 La-7 have been ordered in '44, and 4981 have been effectively produced by December 31st. Here again, assuming that all the missing planes would have been La-7 3xB-20s, we ends up with an effective production of 27 La-7 3xB-20s...
If those informations are correct, we had then at least 87 La-7 B-20s produced by December 31st '44.

For the Yak-3 we have the similar observations... 292 was producing both Yak-3 and Yak-1 (in fact they were switching the fastest possible from Yak-1 to Yak-3), and during '44 2850 Yaks have been ordered. In reality, on December 31st, only 2718 have been produced. If we take the same logic, and assume that all the missing planes were Yak-3 with B-20s... we still ends up with a number of 18 Yak-3 B20s being produced by the end of '44 in plant 292.

Umm I like idea of using the same logic here too, because Yak-3P didnt exist at all in 1944, as the single prototype was ordered to be built on 29 december 1944 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif And the plane didnt leave factory for state trials until spring 1945.


It is not clear to me that the Yak-3T was embarking a NS-37... I have numerous reference for a Yak-3T with 2 B20s (100 rds) and 1 N-37 (25 rds) that is specifically notified that the aiming was not lost after 3-4 shots like the NS-37 of the Yak-9T...


My mistake! N-37 of course. My book says something similar: "Despite large caliber, the recoil wasnt great, and even 4-round bursts didnt spoil aim.". That comes from weaker ammo in N-37.

It is funny that you come with that site for the Yak-3 VK-107, because I remember that you did not like at all the story about Yellow 32 in a previous thread...

I do like the site because of FACTS presented there.
What I dont like is that BS speculations about "Yellow 32", which is taken out of soviet era memoirs, and that doesnt serve credibility well...To repeat: there were two Yak-3/VK107 of mixed construction in early 1944, but both were used in extensive trials, before idea was dropped. Next Yak-3/VK-107 was all-metal plane from Tbilisi, but that type single prototype was completed on 31 march 1945 and spent period between 12 april - 10 may 1945 in factory trials, and then 25 may - 9 june in state trials. So the only Yak with VK-107 produced serially that could have been taken from factory "parking" by combat unit pilots and than remain pilots personal plane well after the WW2, thus the only candidate to be "Yellow 32" is Yak-9U.

SD_Fugazi
11-14-2005, 01:51 AM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
Umm I like idea of using the same logic here too, because Yak-3P didnt exist at all in 1944, as the single prototype was ordered to be built on 29 december 1944 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif And the plane didnt leave factory for state trials until spring 1945.
Note that I even edited my first post with those information to make sure that I did not implied that we were talking about the Yak-3P (I was like you thinking about a -3P version, but nothing in the document could help me to reach the conclusion that it was nothing else than a Yak-3... model unknown), what about a Yak-3 with 2xB20s for instance?


Originally posted by Kocur_:
What I dont like is that BS speculations about "Yellow 32", which is taken out of soviet era memoirs, and that doesnt serve credibility well...

LOL I hear you, you do not like it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Interrestingly enough, for the parad in Moscow on August 19th '45, at least 3 Yak-3 VK-107 from the air defense (IA PVO??) were to be manned by pilots that were Hero of the Soviet Union... So if my document is correct, and if what is said about Karavai on the site is correct... he may have flown a Yak-3 VK-107 on August 19th '45 in Moscow... (July 31st 1945, VVS order N 0146).

But frankly, even if it was true that he did had a Yak-3 VK-107 during the last month of the war, you would not believe it... even under torture http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

And now the killing sentence... the Soviet ended the war in August '45, and were apparently flying Yak-3 VK-107 at their parad in August '45.... therefore the Yak-3 VK-107 was a plane that was contemporary to the second world war... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif I am sure you love it!

~S~

Edit: Changed from September to August (for the end of the war with the Russian)... was thinking about LW 1946 when the German won the war... my mistake.

DaimonSyrius
11-14-2005, 05:17 AM
Originally posted by SD_Fugazi:
therefore the Yak-3 VK-107 was a plane that was contemporary to the second world war... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif I am sure you love it!


Heh, I'm sure about that kind of love too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

There surely must exist some song entitled True Love or even more than one... that should be the soundtrack right now.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Cheers,
S.

P.S.: I also aggree that the deepest roots for Kocur's posts on late-WWII soviet planes often appear to be along the "I don't like..." line when you scratch them a bit http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Kocur_
11-14-2005, 10:27 AM
Note that I even edited my first post with those information to make sure that I did not implied that we were talking about the Yak-3P (I was like you thinking about a -3P version, but nothing in the document could help me to reach the conclusion that it was nothing else than a Yak-3... model unknown), what about a Yak-3 with 2xB20s for instance?

Umm, Yak-3 with B-20 cannons IS Yak-3P!


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">quote:
Originally posted by Kocur_:
What I dont like is that BS speculations about "Yellow 32", which is taken out of soviet era memoirs, and that doesnt serve credibility well...


LOL I hear you, you do not like it

Interrestingly enough, for the parad in Moscow on August 19th '45, at least 3 Yak-3 VK-107 from the air defense (IA PVO??) were to be manned by pilots that were Hero of the Soviet Union... So if my document is correct, and if what is said about Karavai on the site is correct... he may have flown a Yak-3 VK-107 on August 19th '45 in Moscow... (July 31st 1945, VVS order N 0146). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now, now! Lets be specific: what I call speculation about "Yellow 32" is suggeting that it was Yak-3/VK-107, and that speculation includes shooting down German fighter over Hungary on 23 march 1945. It simply couldnt have been such a plane because first Yak-3/VK-107, ever since early 1944, was all-metal plane completed on 31 march 1945. So sorry, I find it difficult to belive that Karavay fought over Hungary in a plane which was not even built completely yethttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I wont even mention HIGH soviet security/anti-spy standards vs. story of, practically speaking, stealing newest prototype!

Yak-3/VK-107 in august 1945? Flown by Karavay or anyone else - no problem with me! It was two months after the type passed state trials, and surely they could have produced three examples till then. Btw it was such a perfect plane, they decided not to produce more than 48 examples http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif (Yak-3P with M-105PF2: 596, Yak-9U: 3921, Yak-9P: 801)
So no need to torture me to "make" me belive, that, hmm..."there was at least 1 to 3 Yak-3/VK-107 while WW2 still lasted (in the far east...)". Thus the type fits Oleg's criteria of labelling all those COMBAT planes...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Btw so do Fw-190D11/12/13, Spitfire Mk.9 at 25lbs boost, Spitfire Mk.XIV, Tempest Mk.V, and Mk.II probably too, P-51H, F7F, F8F...
Oh! Did I already mention that MW-50 installation on DB-605 was succesfully tested in 1943? So why no Bf-109G6/U3 "1943"? No visual changes - it was nothing but G-14 externally! Sorry, silly me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

SD_Fugazi
11-14-2005, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
Btw it was such a perfect plane, they decided not to produce more than 48 examples
Good point, but who ever said that it was that perfect... we are merely saying it did fly. Btw, the VK-105PD, VK-108A and VK-109A were also not considerably developped after the ww2, even if they were tested during that period... the reason may have been that not only they were not in war anymore, but that they also considered more important to spend some of their energy in the jet fighters.


Originally posted by Kocur_:
So no need to torture me to "make" me belive, that, hmm..."there was at least 1 to 3 Yak-3/VK-107 while WW2 still lasted (in the far east...)". Thus the type fits Oleg's criteria of labelling all those COMBAT planes
There are some confusions here... 1st My name is not Oleg, 2nd the plane is not in the game, 3rd I am not actually asking for it to be in the game (I would not deny that I would love it but I am not in the business of asking it), 4th the plane in the game is a Yak-3P with a VK-105 PF2.


Originally posted by Kocur_:
Btw so do Fw-190D11/12/13, Spitfire Mk.9 at 25lbs boost, Spitfire Mk.XIV, Tempest Mk.V, and Mk.II probably too, P-51H, F7F, F8F...
Yes... but my name is still not Oleg, and those planes are still not in the game... BTW I hope you have no doubts that most of those planes did take part in ww2.


Orignally posted by Kocur_:
Did I already mention that MW-50 installation on DB-605 was succesfully tested in 1943.
Yes you did and now that you mention it, did you ever complain to Oleg (not me my name is not Oleg) on the fact that the MW-50 in the game seems to be quite different than IRL.... isn't that true that the MW-50 could be used only for period of 10 minutes at a time, then needed a 5 minutes break (before being engaged again) , (I have read however that by the end of the war, it could be have been up to 20 minutes at a time)... compared to 35 minutes continuous use at 102-103% (continuous power... constantly > 102%) on a D-9 in the game (prop pitch on auto, cowl flaps auto, standard condition, Crimea Map) [Btw it lasted only 35 minutes because we only have 35 minutes of MW-50 mixture, I am quite confident that if a tank of more than 40L would have been mistakenly implemented in the game, I would be able to use it all the way long until I ran out of gas]?

Anyway... I am done with that thread now... people can spend some time reading some of the documents I provided, it may be confusing at a time, but it is surely interresting.
Another site of interest is the following one:
http://www.soldat.ru/gko (http://Soldat.RU) for cross reference on OKB orders... but I still don't read russian.

for instance: [B]OKB 6681: Decision. On the adoption to the armament VVS of the Red Army of the lightened aviation automatic gun B -20 of the caliber of 20 mm the construction T. Of berezina.

Kocur_
11-15-2005, 10:28 AM
There are some confusions here... 1st My name is not Oleg, 2nd the plane is not in the game, 3rd I am not actually asking for it to be in the game (I would not deny that I would love it but I am not in the business of asking it), 4th the plane in the game is a Yak-3P with a VK-105 PF2.

I dont recall suggesting you were Oleg.


I hope you have no doubts that most of those planes did take part in ww2.


You missed my point. Of course those planes took part in WW2 or were at least in operational status and some rushing to the front line before WW2 ended. And that is equal to more than Yak-3P, yet only the latter is present.



MW-50 in the game seems to be quite different than IRL.... isn't that true that the MW-50 could be used only for period of 10 minutes at a time, then needed a 5 minutes break (before being engaged again) [btw the process was automated in the FW isn't?], (I have read however that by the end of the war, it could be have been up to 20 minutes at a time)... compared to 35 minutes continuous use at 102-103% (continuous power... constantly > 102%) on a D-9 in the game (prop pitch on auto, cowl flaps auto, standard condition, Crimea Map) [Btw it lasted only 35 minutes because we only have 35 minutes of MW-50 mixture, I am quite confident that if a tank of more than 40L would have been mistakenly implemented in the game, I would be able to use it all the way long until I ran out of gas]?

Of course there were limitations of MW-50 use (until new, more durable spark plugs were used), which arent modelled. But that is quite common, i.e. similar limitations of "boost" systems were present in other planes (2 minutes on La-5FN, 10minutes on La-7, 5 minuters on Spitfire with Merlin 6x IIRC, etc), and those arent modelled either. Seems like it works like "enhancing" climb rates of all types.

Yak_Ace
11-15-2005, 04:22 PM
Bring to stop all your ungrounded accusations Kocur. Keep in mind what CrazyIvan said: Oleg had access to the unique sources about Soviet planes - sources you can only dreaming about. Can't you understand this simple fact???
Otherwise, as I suppose, you will have to find another place for propagating your silly presumptions based on uncertain sources, buddy.

Badsight.
11-15-2005, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by SD_Fugazi:
[Btw, the VK-105PD, VK-108A and VK-109A were also not considerably developped after the ww2, even if they were tested during that period... the reason may have been that not only they were not in war anymore, but that they also considered more important to spend some of their energy in the jet fighters. ALSO . . . . .

they had what was probably going to be the most deadly piston/propeller Fighter ever in construction

Yak-3M

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v18/Badsight/YAK-3U-1945.jpg
only one prototype made

instead the Yak-9U seems to be the only continually developed Yakolev piston fighter after WW2 (excluding Ya-3 conversions to -11 trainer status)

even with Jet's being given priority they carried on with la-9 development , i dont know why the Radial Yak-3M was dropped

i find it hard for people to say that Yak-3P couldnt have flew combat missions during WW2 , its obvious they were under retro-fitting during the last months

Daiichidoku
11-16-2005, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by Yak_Ace:
Bring to stop all your ungrounded accusations Kocur. Keep in mind what CrazyIvan said: Oleg had access to the unique sources about Soviet planes - sources you can only dreaming about. Can't you understand this simple fact???
Otherwise, as I suppose, you will have to find another place for propagating your silly presumptions based on uncertain sources, buddy.

which leads me to wonder, where he got his source for p 38 data, as the lockheed data was "propaganda" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Kocur_
11-16-2005, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by Yak_Ace:
Bring to stop all your ungrounded accusations Kocur. Keep in mind what CrazyIvan said: Oleg had access to the unique sources about Soviet planes - sources you can only dreaming about. Can't you understand this simple fact???
Otherwise, as I suppose, you will have to find another place for propagating your silly presumptions based on uncertain sources, buddy.

Aha http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif
P.S. Whatever I said about Yaks comes from "˜ÑÑ"Ñ€µб¸Ñ"µл¸ ¯К ¿µÑ€¸о´? 'µл¸ºо' žÑ"µÑ"µÑÑ"²µнно' ²о'нÑ"" by .Т.СÑ"µ¿?нµÑ"*, a high rank employee in Zhukovski, the book is based directly on soviet archives and was personally recommended by Oleg as the best source on Yaks.