PDA

View Full Version : TempestV vs Fw 190 D9 in reality



mynameisroland
12-07-2007, 06:57 AM
The general consensus in the WW2 Aircraft forums community is that the D9 was a better fighter if only by a small margin. I tend to attribute that to the Fw 190 overall being a more popular and well researched aircraft added to the fact that Luftwaffe aircraft have a huge international fan base.

From most performance data, combat reports I would say that the Tempest was better below around 20,000ft while the Dora was superior above this altitude. In both cases not by a huge margin.

I also think that a Tempest V was faster than a contemporary D9 at sea level and low altitudes and while there are data sheets showing the D9 achieving over 620 km/h at sea level I dont attriubute this performance to your every day Fw 190 D9. While the Tempest V 11lb Sabre II B was capable of this speed with no squadron level modifications or special engine mods.

This isnt a mud throwing contest, just a thread for your opinions on the matter.

Bewolf
12-07-2007, 07:09 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The general consensus in the WW2 Aircraft forums community is that the D9 was a better fighter if only by a small margin. I tend to attribute that to the Fw 190 overall being a more popular and well researched aircraft added to the fact that Luftwaffe aircraft have a huge international fan base.

From most performance data, combat reports I would say that the Tempest was better below around 20,000ft while the Dora was superior above this altitude. In both cases not by a huge margin.

I also think that a Tempest V was faster than a contemporary D9 at sea level and low altitudes and while there are data sheets showing the D9 achieving over 620 km/h at sea level I dont attriubute this performance to your every day Fw 190 D9. While the Tempest V 11lb Sabre II B was capable of this speed with no squadron level modifications or special engine mods.

This isnt a mud throwing contest, just a thread for your opinions on the matter.

Sounds pretty redundant to me. Both aircraft were within a performance range that it came down to pilot skill, similiar to the 109 and Spit in the BoB, with both aircraft having some edges in their respective areas and altitudes. Insofar I do not think this is worth a discussion but for the die hard pedants.

WOLFMondo
12-07-2007, 07:14 AM
I think they're so similar its hard to say. The Dora has the edge when it comes to roll rate and the Tempest has the edge in low altitude speed. Comes down to pilot skill.

mynameisroland
12-07-2007, 07:18 AM
Originally posted by Bewolf:Insofar I do not think this is worth a discussion but for the die hard pedants.

There are plenty of die hard Fw 190 D9 fans who wont countenance that the Tempest V was superior at low to medium altitudes than their favourite plane - I know this because I used to be one http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

I do think there is a case for generalisms in such close match ups ie one can say at low altitudes the Tempest was faster than the Dora or vice versa at high altitude.

mynameisroland
12-07-2007, 07:21 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
I think they're so similar its hard to say. The Dora has the edge when it comes to roll rate and the Tempest has the edge in low altitude speed. Comes down to pilot skill.

The role that the Tempest played in 1945 where it was repeatedly flown in to battle against numerically superior formations of late war Bf 109s and Fw 190s would suggest that their was an inherent performance advantage which allowed these pilots to engage the enemy with such confidence of being able to score kills and disengage.

I agree that the average Tempest pilot was better trained and more experienced than the average late war Luftwaffe pilot and that this had a large bearing on combat yet I also think performance played a role too. I guess you have read these pilot reports, remember that there werent many Aces transferred to the Tempest, most were experienced pilots but few were multi kill aces.

Bewolf
12-07-2007, 07:29 AM
Well, going by my own expiriences from IL2, as far these are valid to real life, a rookie in ahigh perforamnce plane vs. an veteran makes a "huge" difference

ploughman
12-07-2007, 07:38 AM
Don't really know much about the Tempest but I remember Pierre Closterman thought, compared to his much adored Spitfire, that it was a demanding plane to fly. Looking at the pit in game, which is typically British in it's confusion, it looks like you're at the helm of a nuclear reactor.

p1ngu666
12-07-2007, 08:02 AM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
Don't really know much about the Tempest but I remember Pierre Closterman thought, compared to his much adored Spitfire, that it was a demanding plane to fly. Looking at the pit in game, which is typically British in it's confusion, it looks like you're at the helm of a nuclear reactor.

errr, you are http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

mynameisroland
12-07-2007, 08:15 AM
Originally posted by Bewolf:
Well, going by my own expiriences from IL2, as far these are valid to real life, a rookie in ahigh perforamnce plane vs. an veteran makes a "huge" difference

True but were hardly talking JG52 levels of experience against the VVS here. Were talking about well trained experienced pilots attacking large numbers of well equipped not so well trained pilots.

Bewolf
12-07-2007, 08:24 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
Well, going by my own expiriences from IL2, as far these are valid to real life, a rookie in ahigh perforamnce plane vs. an veteran makes a "huge" difference

True but were hardly talking JG52 levels of experience against the VVS here. Were talking about well trained experienced pilots attacking large numbers of well equipped not so well trained pilots. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"not so well trained" might be a bit overexegerating though. Some of these pilots had less then 20 hours of flightexpirience towards the end.

mynameisroland
12-07-2007, 08:30 AM
Some did. But to say the entire Jagdgeschwader (which you are not sayaing btw)was staffed by poorly trained pilots would be wrong.

To paint the Tempest pilots as all excellent highly experienced talented combat pilots would be wrong too.

As for Ploughmans comments:

Don't really know much about the Tempest but I remember Pierre Closterman thought, compared to his much adored Spitfire, that it was a demanding plane to fly. Looking at the pit in game, which is typically British in it's confusion, it looks like you're at the helm of a nuclear reactor.

This is precisely what I mean, not many people in the community do know the Tempest that well. And Ploughman is a plane fan who has been around for ages.

A lot of people think it was a ground attack fighter for instance whereas the RAF felt it better than the Spitfire Mk XIV as a fighter at low to medium altitudes.

luftluuver
12-07-2007, 08:32 AM
Originally posted by Bewolf:
"not so well trained" might be a bit over exegerating though. Some of these pilots had less then 20 hours of flight expirience towards the end.
That would be 20 hours in the type of a/c they would be flying in combat. They would have more than 20 hours of flight time to graduate from flight school.

JG4_Helofly
12-07-2007, 08:33 AM
The tempest might have an advantage in speed at low level, but how about climb?
And IMO the D9 was a better fighter because it was simply more manoeuvrable with its extremly high roll rate. ( Yes, I am a fw190 Fan http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

Manoeuvrability is something people like to forget, espacially in games like IL2. In RL its still one of the most important attribute for a fighter.

HuninMunin
12-07-2007, 08:36 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
"not so well trained" might be a bit over exegerating though. Some of these pilots had less then 20 hours of flight expirience towards the end.
That would be 20 hours in the type of a/c they would be flying in combat. They would have more than 20 hours of flight time to graduate from flight school. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


20 hours are hardly enough to learn flying a friggin Chessna.
20 hours in a 2000 hp warbird are barely enough to be able to land the crate in one piece.

luftluuver
12-07-2007, 08:37 AM
One of the books I have on the LW lists the aces. Now we all hear that the LW was mostly noob pilots but of the aces listed, 2/3 with 50 or more kills survived WW2.

WOLFMondo
12-07-2007, 08:43 AM
The Tempest roll rate wasn't too bad either. It was optimised for high speed flight and does have a respectable roll rate right through its performance range. Its dive and zoom climb were both noted to be stunning. Its vice was its low speed handling near stall. How they made the Seafury work with an even smaller Tempest wing as a naval fighter is beyond me!

I'm an avid fan of both planes but I'd say in IL2 the Dora has the edge, but then the Tempest in IL2 is not representative of a Tempest V Series II with a Sabre IIB with 11lbs boost pressure. It might say it is in the readme but its a lower revving Sabre IIA@9lbs variant without question.

ViktorViktor
12-07-2007, 08:48 AM
Part of the reality in a Tempest vs FW190D-9 matchup would have to include ease of maintenance and how easy the plane was to fly.

In fact, this could be a deciding factor if the planes are evenly matched in combat.

So - Which plane was easier to maintain and easier to fly ?
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

mynameisroland
12-07-2007, 08:51 AM
Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
The tempest might have an advantage in speed at low level, but how about climb?
And IMO the D9 was a better fighter because it was simply more manoeuvrable with its extremly high roll rate. ( Yes, I am a fw190 Fan http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

Manoeuvrability is something people like to forget, espacially in games like IL2. In RL its still one of the most important attribute for a fighter.

I disagree Helofly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Manuverability was important yet the margin of manuverability the Spitfire held over the Fw 190 was not of that much use in combat if the Fw 190 decided to disengage.

The Tempest had arguably a better rate of roll at high speeds and possessed greater level speed, dive speed and zoom climb speed. Turn rate has been credited to the Fw 190 but I dont think it was that clear cut. Tempest could certainly turn inside the Fw 190 to get in to a firing position.

Imo IL2 places over emphasis on manuverability which is the opposite of your findings. Id say your on a weak footing arguing that the Fw 190 Dora was superior because of a slim advantage in manuvering.

mynameisroland
12-07-2007, 08:54 AM
Originally posted by ViktorViktor:
Part of the reality in a Tempest vs FW190D-9 matchup would have to include ease of maintenance and how easy the plane was to fly.

In fact, this could be a deciding factor if the planes are evenly matched in combat.

So - Which plane was easier to maintain and easier to fly ?
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Well this is an interesting part of the equation. The Sabre was tought to maintain but by 1945 RAF groundcrews had got a pretty good handle on it by all accounts whereas the material quality of German aero engines was deteriorating at this stage quite markedly.

What is of extreme importance here is what was the likely condition of the average service Tempest compared to the average Dora 9?

I think the Tempest's build quality, surface finish, fuel quality ect was all likely to be higher than the equivalent Dora's.

I think the Fw 190 wins in terms of ease of handling, it was renknowned to be a pilots plane with low pilot workloads. The Tempest was more demanding to fly but its handling at high speeds was better ( the best of all WW2 prop fighter perhaps ) and both types had a nasty stall at low speeds.

Bewolf
12-07-2007, 08:55 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
One of the books I have on the LW lists the aces. Now we all hear that the LW was mostly noob pilots but of the aces listed, 2/3 with 50 or more kills survived WW2.

That is correct and one of the curiousities of the later war Luftwaffe. A small cadre of highly expirienced pilots surrounded by a huge number of inexpirienced rookies.

Only the very best survived.

HuninMunin
12-07-2007, 09:04 AM
A hundred aces going into the air with 500 rookies .
What is your point?

JG14_Josf
12-07-2007, 09:06 AM
This may help (http://www.amazon.com/Green-Hearts-Combat-Library-Eagles/dp/0966070607)

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/510PQ478MKL._AA240_.jpg

mynameisroland
12-07-2007, 09:07 AM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
This may help (http://www.amazon.com/Green-Hearts-Combat-Library-Eagles/dp/0966070607)

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/510PQ478MKL._AA240_.jpg

Hi Josf all I see is a link to a book which I cant afford. Can you post any excerpts ?

RegRag1977
12-07-2007, 09:17 AM
Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
The tempest might have an advantage in speed at low level, but how about climb?
And IMO the D9 was a better fighter because it was simply more manoeuvrable with its extremly high roll rate. ( Yes, I am a fw190 Fan http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

Manoeuvrability is something people like to forget, espacially in games like IL2. In RL its still one of the most important attribute for a fighter.



In fact wasn't the french ace Pierre Clostermann, Tempest pilot and Spitfire veteran shot down by a JG26 D9 ace pilot , after he had both the speed and the position advantage at very low altitude (after Clostermann report)?

I know this is only an example, but an interesting one maybe because the two pilots were aces Hans Dortenmann being the german ace AFAIK.

In a duel maneuvrability is the best advantage, if you use surprise attack and speed to go out, Tempest is the best (4 canons and extra speed on the deck is the best way to come back home with a kill).

In fact it depends on what definition you give to the word fighter...

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/dortenmann.html

as you can see at this link a well flown Dora didn't seem to have pronounced disadvantages compared to the allies late war types...

mynameisroland
12-07-2007, 09:21 AM
Originally posted by RegRag1977:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
The tempest might have an advantage in speed at low level, but how about climb?
And IMO the D9 was a better fighter because it was simply more manoeuvrable with its extremly high roll rate. ( Yes, I am a fw190 Fan http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

Manoeuvrability is something people like to forget, espacially in games like IL2. In RL its still one of the most important attribute for a fighter.



In fact wasn't the french ace Pierre Clostermann, Tempest pilot and Spitfire veteran shot down by a JG26 D9 ace pilot , after he had both the speed and the position advantage at very low altitude (after Clostermann report)?

I know this is only an example, but an interesting one maybe because the two pilots were aces Hans Dortenmann being the german ace AFAIK.

In a duel maneuvrability is the best advantage, if you use surprise attack and speed to go out, Tempest is the best (4 canons and extra speed on the deck is the best way to come back home with a kill).

In fact it depends on what definition you give to the word fighter... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a great example, these two pilots generally speaking were simply more experienced and plain better than any Tempest pilot, and they scored quite a few kills.

here are some counter pilots opinions

".... It would be a week before Schrader was confirmed as the new CO, and in that time he made three more claims - two Fw 190s on the 15 April and another the following day. The combat on 15 April had seen nine Tempests engage nine Fw 190s, with the NewZealanders claiming eight of their counterparts destroyed and one damaged for the loss of one of their own number (who baled out and managed to reach Allied lines)...."

"... generally speaking, losses were relatively low among the Tempest squadrons, with flak the pre-eminent cause, ... "

More on Tempest's turn in an encounter with D9

" I overhauled the Hun quite rapidly, and when I was about 800 - 600 yards he did a sharp break to Starboard. I couldnt hold him in this and passed about 100 yards behind. I throttled right back and continued turning. This went on for about a turn and a half and just as it looked though I would be able to turn inside him he straightened out and started to climb up, turning slightly to port. I was able to close nicely and fired a on-second burst from 200 yards and about 20 deg off." (Fairbanks leading Tempest Ace)

All quotes from Osprey Typhoon and Tempest Aces of WW2, pages 68 to 74.

RegRag1977
12-07-2007, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RegRag1977:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
The tempest might have an advantage in speed at low level, but how about climb?
And IMO the D9 was a better fighter because it was simply more manoeuvrable with its extremly high roll rate. ( Yes, I am a fw190 Fan http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

Manoeuvrability is something people like to forget, espacially in games like IL2. In RL its still one of the most important attribute for a fighter.



In fact wasn't the french ace Pierre Clostermann, Tempest pilot and Spitfire veteran shot down by a JG26 D9 ace pilot , after he had both the speed and the position advantage at very low altitude (after Clostermann report)?

I know this is only an example, but an interesting one maybe because the two pilots were aces Hans Dortenmann being the german ace AFAIK.

In a duel maneuvrability is the best advantage, if you use surprise attack and speed to go out, Tempest is the best (4 canons and extra speed on the deck is the best way to come back home with a kill).

In fact it depends on what definition you give to the word fighter... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a great example, these two pilots generally speaking were simply more experienced and plain better than any Tempest pilot, and they scored quite a few kills.

here are some counter pilots opinions

".... It would be a week before Schrader was confirmed as the new CO, and in that time he made three more claims - two Fw 190s on the 15 April and another the following day. The combat on 15 April had seen nine Tempests engage nine Fw 190s, with the NewZealanders claiming eight of their counterparts destroyed and one damaged for the loss of one of their own number (who baled out and managed to reach Allied lines)...."

"... generally speaking, losses were relatively low among the Tempest squadrons, with flak the pre-eminent cause, ... "

More on Tempest's turn in an encounter with D9

" I overhauled the Hun quite rapidly, and when I was about 800 - 600 yards he did a sharp break to Starboard. I couldnt hold him in this and passed about 100 yards behind. I throttled right back and continued turning. This went on for about a turn and a half and just as it looked though I would be able to turn inside him he straightened out and started to climb up, turning slightly to port. I was able to close nicely and fired a on-second burst from 200 yards and about 20 deg off." (Fairbanks leading Tempest Ace)

All quotes from Osprey Typhoon and Tempest Aces of WW2, pages 68 to 74. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting quotes! Thanks. Do you have any information about Tempest rate of climb vs Dora?

Turning while flying a Fw190A or D always appeared to me as THE noob mistake, and this versus any target (trains and vehicle columns being exceptions). I just can't imagine a good pilot wanting to turn with a Tempest or a Focke anyway...
In IL2 i consider the Tempest like a fast and beautiful Spitfire and never engage them after my first attack (zoom back and go away) like i do with Spits.

JG4_Helofly
12-07-2007, 10:19 AM
@ Roland, We don't have the same definition of manoeuvrability. For me, manoeuvrability doesn't mean turning circles, but the capability of switching from one manoeuvre into an other very quickly. So a fighter with high roll rate is manoevrable with my definiton.

Do you have anything about the roll rate of the tempest? Did it have boosted controles?

And a last thing. IMO we are simplifing to much comparation between aircrafts because in our game the only important things are speed, turn and climb.
The best comment about comparing planes came from Kettenhund. He wrote that you have to see the plane as a system and not pick out things like speed and climb to say that one plane is better then the other one.

mynameisroland
12-07-2007, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by RegRag1977:

Interesting quotes! Thanks. Do you have any information about Tempest rate of climb vs Dora?

Turning while flying a Fw190A or D always appeared to me as THE noob mistake, and this versus any target (trains and vehicle columns being exceptions). I just can't imagine a good pilot wanting to turn with a Tempest or a Focke anyway...
In IL2 i consider the Tempest like a fast and beautiful Spitfire and never engage them after my first attack (zoom back and go away) like i do with Spits.

RAF pilots often turned and used turning to gain an advantage when flying the Tempest. IIRC only Closterman said that you shouldnt try to turn with 109s below 350 or 300 mph.

Tempests and Fw 190s should be flown the same way as both were very fast and had good rate of roll at high speed.

I dont have good Fw 190 D9 climb data, but look here for Tempest data, its not for a 11lb version but it shows you what an early Tempest can do

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/temptest.html

mynameisroland
12-07-2007, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
@ Roland, We don't have the same definition of manoeuvrability. For me, manoeuvrability doesn't mean turning circles, but the capability of switching from one manoeuvre into an other very quickly. So a fighter with high roll rate is manoevrable with my definiton.

Do you have anything about the roll rate of the tempest? Did it have boosted controles?

And a last thing. IMO we are simplifing to much comparation between aircrafts because in our game the only important things are speed, turn and climb.
The best comment about comparing planes came from Kettenhund. He wrote that you have to see the plane as a system and not pick out things like speed and climb to say that one plane is better then the other one.

I think manuverability at speed is paramount for a fighter carrying out offensive operations. The Tempest had very good controlability at high speeds, better than any other WW2 prop fighter it also had the highest Vne. The Tempest was no slouch in manuverability, while D9 pilots have remarked that the D9 was not as manuverable as the Antons it replaced.

Its rate of roll was not as good as the Fw 190 at low to medium speeds but at high speeds I think it was better.

I agree about looking at one performance parameter not showing the whole picture thats why I said earlier in this thread that we should aim for accurate generalisms ie the Tempest was faster overall below X ft

Sergio_101
12-07-2007, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RegRag1977:

Interesting quotes! Thanks. Do you have any information about Tempest rate of climb vs Dora?

Turning while flying a Fw190A or D always appeared to me as THE noob mistake, and this versus any target (trains and vehicle columns being exceptions). I just can't imagine a good pilot wanting to turn with a Tempest or a Focke anyway...
In IL2 i consider the Tempest like a fast and beautiful Spitfire and never engage them after my first attack (zoom back and go away) like i do with Spits.

RAF pilots often turned and used turning to gain an advantage when flying the Tempest. IIRC only Closterman said that you shouldnt try to turn with 109s below 350 or 300 mph.

Tempests and Fw 190s should be flown the same way as both were very fast and had good rate of roll at high speed.

I dont have good Fw 190 D9 climb data, but look here for Tempest data, its not for a 11lb version but it shows you what an early Tempest can do

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/temptest.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Those tests can not be accurate.
The engine tests show 150 grade fuel and we
know that no such fuel was available
because Turfurst has assured us of that fact.

Sergio

RegRag1977
12-07-2007, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
@ Roland, We don't have the same definition of manoeuvrability. For me, manoeuvrability doesn't mean turning circles, but the capability of switching from one manoeuvre into an other very quickly. So a fighter with high roll rate is manoevrable with my definiton.

Do you have anything about the roll rate of the tempest? Did it have boosted controles?

And a last thing. IMO we are simplifing to much comparation between aircrafts because in our game the only important things are speed, turn and climb.
The best comment about comparing planes came from Kettenhund. He wrote that you have to see the plane as a system and not pick out things like speed and climb to say that one plane is better then the other one.

That sounds interesting Helofly. Is there a link to what Kettenhund wrote?

Xiolablu3
12-07-2007, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
The tempest might have an advantage in speed at low level, but how about climb?
And IMO the D9 was a better fighter because it was simply more manoeuvrable with its extremly high roll rate. ( Yes, I am a fw190 Fan http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

Manoeuvrability is something people like to forget, espacially in games like IL2. In RL its still one of the most important attribute for a fighter.


I agree with Helofly, I think the FW190D is lighter, more manouverable, and therefore a slightly better classic clise-in dogfighter.

As for top Speed, and dive rate, I would probably give the edge to the Tempest.

With equal pilot, in a battle at medium altitude, I would give the dogfight edge to the FW190, however the Tempest pilot can disengage if he wants through a power dive, the Tempest dived faster.

Classic Dogfight :- FW190D

B&Z :- Tempest, simply becase the dive rate is a bit better, and the climb rates are pretty similar.

Phas3e
12-07-2007, 01:39 PM
'wild winds' has some nice first hand stuff on the attack on jg54 where a flight of Tempests bounced an entire group of Doras shooting down 8 for one in less than 2 minutes.
Also first hand comments of the fight between 486Sqn and Jg301s Ta152Hs.

JG4_Helofly
12-07-2007, 01:46 PM
@RegRag, Unfortunately I don't know in which post he wrote it, but maybe he will show up and explain.
He told us than airplane performance is very complex when you compare and you must look a bit further if you want to know how the disign compare with others. For exemple, the fw 190 has it's peak rate of roll at the speed at which it has the best turn performance. And there are many other things like that which are important ( in RL ), but not taken into account by most sim players. The tempest probably also have such advantages in its disign, but RL is not IL2.

gkll
12-07-2007, 02:18 PM
Posted this previously, no one challenged then...

"I get quite different numbers wingloading and T/W - Tempest11 ~20% <better> wingloading and ~10% <worse> powerloading... using 'dogfight weight' which is ~fuel to fly to 20000 ft, fight and land. Equalizes range differences between aircraft (long ranged aircraft get hooped in il2compare for eg, they are always 'fat' with fuel). Added 350 kg to 190d and 400 to Tempest empty weights.

So with that much improvement in wingloading the il2compare graphs make sense, take a look. "laminar flow" is not going to rebalance that large a difference in wingload"

The comparison aircraft is 190 D9. I don't buy that D9 might be 'slightly better in turn rate' as people have posted then and now. My 2c.

RegRag1977
12-07-2007, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
@RegRag, Unfortunately I don't know in which post he wrote it, but maybe he will show up and explain.
He told us than airplane performance is very complex when you compare and you must look a bit further if you want to know how the disign compare with others. For exemple, the fw 190 has it's peak rate of roll at the speed at which it has the best turn performance. And there are many other things like that which are important ( in RL ), but not taken into account by most sim players. The tempest probably also have such advantages in its disign, but RL is not IL2.

That's very interesting...I can't wait to hear more. It reminds me of a book by french philosopher interested in technology called Gilbert Simondon in his book Du mode d'existence des objets techniques. I think it's time for me to read it again. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

VW-IceFire
12-07-2007, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by gkll:
Posted this previously, no one challenged then...

"I get quite different numbers wingloading and T/W - Tempest11 ~20% <better> wingloading and ~10% <worse> powerloading... using 'dogfight weight' which is ~fuel to fly to 20000 ft, fight and land. Equalizes range differences between aircraft (long ranged aircraft get hooped in il2compare for eg, they are always 'fat' with fuel). Added 350 kg to 190d and 400 to Tempest empty weights.

So with that much improvement in wingloading the il2compare graphs make sense, take a look. "laminar flow" is not going to rebalance that large a difference in wingload"

The comparison aircraft is 190 D9. I don't buy that D9 might be 'slightly better in turn rate' as people have posted then and now. My 2c.
In-game the turn between the two is similar just at different speeds and different initial turn rates. The Tempest probably has a wider area of speed to do a good turn at and definitely has a slight initial turn advantage and that leaves the FW190D-9 turning better in certain situations and catching after the initial turn. The two are really just so close its down to different speeds and narrow areas of advantage and disadvantage.

A really fantastic pilot who knows both planes can exploit the advantage either way. I'm not one of them but I do know, for instance, that the Tempest will pull harder quicker (that initial turn) so if a D-9 is bouncing me I'll often pull very hard for just a quick moment as he enters gun range. The D-9 is going too fast and isn't able to make the instant correction fast enough to get guns on target (in most cases). If I was the D-9 being bounced by a Tempest I'd probably do something with a hard roll and rudder to create a slide rather than a quick pull as the Tempest in a roll is fast but tends to be less precise.

Ratsack
12-07-2007, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
"not so well trained" might be a bit over exegerating though. Some of these pilots had less then 20 hours of flight expirience towards the end.
That would be 20 hours in the type of a/c they would be flying in combat. They would have more than 20 hours of flight time to graduate from flight school. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just read Roald Dahl's Going Solo, which is the second part of his autobiography.

When he finally joined 80 Squadron in Greece during the German invasion, he had 7 1/2 hours in Hurricanes, and most of those were on the ferry flight from Egypt. He still had no combat training. He was thrown straight in against the Luftwaffe in 1941.

Talk about Kinder Mort.

Ratsack

Ratsack
12-07-2007, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
...

I think the Tempest's build quality, surface finish, ... was ...likely to be higher than the equivalent Dora's.
...

I don't know about this. German production quality was falling in late 1944, but it was falling from a very high base. German quality standards through most of the war were much higher than Allied.

Milch complained in mid 1944 that they were still upholstering parts of the cockpit.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just suggesting the full picture might be more complex.

cheers,
Ratsack

mynameisroland
12-07-2007, 06:21 PM
Ratsack I didnt know the ulpholstered their cockpits!

I think that the surface cleanliness of the two aircraft does differ, Ive seen an A8 up close and it had a lot of gaps and panels designed for easy access rather than lowest drag, compared to P51 or SeaFury ( only seen photos of Tempest ) the surface finish was poorer.

As for build quality I mostly meant engines, by 45 the Sabre was pretty reliable ( for a 2400 HP aero engine ), was well put together and was fed with good quality fuel. I dont know if by late 44 and early 45 German stuff was as good as it was on paper. Rushed manufacturing, dispersed production (wonder if this led to any assembly issues?), low quality labour and poor fuel must have taken its toll on potential performance and inservice performanc.

SkyChimp
12-07-2007, 06:58 PM
I heard the Dora had better carrier-handling qualities.

Polyperhon
12-07-2007, 07:42 PM
Sorry but according to ILcompare both Tempest and D9 are equally faster at low alt until 2.500m and then starts an increasing gap in performance that has its peak in around 5.500m when D9 reached 730km/h when tempest has a max speed of 690km/h.Same with the rate of climb and tempest a better turn rate at lower speeds.D9 Late has a top speed of 710km/h and is only marginally slower than the tempest at low alt.A8 has a depressing performance of only 645km/h and is slower in every aspect from the tempest at all altitudes.A9 goes to 670+km/h but still is slower than the A5 which has a top speed of 680km/h!!!!However the A5 1.65 has a top speed of 660km/hStill,these numbers are really difficult to believe since the A8/9 are only 100kg heavier than the A5.

If these numbers reflect accurately reality, then yes the tempest was superior than Fw190As, even the A9 in overall performance (and manoeuvrability,but is difficult to judge it in absolute terms).However the D9 is superior in every aspect of performance.Therefore since the majority of the encounters were in low alts against A models, then all these historic evidence that we read is justified.

Well all these things are justified by the FM, and the truth is that possibly the D9 (with the XIV and F4U-4 out http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif) is possibly the most formidable of all piston engine fighters.Is faster than everything piston-powered in the FM,(only Mustang Mk.III is a bit faster at low alt.) and accerelates and climbs in a very impressive way.
This means that is not without faults, the lack of a motorkannone is obvious (the D12 version in not available unfortunately)and especially in high alt the plane is not to so pleasant to manoeuver.

There is this topic too if you are interested:
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/6281043645

Sooocool
12-07-2007, 08:31 PM
I don't know how scientific this would be, but you might want to try what
I did a quite a while back when I was trying to figure out what was so great about the FW-190 when I could never seem to make it perform;
I went to the IL-2 Quick Mission Builder and selected a 1943 model FW-190, Default Weapons, Ace.
Against
A 1943 model Bf-109, Default Weapons, Ace.
As soon as the Mission started I would key Autopilot, key Shift+F2 or Ctrl+F2 and using my mouse, would watch the action unfold!
I did this many times that day, each time, a different configuration i.e., Friendly / Hostile, Advantage / Disadvantage / None.
Reasonable enough to assume that the AI is impartial.


Oh, BTW, The Bf-109 won almost every time.

VW-IceFire
12-07-2007, 11:20 PM
Originally posted by Sooocool:
I don't know how scientific this would be, but you might want to try what
I did a quite a while back when I was trying to figure out what was so great about the FW-190 when I could never seem to make it perform;
I went to the IL-2 Quick Mission Builder and selected a 1943 model FW-190, Default Weapons, Ace.
Against
A 1943 model Bf-109, Default Weapons, Ace.
As soon as the Mission started I would key Autopilot, key Shift+F2 or Ctrl+F2 and using my mouse, would watch the action unfold!
I did this many times that day, each time, a different configuration i.e., Friendly / Hostile, Advantage / Disadvantage / None.
Reasonable enough to assume that the AI is impartial.


Oh, BTW, The Bf-109 won almost every time.
Thats because the AI is also not an expert at handling the FW190 in those sorts if situations. Flying the FW190 takes a certain kind of skill and understanding to make it right. Anyone can do it...but it takes time, practice, and a sort of understanding with the virtual plane on what is expected of pilot and airframe.

You'd expect the 109 to win most of those encounters because its pretty good at the close in fight. Solid aircraft in any year. The 190 is different and better in many ways but not all of them.

gkll
12-08-2007, 12:54 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gkll:
Posted this previously, no one challenged then...

"I get quite different numbers wingloading and T/W - Tempest11 ~20% <better> wingloading and ~10% <worse> powerloading... using 'dogfight weight' which is ~fuel to fly to 20000 ft, fight and land. Equalizes range differences between aircraft (long ranged aircraft get hooped in il2compare for eg, they are always 'fat' with fuel). Added 350 kg to 190d and 400 to Tempest empty weights.

So with that much improvement in wingloading the il2compare graphs make sense, take a look. "laminar flow" is not going to rebalance that large a difference in wingload"

The comparison aircraft is 190 D9. I don't buy that D9 might be 'slightly better in turn rate' as people have posted then and now. My 2c.
In-game the turn between the two is similar just at different speeds and different initial turn rates. The Tempest probably has a wider area of speed to do a good turn at and definitely has a slight initial turn advantage and that leaves the FW190D-9 turning better in certain situations and catching after the initial turn. The two are really just so close its down to different speeds and narrow areas of advantage and disadvantage.

A really fantastic pilot who knows both planes can exploit the advantage either way. I'm not one of them but I do know, for instance, that the Tempest will pull harder quicker (that initial turn) so if a D-9 is bouncing me I'll often pull very hard for just a quick moment as he enters gun range. The D-9 is going too fast and isn't able to make the instant correction fast enough to get guns on target (in most cases). If I was the D-9 being bounced by a Tempest I'd probably do something with a hard roll and rudder to create a slide rather than a quick pull as the Tempest in a roll is fast but tends to be less precise. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah sure... however I was trying to suggest that of the two the Tempest should be the better 'close in' dogfighter, see xio's post previous to mine. Wingloading suggests it, so does il2compare.

People mean a lot of different stuff when they say 'close in' dogfighter, however if you assume an angles fight, i dont believe the 190 is going to be able to use its differential (higher speed) best sustained turn... the tempest will bleed less at the lower speed, same rate with smaller radius, and the angles gain will force the 190 to break away or try to match the rate. When the 190 bleeds down, the tempest will 'wallow last'. If the fight is short, well thats a different story.

In other words the T/W advantage for the 190 shows up at the higher turn speed as dominant, the wing load (substantial) advantage for the Tempest gives it the edge at lower speeds... a sustained angles fight should be won by the Tempest. RL and il2compare. Fairly easily, maybe Ill saddle up with my sparring buddy and try it out, we used to have a pretty consistent 'protocol' which really highlighted differences in sustained angles fighting, the mythical 'e-bleed', or one interpretation of it

Not that what you said was in contradiction to this... just I was trying to make a different point

Sergio_101
12-08-2007, 01:21 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Ratsack I didnt know the ulpholstered their cockpits!

I think that the surface cleanliness of the two aircraft does differ, Ive seen an A8 up close and it had a lot of gaps and panels designed for easy access rather than lowest drag, compared to P51 or SeaFury ( only seen photos of Tempest ) the surface finish was poorer.

As for build quality I mostly meant engines, by 45 the Sabre was pretty reliable ( for a 2400 HP aero engine ), was well put together and was fed with good quality fuel. I dont know if by late 44 and early 45 German stuff was as good as it was on paper. Rushed manufacturing, dispersed production (wonder if this led to any assembly issues?), low quality labour and poor fuel must have taken its toll on potential performance and inservice performanc.

Correct on all counts, except perhaps one.
Pratt&Whitney's "C" series R-2800 was very reliable at
power levels exceeding 2,800 hp.
Before you jump...Most P&W R-2800s were the "B" series
and most produced 2,000 hp or, in the case of late P-47D's 2300 hp.

Quality controll was an issue on some batches of Napier Sabres.
I have read the horror stories about inadequate de-burring/finishing
and metal machining chips in assembled engines.

But quality consistancy in Allied engines was getting better as the war
went on thanks to the work of Demming and the manufacturing plant managment.
The common factory workers also had good reason to deliver perfection.
They did not want to learn to speak German or Japanese......

Germany suffered because of many factors, not the least of which was
the heavy "strategic" bombing.
The fuel situation had to be stressed at least.



Chimpster, "I heard the Dora had better carrier-handling qualities." A tad sarcastic are we not? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

In passing, saw this on E-Bay, bummer I no longer own a VCR.
http://cgi.ebay.com/Aviation-VCRs_W0QQitemZ120192451847...ZphotoQQcmdZViewItem (http://cgi.ebay.com/Aviation-VCRs_W0QQitemZ120192451847QQihZ002QQcategoryZ419QQ tcZphotoQQcmdZViewItem)

Got a mountain of stuff on DVD, thet will be obsolete next... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

One last point on fuel. Obviously gas turbines (jets) will burn just about anything. (even wood and coal).
But piston engines were here for a few more years at least if the war had not endined (with a big bang).
The US was already manufacturing small batches of a little known fuel knick named "Triptane".
Blended with 115/145 it yeilded a PN of 200/300! Think about it, 200 "octane" lean mixture.......

Perhaps it was the low tech end of the technology war, but the Allies were far from done developing better av gas.

Sergio

luftluuver
12-08-2007, 02:01 AM
Quality controll was an issue on some batches of Napier Sabres.
I have read the horror stories about inadequate de-burring/finishing
and metal machining chips in assembled engines.
That was for early production engines.

Initial Problems
Sleeves

The main cause of the trouble was distortion of the cylinder sleeves. Even when Typhoons began going to the squadrons, the time between major overhauls of 25 hours as laid down was often not attained. Sleeves produced by Napier often failed to reach 20 hours when tested on the bench.

By 1943, with the problem still unsolved by Napier, and with Production still lagging, the Ministry of Aircraft Production pushed through a marriage between that company and English Electric. At around the same time the Bristol engine company applied their expertise, it being discovered that their sleeves for the Taurus radial engine could be adapted by machining to Sabre size. While Napier sleeves were distorting after only 20 hours, Bristol sleeves lasted for 120 hours without any sign of real wear. A rapid decision was made to swing the production over, machine tools being obtained from the United States to give Napier the ability to bring their work up to standard.
http://www.eagle.ca/~harry/aircraft/tempest/sabre/ (http://www.eagle.ca/%7Eharry/aircraft/tempest/sabre/)

The machine tools mentioned were 6 Sundstrand grinders slated for R2800C production at the P&W plant in Kansas City Missouri.

Fighterduck
12-08-2007, 02:50 AM
in game i dont see that much difference between those two planes. Uhm..the Dora is little more agile, it has some adevantage with the roll rate. I think the Dora is a "pure" fighter and the Tempest a multirole fighter. In terms of speed both are incredible fast, the same for the climb rate...uhm..for climb rate i thought Tempest was the fastest in game. I dont know in real life but in offline campaign its more easy to take altitude with the Sabre that with the Jumo. Seems the Tempest has also a better acceleration in game. Down low the two planes are pretty the same but i would say that the Tempest is faster. At medium alsitude i got the same situation. No problem to fight a Dora in a Tempest. Over 6000m...never tried. I think the Jumo become more efficent. As for the Sabre i dont have any idea. But high altitude wasnt the best situation for the Tempest i think. The sabre engine wasnt made for that. But despite of this point both planes are amazing. Closetermann loved the Tempest, for his fire power and for the engine ( also if he told that the Sabre was "fragile" and hads some heat problem ) and considered the Dora as the Cadillac of aircrafts.

mynameisroland
12-08-2007, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by Polyperhon:
Sorry but according to ILcompare both Tempest and D9 are equally faster at low alt until 2.500m and then starts an increasing gap in performance that has its peak in around 5.500m when D9 reached 730km/h when tempest has a max speed of 690km/h.Same with the rate of climb and tempest a better turn rate at lower speeds.D9 Late has a top speed of 710km/h and is only marginally slower than the tempest at low alt.A8 has a depressing performance of only 645km/h and is slower in every aspect from the tempest at all altitudes.A9 goes to 670+km/h but still is slower than the A5 which has a top speed of 680km/h!!!!However the A5 1.65 has a top speed of 660km/hStill,these numbers are really difficult to believe since the A8/9 are only 100kg heavier than the A5.

If these numbers reflect accurately reality, then yes the tempest was superior than Fw190As, even the A9 in overall performance (and manoeuvrability,but is difficult to judge it in absolute terms).However the D9 is superior in every aspect of performance.Therefore since the majority of the encounters were in low alts against A models, then all these historic evidence that we read is justified.

Well all these things are justified by the FM, and the truth is that possibly the D9 (with the XIV and F4U-4 out http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif) is possibly the most formidable of all piston engine fighters.Is faster than everything piston-powered in the FM,(only Mustang Mk.III is a bit faster at low alt.) and accerelates and climbs in a very impressive way.
This means that is not without faults, the lack of a motorkannone is obvious (the D12 version in not available unfortunately)and especially in high alt the plane is not to so pleasant to manoeuver.

There is this topic too if you are interested:
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/6281043645

Polypheron, IL2 Compare only shows us what we have in game.

We dont have a Tempest model which fought against the Fw 190 D9 we have an April 1944 model - whose direct conteporaries in game would be Fw 190 A8 or G6 AS.

So the Tempest in IL2 is just a shade below the D9s performance whilst being an earlier lower powered version. Actual Tempests which fought D9s had over 200 more HorsePower.

Ps if you are looking at IL2 Compare take a look at the Yak3 VK107 which spanks every other piston engined fighter in game.

From the link you posted I think Blutarski sums this issue up quite well:



Posted Wed April 04 2007 13:55 Hide Post
Just to wrap this Mike Williams thing up, I took a look at his Tempest V and FW190D-9 data, compared it to my little FW190D-9 level speed "analysis", and did a bit of homework on the Napier Sabre V engine, which powered the Tempest V in 1944/1945 - .

Our estimated maximum level speed for a clean FW190D-9 in service condition powered by a Jumo213A running at full war emergency power w/ MW50 and B4 fuel was as follows -

590 kph @ SL
700 kph @ approx 6000m altitude.

Mike Williams describes its FW190D-9 level speed plot as achieved under Sondernotleistung, 1.8 ata and 3250 rpm as per Focke-Wulf Flugzeugbau, 11 Mar 45. His speed values are 378 mph @ SL and 430 mph @ 18,000 ft, which convert to metric as follows -

609 kph @ SL
692 kph @ 5486m altitude

So far as I can tell, those speed Assuming that our test conditions and his text conditions correspond to one another, it seems that his numbers are not obnoxiously different from our calculated values.

Wiliams's Tempest V values are described as representing level speeds achievable by a Napier Sabre IIA running 3700 rpm at +13 lbs boost. His Tempest speed values are 402 mph @ SL and 436 mph at 19,000 ft. These convert to metric as follows -

647 kph @ SL
702 kph @ 5790m altitude



Wrapping this all up, we obtain the following:

Tempest V
647 kph @ SL / 702 kph @ 5790m - M Williams's speeds

FW109D-9
609 kph @ SL / 692 kph @ 5486m - M Williams's speeds
590 kph @ SL / 700 kph @ 6000m - Blutarski's guesstimated speeds
605 kph @ SL / 690 kph @ 5500m - Plot 4 from Kurfurst's FW graph (service FW190D-9?)
640 kph @ SL / 698 kph @ 3500m - Plot 3 from Kurfurst's FW graph (C3 fuel)
615 kph @ SL / 705 kph @ 5500m - Plot 2 from Kurfurst's FW graph (C3 fuel)

I believe that all these values above represent sprint speeds of the respective a/c operating at highest boost levels and war emergency power (+ MW50 in the case ofthe German a/c). If Plot 4 is accurate for a service FW190D-9, as has been estimated, then Williams's graphed FW190D-9 speed values are functionally the same.

---

As for this comment from Williams's site - " Flight Test Reports of the FW-190 D-9 indicate that the Focke Wulf estimate is approximately 12 mph optimistic for newly manufactured aircraft delivered in standard operational configuration." - I cannot find a logically corresponding statement in the language of the several German reports which appear on his site. I therefore do not know what he means by it.


If anyone catches a mistake or error of logic here, please let me know.

---


BLUTARSKI

Kauzio
12-08-2007, 09:24 PM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
"not so well trained" might be a bit over exegerating though. Some of these pilots had less then 20 hours of flight expirience towards the end.
That would be 20 hours in the type of a/c they would be flying in combat. They would have more than 20 hours of flight time to graduate from flight school. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just read Roald Dahl's Going Solo, which is the second part of his autobiography.

When he finally joined 80 Squadron in Greece during the German invasion, he had 7 1/2 hours in Hurricanes, and most of those were on the ferry flight from Egypt. He still had no combat training. He was thrown straight in against the Luftwaffe in 1941.

Talk about Kinder Mort.

Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hey ratsack, I love that book.

Dahl's "Going Solo" inspired me so much, I read it as a young boy and it really amazed me. I couldn't believe people really led such amazing lives.

I'd never read anything like a ww2 pilot's accounts before, and to read such adventures written by Dahl (who I think is an awesome writer, very modest, very easy to read, no pretentious writing, crystal clear etc etc) was awesome.

His adventures in the air were all so clearly and beautifully constructed in that book. I'm sure there was probably some elaboration and making things more exciting than reality (who knows), but all I know is I have so many "memories" imprinted in my mind from that book. I only ever read it once or twice, but I can remember it as if I was there... weird! I forget most bits of every other book I've ever read.

He's one of my heroes ever since reading that book http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

tools4foolsA
12-08-2007, 11:23 PM
Both planes being very similar in performance (Closterman giving dive and zoom climb to Tempest, roll to FW, but deciding factor being pilot skill as performance being so close) but then at the same time how much sense does it make to try to figure out which plane was 10km/h faster?

After all not all planes of the same type did have exactly the same performance. What was performance % allowed to be acepted by air forces? 4% or something like that? Which is about 30km/h for a plane with a top speed of 700km/h.

So day one you might encounter a FW which is faster then your own plane, day two one that's slower. Same goes for the FW's.

My greatest wish for BoB would be such a variable performance in the new game...

It kind of does not occur me why people need their ride to be better than the other's ride.

As for pilot skill I like Clostermans comment on the 'Experten' that were still around. He mentioned best way to deal with them would be by not engaging them. And that they had 'probably forgotten more about aerial combat than we had ever learned'.


*****

tools4foolsA
12-08-2007, 11:40 PM
By the way: discussions about plane performance remind me about discussions about photography buffs (I snap quite a few pics myself).

A lot of those are 'mesurbators' (a term created by a photographer): they mesure all the performance of cameras, how fast the AF system is, shooting test charts to determine resolution of lenses and sensor, etc, etc, etc.
Some even use software to determine at which focal lenghts they shoot most pictures to make sure they will buy the lens who fits them best...
All numbers and number crucnhcing, very much like here.
What they tend to forget is that there are entire different aspects which turn a camera into a good camera. Good in sense of useful.

Like a large viewfinder for easy and fast composition of image. Like having all the needed info in viewfinder and most important buttons in place that you can use them without taking camera away from your eye.

When it comes down to the top level of performers the difference is small indeed - b e it Nikon vs Canon or FW vs Tempest.
And yes, the man behind the lens...errr...stick is what counts most. In photography even more than in IL-2.
****

FliegerAas
12-09-2007, 12:05 AM
Originally posted by tools4foolsA:
By the way: discussions about plane performance remind me about discussions about photography buffs (I snap quite a few pics myself).

A lot of those are 'mesurbators' (a term created by a photographer): they mesure all the performance of cameras, how fast the AF system is, shooting test charts to determine resolution of lenses and sensor, etc, etc, etc.
Some even use software to determine at which focal lenghts they shoot most pictures to make sure they will buy the lens who fits them best...
All numbers and number crucnhcing, very much like here.
What they tend to forget is that there are entire different aspects which turn a camera into a good camera. Good in sense of useful.

Like a large viewfinder for easy and fast composition of image. Like having all the needed info in viewfinder and most important buttons in place that you can use them without taking camera away from your eye.

[...]
****

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif nice analogy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Xiolablu3
12-09-2007, 03:40 PM
People should note that the 'IL2' Tempest in-game is not the 'vanilla' Tempest of WW2, its a lower powered version which was built in small numbers.

The main Tempest, and the one which would fight against FW190D9's was a later modfel with a more powerful engine.

However there is a cheat which allows the in-game Tempest to exceed the FW190D's speed and also that of the later Tempest. I really wish it could be fixed, but I'm not holding my breath, work has stopped on IL2. Its just not important enough when everyone at 1C is working full-speed on SOW:BOB and IL2 has been hacked by kids.

fordfan25
12-09-2007, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:


Manoeuvrability is something people like to forget, espacially in games like IL2. In RL its still one of the most important attribute for a fighter. tell that to the zero piolets who faced f4u and hellcats http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

fordfan25
12-09-2007, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
People should note that the 'IL2' Tempest in-game is not the 'vanilla' Tempest of WW2, its a lower powered version which was built in small numbers.

The main Tempest, and the one which would fight against FW190D9's was a later modfel with a more powerful engine.

However there is a cheat which allows the in-game Tempest to exceed the FW190D's speed and also that of the later Tempest. I really wish it could be fixed, but I'm not holding my breath, work has stopped on IL2. Its just not important enough when everyone at 1C is working full-speed on SOW:BOB and IL2 has been hacked by kids. that cheat can be used on more planes than the tempest. on both sides of the fence http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. just that it works extra good on the tempest.

fordfan25
12-09-2007, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
I heard the Dora had better carrier-handling qualities. yea but was unable to be used foe carrier Ops as the extra drag of the p51 glued to its 6 caused higher than expected landing speeds.

anarchy52
12-09-2007, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
However there is a cheat which allows the in-game Tempest to exceed the FW190D's speed and also that of the later Tempest.

The cheat as you call it (correct term would be 'exploit') is not a result of 'hacking' (I prefer 'modding') it's a game flaw (fiddling with PP).

As for il-2 and maneuverability modeling, it's rather arbitrary. From what I've seen aircraft parameters are usually tweaked to make them fly as devs thought they should. Il-2 does not seem advanced enough to enable you to punch in the correct numbers and expect the aircraft perform as it did historically (I've been experimenting).

Xiolablu3
12-09-2007, 07:47 PM
I didnt mean it was a result of hacking, I was just saying that its unlikely to be fixed becasue of a combination of SOW and the hacking thing, resulting in Oleg realising 'why bother'.

Regardless of what other plasnes it works on, it should be fixed, exploits on any plane are not a good thing.