PDA

View Full Version : Why the MustangIII?



stathem
06-14-2005, 10:36 AM
I realise this will make me sound ungrateful and has the potential to turn nasty (which I'd rather it didn't) but, I have to ask -

Does anyone know why we got the wonderfully fast but ultimately toothless 25lb boost Mustang III http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif, but not the slightly slower but rather more deadly 25lb boost Spit IX? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

TgD Thunderbolt56
06-14-2005, 10:52 AM
Conspiracy theory?



Actually, I don't know why this is the case, but speed is life and I'll take the added survivability offered by a faster pony.

TB

Atomic_Marten
06-14-2005, 11:08 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v442/Atomic_Marten/AMSpitWhin_00.gif

Capt._Tenneal
06-14-2005, 12:05 PM
I'm actually surprised to see the Mustang III included (the P-38L late also), only because I thought PF was the last we'll see of US planes because of the Northrop-Grumman thing.

fordfan25
06-14-2005, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by stathem:
I realise this will make me sound ungraetful and has the potential to turn nasty (which I'd rather it didn't) but, I have to ask -

Does anyone know why we got the wonderfully fast but ultimately toothless 25lb boost Mustang III http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif, but not the slightly slower but rather more deadly 25lb boost Spit IX? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif


why not. thers more moddles of the spit in game than of the stang.

p1ngu666
06-14-2005, 12:18 PM
it would make the lw cry.

stathem
06-14-2005, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by Atomic_Marten:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v442/Atomic_Marten/AMSpitWhin_00.gif

Thanks for that, Marten, really useful contribution. I was completely forgetting one wasn't allowed to discuss the plane that was my childhood dream in here, thanks ever so for putting me straight.

I'll just be off to cry myself to sleep.

btw, do you have an FW190 one for those endless "where's my extra MG shell/ETC bombrack/1.65 ATA/it's 12mph to slow at 10,000'/I can't see out the front/it leaks fuel/it uses too much fuel/I got out-turned by a P-38/OMG there's another plane faster than me now/I still can't blow stuff up just by looking at it/ delete as applicable*" threads that show up daily?

Monty_Thrud
06-14-2005, 12:34 PM
I'm glad we have the Mustang III, but i'm hoping we get the 25lbs boost Spitfire IXe in a future patch we already have the model so no excuses there and Oleg must have the performance data from here (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/jl165.html)

...so heres another hoping for, fingers crossed, wishing for, Spitfire MkIXe 25lbs boost, along with the other wishing for list of Tempest, Spitfire MkXIV and Mosquito...well you can but hope

..and that ***** picture should surely be changed to Luftwhiner, but hes just having a Turkish bath http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

lbhskier37
06-14-2005, 12:40 PM
Probably because they knew the brit pilots were going to whine about the lack of the Mossie anyways, so if they included the 25lb Spit and not the Mustang they would have the american pilots whining too.

lrrp22
06-14-2005, 01:02 PM
Because Oleg was provided with a large amount of origianl test and operational data for the Mustang III. Since the Mustang III was by far the most prevelant model in use by the RAF, it seemed to be the reasonable choice.

The +25 lbs boost Spit would be considerably more than 'slightly' slower than the Mustang III. The Spit XIV will (hopefully) cure all the late-war Spitfire cravings!


Originally posted by stathem:
I realise this will make me sound ungrateful and has the potential to turn nasty (which I'd rather it didn't) but, I have to ask -

Does anyone know why we got the wonderfully fast but ultimately toothless 25lb boost Mustang III http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif, but not the slightly slower but rather more deadly 25lb boost Spit IX? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

stathem
06-14-2005, 01:03 PM
Sorry, you get me wrong, I'm not saying the Mustang shouldn't have been included. As a **** pilot with a **** stick and suicidal tendancies I mainly stick to bombers and Jabo, and the MkIII will be an awesome hit and run machine.

I just wondered if there was a definative answer, is all.

EDIT, Thank you Irrp.

Jetbuff
06-14-2005, 01:05 PM
Stathem, relax dude. That kitty was cute! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Here's my Luftwhine of the day btw: 109 is a bit too resistant fuselage-wise to enemy fire. It will smoke, leak, lose control and what have you from the first few shots as it should (it wasn't a particularly durable plane) but the late 109's fuselages are a bit too much from what I can tell.

Atomic_Marten
06-14-2005, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by stathem:
Thanks for that, Marten, really useful contribution. I was completely forgetting one wasn't allowed to discuss the plane that was my childhood dream in here, thanks ever so for putting me straight.

I'll just be off to cry myself to sleep.

btw, do you have an FW190 one for those endless "where's my extra MG shell/ETC bombrack/1.65 ATA/it's 12mph to slow at 10,000'/I can't see out the front/it leaks fuel/it uses too much fuel/I got out-turned by a P-38/OMG there's another plane faster than me now/I still can't blow stuff up just by looking at it/ delete as applicable*" threads that show up daily?

No hard feelings mate, it was just a joke. If you ask me I would also like to see your 25lb Spit9 in game. Why not? Any new plane for me is a good addition.

Be sure, I ain't forgot FW/MG151/other whiners. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

3.JG51_BigBear
06-14-2005, 01:08 PM
Are there any external/cockpit differences between the two spits? That could be the reason one was included and not the other. The Mustang didn't need any changes in its exterior or cockpit model to be put in the game, just a tweak to the flight model.

faustnik
06-14-2005, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by 3.JG51_BigBear:
Are there any external/cockpit differences between the two spits? That could be the reason one was included and not the other. The Mustang didn't need any changes in its exterior or cockpit model to be put in the game, just a tweak to the flight model.

No external differences.

Aaron_GT
06-14-2005, 01:47 PM
lrrp did some stirling work providing Oleg with the documentation, so I think thanks rather than grumbles are in order!

Monty_Thrud
06-14-2005, 02:03 PM
No grumbles here, i also welcome any additional aircraft, well done irrp http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif..i think the general feeling is that if it could be done with the Mustang III then why not with the Spitfire MkIX mid '44 onwards, the models already there, the informations there...just curious, this isn't whining, believe me its appreciated, and please correct me if i'm wrong but wasnt the 'StangIII more of a mid to low level ground attack aircraft, and the Spit mid to high altitude fighter?

VW-IceFire
06-14-2005, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by 3.JG51_BigBear:
Are there any external/cockpit differences between the two spits? That could be the reason one was included and not the other. The Mustang didn't need any changes in its exterior or cockpit model to be put in the game, just a tweak to the flight model.
Actually the Mark III should have a British spade handle instead of an American flight stick so there should be internal changes but there are none. Not than anyone cares http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Hristo_
06-14-2005, 02:22 PM
Any plane we get is a good thing. Even Spit with 25lb boost.

And while they're at it, why not D-9 with Bodenmotor, A-Lader and what not ? How fast was it again ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Seriously, more planes doesn't mean the game balance shifts left or right. There was no game balance in real life. Here we even have hosts to make it more fun for everyone though.

NorrisMcWhirter
06-14-2005, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by stathem:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Atomic_Marten:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v442/Atomic_Marten/AMSpitWhin_00.gif

Thanks for that, Marten, really useful contribution. I was completely forgetting one wasn't allowed to discuss the plane that was my childhood dream in here, thanks ever so for putting me straight.

I'll just be off to cry myself to sleep.

btw, do you have an FW190 one for those endless "where's my extra MG shell/ETC bombrack/1.65 ATA/it's 12mph to slow at 10,000'/I can't see out the front/it leaks fuel/it uses too much fuel/I got out-turned by a P-38/OMG there's another plane faster than me now/I still can't blow stuff up just by looking at it/ delete as applicable*" threads that show up daily? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are they the same as the 'boo hoo my P38 elevator doesn't work at mach 6/my P51 has a glass jaw/the P47 only takes 4 30mm hits/the .50s are porked even though Oleg overmodelled them after much whining/I get too much gunshake even though the recoil was removed/I can't see out of my Hellcat/my P51 wings fall off because Oleg overmodelled the elevator after too much whining/my P38 doesn't roll 360 degrees in a femtosecond/why don't we have the P47N even if it's blocking is a product of greedy capitalism to which I probably subscribe to/I can't take off with a full loadout and 100% fuel in my corsair from a stationary carrier/my P47 that weighs more than a Tiger tank oscillates when I have my stick settings wrong/Oleg hates the US/I can't shoot panzer tanks with .50s even though I fired one on a tripod into an armour plate and it caused a hole at 300m' threads?

Norris

PS: I suspect the III was included because, as said, the RAF used it extensively, the 3D model already exists/there was a lot of whining about boosting Merlins.

stathem
06-14-2005, 03:37 PM
S'up Norris, couldn't youu find any actual Spit whines?

Zyzbot
06-14-2005, 03:42 PM
LOL! McWhining about whining.

fordfan25
06-14-2005, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Atomic_Marten:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v442/Atomic_Marten/AMSpitWhin_00.gif

Thanks for that, Marten, really useful contribution. I was completely forgetting one wasn't allowed to discuss the plane that was my childhood dream in here, thanks ever so for putting me straight.

I'll just be off to cry myself to sleep.

btw, do you have an FW190 one for those endless "where's my extra MG shell/ETC bombrack/1.65 ATA/it's 12mph to slow at 10,000'/I can't see out the front/it leaks fuel/it uses too much fuel/I got out-turned by a P-38/OMG there's another plane faster than me now/I still can't blow stuff up just by looking at it/ delete as applicable*" threads that show up daily? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are they the same as the 'boo hoo my P38 elevator doesn't work at mach 6/my P51 has a glass jaw/the P47 only takes 4 30mm hits/the .50s are porked even though Oleg overmodelled them after much whining/I get too much gunshake even though the recoil was removed/I can't see out of my Hellcat/my P51 wings fall off because Oleg overmodelled the elevator after too much whining/my P38 doesn't roll 360 degrees in a femtosecond/why don't we have the P47N even if it's blocking is a product of greedy capitalism to which I probably subscribe to/I can't take off with a full loadout and 100% fuel in my corsair from a stationary carrier/my P47 that weighs more than a Tiger tank oscillates when I have my stick settings wrong/Oleg hates the US/I can't shoot panzer tanks with .50s even though I fired one on a tripod into an armour plate and it caused a hole at 300m' threads?

Norris

PS: I suspect the III was included because, as said, the RAF used it extensively, the 3D model already exists/there was a lot of whining about boosting Merlins. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


no there the same ones whining about how there 109s elavators are porked and how there guns are to weak and why thay are so sick of haveing all the 1945 rare and never built UFO's.

NorrisMcWhirter
06-14-2005, 04:12 PM
Spit? What's to whine about? It has an anti-gravity engine. I bet it's bigger on the inside than the outside, too. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Billie Piper is your wingbird.

I don't recall complaining about the 109 elevator but, now you mention it, I suppose it being porked does stop the wings falling off http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

151/20 whining? There was a "bug" - nothing non-historical has appeared.

Late war UFOs? Keep 'em. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ta,
Norris

Bearcat99
06-14-2005, 04:24 PM
Norris check your PMs.

OD_79
06-14-2005, 04:26 PM
I would definately appreciate the Mk XIV...especially with a teardrop canopy...sorry I'll stop drooling and get back to posting.
More British aircraft would be nice...but where do they fit into the theatres of the game? We have Russian front where there were MkV's...and the Far East where there were MKVIII's, the MkIX, as far as I know as only used in Europe, same for the XIV, Mosquito and Tempest would be great but again the same largely applies, though I believe that there were Mosquitos in the Far East. I would love to have them though. Don't see much point in the Mustang III to be honest, but I wouldn't want to get rid of it! The more the better is all I can say on the aircraft side of things...what we really should be asking about is why did we get a bulldozer and a bus instead of the Spit Tempest and Mosquito! Can you fly a bus or a bulldozer?

OD.

JamesBlonde888
06-14-2005, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:

Late war UFOs? Keep 'em. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Nah screw the UFO paper planes and introduce more obscure and neglected types.
How about a Defiant or Fairey Battle...lol

Seriously though stuff like the Dornier Pfiel would be interesting, He-162, Doodlebug, I am sure there are many other neglected and more worthy types than the bloody Go-229 and if this sim is based on realism and immersion then I don't want to shoot down the f*cking batplane!


I can't believe that there is no Spit IX. Most common variant anyone??? Come on! This is shocking. You might as well leave out the P-51D or the F6F.

^^My first whine, Im so proud...^^

Zyzbot
06-14-2005, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by JamesBlonde888:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:

Late war UFOs? Keep 'em. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Nah screw the UFO paper planes and introduce more obscure and neglected types.
How about a Defiant or Fairey Battle...lol

Seriously though stuff like the Dornier Pfiel would be interesting, He-162, Doodlebug, I am sure there are many other neglected and more worthy types than the bloody Go-229 and if this sim is based on realism and immersion then I don't want to shoot down the f*cking batplane!


I can't believe that there is no Spit IX. Most common variant anyone??? Come on! This is shocking. You might as well leave out the P-51D or the F6F.

^^My first whine, Im so proud...^^ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


What game are you playing? Spit IX is in the game as are the He-162 and the V-1.

lrrp22
06-14-2005, 05:19 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Actually the Mark III should have a British spade handle instead of an American flight stick so there should be internal changes but there are none. Not than anyone cares http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Ice,

The standard U.S. stick grip is correct for the Mustang III. It appears that only very early Mustang I's had the spade grip fitted.

lrrp22
06-14-2005, 05:32 PM
OD,

The Mustang III makes sense if you consider the fact that there were more RAF squadrons equipped with the Mustang III than were equipped with the Spitfire XIV and Tempest V combined. That's not to say that I don't think the Spit XIV and Tempest are critically important to this game. However, they both require an entirely new Visual Model/FM/DM. We'll just have to be patient and have faith in Oleg...



Originally posted by OD_79:
Don't see much point in the Mustang III to be honest, but I wouldn't want to get rid of it! The more the better is all I can say on the aircraft side of things...what we really should be asking about is why did we get a bulldozer and a bus instead of the Spit Tempest and Mosquito!
OD.

VW-IceFire
06-14-2005, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by lrrp22:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Actually the Mark III should have a British spade handle instead of an American flight stick so there should be internal changes but there are none. Not than anyone cares http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Ice,

The standard U.S. stick grip is correct for the Mustang III. It appears that only very early Mustang I's had the spade grip fitted. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thank you sir. I didn't know that...I assumed a bit too much there it seems http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JamesBlonde888
06-14-2005, 05:43 PM
Originally posted by Zyzbot:


What game are you playing? Spit IX is in the game as are the He-162 and the V-1.

Ooops, ummm Pacman?

Sorry, I can't get a copy f AEP in Australia and I heard the absence of the Mk IX mentioned elsewhere. Serves me right for whining to try and fit in....

p1ngu666
06-14-2005, 05:50 PM
mossie served in europe, med, CBI, pacific, over water, they also where on the eastern front, but it was mostly used for photo recon shuttle missions tho, so not really that active on the eastern front.

the mossie was a war winner.
a excellent photo recon aircraft, possibly the best. a extremely good light or medium bomber, from tiny targets in france to the big city, the mossie bomber was the most effecient bomber.

a great fighter bomber, long range, heavy payload and firepower and very hard to intercept, plus a great view over the nose for low level flying. a 190 trying to follow a mossie hit the ground... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

as a night fighter, it gave the german bombers a bloody nose, and the german night fighters, it was gutting. moskitopanik http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

for decapitation raids, pinpoint raids for the resistance in various countries the mossie was THE aircraft. in every task that was asked of it (and there where many) the mossie proved tobe one of the very best aircraft, time after time http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

it should be one of the best planes in PF http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

p1ngu666
06-14-2005, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by JamesBlonde888:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Zyzbot:


What game are you playing? Spit IX is in the game as are the He-162 and the V-1.

Ooops, ummm Pacman?

Sorry, I can't get a copy f AEP in Australia and I heard the absence of the Mk IX mentioned elsewhere. Serves me right for whining to try and fit in.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

if u patch AEP i think u will get it, along with some nice yaks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JamesBlonde888
06-14-2005, 05:59 PM
IF I ever find a copy of AEP that is *wishes upon a star with bambi eyes* I have the bloodhounds out searching...

MEGILE
06-14-2005, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
'boo hoo my P38 elevator doesn't work at mach 6/my P51 has a glass jaw/the P47 only takes 4 30mm hits/the .50s are porked even though Oleg overmodelled them after much whining/I get too much gunshake even though the recoil was removed/I can't see out of my Hellcat/my P51 wings fall off because Oleg overmodelled the elevator after too much whining/my P38 doesn't roll 360 degrees in a femtosecond/why don't we have the P47N even if it's blocking is a product of greedy capitalism to which I probably subscribe to/I can't take off with a full loadout and 100% fuel in my corsair from a stationary carrier/my P47 that weighs more than a Tiger tank oscillates when I have my stick settings wrong/Oleg hates the US/I can't shoot panzer tanks with .50s even though I fired one on a tripod into an armour plate and it caused a hole at 300m' threads?


I tried to say it aloud in one breath, but failed miserably. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

civildog
06-14-2005, 07:17 PM
It will be a usful plane for those recon missions. No camera, but it'll simulate the thrilling experience of buzzing the angry anthill your buddies bombed in a plane no one else wants to fly while taking pictures of the 8.8's shooting up at you.

blakduk
06-14-2005, 08:37 PM
Originally posted by JamesBlonde888:
IF I ever find a copy of AEP that is *wishes upon a star with bambi eyes* I have the bloodhounds out searching...

You can get if from http://www.gamesmarket.com.au
It'll cost you $29.99aud.
I'm still searching for a way to download the patch that's not going to take me a fortnight. I only have dialup at home and at work (where i am the moment wasting company time) the IT Gestapo have too many security walls up to let me use their network

HellToupee
06-14-2005, 09:46 PM
Originally posted by lbhskier37:
Probably because they knew the brit pilots were going to whine about the lack of the Mossie anyways, so if they included the 25lb Spit and not the Mustang they would have the american pilots whining too.

but the mustang mkIII is a british plane

MichaelMar
06-14-2005, 10:45 PM
The only new plane I wanted to see would be an Italian one. But I guess that will never happen in IL2?

Hendley
06-14-2005, 10:46 PM
Originally posted by lrrp22:
OD,

The Mustang III makes sense if you consider the fact that there were more RAF squadrons equipped with the Mustang III than were equipped with the Spitfire XIV and Tempest V combined.

Hm? What's your source for this? I've seen a range of numbers given for squadrons listed as equipped with the Mustang III, but I'm surprised there'd be more than Spit XIVs...

ploughman
06-15-2005, 02:15 AM
Only a three (or four) Sqd wing of about 120 Spit XIVs was operational at any one time, such as the winter of 44/45 even though 957 were built as well as about 300 of the very similar Mk XVIIIs (I think, if memory serves. This from a post by Kurfurst half a year ago or so). Not that availability or numbers has been a criteria for being included in the simulation. A boosted Spit IX for 1944 would make sense, as would modelling the effect octane changes in fuel. But I'm happy enough anyway.

Kurfurst__
06-15-2005, 03:50 AM
12 Mustang III and IV squadrons were around in 1944 in the RAF; 6 more appeared in 1945.

As for XIV Squadrons, there were a maximum of only 7 during the war, and two of that iirc was a mixed PR units with Allision Mustangs - in any case, at any number of the war, less than a hundred was ready for action.

And for why the Mustang III was modelled, quite simply, that`s the sleekest, ligthest with all Merlin Mustangs and that`s what for LRRP2 whines for quite a while. He just forgot that this version just doesn`t have the firepower. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
There`s a litte concern about it`s performance, LRRP2 usually qoutes 'represantative' figures for a stripped V-1 chaser Mustang III in a special test, where draggy items such as wing racks, aerials were removed and the wing surface was freshly painted with care. These made it some 20+ mph faster than as it was received, or for the matter, any other Mustang III test available, but I have no doubt which test was presented to Oleg as representative. Oleg`s is not fooled easily, so we will see soon enough.

Tvrdi
06-15-2005, 04:09 AM
Originally posted by stathem:
I realise this will make me sound ungrateful and has the potential to turn nasty (which I'd rather it didn't) but, I have to ask -

Does anyone know why we got the wonderfully fast but ultimately toothless 25lb boost Mustang III http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif, but not the slightly slower but rather more deadly 25lb boost Spit IX? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif


indeed, pitty we dont have 2000 types of Spits and 1500 types of mustang....

ploughman
06-15-2005, 05:03 AM
5 types of Mustang and 14 types of Spit including the Seafires but none that are representative of high performance Spits from spring '44 onwards. This against 10 types of Bf 109 and 14 variants of the 190 including '44 and '45 types.

Don't be so blue.

Kurfurst__
06-15-2005, 05:09 AM
Khmm, we don`t have representavies of the highest performanced 109s either, ie. 2000 HP G-10 and K-4 either.

Besides, I never understood that number of types avaiable thing... WTF it matters ? Il2 wasn`t even supposed to have western allied planes originally... now you have dozens. P-38, P-39, P-40, P-47, P-51, P-63 P-80 and subtypes, Spitfire, Hurricane subtypes, the Tempest is coming... Why the whining?

When did Blue receive any useful real plane the last time, not the sillyness UFOs that are banned from most servers anyway? The 109 models are due for a facelift anyway.

So cut the whining.

dadada1
06-15-2005, 05:23 AM
Personally glad of any additional WW2 fighter regardless of nationality/ timeframe. Keep-em coming, Italian planes are long overdue though.

ploughman
06-15-2005, 05:57 AM
Well Kurfurst, I was just setting the previous poster straight, there aren't thousands of Mustang or Spit variants available and the number of sub-types aren't disproportionate between the Spits, Mustangs and the key Luft types. Also, while it may be true the Luftwaffe haven't got the best of the best the 190 and 109 set does have a nice spread of planes to choose from whilst the Spit selection effectively ends in early '44. The 109 and 190 lists were pretty meaty from early on in the sim so I would guess you haven't really had much in the way of new variants because you've had a pretty complete set for those types for quite a while. Additionally, blue got that Japanese fighter in v.400m and I think is due for some Italian types which I'm certainly looking forward to (unless by Blue you meant only Luftwaffe?).

Yes, I would like a 25lb boosted Spit IX as it is representative of the late war performance of this type. Having a Spit XIV would be pretty groovy too because it is pretty representative of the highest performance this type acheived during the war, sounds like a reasoned representation for the finsihing out of an aircraft set to me, if you think that all I'm doing is whining then that's too bad. Just think of it as having a Bf-109 set that ends with the G-6, you'd feel maybe there was room for a few more variants and probably not be too impressed by someone telling you that the Luftwaffe has no late war 190 variants when you know full well there's a Ta-152 on the flyables list.

Finally, I think the simulation's outgrown the confines of it's original Eastern Front Sturmovik roots, don't you?

Kurfurst__
06-15-2005, 06:05 AM
Well IMHO the more planes the better, provided it`s isn`t in the expense of accurate FM/DM.

The part I don`t understand : what`s the connection between late LW types and the lack of late RAF types - considering the latter`s introduction only depends on 3rd party modellers ...

And let just note, I am all for +25lbs MkIX and the introduction of the MkXIV. The former is a nice match in both timeline and performance to the G-14, the latter is for the G-10/K-4.

Badsight.
06-15-2005, 06:11 AM
LW only has 2 planes , the FW & the BF

we have so many 190s & 109s to cover the years of the war



what are you going to do without the LW in the game ?!?!?! pick on the finns ?!?!?!
(im sorry , the Finns beat everyone http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif)

dadada1
06-15-2005, 06:20 AM
Isn't it more a question of collective Allied/Axis planesets, rather than LW, RAF, VVS etc etc.

p1ngu666
06-15-2005, 07:01 AM
Originally posted by dadada1:
Isn't it more a question of collective Allied/Axis planesets, rather than LW, RAF, VVS etc etc.

very few german fliers will fly japeanease stuff http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

we dont have the ultimate 109's, dont think we have the ultimate of any other fighter line either

OD_79
06-15-2005, 07:24 AM
I don't see this as having been a "whining" post.
The fact is people would like some of the new aircraft, if they had never been mentioned by people in association with the patch most of these posts would not be happening. But out of all the aircraft available to the RAF, especially in relation to the theatres in game then why choose the Mustang, in the Far East it was the Hurricane and the P-47 that were the main fighters along with Spitfires. That is why they are in here, the MkIX maybe an exception to that. But rhe MkV and MkVIII were used in the Far East, so was the Mosquito, the Tempest wasn't but it would definately be a nice plane to have for online games.
If I had been asking for more German or Japanese aircraft then I would have had Allied pilots saying I was whining, or whoever started the post would. All people ever seem to do on these forums is try to be a smart a*r*s*e* or say everyone else is whining, when is this going to stop?
Grow up guys we're entitled to individual opinions, people can disagree and not be whining. These forums are getting repetitive and pointless as a result of the constant accusations of whining...some may be quite justifiable, but so far it seems most are not.
All he asked was why the Mustang III.
On the question of German aircraft the major production models are there for both the 109 and the 190 they equipped the majority of units in the Luftwaffe, how many had Ta152's or 109K's. You have even got the Me262, the Me163 and the He162 so you are not short of aircraft you just choose not to fly some of them, or to ignore them.

OD.

dadada1
06-15-2005, 08:40 AM
Originally posted by OD_79:
I don't see this as having been a "whining" post.
The fact is people would like some of the new aircraft, if they had never been mentioned by people in association with the patch most of these posts would not be happening. But out of all the aircraft available to the RAF, especially in relation to the theatres in game then why choose the Mustang, in the Far East it was the Hurricane and the P-47 that were the main fighters along with Spitfires. That is why they are in here, the MkIX maybe an exception to that. But rhe MkV and MkVIII were used in the Far East, so was the Mosquito, the Tempest wasn't but it would definately be a nice plane to have for online games.
If I had been asking for more German or Japanese aircraft then I would have had Allied pilots saying I was whining, or whoever started the post would. All people ever seem to do on these forums is try to be a smart a*r*s*e* or say everyone else is whining, when is this going to stop?
Grow up guys we're entitled to individual opinions, people can disagree and not be whining. These forums are getting repetitive and pointless as a result of the constant accusations of whining...some may be quite justifiable, but so far it seems most are not.
All he asked was why the Mustang III.
On the question of German aircraft the major production models are there for both the 109 and the 190 they equipped the majority of units in the Luftwaffe, how many had Ta152's or 109K's. You have even got the Me262, the Me163 and the He162 so you are not short of aircraft you just choose not to fly some of them, or to ignore them.

OD.

Whilst I agree with the sentiment of your post, I do wish people would not single out what they feel to be marginal AC such as the 109K and Ta152. One of things that is conveniently forgotten is that by the time these AC reached squadrons,the LW was a dimminuished force in terms of numbers so perhaps the amount of 109Ks/Ta152s was probably more than it looks in terms of numbers. Try think more in terms of a % figure. Can you compare a run of 3000 late war allied planes to perhaps a run of 50-60 German AC? Just trying to provoke thought, nothing else.

Kurfurst__
06-15-2005, 08:48 AM
On 31 January 1945 the combat units of the Luftwaffe and their associated Erganzungs Einheiten, had the following strength in Bf109 types. These are on hand totals, they include both 'frontline' and 'other' units. Included are all aircraft operational and non-operational at the time. (combat/Erganzungs):

The 2nd number shows reserve units that were used to prepeare new pilots for combat.

From : RL2III/1158

Bf109G1/5 (0/1)
Bf109G12 (0/5)
Bf109G6 (71/328)
Bf109G14 and G14U4 (431/190)
Bf109G10, G10/U4 and G14/AS (568/3)
Bf109K4 (314/0)
Bf109G10/R6 (51/0)
Total (1435/527)

Other Jagd types totaled (1058/359)

Schlacht types totaled (680/375)
Nachtschlacht types totaled (422/95)
Zerstorer types totaled (42/0)
Nachtjagd types totaled (1241, no breakdown between the two)
Kampf types totaled (543/158)
Nahaufklarer totaled (407/27)
Fernaufklarer totaled (195/81)
See types totaled (78/17)
Transport types totaled (496/9)

Grand total (6597/1631)


I see over 8000 planes in 1st and 2nd line units, hardly a diminished force.
Moreover, out of the 1435 Bf 109s with the combat units, no less than 314 were K-4s, ca 1/4.

dadada1
06-15-2005, 08:54 AM
How do the numbers compare against allied units?

Kurfurst__
06-15-2005, 09:04 AM
Olaf Groehler has such figures, if you are interested.

dadada1
06-15-2005, 09:08 AM
Posting them here may make interesting comparison.

Kernow
06-15-2005, 10:03 AM
We got the Mustang III because someone did it. Ever since 3rd party stuff was included in IL-2/FB/AEP/PF many of the new planes have had only tenuous links with the core types in each release (IL-2 & FB Eastern Front, AEP Western and PF Far East). Whether that is good or bad is debateable.

I get the impression that if something is done well enough it gets included, so we have:

109Z - only prototype destroyed by bombing before first flight (how accurate the FM?).

He-162 - only unit to go operational did so 4 days before cessation of hostilities.

Go-229 - um not even in this book... nor this one under the Gotha entry. What was it? Did it exist?

YP-80 - 2 arrived in Italy just prior VE day.

TB-3 - saw some service, but rapidly relegated to non-combat duties.

BI-1 - saw no combat.

I-185 - prototypes only.

I don't know if the huge number of man-hours which must have been spent on those could have been better spent. If 1C had said, 'Look guys, develop what you want, but unless it's a Bf-110C, Pe-2, Ju-88, Do-17/217, Tu-2S any carrierborne torpedo-bomber, any Macchi etc, it won't get included,' would we actually have got a Pe-2 rather than a TB-3, a 110C and not a 109Z, an MC.202 instead of the Go-229?

I don't know. The fact is we get whatever gets done, whether it makes sense or not. So the list of flyables is now very long and not a little bewildering - in every sense http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Personally, I'd swap all the never flew / saw no combat / operational one week types for just one of the RL 'core' types mentioned above. But maybe it was a choice of the 'oddities' or nothing?

Hendley
06-15-2005, 10:31 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
As for XIV Squadrons, there were a maximum of only 7 during the war, and two of that iirc was a mixed PR units with Allision Mustangs

I know this is OT now, but I'm still curious; I've seen numbers like 20+, 30+ RAF squadrons equipping the XIV (though I'd be darned if I can find that info now http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif). I mean, I think 2 or 3 squadrons in India alone had XIV's just before war's end.

Just an example. this link has a history that names close to 20 squadrons (though some seem to be RCAF), although it isn't necessarily definitive:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14v109.html

(Nice performance figures etc elsewhere on the site, too.)

lrrp22
06-15-2005, 10:45 AM
Originally posted by Hendley:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
OD,

The Mustang III makes sense if you consider the fact that there were more RAF squadrons equipped with the Mustang III than were equipped with the Spitfire XIV and Tempest V combined.

Hm? What's your source for this? I've seen a range of numbers given for squadrons listed as equipped with the Mustang III, but I'm surprised there'd be more than Spit XIVs... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hendley,

By April of 1945 the RAF had 22 operational Mustang III/IV squadrons- 17 in the ETO and 5 in the MTO. There were around 15 combined Tempest V and Spit XIV squadrons.

lrrp22
06-15-2005, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

And for why the Mustang III was modelled, quite simply, that`s the sleekest, ligthest with all Merlin Mustangs and that`s what for LRRP2 whines for quite a while. He just forgot that this version just doesn`t have the firepower. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
There`s a litte concern about it`s performance, LRRP2 usually qoutes 'represantative' figures for a stripped V-1 chaser Mustang III in a special test, where draggy items such as wing racks, aerials were removed and the wing surface was freshly painted with care. These made it some 20+ mph faster than as it was received, or for the matter, any other Mustang III test available, but I have no doubt which test was presented to Oleg as representative. Oleg`s is not fooled easily, so we will see soon enough.

Sour grapes, Isegrim? I lobbied for the Mustang III because it by far the most representative RAF version- lesser firepower or not. Oleg was provided with the FB377 report in its entirety, the Rolls Royce data- some of which came directly from R-R, as well as other numerous origianl documents.

Oleg, who is a bit more objective than you, reviewed the information and made his choices. Why wouldn't he model the Mustang III in clean and new condition- aren't all other IL2/FB/AEP/PF aircraft modeled that way? Of course, in your world, it is only fair to model the Mustang III in the way FB377 was received by the R.A.E. for testing- with six coats coats badly chipped paint described as "in very poor condition". Even in that beat-up condition it was 10 kph faster than the best estimated Bf 109K-4 sea level performance.



.

Kurfurst__
06-15-2005, 01:23 PM
I don`t know who has the sour grapes, larpy.
After all, it`s you keep crying about the K-4`s performance in every thread, be it on Mustang, FW 190 whatever...It`s a thorn in the side, appearantly.

lrrp22
06-15-2005, 01:41 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
I don`t know who has the sour grapes, larpy.
After all, it`s you keep crying about the K-4`s performance in every thread, be it on Mustang, FW 190 whatever...It`s a thorn in the side, appearantly.

I've never cried about the K-4's performance, have you ever once seen me call for any reduction in its FM? The only FM change you've ever seen me support is to make its elevators more effective at high speed/altitude. edit:...and to reduce the ridiculous muzzle flash of earlier patches.

Pointing out the fact that you will invariably compare estimated best-case data for the K-4 to the worst data you can find for a combat veteran aircraft isn't crying, now is it Isegrim? Unless you're finally admitting a bias, I would think that in the interests of fairness you would certainly only want the cleaned-up data for the Mustang III to be used, wouldn't you? After all, you couldn't possibly be advocating the use of +25 lbs Mustang III numbers that were derived from a beat-up combat veteran airframe of some 4 months service, could you?

Kurfurst__
06-15-2005, 02:11 PM
Larpy,

Comparing figures? Best-case data? Admitting bias? Larpy, have you gone completely mad?

Enjoy your Mustang, who the hell cares. And please, don`t tell you ain`t crying about the 109K after these last two post. And stop lying about the documents on it which you did not even seen.

lrrp22
06-15-2005, 03:01 PM
cuckoo, cuckoo...


Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Larpy,

Comparing figures? Best-case data? Admitting bias? Larpy, have you gone completely mad?

Enjoy your Mustang, who the hell cares. And please, don`t tell you ain`t crying about the 109K after these last two post. And stop lying about the documents on it which you did not even seen.

p1ngu666
06-15-2005, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
kurfy,

Comparing figures? Best-case data? Admitting bias? Larpy, have you gone completely mad?

Enjoy your Mustang, who the hell cares. And please, don`t tell you ain`t crying about the 109K after these last two post. And stop lying about the documents on it which you did not even seen.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

the germans had plenty of aircraft, but they grew more unreliable, stuff like oil pipes bursting. spare parts issues too probably, lack of fuel and other supplie issues limited the effect of planes. also many of the planes where bulit but never did anything.

these issues and others would also limit the sorties the planes did, perhaps the most important number. if u had say 100 planes and they did say 10 sorties, while the other sides plane was say 30, but did 60 sorties.

assuming equal effectiveness, ud probably say the other sides 60sorties was the more important.

average allied ground attack pilot would probably do 3 sorties per day, more perhaps depending on the cercomestances

Hendley
06-15-2005, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by lrrp22:
Hendley,

By April of 1945 the RAF had 22 operational Mustang III/IV squadrons- 17 in the ETO and 5 in the MTO. There were around 15 combined Tempest V and Spit XIV squadrons.

Okay, I know I'm starting to be a pest about this, but no one has given me any sources yet, just various (different) numbers. The link in my previous post named about 24 or so XIV squadrons (by war's end). I have seen other, higher numbers elsewhere. The only book in my library that mentions it says something close to 30 combined RAF + commonwealth squadrons... Anyway, not that it really matters http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Aaron_GT
06-15-2005, 10:50 PM
Kurfurst, get a grip please. lrrp is very measured in his comments, not some foaming-at-the-mouth lufthater.