PDA

View Full Version : How to speed up yours Tempest for extra 40kmph more.



Pinker15
09-25-2006, 12:34 PM
As in subject. Everything is showed in track. Enjoy. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

http://rapidshare.de/files/34424165/Tempest_racer.trk.html

DmdSeeker
09-25-2006, 06:57 PM
Interesting

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2006, 07:36 PM
VERY http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif interesting.

Xiolablu3
09-25-2006, 08:35 PM
Good job on posting this here.

That needs sorting next patch, I hope Oleg knows about it.

p1ngu666
09-25-2006, 10:51 PM
and you use my tempest skin? your a cheeky bugger http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

is rather odd thats for sure, does it work on other cps planes?

FritzGryphon
09-25-2006, 11:46 PM
For those of us who can't view the track right now, what's going on?

Von_Rat
09-26-2006, 12:08 AM
this explains why only tempests that are flown by certain people are able to catch my d9 in a long chase.

hmmm 40kph or more,,, that would make it faster than a 11 lbs tempest, wouldnt it?

if it doesnt, then its not a big deal. im just glad to know for sure that a tempest can catch my d9 in a long chase, so i can change tactics to protect myself from users of this exploit.

it annoys me that others have discovered this, but kept quiet so they could have an advantage over others. some people will stoop to anything i guess, so they can think that they are uber. like i said, it doesnt bother me that a tempest is faster than d9, its the not knowing, that it was faster is what burns me.

TX-Gunslinger
09-26-2006, 12:51 AM
Well, on the bright side, maybe it's a trailer-park version of a late war Tempest now.

Not that hard to do, really.

If that applies to all altitudes and AOA's and turning ability, Tempests could be a lot more dangerous.

S~

Klemm.co
09-26-2006, 01:15 AM
Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
For those of us who can't view the track right now, what's going on?

I can't view the track too right now cause i'm in school, so could someone please explain what's going on in it?

Von_Rat
09-26-2006, 01:18 AM
the track shows a tempest going alot faster by jumping the prop pitch back and forth, from 50 to 100.

Von_Rat
09-26-2006, 01:34 AM
Originally posted by TX-Gunslinger:
Well, on the bright side, maybe it's a trailer-park version of a late war Tempest now.

Not that hard to do, really.

If that applies to all altitudes and AOA's and turning ability, Tempests could be a lot more dangerous.

S~

if it applies to all alts, then i doubt it can be left in the game, as a poor mans 11lbs. it would make the tempest to fast at higher alts, 11 lbs or not, wouldnt it?

WOLFMondo
09-26-2006, 01:58 AM
Its an exploit and it ain't right. Needs to be sorted out and then a true 11lbs Tempest put in.

Klemm.co
09-26-2006, 02:16 AM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
the track shows a tempest going alot faster by jumping the prop pitch back and forth, from 50 to 100.

I knew that exploit since the Tempest was included, but i thougt it was sorted out in a patch already.

Maybe MG knew about the exploit all along, but i personally do not understand why they just included the low-powered versions of the Tempest and the Mossie, it surely wouldn't have been a big problem if they included some higher powered ones.
Maybe they left the exploit in to make up for the lack of a 11 lbs Tempest.

Ah, maybe in 4.08 we will see something to our like...

HellToupee
09-26-2006, 03:38 AM
the effect of the 50 - 100 % thingy with pitch isnt just related to tempest, tho it receives quite a boost due to its very hight rpms. Benefits vary but it effects the majorty of planes the same way.

La7_brook
09-26-2006, 04:08 AM
is this working same as the 109 used too work ? which as now got a delay on PP

WOLFMondo
09-26-2006, 04:14 AM
The 109's worked because it went from auto to manual and back again. The Tempest is different because it doesn't have an automatic PP in this sim.

Brain32
09-26-2006, 04:18 AM
I discovered this during v404, I found out about it here, I made a track and sent a bug report to 1C. They did not fix it in v405 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

BUT THEY CAN'T SAY THEY DON'T KNOW ABOUT IT http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif


Benefits vary but it effects the majorty of planes the same way.
No it does not, I personally tested P51, P47, Spitfires(all MkIXe and +25lbser), all FW190's(Dora even gets it's engine cooked doing that), 109's G&K(engine dies doing that).

AFJ_Viper
09-26-2006, 04:30 AM
awwww im not at home so cant view it, cant wait to see it when i get back home http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/typing.gif

carguy_
09-26-2006, 04:34 AM
Yeah very amusing watching idiots switching PP to 50/100 back and forth.

HellToupee
09-26-2006, 04:53 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
The 109's worked because it went from auto to manual and back again. The Tempest is different because it doesn't have an automatic PP in this sim.

109s worked by overrevving the engine for short periods


No it does not, I personally tested P51, P47, Spitfires(all MkIXe and +25lbser), all FW190's(Dora even gets it's engine cooked doing that), 109's G&K(engine dies doing that).

i have personally tested it as well, dora for example, i get almost 10kph more, u shouldnt even kill the engine since lowering revs up and down prevents engine running long enough at high revs to dammage.
I suggest u try again as i said benefits vary overplanes

Kernow
09-26-2006, 05:19 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
I discovered this during v404, I found out about it here, I made a track and sent a bug report to 1C. They did not fix it in v405 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

BUT THEY CAN'T SAY THEY DON'T KNOW ABOUT IT http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Benefits vary but it effects the majorty of planes the same way.
No it does not, I personally tested P51, P47, Spitfires(all MkIXe and +25lbser), all FW190's(Dora even gets it's engine cooked doing that), 109's G&K(engine dies doing that). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

109s would suffer, as pp is a different thing in their engine management. In 109s manual pp is just that - propellor pitch control, but in the other, CSP, planes the pp control is a propellor speed control. Putting the 109 to the finest possible pitch (100% pp) at high TAS <STRIKE>and high power</STRIKE> will always destroy the engine, regardless of any cycling to 50% or whatever.

edit: power is irrelevant - it's the airflow that does the damage by driving the prop to engine destruction.

skarden
09-26-2006, 05:36 AM
Sigh..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

I happily un-istalled and walked away from counter-strike for this kinda of krapness.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

I suppose that whenever there's human being's around's there's always people who are willing to do whatever it takes to win.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

BSS_Goat
09-26-2006, 05:55 AM
Who sits around and comes up with this sh*t?

MEGILE
09-26-2006, 05:57 AM
woo let's all go on WC and do it.

RCAF_Irish_403
09-26-2006, 06:02 AM
Originally posted by BSS_Goat:
Who sits around and comes up with this sh*t?

+1 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

HayateAce
09-26-2006, 09:11 AM
Go on some Russian servers and watch the exploits being used on the 109G2. Gunpod equipped models turn fighting with any allied plane on the map, including Yaks.

No shame with these folks, and the G2 is a joke. Oleg has known about it from the start. Why should he make it realistic now?

Xiolablu3
09-26-2006, 09:22 AM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
No shame with these folks, and the G2 is a joke. Oleg has known about it from the start. Why should he make it realistic now?

A joke? Whats funny about it?

La5 is very good versus 109G2, is that a joke too?

Spitfire IX is easily a match for the 109G2, is that also a joke??

P38 is a big, heavy 2 engined fighter, which can fight it out with smaller more nimble fighters in the game, surely this is a joke also? Adolf Galland stated that hima nd his fighter pilots found the P38 'easy to deal with' But its sure not easy for LW pilots in the game. Its a joke.


109F4/109G2 is probably the peak of 109 performance, as one of the top fighters in the world in 1942, shouldnt it be very competive?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif Sorry, short fuse for biased fools today..

Von_Rat
09-26-2006, 09:36 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
The 109's worked because it went from auto to manual and back again. The Tempest is different because it doesn't have an automatic PP in this sim.

109s worked by overrevving the engine for short periods


No it does not, I personally tested P51, P47, Spitfires(all MkIXe and +25lbser), all FW190's(Dora even gets it's engine cooked doing that), 109's G&K(engine dies doing that).

i have personally tested it as well, dora for example, i get almost 10kph more, u shouldnt even kill the engine since lowering revs up and down prevents engine running long enough at high revs to dammage.
I suggest u try again as i said benefits vary overplanes </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


i tested also. you are correct dora gains about 10kph.
but the temp gains alot more, my very first try i got about 30kph more in tempest. some people are reporting much higher speeds, and that would make our tempest even faster than 11lbs at some alts.

10kph more is wrong, but livable with, for me anyway. 30 or 40 kph is ridiculous. even 109 exploit wasnt this bad.

we need this fixed, we also need a real 11lbs temp.

Von_Rat
09-26-2006, 09:52 AM
xiablue
P38 is a big, heavy 2 engined fighter, which can fight it out with smaller more nimble fighters in the game, surely this is a joke also? Adolf Galland stated that hima nd his fighter pilots found the P38 'easy to deal with' But its sure not easy for LW pilots in the game. Its a joke.


just ignore hateyace, we all do.

anyway what plane are you flying against p38s? in a dora i chew them up, before stat reset i think i had a 30 to 1 kd against them at wc.

faustnik
09-26-2006, 09:53 AM
Maybe we can make our own +11 Tempest now!!! Sweet!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

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

Von_Rat
09-26-2006, 09:59 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Maybe we can make our own +11 Tempest now!!! Sweet!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

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

i think this makes our tempest even faster than 11lbs.

faustnik
09-26-2006, 10:06 AM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
Maybe we can make our own +11 Tempest now!!! Sweet!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

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

i think this makes our tempest even faster than 11lbs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif That's fast!

***************

I love the Tempest but, hate the gunsight. It works great, it's just seems "wrong". Yeah, I know it's stupid but, that's just my gut reaction.

Xiolablu3
09-26-2006, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
xiablue<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">P38 is a big, heavy 2 engined fighter, which can fight it out with smaller more nimble fighters in the game, surely this is a joke also? Adolf Galland stated that hima nd his fighter pilots found the P38 'easy to deal with' But its sure not easy for LW pilots in the game. Its a joke.


just ignore hateyace, we all do.

anyway what plane are you flying against p38s? in a dora i chew them up, before stat reset i think i had a 30 to 1 kd against them at wc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just trying to make a point VR. Not really my thoughts. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WOLFMondo
09-26-2006, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
Maybe we can make our own +11 Tempest now!!! Sweet!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

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

i think this makes our tempest even faster than 11lbs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

At some altitudes. It still overrheats quickly though.

F6_Ace
09-26-2006, 10:43 AM
Sounds alright to me - those people who don't know about the exploit retain the current Tempest whereas those that do have a bonus plane in the form of a slightly temperamental 11lbs Tempest!

Bargain! Two planes for the price of one!

Also, would it be possible to map this switch from 50% to 100% to my 'autofire' F6 key so that I can send my kill/death ratio literally through the roof?

Brain - did you get a reply from 1C regarding the evidence you gave them? Perhaps they 'lost it' in their recent 'crash'?

Brain32
09-26-2006, 11:11 AM
Nope, no response from 1C. Mail was sent March 23rd this year http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif This is also why I am suprised by the suprise of some guys, this exploit is an old news thing. And it was not kept as a secret at all, it was posted HERE AT UBI in March if not February!!! In atleast two threads, and I posted about it on CWOS too, soooo....

Von_Rat
09-26-2006, 12:02 PM
this is the first ive heard of it.

i guess i really do have a life,,,lol.

p1ngu666
09-26-2006, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by F6_Ace:
Sounds alright to me - those people who don't know about the exploit retain the current Tempest whereas those that do have a bonus plane in the form of a slightly temperamental 11lbs Tempest!

Bargain! Two planes for the price of one!

Also, would it be possible to map this switch from 50% to 100% to my 'autofire' F6 key so that I can send my kill/death ratio literally through the roof?

Brain - did you get a reply from 1C regarding the evidence you gave them? Perhaps they 'lost it' in their recent 'crash'?

u can, i think. i accidently set my prop pitch to 0% with ctrl+1 or something

MEGILE
09-26-2006, 12:31 PM
Just map 50% and 100% to up and down on an unused hatswitch.

HayateAce
09-26-2006, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
bladie blah hah ha

F4 was the peak. It's klar you haven't much online dogfight experience.

You are forgiven.

IIJG69_Kartofe
09-26-2006, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
No shame with these folks, and the G2 is a joke. Oleg has known about it from the start. Why should he make it realistic now?

A joke? Whats funny about it?

La5 is very good versus 109G2, is that a joke too?

Spitfire IX is easily a match for the 109G2, is that also a joke??

P38 is a big, heavy 2 engined fighter, which can fight it out with smaller more nimble fighters in the game, surely this is a joke also? Adolf Galland stated that hima nd his fighter pilots found the P38 'easy to deal with' But its sure not easy for LW pilots in the game. Its a joke.


109F4/109G2 is probably the peak of 109 performance, as one of the top fighters in the world in 1942, shouldnt it be very competive?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif Sorry, short fuse for biased fools today.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't worry about this clown, even if you open a thread abour WWII toasters the Ayatollahayate will come in and spread his 109 is porked BS!http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

p1ngu666
09-26-2006, 03:16 PM
F4 was the peak/favourite 109 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

faustnik
09-26-2006, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
F4 was the peak/favourite 109 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Depends, Soviets feared the G2 the most.

p1ngu666
09-26-2006, 03:53 PM
pilots favoured the F4...

VW-IceFire
09-26-2006, 03:59 PM
Its like the Spitfire...pilots favoured the Spitfire II or V as being nicest to fly but the IX because it was faster despite having worse handling.

HellToupee
09-26-2006, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
The 109's worked because it went from auto to manual and back again. The Tempest is different because it doesn't have an automatic PP in this sim.

109s worked by overrevving the engine for short periods


No it does not, I personally tested P51, P47, Spitfires(all MkIXe and +25lbser), all FW190's(Dora even gets it's engine cooked doing that), 109's G&K(engine dies doing that).

i have personally tested it as well, dora for example, i get almost 10kph more, u shouldnt even kill the engine since lowering revs up and down prevents engine running long enough at high revs to dammage.
I suggest u try again as i said benefits vary overplanes </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


i tested also. you are correct dora gains about 10kph.
but the temp gains alot more, my very first try i got about 30kph more in tempest. some people are reporting much higher speeds, and that would make our tempest even faster than 11lbs at some alts.

10kph more is wrong, but livable with, for me anyway. 30 or 40 kph is ridiculous. even 109 exploit wasnt this bad.

we need this fixed, we also need a real 11lbs temp. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

p51 also receives about 30kph in my testing, i get 625-630kph true, about 600 on the speed bar.

faustnik
09-26-2006, 05:19 PM
Originally posted by HellToupee:

p51 also receives about 30kph in my testing, i get 625-630kph true, about 600 on the speed bar.

Nice! This is sounding more like a realism feature than an exploit. Two planes that should have been faster are faster. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Vike
09-26-2006, 05:41 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
pilots favoured the F4...

Most of the Greatest Aces of all time begun flying in 1942,on the 109G serie,like E.Hartmann. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Moreover,to support what faustnik said about the G serie,look at here (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/2981089484?r=6991022584#6991022584) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


Originally posted by Carguy:
Yeah very amusing watching idiots switching PP to 50/100 back and forth.

Yes,you're so right! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

@+

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-26-2006, 06:11 PM
The most annoying thing to me is that people actually have to be looking for an advantage that isnt meant to be. Those you always look for the exploits. Those who always look for the glitches on a FPS map. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Von_Rat
09-26-2006, 06:53 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:

p51 also receives about 30kph in my testing, i get 625-630kph true, about 600 on the speed bar.

Nice! This is sounding more like a realism feature than an exploit. Two planes that should have been faster are faster. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


maybe so, but not 30kph more.

hmm if i can find cheat or exploit for d9 can i call it a d11 or d13,I'll call it a realism feature and use it with a clear conscience.


i havent tested p51 recently, i tried the pp trick with p51 back in the 09 pp days and it wasnt worth the effort. will have to test again.

faustnik
09-26-2006, 09:34 PM
I wasn't serious VR, I agree, it should be fixed. A faster Tempest and P-51 sure aren't the end of the world though.

heywooood
09-26-2006, 09:44 PM
gaming the game...nothing is perfect.

p1ngu666
09-26-2006, 11:10 PM
quite possibly discovered by acciedent..

stathem
09-27-2006, 02:12 AM
The original 109 exploit allowed it to increase climb rate (and presumably turn performance)

I'd lay good money that this will not allow the Tempest (or any other plane) to increase climb perfromance (except zoom climb - which would be correct).

In my view - it's a limitation where thrust and prop drag meet. Reduce the prop drag instantanously whilst flat out. Tempest is affected most 'cos it's the only plane which runs at 3800rpm. I get the impression it would be very difficult to fix - probably a aspect of the global flight modelling.

Old_Man found and announced it first, a long time ago.

Maybe when they fix it they could give us the missing 80 rpm from the MkV cannons.

Abbuzze
09-27-2006, 02:36 AM
It seems that an exploit at the 109 is a tragedy, but an exploit at the tempest is just a statistic.

stathem
09-27-2006, 02:41 AM
Originally posted by Abbuzze:
It seems that an exploit at the 109 is a tragedy, but an exploit at the tempest is just a statistic.

That's not what I'm saying Abbuzze, just trying to shed some light on what's going on. Take your adversarial hat off.

Abbuzze
09-27-2006, 03:37 AM
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 Abbuzze:
It seems that an exploit at the 109 is a tragedy, but an exploit at the tempest is just a statistic.

That's not what I'm saying Abbuzze, just trying to shed some light on what's going on. Take your adversarial hat off. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was not against you! It was just a common determination. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Oleg´s team should fix it and bring in the higher boostet Tempest instead.

stathem
09-27-2006, 04:11 AM
Ah, my apologies http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Agree 100%

Abbuzze
09-27-2006, 04:49 AM
Originally posted by stathem:
Ah, my apologies http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Agree 100%

I had to do this "http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif" simply in my first message - I use them quite excessive sometimes my posts and mails look realy silly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif So I´m trieing to use´em less. In the wrong moment http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

F19_Ob
09-27-2006, 05:02 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

P38 is a big, heavy 2 engined fighter, which can fight it out with smaller more nimble fighters in the game, surely this is a joke also? Adolf Galland stated that hima nd his fighter pilots found the P38 'easy to deal with' But its sure not easy for LW pilots in the game. Its a joke.



Sorry m8 but the p38 is not a match for any Luftwaffe fighter in the sim, with the exeption of G¶rings elite fighter the bf 110.

I've flown and cross-compared it for a long time and the only situation it can overcome a bf109 or fw190 is in a bounce, or if a fw190 forgets about scissoring in the heat of battle.
The fw ofcourse have a bit worser turning but I've never been shot down by a p38 because it's so easy to just roll and go in the opposit direction. The armament in the fw beats the p38 by far.

The 109 does everything better in all aspects of flight and the later ones with 30mm cannon need only one or a couple of hits to kill or damage a p38 out of flying condition.

A p38 is a fighter in the pacific theatre when fighting with zeros, ki43 and ki61 and have an equal chance to a kill, until the ki84 enters the scene. It's faster, turns better and outguns the p38.

In the european theatre the p38 only can be seen as a bomber without a reargunner. So Galland was right. Galland anoyed the few p38 experts and thus the controversy, but there is a record of the difficulties that 'normal pilots encountered and the reason for the p38 to be fased out and replaced.

Online I have however seen p38's occasionally outmaneuver inexperienced players,and I have myself shot down 109's that saw me too late but I've never heard about anything like that happened to any of the experienced simmers I know, unless it was a bounce.
Bouncing can ofcourse be done even in bombers so it has nothing to do with the maneuverability of the plane.


If anyone has a track of a p-38 outmaneuvering a 109 or a fw190 I'll gladly examine it and comment.
So far I have only seen bounces in varying degrees or snapshots in furballs by a skilled pilot, wich again, says nothing about the p38's maneuverability.
I'd say it's the lack of rollrate that turns it to a bomber in the ETO.

TX-Gunslinger
09-27-2006, 08:24 AM
Originally posted by F19_Ob:


Sorry m8 but the p38 is not a match for any Luftwaffe fighter in the sim, with the exeption of G¶rings elite fighter the bf 110.

I've flown and cross-compared it for a long time and the only situation it can overcome a bf109 or fw190 is in a bounce, or if a fw190 forgets about scissoring in the heat of battle.
The fw ofcourse have a bit worser turning but I've never been shot down by a p38 because it's so easy to just roll and go in the opposit direction. The armament in the fw beats the p38 by far.

The 109 does everything better in all aspects of flight and the later ones with 30mm cannon need only one or a couple of hits to kill or damage a p38 out of flying condition.

A p38 is a fighter in the pacific theatre when fighting with zeros, ki43 and ki61 and have an equal chance to a kill, until the ki84 enters the scene. It's faster, turns better and outguns the p38.

In the european theatre the p38 only can be seen as a bomber without a reargunner. So Galland was right. Galland anoyed the few p38 experts and thus the controversy, but there is a record of the difficulties that 'normal pilots encountered and the reason for the p38 to be fased out and replaced.

Online I have however seen p38's occasionally outmaneuver inexperienced players,and I have myself shot down 109's that saw me too late but I've never heard about anything like that happened to any of the experienced simmers I know, unless it was a bounce.
Bouncing can ofcourse be done even in bombers so it has nothing to do with the maneuverability of the plane.


If anyone has a track of a p-38 outmaneuvering a 109 or a fw190 I'll gladly examine it and comment.
So far I have only seen bounces in varying degrees or snapshots in furballs by a skilled pilot, wich again, says nothing about the p38's maneuverability.
I'd say it's the lack of rollrate that turns it to a bomber in the ETO.


I totally agree with Ob. I'd add, with A6M3 anyway, I don't find 38J's challenging at all. I believe it's always at a disadvantage, unless you don't see it coming, which is very rare considering you can see and identify this large aircraft with it's peculiar shape, much farther away than any other fighter.

As far as being competitive at co-E with any comparable year 190? No way. Late model P-47, P-51, Spit, La's and a few Yaks are very tough. P-38's are targets of opportunity compared to other comparable Red fighter aircraft. The one Red aircraft that all 190's can gain angles at most speeds is the P-38. Park yourself below and inside the turn of any unruly P-38. You can pretend now, that you are the Spitfire and he (P-38) is the 190. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The pilots blind spots, below the wings and behind on a 38, help you a great deal in this position. You can always tell when a 38 pilots sees you, or does'nt because he has to roll right to see an A/C below and right of him.

Now of course, if you're getting killed because a P-38 is routinely "bouncing" you, well let me just say, your problem is'nt related to the flight model or simulated aircraft performance.

S~

WOLFMondo
09-27-2006, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by F19_Ob:

I'd say it's the lack of rollrate that turns it to a bomber in the ETO.

I disagree, its high speed roll rate, with rudder input is about the same as the Tempests and isn't that bad. I wish i had a track but I outmanovered a human flown 190A9 and shot him down the otherday in a scissors. Maybe it was a pilot thing but the turn+flaps and some airbrake use means I could turn right inside him on the 'cut'. A tight spiral climb also will shake any 190 off its tail. They simply cannot hold the same angles at such low speeds. Being low and slow afterwards wasn't ideal however..

Its an incredably fast plane with excellent acceleration and climb rate and two P38's is a pretty fearsome thing to fight, especially at high altitude. The down side is the size. Its and enourmous target.

Pinker15
09-27-2006, 12:15 PM
To heat up this topic a bit heres link to Mustang MkIII. This time 650kmph http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif
http://rapidshare.de/files/34660055/Fastest_prop_plane_in_game.trk.html

F19_Ob
09-27-2006, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F19_Ob:

I'd say it's the lack of rollrate that turns it to a bomber in the ETO.

I disagree, its high speed roll rate, with rudder input is about the same as the Tempests and isn't that bad. I wish i had a track but I outmanovered a human flown 190A9 and shot him down the otherday in a scissors. Maybe it was a pilot thing but the turn+flaps and some airbrake use means I could turn right inside him on the 'cut'. A tight spiral climb also will shake any 190 off its tail. They simply cannot hold the same angles at such low speeds. Being low and slow afterwards wasn't ideal however..

Its an incredably fast plane with excellent acceleration and climb rate and two P38's is a pretty fearsome thing to fight, especially at high altitude. The down side is the size. Its and enourmous target. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Well..the point is that a 109 maneuvers better in all aspects of flight, and all fw190's are better in roll.

A highspeed scissor should be won by the fw190. Not only does it roll better but the high speed also enables it to turn well and can convert its energy to turning ability, wich it can't do at slow speed. However at slow speed it can still outroll a p38, wich should give it opportunity to atleast disengage.

I have also used a climbing spiral, with flaps and brakes, to get away from a fw190, but then ofcourse a sane fw pilot just climbs or disengages.
I don't doubt u when u say u scissored that Fw190 but I somewhat doubt the skills of that opponent, or he just misread the situation/or lost sight and/or made an error.
It sure had been interesting to see that fight for my self since I can only relate to what I belive I know. My confidence is not just boasting. I think I have investigated the plane and the opponents for enough time.

As U say p38 is fast and climbs and accellerates well compared to many planes, but compared to 109's and fw190 no.
The p38 turns and climbs a tiny bit better than the fw190 although the D9 pretty well too.
The thing with the fw190 is that u can spray four 20mm at long range and then the p38's flaps and brakes won't help.
It's quite easy to anticipate a p38's moves, especially if it tries to roll.
One or a couple of hits decreases the speed with 40kph or more, wich is bad.

A fw190 with a p38 on tail wil do a turn and if the p38 follows, he will roll the other way, wich the p38 can't follow easily.
If that isn't good enough the fw pushes the sticks and alternates with scissoring moves.
This can be done in fairly slow speed with takeoff flap.
Both german planes should be better at altitudes above 4000m and the 109 at all altitudes.
In reality the p38 had severe troubles up high and also very uncomfortable for the pilot.

With that said I also have shot down fw190's in my p38 on low altitude.
On higher altitude no, because I simply could not catch them.
The only reason I've been able to shoot down 109's Is because they lost me in clouds and then saw me too late. Without clouds I have not made it against any 109 one vs one.


If the p38 was as good as u say atleast some tracks would have surfaced by now, but I haven't seen any yet although I've urged p38experts to post their stuff.

Nevertheless I still prefer to strutt around in that 'bomber' in the ETO and 'fighter' in the PTO.

HayateAce
09-27-2006, 01:05 PM
Fake compressibility down in the thick air is just the tip of Olegs P38 mis-modeling.

BigKahuna_GS
09-27-2006, 01:08 PM
Von Rat---it annoys me that others have discovered this, but kept quiet so they could have an advantage over others. some people will stoop to anything i guess, so they can think that they are uber. like i said, it doesnt bother me that a tempest is faster than d9, its the not knowing, that it was faster is what burns me.
__________________________________________________ _____________________________________________



With all due respect Von Rat how long did the 109 prop pitch exploit go on ? For years.

Did any dedicated 109 driver come out and say -hey guys I think I found a problem with the 109
it can over-rev to 3500rpms and climb at 6000fpm by switching back and forth between manual & CSP prop pitch ? No.

Many of the dedicated 109 pilots (some that are here posting) felt this was historically accurate and that the 109 could actualy climb straight up from a low to zero energy state like a modern jet fighter with a 1-1 power ratio. Sorry guys but the 109 could never over-rev to 3500rpms and climb at 6000fpm, or climb straight up hundreds of feet without stalling from a zero energy state---not reality.

How long did the 109 engine overheat exploit go on ? 6 months plus or longer.

Did any dedicated 109 driver come out and say hey guys I found a problem with overheat on the 109 engine. If you turn the engine off when overheating and re-start it you have a fresh cold engine to run again on WEP. Allied pilots noticed 109 drivers repeatedly turning off & on their engines and were wondering why ? They found out why.

I am sorry to say that many of the people using these exploits were former EAW flyers that I have flown with and against for years. These pilots & sometimes entire axis squads thought it was perfectly acceptable to use these exploits even when confronted with them. Their reasoning was ---"the sim allowed it". That is simply total Bull Sh*t for an excuse.

Any exploit whether it be an allied or axis aircraft is unacceptable and should be corrected.


____



__________________________________________________ ____________________________________

quote: Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
P38 is a big, heavy 2 engined fighter, which can fight it out with smaller more nimble fighters in the game, surely this is a joke also? Adolf Galland stated that hima nd his fighter pilots found the P38 'easy to deal with' But its sure not easy for LW pilots in the game. Its a joke.

F19_Ob-In the european theatre the p38 only can be seen as a bomber without a reargunner. So Galland was right. Galland anoyed the few p38 experts and thus the controversy, but there is a record of the difficulties that 'normal pilots encountered and the reason for the p38 to be fased out and replaced.
__________________________________________________ _____________________________________________


You guys do know that Galland had his a** handed to him while flying a 190D-9 by either a P38J-25 or P38L in a protracted fight at low alt over some kind of large water pit in Germany. Galland in a reuniuon with US pilots, met the P38 pilot said "you damn near killed me". The only reason Galland survived is that the P38 had to break it off as fuel was running low.

Yes early model P38s had high altitude problems over europe. Late model P38s for the most part did not. The fixes came too slow and it didnt help that the RAF accidently shot down the cargo plane carrying the dive flaps and hydraulic airleron kits. That set back P38s being retro fitted with this equipment by 6 months. Your theory about the P38s being phased out is only partially correct as all US 8th Air Force fighters were being phased out in favor of the P51. The majority of FGs were P47s as compared to the few P38s FGs. At the end of 44'only 1 P38 FG was left and only a few P47 FGs in the 8th AF. By 1945 all 8th AF FG's were converted to P51s with the exception of the 56th FG which specificaly asked to retain their favorite ride the Thunderbolt. Because of their exceptional kill record the 56th FG had established they were allowed to retain P47s.

Most P47 & P38 FGs were transfered to the 9th Tactical AF during 1944. The demand for P38s in the Pacific was so great that most of these aircraft were transfered to the PTO. Only 1 P38 FG remained in the 9th Tatical AF by 1945 and that was by request of the P38 pilots who loved the P38J-25 and P38L model aircraft qualities.

The P38 shot down more enemy aircraft in the PTO than any other allied aircraft type. This included late model japanese types; Ki84, Ki100 and Shinden models. P38 pilots were by far the largest group of aces and had the highest scoring US aces of WW2 in Bong (40kills) & McGuire (38kills). In Bong's book it is said that Bong unofficialy probably had 80kills as many of his kills he gave away to wingmen, were not confirmed because he was by himself over water and the early P38 gun camera was mounted too close to the guns sometimes making gun camera footage unreadable.

The 475th P38 FG was known as the Top Guns of the Pacific. There are combat reports of P38 pilots stall fighting with japanese fighters at 65-90mph nothing more than controlled stall turns also known as the Clover Leaf Manuever. There are combat reports of P38s chasing down and catching Ki84s/Shindens in long pursuits at level flight where the japanese fighters are trying to exit the combat area at high speed.

It would help the P38 be more competative in IL2 DFs if it had :
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/p-38/p-38-67869.html

1. Correct stall speed:

Power on stall speed with flaps
53mph to 65mph depending on aircraft weight and power settings.
53mph at 3000rpm & 54Hg for P38J at 16,500lbs

Power Off Stall Speed
78mph flaps down

The stall speed of all P38 models is 10-15mph too high


2. Correct speed & amount of compression:

Compression comes on way too early (360mph IAS) at low alt
& the effects are too strong at slower speeds. In a NACA report the
dive recovery flaps allowed the the elevator to function again by redirecting the airflow
that does not happen in IL2. You do not regain elevator control at high compression speeds when the dive recovery flaps are deployed.

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4219/Chapter3.html

FROM ENGINEERING SCIENCE TO BIG SCIENCE 83

The general aeronautics community was suddenly awakened to the realities of the unknown flight regime in November 1941, when Lockheed test pilot Ralph Virden could not pull the new, high-performance P-38 out of a high-speed dive, and crashed. Virden was the first human fatality due to adverse compressibility effects, and the P-38, shown below, was the first airplane to Suffer from these effects. The P-38 exceeded its critical Mach number in an operational dive, and penetrated well into the regime of the compressibility burble at its terminal dive speed, as shown by the bar chart on page 80 .35 The problem encountered by Virden, and many other P-38 pilots at that time, was that beyond a certain speed in a dive, the elevator controls suddenly felt as if they were locked. And to make things worse, the tail suddenly produced more lift, pulling the P-38 into an even
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4219/4219-083.jpg

Lockheed P-38, the first airplane to encounter severe compressibility problems.
35. This chart is taken from the figure on page 78 of the article by R. L. Foss, "From Propellers to Jets in Fighter Aircraft Design," in Jay D. Pinson, ed., Diamond Jubilee of Powered Flight: The Evolution of Aircrafeet Design (New York, NY: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1978), pp. 51-64.
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4219/4219-084.jpg
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4219/4219-084.jpg
Bar chart showing the magnitude of how much the P-38 penetrated the compressibility regime.

steeper dive. This was called the "tuck-under" problem. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">It is important to note that NACA soon solved this problem, using its expertise in compressibility effects.</span> Although Lockheed consulted various aerodynamicists, including Theodore Von Kƒrmƒn at Caltech, <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">it turned out that John Stack at NACA Langley, with his accumulated experience in compressibility effects, was the only one to properly diagnose the problem.</span> The wing of the P-38 lost lift when it encountered the compressibility burble. As a result, the downwash angle of the flow behind the wing was reduced. This in turn increased the effective angle of attack of the flow encountered by the horizontal tail, increasing the lift on the tail, and pitching the P-38 to a progressively steepening dive totally beyond the control of the pilot. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Stack's solution was to place a special flap under the wing, to be employed only when these compressibility effects were encountered. The flap was not a conventional dive flap intended to reduce the speed. Rather, Stack's idea was to use the flap to maintain lift in the face of the compressibility burble, hence eliminating the change in the downwash angle, and therefore allowing the horizontal tail to function properly.</span> This is a graphic example of how, in the early days of high-speed flight, the NACA compressibility research was found to be vital as real airplanes began to sneak up on Mach one.36

Indeed, it was time for real airplanes to be used to probe the mysteries of the unknown transonic gap. It was time for the high-speed research airplane to become a reality. The earliest concrete proposal along these lines was made by Ezra Kotcher, a senior instructor at the Army Air Corps Engineering School at Wright Field (a forerunner of today's Air Force Institute of Technology). Kotcher was a 1928 graduate of the University of California,



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

36. The "tuck-under" problem, and its technical Solution, is described in John D. Anderson, Jr., Introduction to Flight (New York, NY. McGraw-Hill Book Co., 3rd ed., 1989), pp. 406-08.


3. Correct Climb Rate :
See link above, should be 3800-4000fpm
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/p-38/p-38j-67869-climb.jpg

Xiolablu3
09-27-2006, 01:15 PM
Oh Jeezus,what have I started.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

I was just trying to make a point that both sides complain about overmodelling of the others. It wasnt supposed ot spark a debate about the P38. Ooops

IIJG69_Kartofe
09-27-2006, 01:19 PM
Yep!

http://www.derui.easynet.be/santa/thread_direction.gif

JtD
09-27-2006, 01:27 PM
The ingame P-38 is 10% heavier (il-2c) than that test P-38 and has a 15% worse climbrate (test). Sounds reasonable. But where does the extra weight come from?

stathem
09-27-2006, 01:33 PM
It's the weight of expectation.

(that's a joke btw, before the P-38 mafia come round and torch my house)

MEGILE
09-27-2006, 01:45 PM
Try it at 35,000 feet.. you can hear the shockwave as you pass mach 1

BigKahuna_GS
09-27-2006, 01:48 PM
JTD-The ingame P-38 is 10% heavier (il-2c) than that test P-38 and has a 15% worse climbrate (test). Sounds reasonable. But where does the extra weight come from?


Which P38 model are you referring too ?

The climb rate of the P38J was increased slightly in 4.04 and the weight of 16,595lbs was used along with the climb chart posted above and in Warren Bodies book.
Still no model of P38 climbs as well as official USAAF flight tests.



__________________________________________________ _________________________________________
IIJG69_Kartofe
------------------------------
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
This thread is about nothing, really. I don`t see any point in it except the fact that some individuals can`t deal with german aircraft and ready to stand on their head just to tone it down. Deal with it, just like us, dedicated 109 jocks delt with muzzle flash, like we delt with 12 30mm rounds to down fighter, like we delt with and dealing with Spitfires and bunch of other planes that can do "pretty crazy" stuff. But if you complain... bring the facts to the table... and never forget the fact, that most of those who can do crazy stuff in 109s and other AC have thousends of hours of stick time and know their birds in and out and they went with them thru good and bad times
------------------------------
Originaly posted by Abbuzze

It seems that an exploit at the 109 is a tragedy, but an exploit at the tempest is just a statistic.
__________________________________________________ ____________________________________________



With all due respect how long did the 109 prop pitch exploit go on ? For years.

Did any dedicated 109 driver come out and say -hey guys I think I found a problem with the 109
it can over-rev to 3500rpms and climb at 6000fpm by switching back and forth between manual & CSP prop pitch ? No.

Many of the dedicated 109 pilots (some that are here posting) felt this was historically accurate and that the 109 could actualy climb straight up from a low to zero energy state like a modern jet fighter with a 1-1 power ratio. Sorry guys but the 109 could never over-rev to 3500rpms and climb at 6000fpm, or climb straight up hundreds of feet without stalling from a low or zero energy state---not reality.

How long did the 109 engine overheat exploit go on ? 6 months plus or longer.

Did any dedicated 109 driver come out and say hey guys I found a problem with overheat on the 109 engine. If you turn the engine off when overheating and re-start it you have a fresh cold engine to run again on WEP. Allied pilots noticed 109 drivers repeatedly turning off & on their engines and were wondering why ? They found out why.

I am sorry to say that many of the people using these exploits were former EAW flyers that I have flown with and against for years. These pilots & sometimes entire axis squads thought it was perfectly acceptable to use these exploits even when confronted with them. Their reasoning was ---"the sim allowed it". That is simply total Bull Sh*t for an excuse.

Any exploit whether it be an allied or axis aircraft is unacceptable and should be corrected.

Enough said.


__

Xiolablu3
09-27-2006, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
Any exploit whether it be an allied or axis aircraft is unacceptable and should be corrected.

Enough said.


__

Agreed 100%

Von_Rat
09-27-2006, 01:55 PM
kahuna wrote
With all due respect Von Rat how long did the 109 prop pitch exploit go on ? For years.

Did any dedicated 109 driver come out and say -hey guys I think I found a problem with the 109
it can over-rev to 3500rpms and climb at 6000fpm by switching back and forth between manual & CSP prop pitch ? No.

Many of the dedicated 109 pilots (some that are here posting) felt this was historically accurate and that the 109 could actualy climb straight up from a low to zero energy state like a modern jet fighter with a 1-1 power ratio. Sorry guys but the 109 could never over-rev to 3500rpms and climb at 6000fpm, or climb straight up hundreds of feet without stalling from a zero energy state---not reality.

How long did the 109 engine overheat exploit go on ? 6 months plus or longer.

Did any dedicated 109 driver come out and say hey guys I found a problem with overheat on the 109 engine. If you turn the engine off when overheating and re-start it you have a fresh cold engine to run again on WEP. Allied pilots noticed 109 drivers repeatedly turning off & on their engines and were wondering why ? They found out why.

I am sorry to say that many of the people using these exploits were former EAW flyers that I have flown with and against for years. These pilots & sometimes entire axis squads thought it was perfectly acceptable to use these exploits even when confronted with them. Their reasoning was ---"the sim allowed it". That is simply total Bull Sh*t for an excuse.

Any exploit whether it be an allied or axis aircraft is unacceptable and should be corrected.
__________________________________________________ _____


all those exploits were common knowledge at least when i joined these forums. hell they were whined about constantly.

judging from the responces in this thread, the tempest pp exploit wasnt common knowledge till now.

as i said in my post its not the exploit that bothers me so much, its not knowing about it that does, so i can deal with it by changing tactics.

carguy_
09-27-2006, 01:58 PM
With all due respect Von Rat how long did the 109 prop pitch exploit go on ? For years.


What has this got to do with the Tempest exploit?



Did any dedicated 109 driver come out and say -hey guys I think I found a problem with the 109
it can over-rev to 3500rpms and climb at 6000fpm by switching back and forth between manual & CSP prop pitch ? No.

This was a known issue since release of FB.I dunno why you require anyone to signalise this issue since it was known.Oleg did not fix it for a long time so maybe you should flame the 1C team instead.The exploit was wrong but the fact that some idiots seeking exlpoits to win should not be the reason to erase the whole damn option with manual pp.





Many of the dedicated 109 pilots (some that are here posting) felt this was historically accurate and that the 109 could actualy climb straight up from a low to zero energy state like a modern jet fighter with a 1-1 power ratio. Sorry guys but the 109 could never over-rev to 3500rpms and climb at 6000fpm, or climb straight up hundreds of feet without stalling from a zero energy state---not reality.

This is not the case with the 109 only.Nearly all T&B aircraft(Spitfire the best) can climb straight up like you describe even though many of them are know to have poor climb rate.

And the 109 could overrev if you knew that you stressed the engine.You give yourself 10% more power in exchange for risking blowing the engine everytime you do this.As the prop pitch engine damage is cumulative,the exploit seized to exist after 3.04 patch as about the 2nd time you set her 200RPM higher than normal you got your engine dead 90% of the time.

However,the picture of Mr.V switching from auto to manual back and forth 20times fills me with disgust.He and all ppl who ever did such things deserve a cheater label as they use unrealistic ways to win.Anyone who`s been doing this is not a dedicated 109 flyer but a pathetic cheating *******.It is because of them the realistic trait of "power in exchange for engine life" got erased.

Been flying since March 2002 and I NEVER EVER did this exploit.

In this case it is the majority hurting for actions of pathetic minority.




Did any dedicated 109 driver come out and say hey guys I found a problem with overheat on the 109 engine. If you turn the engine off when overheating and re-start it you have a fresh cold engine to run again on WEP. Allied pilots noticed 109 drivers repeatedly turning off & on their engines and were wondering why ? They found out why.


This is new to me.Never heard of that one.
I tell you ppl please do not penalize the whole crowd for actions of the rotten few.




I am sorry to say that many of the people using these exploits were former EAW flyers that I have flown with and against for years. These pilots & sometimes entire axis squads thought it was perfectly acceptable to use these exploits even when confronted with them. Their reasoning was ---"the sim allowed it". That is simply total Bull Sh*t for an excuse.


That is equal to cheating IMO.

Badsight-
09-27-2006, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
With all due respect Von Rat how long did the 109 prop pitch exploit go on ? For years.

Did any dedicated 109 driver come out and say -hey guys I think I found a problem with the 109
it can over-rev to 3500rpms and climb at 6000fpm by switching back and forth between manual & CSP prop pitch ? No. wrong

commen knowledge , regularly repeated & discussed

over-performing climb of Bf-109K especially was exposed WAY before the last 1.xx patch

when you make claims like that it just oozes "poor us"

BigKahuna_GS
09-27-2006, 02:11 PM
Von Rat--all those exploits were common knowledge at least when i joined these forums. hell they were whined about constantly.

That is incorrect. If you look at the 109 prop pitch exploit it seemed to be a closely guarded secret for a very long time by the 109 drivers that used it routinely. It wasnt fully exposed to testing until 4.01 which revealed the 3500rpm over-rev limit and 6000fpm climb rate. Then certain people started revealing that they had been able to do this very thing for over a year and half. The 109 prop pitch exploit was corrected in 4.02 and refined in 4.03.
Still many cry that these fantasy over-rev rpm levels and climb rates are historically accurate.
Give it up. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Badsight-
09-27-2006, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
It wasnt fully exposed to testing until 4.01 which revealed the 3500rpm over-rev limit and 6000fpm climb rate. Then certain people started revealing that they had been able to do this very thing for over a year and half. the only fault here is yours & your lack of reading

F19_Ob
09-27-2006, 02:23 PM
Sorry pinker. It seems I'm partly responsible for the detour to the p38 debate. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

to return to the subject of exploits, I guess some do what they can to win, but it anyway leads to difficulties for the community as a whole in the end.

Although I Think the 109 and spit still are some of the better planes in the sim, I think the result of the boost-exploit in the 109 led to the removal an existing feature in the 109.

One could manipulate with the proppitch at high altitude to take advantage of the power of the supercharger, by flattening the proppitch and letting it rev up, and then set a coarser pitch and thereby gain more speed.
Inexperienced 109 pilots sometimes lacked behind the flight because they weren't familiar with this procedure, and in some cases were ordered home because they hadn't time to wait.
(This procedure is described in Ulrich Steinhilpers book "spitfire on my tail")

BigKahuna_GS
09-27-2006, 02:23 PM
Badsight-wrong commen knowledge , regularly repeated & discussed

over-performing climb of Bf-109K especially was exposed way before the last 1.xx patch

when you make claims like that it just oozes "poor us"


Most 109 climb test posted were with CSP not utilising the prop pitch exploit. And when discussing climb rates in manual mode refrence was never made of an exploit or the ability
to over-rev the 109 engine to 3500rpms. This was from version 4.0 till fixed in 4.2 & 4.3.

There is no "poor us" which is an idiotic statement trying to seperate red & blue flyers. You should look at the whole IL2 community and wonder why anyone would think that "because the sim allows an exploit" it is acceptable to use it even when confronted with the exploit.

fordfan25
09-27-2006, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by F19_Ob:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

P38 is a big, heavy 2 engined fighter, which can fight it out with smaller more nimble fighters in the game, surely this is a joke also? Adolf Galland stated that hima nd his fighter pilots found the P38 'easy to deal with' But its sure not easy for LW pilots in the game. Its a joke.



Sorry m8 but the p38 is not a match for any Luftwaffe fighter in the sim, with the exeption of G¶rings elite fighter the bf 110.

I've flown and cross-compared it for a long time and the only situation it can overcome a bf109 or fw190 is in a bounce, or if a fw190 forgets about scissoring in the heat of battle.
The fw ofcourse have a bit worser turning but I've never been shot down by a p38 because it's so easy to just roll and go in the opposit direction. The armament in the fw beats the p38 by far.

The 109 does everything better in all aspects of flight and the later ones with 30mm cannon need only one or a couple of hits to kill or damage a p38 out of flying condition.

A p38 is a fighter in the pacific theatre when fighting with zeros, ki43 and ki61 and have an equal chance to a kill, until the ki84 enters the scene. It's faster, turns better and outguns the p38.

In the european theatre the p38 only can be seen as a bomber without a reargunner. So Galland was right. Galland anoyed the few p38 experts and thus the controversy, but there is a record of the difficulties that 'normal pilots encountered and the reason for the p38 to be fased out and replaced.

Online I have however seen p38's occasionally outmaneuver inexperienced players,and I have myself shot down 109's that saw me too late but I've never heard about anything like that happened to any of the experienced simmers I know, unless it was a bounce.
Bouncing can ofcourse be done even in bombers so it has nothing to do with the maneuverability of the plane.


If anyone has a track of a p-38 outmaneuvering a 109 or a fw190 I'll gladly examine it and comment.
So far I have only seen bounces in varying degrees or snapshots in furballs by a skilled pilot, wich again, says nothing about the p38's maneuverability.
I'd say it's the lack of rollrate that turns it to a bomber in the ETO. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>i have out turned 109K's in a p-38 a number of times. as long as you have equal or less fuel. i am how ever very good in the 38 one on one. i have stoped flyn it online how ever do to the silly a** damnge moddle. the trick with the 38 is useing flaps and dive brakes and being very alert in the turn. also the p38 got scre*ed hard in 4.01 or 4.02 in regards to its abilty to "knife fight" it became heavier acting and a couple of very usefull tricks were made useless.

anarchy52
09-27-2006, 02:34 PM
The instant engine cooling was not limited to 109, all planes had this feature in the early days...think it was 1.xx

As for P-38 : the dive recovery flaps weren't used for "instant spitfire turn" as they are in game. P-38 has 2 vices: poor visibility out of the cockpit and it's size (a very large target).

Badsight-
09-27-2006, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
Most 109 climb test posted were with CSP not utilising the prop pitch exploit. And when discussing climb rates in manual mode refrence was never made of an exploit or the ability
to over-rev the 109 engine to 3500rpms. This was from version 4.0 till fixed in 4.2 & 4.3. yet more "poor us P-38 users" bullsh!t

manuel prop pitch advantages were regularly discussed

the over-perfoming K climb-rate was especially

all way before AEP came out

your full of your one-eyed , load-of-cr4p garbage still today even after it was fixed long ago

BigKahuna_GS
09-27-2006, 03:37 PM
badsight-the only fault here is yours & your lack of reading


Really ?
Please tell me who was the first person to really test & record the 109 prop pitch exploit utilizing the ingame features and post their results. That would be Tagert. Note the date.
There might have been people talking about it but no one really showed the full extent of the exploit and what it really meant and the non-historical performance gains from it--graphed with DeviceLink data.

.

http://www.simhq.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=144;t=001187;p=0

Tagart-Hey guys. I was resently sent a couple of track files. Both are of a 109 climbing, one makes use of the Prop Pitch Cheat and the other does not. I had heard of this over the past several months, but never gave it much thought. Thus I didnt even know how it was done, let alone the performance boost one can obtain by using it. Some guys on HL last night told me in detail just how it is done. I wont repeat that here in that we dont need anymore people taking advantage of this *feature*. The basic problem is this cheat allows you to exceed the maximum rated RPM levels and thus MP levels and thus obtain unrealistic power levels. I wouldnt mind it if all planes were allowed to over rev thier engines, but as it stands now only the 109 and 190 can make use of this.

In the following graphs I show two graphs per each, the one on top is the 109 value without using the PP cheat and the one below is with the PP cheat.

SUMMARY TABLE (logged at 1min intervals):
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/CHEATS/PROP_PITCH/109/TABLEVSTABLE.JPG

RPM
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/CHEATS/PROP_PITCH/109/RPMVSRPM.JPG

MP (US MP, not Germa ata)
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/CHEATS/PROP_PITCH/109/MPVSMP.JPG

ROC
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/CHEATS/PROP_PITCH/109/ROCVSROC.JPG

So, if you have been online and *seen* some ufo like climb rates from a 109 or 190, you may have been witnessing someone making use of this *feature*. The good news is the beta testers tell us this has been fixed in the soon to be release beta!

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">As of the beta 4.02RC3 patch, they reported the prop pitch cheat has been fixed.. now instead of over RPM it will cause the engine to under RPM.. i.e. 180 out of what it use to do. </span>
_______



Even back in 10/2005 and faced with this data people were still not calling this a way to cheat.

Comments from the IL2 community and mostly axis pilots :

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">"I wouldn t call it a cheat, more an exploit of a bad feature in the sim</span>, but Tagert, where have you been?? <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">that trick is known since the release of Forgoten Battles at least</span>. The probles is while everybody were discussing the "trim in a slider thing" or the noob Ki84IC, the guys who knew this kept silent and laughing of everybody, because while this wasn t known, they would have an advantage no other plane could match. If you fly a K4 and you know how to use the prop pitch, the trim and Flaps on slider or roll keys, you just fly an untouchable plane"

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">"erm *cough* intersrsting word "cheat" on the 109s Why is that? Some are auto prop pitch, some are manually, like all 109s and FW-190s. Some private Planes I've flown prop pitch was set by you by hand to turn this knob to set your pitch. hmm, ai uses it all the time!"</span>

This comment just proves my point:
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">"Is this a cheat or just an over look bug ? Can we call people cheaters when they do their home work to find advantages in a sim that allows you to do them ??" </span>

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">"So, what is the meaning of the word cheat?"</span>

From the axis squad that thought it was ok use the 109 engine overheat exploit:
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">"Well I think here we have an oversight by the design team that has been used by some members of the community. This isn't a cheat - as no hacking was required, this is an exploit that you need a HOTAS to full utilize anyway so its only avalible to a few. This is no different from IL-2 1.0 when you could turn off the engine while airborne to cool engine.
"</span>

At lest this guy said at the end he wanted it fixed.

"This cannot be substantiated for the reason that "maximum rated RPM" is a variable. It can be effected by many factors. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Again this shows bias.</span> The proper way to approach this would be make a statement under the assumption of a normal distribution. That is, if it is a sufficiently large population. Sufficiently large must be proven. Standard deviation must be established from accurate factory and/or test reports."


And from Badsight :

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">"i laugh at the "cheat" comment</span>
what needed fixing was the speed the auto-manuel change happened
& the engine DM for ove-3000 rpm being able to switch to manuel pitch control is not a cheat"

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">"because tards keep bringing it up as if its a cheat , its not working right - there is a difference</span><span class="ev_code_YELLOW">you can bet the next time this is discussed they will say how pre-4.02 days the pitch was a "cheat" </span>


Nobody said the ability to go from manual to auto pitch was the problem. But utilizing the over rev to 3500rpm and climbing at 6000fpm is gaming the game and nothing else but cheating pure and simple.

Get it ?

p1ngu666
09-27-2006, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by F19_Ob:
Sorry pinker. It seems I'm partly responsible for the detour to the p38 debate. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

to return to the subject of exploits, I guess some do what they can to win, but it anyway leads to difficulties for the community as a whole in the end.

Although I Think the 109 and spit still are some of the better planes in the sim, I think the result of the boost-exploit in the 109 led to the removal an existing feature in the 109.

One could manipulate with the proppitch at high altitude to take advantage of the power of the supercharger, by flattening the proppitch and letting it rev up, and then set a coarser pitch and thereby gain more speed.
Inexperienced 109 pilots sometimes lacked behind the flight because they weren't familiar with this procedure, and in some cases were ordered home because they hadn't time to wait.
(This procedure is described in Ulrich Steinhilpers book "spitfire on my tail")

that was with emils, which didnt have the auto prop thingy. when they got the auto prop working well, they used it all the time, apart from maybe takeoff and landing.

its annoying this exploit on cps props exist, as it should make u slower?

VFS-22_SPaRX
09-27-2006, 06:40 PM
To be honest, I really do not see what the uproar over this is. I do not like these "exploits" anymore then the next guy, but I really fail to see why some of them get everyone in a tizzy. Some of them are bad, some are tolerable. This one I find tolerable. WHY? What good is high speed level flight good for:

1. Running
2. Chasing down

As far as I am concerned these are not really ACM's.

Also in either of those cases, the only time a Higher Level speed will effect the outcome of your fight is if you are Co-E with your opponant and 90% of the time, that is not the case. If you are running, it's because you are at a disadvantage which most likely means your opponant is Higher and Faster then you. Having 30 kph more level speed is not going to help you here. If you are chasing you are most likely Higher and Faster the your opponant. Again, 30khp is not going to make that much of a difference on how this will turn out either. I have seen COUNTLESS planes run down Faster planes in level flight. That speed did not help the guy being chased at all. There is more to disengaging then just pushing the nose down and firewalling it.

I hope that when I engage someone they are trying to do all this ****. They have to focus more on their "exploit" then they do on the situation. SA is everything in a fight. You lose it, you lose. So while that guy is trying to make sure he hits his keys are the right times, I will be moving into a better position to take him out. Same can be said about any of these "exploits".

"Exploits" don't make average pilots good pilots. "Exploits" don't make Good Pilots better. Good SA, knowledge of ACM's, Energy Preservation and TEAMWORK make good pilots. Just about any "exploit" in IL2 can be nullified by good TEAMWORK.

Badsight-
09-27-2006, 06:42 PM
Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
Really ?
Please tell me who was the first person to really test & record the 109 prop pitch exploit utilizing the ingame features and post their results. That would be Tagert. & that would *again* be wrong . "that would be" Robban , not to mention Clint_Ruin , Isegrim , JtD . . . . .

& it "would be" 2004

& the auto versus manuel prop climb times were knowen to be different & were discussed before that in 2003 , did you ever get to fly in the VEF ?
how the pitch worked was knowen to be wrong from FB v1.0 even , do you have v1.0 on your computer ? i do & v1.1b changed it . & the revision was kept in v1.1f

i tire of your baloney selective memory , your full of it kahuna & despite it having been fixed long ago you cannot seem to let it go . get over yourself & your "FB is axis biased" opinion

mynameisroland
09-27-2006, 07:18 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:

The P38 shot down more enemy aircraft in the PTO than any other allied aircraft type. This included late model japanese types; Ki84, Ki100 and Shinden models. P38 pilots were by far the largest group of aces and had the highest scoring US aces of WW2 in Bong (40kills) & McGuire (38kills). <span class="ev_code_RED">In Bong's book</span> it is said that Bong <span class="ev_code_RED">unofficialy probably</span> had 80kills as many of his kills he gave away to wingmen, were not confirmed because he was by himself over water and the early P38 gun camera was mounted too close to the guns sometimes making gun camera footage unreadable.

[QUOTE]

If Bong did score 80 kills then I dont believe he or his unit would have not claimed them. Think about the propaganda coup the US would have claimed.

Luft aces like Barkhorn used to score kills and 'donate' them to lesser pilots or even the unit itself, Galland used to shoot down aircraft and not even register kill claims because he was meant to be desk bound.

As to Galland getting 'PWNED' by a P38, didt McGuire get Pwned by a Zero or was it a super duper Ki43?

If you enter aircombat over 500 times chances are somebody is going to get lucky and nail you whether they are in a P.11 or a 262 its chance! P38 fans cling to one or two German pilots accounts (where the Germans are playing up to their US hosts post war) where the Germans were flattering about its attributes.

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-27-2006, 07:26 PM
Originally posted by VFS-22_SPaRX:
To be honest, I really do not see what the uproar over this is. I do not like these "exploits" anymore then the next guy, but I really fail to see why some of them get everyone in a tizzy. Some of them are bad, some are tolerable. This one I find tolerable. WHY? What good is high speed level flight good for:

1. Running
2. Chasing down

As far as I am concerned these are not really ACM's.

Also in either of those cases, the only time a Higher Level speed will effect the outcome of your fight is if you are Co-E with your opponant and 90% of the time, that is not the case. If you are running, it's because you are at a disadvantage which most likely means your opponant is Higher and Faster then you. Having 30 kph more level speed is not going to help you here. If you are chasing you are most likely Higher and Faster the your opponant. Again, 30khp is not going to make that much of a difference on how this will turn out either. I have seen COUNTLESS planes run down Faster planes in level flight. That speed did not help the guy being chased at all. There is more to disengaging then just pushing the nose down and firewalling it.

I hope that when I engage someone they are trying to do all this ****. They have to focus more on their "exploit" then they do on the situation. SA is everything in a fight. You lose it, you lose. So while that guy is trying to make sure he hits his keys are the right times, I will be moving into a better position to take him out. Same can be said about any of these "exploits".

"Exploits" don't make average pilots good pilots. "Exploits" don't make Good Pilots better. Good SA, knowledge of ACM's, Energy Preservation and TEAMWORK make good pilots. Just about any "exploit" in IL2 can be nullified by good TEAMWORK.

Well noted. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

HayateAce
09-27-2006, 08:18 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by mynameisroland:
some crying blatherQUOTE]

More bogus posting from a shoulder-chipper. The P38 could pull moves that neither the 109 or RunNinety could hang with. Deal with her and move on with your life.

:P

AKA_TAGERT
09-27-2006, 08:32 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
As to Galland getting 'PWNED' by a P38, didt McGuire get Pwned by a Zero or was it a super duper Ki43?
Apples and Oranges.. If I remember corectly, the 38 was jumpped by Galland and the 38 pilot turned the tables on Galland (ie the hunter became the hunted). Where as McGuire got cocky and did not drop his drop tanks and engaged what he thought would be an easy kill, stalled, and crashed into the sea.


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
P38 fans cling to one or two German pilots accounts (where the Germans are playing up to their US hosts post war) where the Germans were flattering about its attributes. So.. Galland was a nobody kiss a$$ who felt the need to still kiss a$$ 20 years after the war ended?

Huh.. who knew?

I allways remembered of him as one of the few, if not the only Lw pilot that had the nadds to tell the paper hanger what he really thought. You know, that whole Me262 figther vs bomber thing..

But now your telling us he was just a nutless yes man that felt the need to tell people what they wanted to hear? Im no Luftie flag waver.. but that seems hard to belive.

Stand up to Hitler one day.. Cowtow to a US fighter pilot later in life?

Now I can understand how a Squaw Broke lad like yourself might not see anything odd about that, but a man would be saying something does not jive here.

TX-Gunslinger
09-27-2006, 10:21 PM
Great post SPARX!

S~

Gunny

F19_Ob
09-28-2006, 03:40 AM
Originally posted by VFS-22_SPaRX:

What good is high speed level flight good for:

1. Running
2. Chasing down

As far as I am concerned these are not really ACM's.
.

I agree with your view partially, but As I see it rookies and average players are of no concern here, but experts with tactical knowledge and a high degree of SA.
These people can to a higher degree exploit 40kph extra speed.

I've tried, for quite some time, to influence online experts to avoid choosing the best rides and try to aid the outnumbered side, for obvious reasons.
The majority of online experts still are like the average simmer and chooses the best rid(there are exeptions ofcourse), and if there is an exploit they'll use it.

I'd like to add a couple things to your list.
More speed enables more energy to turn.
Extra speed also gives those extra seconds to climb while waiting for the enemy below to stall.
40kph extra is still an aid when converting speed for altitude.

regards

stathem
09-28-2006, 04:00 AM
What happens in theory if a plane which is flying straight and level at its maximum level speed simultanously reduces its drag and Angle of Attack?

HellToupee
09-28-2006, 04:08 AM
yea but how often are you going that 30-40kph extra, thats when you're full tit raid closed all out level, usually only acheived when running away like a girl or chasing down said little girl since most of the time ur trying to not overheat the thing.

Von_Rat
09-28-2006, 04:16 AM
sparx wrote:


To be honest, I really do not see what the uproar over this is. I do not like these "exploits" anymore then the next guy, but I really fail to see why some of them get everyone in a tizzy. Some of them are bad, some are tolerable. This one I find tolerable. WHY? What good is high speed level flight good for:

1. Running
2. Chasing down

As far as I am concerned these are not really ACM's.

Also in either of those cases, the only time a Higher Level speed will effect the outcome of your fight is if you are Co-E with your opponant and 90% of the time, that is not the case. If you are running, it's because you are at a disadvantage which most likely means your opponant is Higher and Faster then you. Having 30 kph more level speed is not going to help you here. If you are chasing you are most likely Higher and Faster the your opponant. Again, 30khp is not going to make that much of a difference on how this will turn out either. I have seen COUNTLESS planes run down Faster planes in level flight. That speed did not help the guy being chased at all. There is more to disengaging then just pushing the nose down and firewalling it.

I hope that when I engage someone they are trying to do all this ****. They have to focus more on their "exploit" then they do on the situation. SA is everything in a fight. You lose it, you lose. So while that guy is trying to make sure he hits his keys are the right times, I will be moving into a better position to take him out. Same can be said about any of these "exploits".

"Exploits" don't make average pilots good pilots. "Exploits" don't make Good Pilots better. Good SA, knowledge of ACM's, Energy Preservation and TEAMWORK make good pilots. Just about any "exploit" in IL2 can be nullified by good TEAMWORK.

SPaRX
__________________________________________________ ______________



i dont agree at all.

one of the few advantages fws have over tempests is ability to run. this takes it away.

and before anybody brings up 11lbs tempest let me remind you that this exploit makes the current temp faster than 11lbs temp at many alts. our tempests with this exploit can now way out perform 11lbs at hi alt. at least thats my understanding. i havent tested yet but from my reading the temp can now cut the d9 climb advantage using this, thats one more advantage reduced. then theres the acceleration issue, even more advantage to the tempest. also does this mean that if i find a exploit for d9 i can use it and just say its a d11 or d13.

im sure someone will bring up 09 pp exploit. let me remind you that using that exploit didnt give you near as much speed as this. it also blew the engine if you werent very careful. i havent blown a temp engine yet while testing this.

as far as having to focus to use this exploit , ill say one word,,,,macro.

a few kph id say no big deal, but i gotta say 30 to 40kph,,,IS A BIG DEAL.
when your running every dam kph counts. 30kph or more speed to your enemy from a exploit makes running away impossiable, just ask spit drivers. but at least they can turn or outclimb. fws cant do this against tempests, especially now.



at first i thought like you, no big deal,. but the more i read about this the more i think yes it is a big deal. many online games get ruined because of stuff like this. your statment can pretty much gurantees nearly every temp driver will now use this because you said its tolerable.


__________________________________________________ _____________
sparx wrote:
If someone submits a track for our review and we find that a pilot is using a Cheat or an Exploit of this game, we will Ban the offending player. Contrary to popular belief, detecting these things in tracks is not really hard to do.

WE WILL NOT TOLERATE THIS IN OUR SERVER PERIOD!
__________________________________________________ ____________


i guess this needs editing now, since some exploits are now TOLERATED PERIOD.

Von_Rat
09-28-2006, 04:22 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
yea but how often are you going that 30-40kph extra, thats when you're full tit raid closed all out level, usually only acheived when running away like a girl or chasing down said little girl since most of the time ur trying to not overheat the thing.

i guess your going to ignore the improved climb and acceleration this exploit supposedly gives you.

looking at all your deaths, maybe you should start running like a little girl more often.
some pilots care about their virtual lives, so they run when things go bad, you evidently dont care. so its not your place to call them names.

i think its time for me to start making tracks when i fly.

stathem
09-28-2006, 04:43 AM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
i havent tested yet but from my reading the temp can now outclimb the d9 using this, thats one more advantage lost.

You really need to test and prove this before making that allegation.

Von_Rat
09-28-2006, 04:46 AM
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 Von_Rat:
i havent tested yet but from my reading the temp can now outclimb the d9 using this, thats one more advantage lost.

You really need to test and prove this before making that allegation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

as i SAID i havent tested yet. i shouldnt have said outclimb though. i shoulda said it'll cut d9s advantage.

as far as zoom climb, its pretty obvious that its going to zoom climb better moving 30 to 40kph faster.

WOLFMondo
09-28-2006, 05:02 AM
Originally posted by VFS-22_SPaRX:
What good is high speed level flight good for:

1. Running
2. Chasing down

As far as I am concerned these are not really ACM's.


They are Sparx. Extending, zoomclimb etc. If you know your plane has a certain edge against your oppenent you use it. They are ACM's for team work. I bet 50% of the Spitfires I've ever shot down were drag and bags.

HellToupee
09-28-2006, 05:42 AM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
yea but how often are you going that 30-40kph extra, thats when you're full tit raid closed all out level, usually only acheived when running away like a girl or chasing down said little girl since most of the time ur trying to not overheat the thing.

i guess your going to ignore the improved climb and acceleration this exploit supposedly gives you.

looking at all your deaths, maybe you should start running like a little girl more often.
some pilots care about their virtual lives, so they run when things go bad, you evidently dont care. so its not your place to call them names.

i think its time for me to start making tracks when i fly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

why when i can spend more time taking away little girls virtual lifes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Not alot of interesting things to do when flying for ones virtual life no ground pounding base raiding bomber flying...



as i SAID i havent tested yet. i shouldnt have said outclimb though. i shoulda said it'll cut d9s advantage.

ull find it generally dosnt help in climb or even really shallow climbs, the downtime between the rpm lower and rises is essentially coasting along, when in climb u lose all the speed almost straight away, probly slows down most climbs.

Von_Rat
09-28-2006, 06:09 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by HellToupee:
[
why when i can spend more time taking away little girls virtual lifes

QUOTE]

those little girls seem to kill your big he-man alot. but then girls can be sneaky. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif


as far as climbs go,, have you tried a macro yet http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

HellToupee
09-28-2006, 06:45 AM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by HellToupee:
[
why when i can spend more time taking away little girls virtual lifes

QUOTE]

those little girls seem to kill your big he-man alot. but then girls can be sneaky. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif


as far as climbs go,, have you tried a macro yet http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

whats a macro going to do, the whole aspect of how the thing works goes against climbs, simply put when ur rpm is low and ur climbing its pretty much like being throttled back what ever u could gain is lost even faster.

also cant seem to rember anyone(including them girlies) getting me alot more than i got them :P

Von_Rat
09-28-2006, 06:56 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by HellToupee:
[
why when i can spend more time taking away little girls virtual lifes

QUOTE]

those little girls seem to kill your big he-man alot. but then girls can be sneaky. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif


as far as climbs go,, have you tried a macro yet http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

whats a macro going to do, the whole aspect of how the thing works goes against climbs, simply put when ur rpm is low and ur climbing its pretty much like being throttled back what ever u could gain is lost even faster.

also cant seem to rember anyone(including them girlies) getting me alot more than i got them :P </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i let you know about macro when im done testing. you obviously are thinking plain climbs, im thinking well timed mini zooming with macro.


those girlies might not of got you more than you got them. but you still got dead, alot more than those girlies did.

mynameisroland
09-28-2006, 07:07 AM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by mynameisroland:
some crying blatherQUOTE]

More bogus posting from a shoulder-chipper. The P38 could pull moves that neither the 109 or RunNinety could hang with. Deal with her and move on with your life.

:P

Hayate are you that 7 year old kid who keeps joining our TS server and playing IL2 ?

Keep at it at school kid, im sure you'll grow up one day http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

stathem
09-28-2006, 07:09 AM
If you're zoom climbing at speeds above max. level speed with prop pitch lower than 100% you should get better zoom performance.

mynameisroland
09-28-2006, 07:16 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:

But now your telling us he was just a nutless yes man that felt the need to tell people what they wanted to hear? Im no Luftie flag waver.. but that seems hard to belive.

Stand up to Hitler one day.. Cowtow to a US fighter pilot later in life?

Now I can understand how a Squaw Broke lad like yourself might not see anything odd about that, but a man would be saying something does not jive here.

" You son of a b*tch! you damn near killed me!" Thats sounds like an 'Americanised' German doesnt it?

Maybe you think that 'nice' Nazis were like US pilots but they just flew for the wrong side? Or maybe you respect these pilots because they were gracious to their conquerors?

Either I can see how a a jive talkin, Lone Ranger watching old Man http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif like yourself cant see past the pro US propaganda. There were more allied and german pilots who dismissed the P38 as an easy kill than those who respected it.

This is not drawn from IL2 but from reading pilots comments and accounts.

Its like hanging with 'Mr cooper' in here these days.

Von_Rat
09-28-2006, 07:31 AM
Originally posted by stathem:
If you're zoom climbing at speeds above max. level speed with prop pitch lower than 100% you should get better zoom performance.


i know what your saying. but im not saying quite the same thing. when im done testing i'll make a track so you can see differance.

Philipscdrw
09-28-2006, 09:55 AM
(What are you talking about? Oh nevermind, I'm thinking of propellors.)

Surely, in real life, if you sped up the engine by reducing prop pitch, then slap the prop blades into coarse pitch, you'd simply stall the propellor? Or, they wouldn't stall, but the prop blades (being at a high angle of attack) wouldn't work efficiently and you'd end up losing energy and not going as fast as you would have done if you'd just stayed in cruise pitch.

I'd be suprised if the Il-2 engine models propellor stall.

(By the way, does 'propellor stall' actually exist, because I've just pulled that idea out of my head? Can you stall your prop in real life?)

RCAF_Irish_403
09-28-2006, 10:01 AM
News Flash: Exploiting=Gaming the Game=Cheating=Sux

WOLFMondo
09-28-2006, 10:11 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

p1ngu666
09-28-2006, 10:15 AM
Originally posted by Philipscdrw:
(What are you talking about? Oh nevermind, I'm thinking of propellors.)

Surely, in real life, if you sped up the engine by reducing prop pitch, then slap the prop blades into coarse pitch, you'd simply stall the propellor? Or, they wouldn't stall, but the prop blades (being at a high angle of attack) wouldn't work efficiently and you'd end up losing energy and not going as fast as you would have done if you'd just stayed in cruise pitch.

I'd be suprised if the Il-2 engine models propellor stall.

(By the way, does 'propellor stall' actually exist, because I've just pulled that idea out of my head? Can you stall your prop in real life?)

a prop blade is just a wing, so guess its possible, even if its not a factor, you should lose effeicency by playing silly buggers with the prop pitch

FA_Whisky
09-28-2006, 12:06 PM
This is very old news!!! I knew of this since it all started with the 109 "prop cheat". It worked better on the 109, but is has been in the game at least since the P40 came. It works best on the P51 series and the tempest. Now that we all know, stop complaining!!!
Since the tempest overheats to fast compared to the other planes in the game this does not really matter anyway

HellToupee
09-28-2006, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by HellToupee:
[
why when i can spend more time taking away little girls virtual lifes

QUOTE]

those little girls seem to kill your big he-man alot. but then girls can be sneaky. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif


as far as climbs go,, have you tried a macro yet http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

whats a macro going to do, the whole aspect of how the thing works goes against climbs, simply put when ur rpm is low and ur climbing its pretty much like being throttled back what ever u could gain is lost even faster.

also cant seem to rember anyone(including them girlies) getting me alot more than i got them :P </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i let you know about macro when im done testing. you obviously are thinking plain climbs, im thinking well timed mini zooming with macro.


those girlies might not of got you more than you got them. but you still got dead, alot more than those girlies did. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The differnce is too small to be of any benefit in a mini zoom.

Got dead alot? well who cares about that all that matters to be is i render many more people dead than me.

Von_Rat
09-28-2006, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by HellToupee:
[
why when i can spend more time taking away little girls virtual lifes

QUOTE]

those little girls seem to kill your big he-man alot. but then girls can be sneaky. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif


as far as climbs go,, have you tried a macro yet http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

whats a macro going to do, the whole aspect of how the thing works goes against climbs, simply put when ur rpm is low and ur climbing its pretty much like being throttled back what ever u could gain is lost even faster.

also cant seem to rember anyone(including them girlies) getting me alot more than i got them :P </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i let you know about macro when im done testing. you obviously are thinking plain climbs, im thinking well timed mini zooming with macro.


those girlies might not of got you more than you got them. but you still got dead, alot more than those girlies did. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The differnce is too small to be of any benefit in a mini zoom.

Got dead alot? well who cares about that all that matters to be is i render many more people dead than me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

how do you know, did you test it with macro. i will and let you know my results.



not compared to many others you don't. im refering to the pilots you like to call girlies.

HellToupee
09-28-2006, 04:15 PM
a macro generally isnt going to acheive any better results. If you cant do it without a macro u generally cant do it with one, unless its something that needs 1000 keypresses a second.

WWMaxGunz
09-28-2006, 05:01 PM
Try just bringing the pitch down from 100 as the plane gets fast.
As in, 40kph faster than just at 100% which may not be the best highspeed setting.
I know that is true on most CSP planes.
And if that's the case then the bug is in how so many people fly, 100% pitch all the time.

Von_Rat
09-28-2006, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
a macro generally isnt going to acheive any better results. If you cant do it without a macro u generally cant do it with one, unless its something that needs 1000 keypresses a second.

its not just macroing it thats for covienence. it doing small zooms while using exploit and timing it right. thats where macro comes in.

AKA_TAGERT
09-28-2006, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
" You son of a b*tch! you damn near killed me!" Thats sounds like an 'Americanised' German doesnt it? Not really.. but this event took place ~20 years after the war, so I am sure Galland pick up a little US lingo what with the US ocupation of Germany. Nice try though.. gold star for effort!


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Maybe you think that 'nice' Nazis were like US pilots but they just flew for the wrong side? Nice Nazis? Don't think you can use those two words in the same sentence.. but I digrees.. Tell me, what does nice or not nice have to do with the FACT that you said Galland, a LW pilot that had the stones to tell Hitler what he really thinks would cowtow to some US fighter pilot 20 years later.


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Or maybe you respect these pilots because they were gracious to their conquerors?
Again, what does that have to do with you saying Galland was a spinless whimp that felt the need to tell people what they want to hear instead of standing up for what he belives in. I dont think a man.. maybe a Squaw Broke lad like yourself, but not a man like Galland would change so much in one life time.


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Either I can see how a a jive talkin, Lone Ranger watching old Man http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif like yourself cant see past the pro US propaganda.
US propaganda? So, let me see if I understand you correctly.. Your saying Galland did not say that and that it was US WWII propaganda in operation 20 years after the war ended? Come on.. How deep of a hole are you going to dig? The FACT remains that you implied that the only way a German pilot would say anything good about the P38 was to play up to the US hosting the meeting, and that only a few (two you said) ever said such things.. Galland being one of them. Now, I know kissing up to people is a very natural Squaw Broke thing, thus did not probally register with you when you said it. But most men here who have served thier country realise that it is not normal for a man with any back bone what so ever to cave in like that.


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
There were more allied and german pilots who dismissed the P38 as an easy kill than those who respected it.
Not true.. but the FACT is that one of the BEST German pilots, ah la Galland did speak highly of it with regards to that event.


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
This is not drawn from IL2 but from reading pilots comments and accounts.
Drawn from a biased lad who only sees what he wants to see.. But you have not provided any proof to support your statment. The FACT is for just about every airplane you can find one pilot that says it was ****, and another that says it was great. But it is far and few inbetween that a MAN like Galland would have such high praise for an enemy aircraft.


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Its like hanging with 'Mr cooper' in here these days.
Gelded and Squaw Broke.

Gibbage1
09-28-2006, 07:51 PM
Here is the quote in question.

Adolf Galland to Colonel John "Big John" Lowell P-38 Ace.

"You son of a *****! You damn near killed me that day!"

I have heard the story many places, but cant voutch for its validity. Only Galland can. But now you have the name of the pilot that took Galland on 1 on 1 and put a few holes in his Run90 after a low alt turn fight.

BfHeFwMe
09-28-2006, 08:39 PM
Originally posted by Philipscdrw:
(What are you talking about? Oh nevermind, I'm thinking of propellors.)

Surely, in real life, if you sped up the engine by reducing prop pitch, then slap the prop blades into coarse pitch, you'd simply stall the propellor? Or, they wouldn't stall, but the prop blades (being at a high angle of attack) wouldn't work efficiently and you'd end up losing energy and not going as fast as you would have done if you'd just stayed in cruise pitch.

I'd be suprised if the Il-2 engine models propellor stall.

(By the way, does 'propellor stall' actually exist, because I've just pulled that idea out of my head? Can you stall your prop in real life?)

Yes, it's possible to stall a prop, by having it slice through the air faster than the speed of sound. Unfortunatly that prop is going to disintigrate if enough of it goes supersonic. And no, not modeled or we wouldn't have so many power dive monkey spankers.

Study the CSP a bit if you can find tutorials, moving the prop pitch lever doesn't alway mean the blade angle will change, it's takes and weighs several inputs in the prop governor, pitch lever being only one of several required before computing a blade angle change. If airspeed, altitude, RPM's, fuel flow are out of parameters your blade can and will do the complete opposite of your desired input via the governor.

No ones bothered to actually test what the results are at various stable pitch and throttle settings in between the so called exploit settings. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if you get the same speed with pitch set midway and throttle up. More fuel flow, with fewer engine RPM's translates to increased blade angle using up the extra horsepower. Also results in a cooler running engine with rads on the closed side, thanks to the lower RPM's resulting in less friction.

Either I can see how a a jive talkin, Lone Ranger watching old Man Wink like yourself cant see past the pro US propaganda. There were more allied and german pilots who dismissed the P38 as an easy kill than those who respected it.

May we see your sources? Or are they a secret http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

AKA_TAGERT
09-28-2006, 08:48 PM
Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
May we see your sources? Or are they a secret http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif ROTFL! I see I am not the only one that noticed he was full ot it! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

CUJO_1970
09-28-2006, 09:12 PM
LOL, the Galland/P-38 story is an old myth already exposed for the fraud it is.

Cracks me up that people still want to believe it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

CUJO_1970
09-28-2006, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I have heard the story many places, but cant voutch for its validity. Only Galland can. But now you have the name of the pilot that took Galland on 1 on 1 and put a few holes in his Run90 after a low alt turn fight.


You don't need Galland to prove that Lowell's tall tale is just that - a myth.

Already disproven, and frankly, more of Lowells "storys" have already been proven incorrect.

Gibbage1
09-28-2006, 10:02 PM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
You don't need Galland to prove that Lowell's tall tale is just that - a myth.

Already disproven, and frankly, more of Lowells "storys" have already been proven incorrect.

Well if you say so, I guess it must be true! Seeing as you have a lot more credability then any other joe on the internet.... Not. P.S. That was all totally sarcastic.

You know, I heard that the Sholto Douglass quote is a total myth and has already been disproven many times over.

Philipscdrw
09-28-2006, 10:46 PM
Sorry to be OT, but don't we have constant-speed props AND variable-pitch props (which are more-or-less controlled directly by the prop lever) in the game? I think I saw seperate entries for them in the manual.

CUJO_1970
09-29-2006, 05:24 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
You know, I heard that the Sholto Douglass quote is a total myth and has already been disproven many times over.


Man, I know you want so desperately for the Lowell satire to be true, it's one of the P-38 fans most beloved stories.

It's like a little kid finding out there is no Santa Clause http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

MEGILE
09-29-2006, 05:31 AM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
You know, I heard that the Sholto Douglass quote is a total myth and has already been disproven many times over.


Man, I know you want so desperately for the Lowell satire to be true, it's one of the P-38 fans most beloved stories.

It's like a little kid finding out there is no Santa Clause http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You two gheys, find a room, and lock the door.

stathem
09-29-2006, 06:13 AM
Originally posted by Philipscdrw:
Sorry to be OT, but don't we have constant-speed props AND variable-pitch props (which are more-or-less controlled directly by the prop lever) in the game? I think I saw seperate entries for them in the manual.

Yep. In the 109 series you get VP props when you switch to manual. Most other fighters have CSP (barring the ones that have fixed pitch)

WWMaxGunz
09-29-2006, 06:20 AM
CSP is a type of VPP with automatic control. The pitch of the blades does vary.
There's electric CSP and hydraulic CSP as well. Curtiss Electric and Hamilton Standard are
just two examples.

WWMaxGunz
09-29-2006, 06:30 AM
Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
No ones bothered to actually test what the results are at various stable pitch and throttle settings in between the so called exploit settings. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if you get the same speed with pitch set midway and throttle up. More fuel flow, with fewer engine RPM's translates to increased blade angle using up the extra horsepower. Also results in a cooler running engine with rads on the closed side, thanks to the lower RPM's resulting in less friction.

See my post on page 6. I found and have posted long ago that at 100% power there are several
CSP planes that get higher top end down at 90% and less prop pitch. Get stable level flight
trimmed at 100-100 and then drop pitch 5% and see if the nose rises and needs trimming down.
Repeat. I find that around 400-450 kph at 90%-95% power in P-51 that less than 100% pitch
gives a benefit. In dives it's best to crank prop pitch very low, that is dues to speed not
just because plane is headed down.

You can stall a CSP prop by running low poswer and too little or too much rpms as you can
exceed blade AOA either positive or negative.

AKA_TAGERT
09-29-2006, 07:54 AM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
LOL, the Galland/P-38 story is an old myth already exposed for the fraud it is.

Cracks me up that people still want to believe it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

and


Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
You don't need Galland to prove that Lowell's tall tale is just that - a myth.

Already disproven, and frankly, more of Lowells "storys" have already been proven incorrect.

WOW! TWO POSTS BACK TO BACK!

On the same subject.. Which kind of has that feel of someone trying to discredit something they fear with the tatic of if they say it enough maybe it will become true.

Note, "IF" what you say is true.. i.e.

PROVEN to be a myth..

Than it should be a simple mater to provide said proof..

Yet you provided NOTHING.

Speaks volumes IMHO.

waffen-79
09-29-2006, 10:13 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

hey what is this Run90 and RunNinety?

You guys want Fw-190 pilots NOT to do extensions? that's funny

It's like telling a spit pilot not to turn or a P-51 pilot not to climb

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

Ob.Emann
09-29-2006, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by waffen-79:
hey what is this Run90 and RunNinety?


Its Trollspeak for "Fw-190".

BigKahuna_GS
09-29-2006, 10:28 AM
Badsight--i tire of your baloney selective memory , your full of it kahuna & despite it having been fixed long ago you cannot seem to let it go . get over yourself & your "FB is axis biased" opinion


Selective memorey like how you wanted to pork the Corsair and several other allied aircraft with your expert opinon but no graphs, charts or official Navy flight tests ?

You truely are one of those types that sits in the galleries and takes non-intellectual pot shots at those who have documents to back up what they say. As you were woefully wrong about the Corsair you are wrong here as well. Since you laughed at the cheating comment back in 10/2005 did you ever really figure out what is cheating ?

And to set the record striaght --I do not think FB is axis biased. That is just another one of your no brain matter is neccesary opinons.


___

__________________________________________________ _______________________
mynameisroland--If Bong did score 80 kills then I dont believe he or his unit would have not claimed them. Think about the propaganda coup the US would have claimed.Luft aces like Barkhorn used to score kills and 'donate' them to lesser pilots or even the unit itself, Galland used to shoot down aircraft and not even register kill claims because he was meant to be desk bound.As to Galland getting 'PWNED' by a P38, didt McGuire get Pwned by a Zero or was it a super duper Ki43?
__________________________________________________ _______________________


Try reading before commenting then maybe that ol rule about keeping your mouth closed vs talking and removing all doubt that you are a _ _ _ _, well you know wrong.

Read Bong's book--then try commenting about the possibility he shot down 80 enemy aircraft. They only use confirmed kills for his record.

Read at Pacific Wrecks the Mcguire Shoot down report. There were at least 2 japanese aircraft one of them being a Ki84 and possibly a 3rd japanese aircraft as well. McGuire was consumed with breaking Bong's record and lost focus on his principle duty to keep his men alive. McGuires order to hold drop tanks doomed the flight and put them at a severe disadvantage.

Galland was never flattering about the P38. But I think if you check his kill record there are no P38 kills listed for him. So how does Galland know so much about the P38 being equal to the Me110? Was it possible that Galland formed his opinon from others and not his own experiences ?

An aircraft that has problems early on can gain a reputation that is hard to shake no matter how much it improves in later models.

Xiolablu3
09-29-2006, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by HH_Emann:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by waffen-79:
hey what is this Run90 and RunNinety?


Its Trollspeak for "Fw-190". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It HayateAce/Gibbage speak for the FW190

Same as the P-fifty Run

BfHeFwMe
09-29-2006, 11:31 AM
So your admitting an extention by definition requires a change of direction back into the adversary some time within the current century. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

I'd say continually chasing them the length of Kansas earns the series the title. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

waffen-79
09-29-2006, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
So your admitting an extention by definition requires a change of direction back into the adversary some time within the current century. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

I'd say continually chasing them the length of Kansas earns the series the title. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

I still don't get it, so you guys are saying it's wrong to use the planes abilities to your advantage? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

Like I said it's like telling a Spitfire Pilot not to turn tight http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

stathem
09-29-2006, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by waffen-79:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
So your admitting an extention by definition requires a change of direction back into the adversary some time within the current century. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

I'd say continually chasing them the length of Kansas earns the series the title. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

I still don't get it, so you guys are saying it's wrong to use the planes abilities to your advantage? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

Like I said it's like telling a Spitfire Pilot not to turn tight http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

'Cos we never see anyone complaining about Spitfires turning all the time do we? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Xiolablu3
09-29-2006, 12:29 PM
Ask him for a dogfight between your Bf109 and him in a P-fifty-run, Waffen.

Then see who is the 'runner' http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

faustnik
09-29-2006, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:

An aircraft that has problems early on can gain a reputation that is hard to shake no matter how much it improves in later models.

Major P-38 improvements to rectify early problems:

- Increased power
- Improved intercoolers
- Dive brakes
- Power aelerons resulting in superior high speed roll.

The P-38L was a huge improvement over the P-38H models that first saw combat over Europe. I have no doubt that a P-38L, flown to its strengths, was competitive with any other prop fighter in its day.

BfHeFwMe
09-29-2006, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by waffen-79:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
So your admitting an extention by definition requires a change of direction back into the adversary some time within the current century. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

I'd say continually chasing them the length of Kansas earns the series the title. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

I still don't get it, so you guys are saying it's wrong to use the planes abilities to your advantage? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

Like I said it's like telling a Spitfire Pilot not to turn tight http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I'm saying it's warping the language to call a 'Run' an 'Extension' when you have no thoughts of ever re-engaging. For example, an 'extension' cord has the ability to move around obstructions and allows the user to position the power source freely. A circuit 'runs' from pole to pole, or through a wall from point A to B with no intent of flexability.

To put the shoe on the other foot, are you saying it's not right to run a run90 down and kill it? Is it to unsavory or unsportsman like? Not a valid or good tactic? It does get kind of boring after passing through the sixth grid, but to see those wobbly runners stir sticks as the last resort while sparks fly is priceless. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Von_Rat
09-29-2006, 05:23 PM
ok so call it the ability to disengauge from an unfavorable situation.

its still using the planes strengths. just like a spit turning is using its strength.

to put the shoe on the other foot, are you saying its not right that when a spit tries to pull his ufo moves right in front of my fws cannons, and i blow him into little spitty pieces. its unsavory or unsportsmanlike. not a valid or good tactic. it does kind of boring watching them flying like ufos, as a last resort as the sparks fly.

CUJO_1970
09-30-2006, 12:08 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Yet you provided NOTHING.

Speaks volumes IMHO.


Pipe down Sally,

P-38 myth (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=51ec971ba5b2c2e11ebf66b1ae223ce7&threadid=181800)

Proven to be a myth quite some time ago.

Lowell's group had transitioned to P-51(the P-38 had already been kicked out of the 8th AF) months before the D-9 was being flown in combat. Galland wasn't even in Berlin at the time of Lowell's "story". He was in Normandy.

As the link points out, Lowell is not a credible source. His "stories" have been proven time and again to be embellishments or downright wrong. As Kweassa asked:

"How did Lowell fight Galland who wasn't anywhere around the time and place described, who was supposedly in a fighter that wasn't even in service yet?"


The Lowell/Galland fight is pure myth.

Saavy?

OldMan____
09-30-2006, 05:21 AM
Funny how when I posted and reported that pitch exploit in tempest back at the very day whentempest was released, no one paid anny attention to it.

F6_Ace
09-30-2006, 10:06 AM
no one paid anny attention to it.

Including 1C, it would appear.

WWMaxGunz
09-30-2006, 10:58 AM
How fast will Tempest go full power and steady 80% rpms?

AKA_TAGERT
09-30-2006, 08:22 PM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
Pipe down Sally, Easy Nancy!


Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
Proven to be a myth quite some time ago.

Lowell's group had transitioned to P-51(the P-38 had already been kicked out of the 8th AF) months before the D-9 was being flown in combat. Galland wasn't even in Berlin at the time of Lowell's "story". He was in Normandy.
That is your proof? Some "guy" quoting some "person" on some online game forum? Oh Nancy, that might cut it for a squaw broke lad like yourself, but adults with a back bone require more. Don't understand? Ok, allow me to learn yah, let's take a look at your so called "proof"


Kweassa @ Aces High Forum refers to this as the famous objection to Lowell's claims:
I've previously looked at John Lowell's claims in detail, so excuse me for posting on this subject at length. I don't trust Lowell as a source because a very large percentage of his claims that can be checked turn out to be either factual mistakes or embellishments. He's also recounting the events for a book published in 1991 - close to 50 years after the fact. Memory at that distance can be hazy.

Who ever this "person" is he clearly has a chip on his shoulder for Lowell from the get go. Note how this "person" starts off pointing out that Lowells recounts are 50 years after the fact and that memory can fade and in the next breath this "person" lambasts Lowell for having a few "mistake" or what appear to be "embellishments" in his recounts as if they were on purpose and not due to the simple fact that Lowell was recounting this some 50 years later.

This "person" can not have his cake and eat it too. Note this "person" asks us to discount what Lowell said based on Lowell being an old confused man telling a story from 50 years ago, when this "person" can not pick apart what Lowell said and in the next breath ask us to discount what Lowell said based on Lowell being as sharp as a whip and therefore he must be lying about a story from 50 years ago, because Lowell said "X" instead of "V" when referring to a Spitfire.

Last but not least, you can see that this person has it out for Lowell in that this "person" tries to discredit Lowell further by implying he is only doing it for the money by pointing out that Lowell is recounting these events for a book that is being published. As if that has never been done before and makes someone an instant liar! Not to mention, it is not Lowells book and he probably didn't make a dime off of it. But that is how these types of "persons" work, they try to toss out all kinds of sound bytes to discredit someone. On one had they would want you to belive Lowell lied to make himself look better, or Lowell lied to make money, or Lowell can not be trusted because he is an old man telling a story from 50 years ago, and in the next breath say Lowell can not be trusted because he said "X" instead of "V" with regards to a Spitfire.


Kweassa @ Aces High Forum refers to this as the famous objection to Lowell's claims:
Lowell also claims that Galland, when asked if he shot down any P-38s, told him that he had shot down eight. Once again, this can be checked, and once again, it proves false - Galland had no P-38s among his 104 kills.
Note how easy it is to do the sound byte thing to discredit someone here. Lowell ask Galland how many 38s he shot down, not how many he got credit for shooting down. Two very different things! We know that many pilots in WWIII got kills that they never got credit for! Don't buy it Luftie? Ok, than explain this one away for me. If Galland said..


LEADPIG @ Aces High Forum:
Some interesting pilot accounts i found from various books that surviving WW2 aces have written about their accounts with the P-38 during the war.

Also a interesting one by Adolf Galland:

'P-38s were not difficult to handle in combat. Many, many P-38 pilots are angry with me about this statement, but it's true.'

Adolf Galland

Yet Galland never shot a 38 down.. then how would Galland know a 38s were not difficult to handle in combat?


Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
As the link points out, Lowell is not a credible source. His "stories" have been proven time and again to be embellishments or downright wrong. As Kweassa asked:

"How did Lowell fight Galland who wasn't anywhere around the time and place described, who was supposedly in a fighter that wasn't even in service yet?"
All in all I can totally understand how an old man talking about something that happened 50+ years ago may get a few things wrong. He may remember "X" instead of "V" or remember them being long nosed instead of short. Those kind of things can be fuzzy a few weeks later let alone 50 years latter. But CUJO is asking us to belive that Lowell's story about talking to Galland at a reunion after the war where half way though the story Galland said "you son of a beaych, you all most killed me that day" was some kind of dream on Lowells part? Please! A few mistakes 50 years later about the color of the eggs you had that morning does not account for a meeting with Galland.

Nice try though! Big gold stars for effort!


Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
The Lowell/Galland fight is pure myth.
If it is, your so called proof does not prove it.


Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
Saavy?
OH I SAVVY! Your so called proof guy is a biased expert at bending the words and applying the sound bytes.. he even admits it himself when he said the following


Kweassa @ Aces High Forum refers to this as the famous objection to Lowell's claims:
I very rarely interject myself into my posts. But here, I feel I have to. I've worked professionally as a writer, editor, research assistant, and proofreader for over 25 years. It's what I do. You learn to get a feel for the validity of a story, just as a truck driver would learn the feel of his truck. Lowell's stories have caused the red flags to come out on more occasions than anything I've read in years.
He feels the need.. Ill bet he does, most biased smacktards with an axe to gride do! I will give him credit though, he is good! He knows how to say it and when to say it to try and make someone look bad. If you only read what he had to say once quick, you might fall for what he is selling. But if you read it twice, you too will pick up on his bias towards Lowell. The fact is, the only way his story works if your willing to allow him to have have his cake and eat it too!

CUJO_1970
09-30-2006, 10:59 PM
Truth hurts doesn't it? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Lowell's story about him fighting Galland is pure fantasy.

But it's one of the P-38 fanboi's most enduring legends, it doesn't suprise me to see it die such a slow, agonizing death.

But by all means, suck on all the alternate/revisionist history you want to as long as it helps you to feel better http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

AKA_TAGERT
09-30-2006, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
Truth hurts doesn't it? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Aparently.. for you Nancy


Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
Lowell's story about him fighting Galland is pure fantasy.
Again, if it is, nothing you have provided thus far proves it one way or another


Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
But it's one of the P-38 fanboi's most enduring legends, it doesn't suprise me to see it die such a slow, agonizing death. I dont know what is funnier.. mynameisroland trying to explain it away by calling Galland a nutless yes man cowtowing up to a US pilot after the war.. Or you and yours trying to explain it away by calling Lowell a confused old man one second and than calling him a sharp as a whip liar the next.


Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
But by all means, suck on all the alternate/revisionist history you want to as long as it helps you to feel better http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
If belving that helps you get to sleep at night Nancy, by all means do! Just know that linking to a "guy" quoting another un-named "guy" on a flight sim game forum is not considered proof by most people.. cept maybe some biased Lufties that want to belive.

SAVVY Squaw Broke?

Kernow
10-01-2006, 05:13 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
How fast will Tempest go full power and steady 80% rpms?
I tested the Tempest a while ago and got 612 kph TAS at sea-level, QMB, Crimea, 100% fuel. That was a little faster than I could get in the D-9(45), 598 kph. When IL-2C came out for the latest version I saw things were just the other way around with the Dora being slightly faster.

Just done a quick check of the Tempest under the same conditions, and with WEP, 110% throttle I got up to 596 kph at 80% rpm - with no sign of any o/heat, incidentally - and at 100% rpm I accelerated until I reached a steady 607 kph - and soon got an o/heat.

It seems like steady state mid-value doesn't give the same benefit as the 'geek-manoeuvre.' The game engine wasn't really designed for this sort of engine management and has had to be tweaked over the patches to behave in a reasonably realistic manner. It still isn't perfect and I guess we're stuck with this exploit.

I guess it's good that 80% is slower than 100%, as that's how it should be. Otherwise they'd have just made faster fighters by putting smaller, less powerful engines in them http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

BTW, didn't test the geek-manoeuvre to see what it gives, I'll believe you all when you say 40 kph; I just can't see the point in practicing this sort of $***. Oh guys, do us a favour http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif and don't pretend this is some sort of 'deliberate' inclusion of an 11 lb Tempest; it's a c*ck-up. Unavoidable perhaps, but still a c*ck-up. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Siwarrior
10-01-2006, 05:25 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Pinker15:
As in subject. Everything is showed in track. Enjoy. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

QUOTE]


Stole me tempest skin ..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

WWMaxGunz
10-01-2006, 07:28 AM
Originally posted by Kernow:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
How fast will Tempest go full power and steady 80% rpms?
I tested the Tempest a while ago and got 612 kph TAS at sea-level, QMB, Crimea, 100% fuel. That was a little faster than I could get in the D-9(45), 598 kph. When IL-2C came out for the latest version I saw things were just the other way around with the Dora being slightly faster. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And I guess 100% pitch as in prop rpms.


Just done a quick check of the Tempest under the same conditions, and with WEP, 110% throttle I got up to 596 kph at 80% rpm - with no sign of any o/heat, incidentally - and at 100% rpm I accelerated until I reached a steady 607 kph - and soon got an o/heat.

Any piston engine, more rpms runs hotter. That's cause the gas-air charge is burning more
times a second than at less rpms. It's like ducks in the air, how they fly in a V and you
see one side is longer than the other? That's cause it's got more ducks in it.

RPM's are only good if you have excess power beyond them and drag at whatever speed you're
going. Looks like at 110% power that 100% rpms levels out at 607kph while 80% rpms levels
out at 596kph, only 11kph less. But you didn't try anything in between. Well, it overheated. Yet before that you hit 612kph fine. Well those speeds are close.

Your next line is just right though.


It seems like steady state mid-value doesn't give the same benefit as the 'geek-manoeuvre.' The game engine wasn't really designed for this sort of engine management and has had to be tweaked over the patches to behave in a reasonably realistic manner. It still isn't perfect and I guess we're stuck with this exploit.

Looks that way. Maybe there will be a kind of fix. In reality it took time for the prop
speed to change, longer than tapping 2 keys or jerking a slider (yeah, I hadta say that.)
like no tomorrow. It depends more on how the system was designed to work than anything.
It's another delay-function like flaps and trim. That stuff eats into framerates.


I guess it's good that 80% is slower than 100%, as that's how it should be. Otherwise they'd have just made faster fighters by putting smaller, less powerful engines in them http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

RPM's cost power just to maintain and then the power you have left goes for thrust.
Of course you want more powerful engines. Just a shame gas turbines weren't perfected.
Tempest does have a powerful engine and this one is less boosted.


BTW, didn't test the geek-manoeuvre to see what it gives, I'll believe you all when you say 40 kph; I just can't see the point in practicing this sort of $***. Oh guys, do us a favour http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif and don't pretend this is some sort of 'deliberate' inclusion of an 11 lb Tempest; it's a c*ck-up. Unavoidable perhaps, but still a c*ck-up. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Exploits played online reduce the public server action to ... unreal freaking squared.
Then we have a Dark Ages again. That's why there's squads and private coops.
All we need is the tools to have proper games and we take care of who we play with.

CUJO_1970
10-01-2006, 08:10 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
I dont know what is funnier..


What's funnier is watching you live in denial, completely unable to address the gaping holes in the Lowell/Galland myth. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

AKA_TAGERT
10-01-2006, 08:18 AM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
What's funnier is watching you live in denial, completely unable to address the gaping holes in the Lowell/Galland myth. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif Disagree 100%!

It if far funnier to see two Lufties struggle to discredit Lowell's accounts.

Both taking two completly different approaches.

On one had we have you saying the story is false, and your proof is to post some linke to a guy quoating another guy on a game forum who nit picks the shade of blue in the sky that day.

On the other hand we have your squaw broke buddy saying the story is true, but, Galland was just telling Lowell what he wanted to hear because Galland was a nutless yes man.

Nice try ladies! Might work on the new guys.. but not me.

Also note the one thing that all the Lufties avoid.. In Joe Foss's book he aparently was there when Lowell was describing the event to Galland along with Gabreski and several others, who all heard Galland's responce. Yet that does not stop "them" from trying to imply that Lowell is a lair becuse Foss did not check every other source in his book. Just because the Lufties found one or two mistakes in Foss's book they want to toss out everything in the book.

Nice try Nancy, but no sale!

But I digress, note, as for the stroy itself, none of the Lufgies will go there.. By story I mean Galland's responce to Lowell's stroy that Gabreski and others overhead and saw Galland's responce, NO! The Lufties nit pick the stoy and avoid the big picture, typical. No, the Lufties would rather focus on the little errors in Lowell's memory 50 years later. As if nobody understood until now that old men will get some things wrong sometimes.

If you want me to buy into your story, prove to me that Galland, Gabreski, Lowell and others were not at the Gathering of Eagles. You wont, becasue in doing so you would show how weak your agrument is.. Your goal is not the truth, but to simply cast doubt on Lowels story by nit picking Lowell's memory about the shade of green on the wing of the Fw190 that day.

CUJO_1970
10-01-2006, 08:38 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Disagree 100%!




Of course you disagree, it's all you can do since you are not man enough to admit the Lowell story is a myth.

And you are completely incapable of dealing with the facts that _prove_ the Lowell story is a myth. You don't contribute anything at all to support Lowell - because you can't.

Nobody is claiming that Galland wasn't at the event and met Lowell in person - that is not the issue here is it?

But the conclusion the Lowell in a P-38 ever fought Galland in a FW190D-9 based on this conversation has already been thoroughly debunked.

It lives on as revisionist history because of people like you.

AKA_TAGERT
10-01-2006, 08:46 AM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
Of course you disagree,
So, you really think what I say is funnier than watching two Lufties take oposite aproaches to try and discredit Lowell's story? Where one admits the story is true and the other says the story is false. You dont find that funnier?


Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
it's all you can do since you are not man enough to admit the Lowell story is a myth. LOL! I also note that you and yours have yet to address that several people overheard the story by Lowell to Galland. Wont go there will you! Why? Beter to split hairs about how deep the hole was right? Lowell said 500ft but it was only about 490ft so Lowell was a liar right? That stuff might work in the squaw broke debate class you took in 5th grade, but not here in the adult real world.


Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
And you are completely incapable of dealing with the facts that _prove_ the Lowell story is a myth. You don't contribute anything at all to support Lowell - because you can't. Is this the part where you post your proof that consists of a guy quoting another un-named guy from some game forum?


Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
Nobody is claiming that Galland wasn't at the event and met Lowell in person - that is not the issue here is it?
It is part of it, a very big part. I am glad to hear that at least you admit they were there.


Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
But the conclusion the Lowell in a P-38 ever fought Galland in a FW190D-9 based on this conversation has already been thoroughly debunked.

It lives on as revisionist history because of people like you. Nice try Nancy.. but the only revisionist history going on here is by you. Perfect example is your weak arse quote above.. Note your little sound byte revisionst history attempt to discret Lowell. Lowell never said Fw190D-9, nor did he ever say Fw190D! All Lowell did say, 50 years later, is that they were jumped by long nose 190s. Now you can nit pick how long is long till the cows come home, but in doing so you would show how weak your argument is trying to beat up on an old man for getting how long the nose was that day. Better to just try and discredit Lowell by pumping out all that revisionst history over and over by trying to imply that Lowell said Fw190D-9, in the hopes that it might win over some people to your side by casting doubt. Again, nice try Nancy! But I think you forget who you are dealing with here! I am very use to you and yours tatics!

Xiolablu3
10-01-2006, 08:55 AM
Just a quick point here, not all Gallands victorys are listed in his claims.

He had to fly 'undercover' a lot of the time becasue he was officially supposed to be somewhere else.

AKA_TAGERT
10-01-2006, 08:56 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Just a quick point here, not all Gallands victorys are listed in his claims.

He had to fly 'undercover' a lot of the time becasue he was officially supposed to be somewhere else. Good point!

CUJO_1970
10-01-2006, 08:59 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
LOL! I also note that you and yours have yet to address that several people overheard the story by Lowell to Galland. Wont go there will you!


Already addressed it, pay attention Sally. Nobody said Galland and Lowell never met.

You just want to make a straw-man argument focusing on the converstaion itself because you are thoroughly incapable of proving the real issue here: Lowell in a P-38 never fought Galland in a D-9.

Since it's way off topic for this thread I may start a new one dealing with this issue.

CUJO_1970
10-01-2006, 09:06 AM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Just a quick point here, not all Gallands victorys are listed in his claims.

He had to fly 'undercover' a lot of the time becasue he was officially supposed to be somewhere else.


Correct, Galland shot down several allied aircraft when he was supposed to be grounded - he was after all the Fighter General.

But Lowell's group had already switched to the P-51 Mustang(P-38 had been kicked out of the 8th AF alredy) by the time the D-9 entered service.

And Galland was in Normandy and not even in Berlin when Lowell claims the fight took place.

etc etc

It's facts like that that people like Tagert run away from. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

AKA_TAGERT
10-01-2006, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
Already addressed it, pay attention Sally. Nobody said Galland and Lowell never met.
Nope, but nice try sound byte betty! The issue I alluded to was not if they met, but the issue about what Galland said that was over heard by several people. Spin that one!


Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
You just want to make a straw-man argument focusing on the converstaion itself because you are thoroughly incapable of proving the real issue here: Lowell in a P-38 never fought Galland in a D-9.
Stuck gold there! What's the mater CUJO.. dont like it when someone proves that your the only revisionest in the room?


Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
Since it's way off topic for this thread I may start a new one dealing with this issue.
Yes, that would help your cause! In that maybe no one will notice that your squaw broke buddy a few pages back admited the story was true, but Galland was just telling Lowell what he wanted to hear.. and that you are at odds with your squaw broke buddy in that your saying the story if false.. If you and yours are going to try and spin it.. you really should all take a moment and get on the same sheet of music! With that said, it would be best that you do that then start a new thread!

AKA_TAGERT
10-01-2006, 09:11 AM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Just a quick point here, not all Gallands victorys are listed in his claims.

He had to fly 'undercover' a lot of the time becasue he was officially supposed to be somewhere else.


Correct, Galland shot down several allied aircraft when he was supposed to be grounded - he was after all the Fighter General.

But Lowell's group had already switched to the P-51 Mustang(P-38 had been kicked out of the 8th AF alredy) by the time the D-9 entered service.

And Galland was in Normandy and not even in Berlin when Lowell claims the fight took place.

etc etc

It's facts like that that people like Tagert run away from. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>So what part of Lowell never saying Fw190D-9 did you not understand and that the only one here saying Lowell said Fw190D-9 here is you. Nice try Nancy! As for Galland not being there, I guess you didnt read what Xiolablu3 said? ie


Xiolablu3:
Just a quick point here, not all Gallands victorys are listed in his claims.

He had to fly 'undercover' a lot of the time becasue he was officially supposed to be somewhere else.
SAVVY SALLY?

Brain32
10-01-2006, 09:31 AM
http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/964/damm9iivw3.gif (http://imageshack.us)

ICDP
10-01-2006, 09:47 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Just a quick point here, not all Gallands victorys are listed in his claims.

He had to fly 'undercover' a lot of the time becasue he was officially supposed to be somewhere else.


Correct, Galland shot down several allied aircraft when he was supposed to be grounded - he was after all the Fighter General.

But Lowell's group had already switched to the P-51 Mustang(P-38 had been kicked out of the 8th AF alredy) by the time the D-9 entered service.

And Galland was in Normandy and not even in Berlin when Lowell claims the fight took place.

etc etc

It's facts like that that people like Tagert run away from. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>So what part of Lowell never saying Fw190D-9 did you not understand and that the only one here saying Lowell said Fw190D-9 here is you. Nice try Nancy! As for Galland not being there, I guess you didnt read what Xiolablu3 said? ie


Xiolablu3:
Just a quick point here, not all Gallands victorys are listed in his claims.

He had to fly 'undercover' a lot of the time becasue he was officially supposed to be somewhere else.
SAVVY SALLY? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lowell specifically used the term "sixteen long nosed FW-190s" in is recount of this story. It is not Cujo saying they were Dora's, it was Lowell himself. I am not disputing the truth or otherwise of the fight between Lowell and Galland, the truth is I could care less. All I am doing is pointing out that Lowell himself said they were long nosed 190's. Which (if Lowell 's statement was to be taken as correct) would place the timeframe as autumn 1944 at the very earliest.

AKA_TAGERT
10-01-2006, 10:06 AM
Originally posted by ICDP:
Lowell specifically used the term "sixteen long nosed FW-190s" in is recount of this story.
I dont have Foss's book. But I am told he said 16 long nosed 190s.. Not and never disputing that. My point was to show how CUJO is the revisionest here.. in that CUJO is taking it a step further to try and discredit Lowell by trying to say that Lowell said Fw190D-9. It is a game those types play to try and make it look like something more specific was said, so they can make it look like a bigger mistake that what it was. Basically, I can see where the length of the nose might get fuzzy 50 years later.. and all Lowell said was "long nose 190s". But the hair spliting Lufties will focus on that to try and discredit the whole story.. while avoiding the fact that several others where there and heard what was said and saw Galland's responce to it. They wont go there.


Originally posted by ICDP:
It is not Cujo saying they were Dora's, it was Lowell himself.
Not true! Lowell never said DORA, never said Fw190D, never said Fw190D-9, all he did say is "long nose 190". I can understand how in the heat of battle one might not have the time to step out and measure the length of the nose on the enemy plane, let alone remember said lenght 50 years later, that is to say I can see how the specific details might get fuzzy after 50 years, but not the basic story and end result. Sure, some things might not be crystal clear and some of the details forgoten. For example maybe the hole was not 500ft deep, maybe only 400ft or 600ft, and maybe the sky was not clear, might have been a few clouds over his shoulder that he didnt notice. But the basic story of following a 190 down to the deck and mixing it up with him in a deep canyon like hole.. That big picture of the event I would not understand being forgoten.


Originally posted by ICDP:
I am not disputing the truth or otherwise of the fight between Lowell and Galland, the truth is I could care less.
Can not be true.. in that you cared enough to chim in on the topic. Had you cared less you woundnt have replied at all.


Originally posted by ICDP:
All I am doing is pointing out that Lowell himself said they were long nosed 190's.
Which is different than what you said above and is now in-line with what I am sayin he said.


Originally posted by ICDP:
Which (if Lowell 's statement was to be taken as correct) would place the timeframe as autumn 1944 at the very earliest.
If we are to assume that Lowell's memory of the nose lenght was not in error. I for one would not be willing to toss out the whole story based on one suttle difference 50 years after the fact.. but I can understand why the Lufies are more than happy to ignor the whole story based on that and never touching what Galland had to say with a ten foot pole.

Mr_CobraStyle
10-01-2006, 10:08 AM
Interesting discussion, one participant bangs the other for using "stuff that was posted by some person in a gaming forum" and a couple of posts later the same participant uses some other stuff posted by another person in this forum (wich by the way also is a gaming forum) to back his own story up...

AKA_TAGERT
10-01-2006, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by Mr_CobraStyle:
Interesting discussion, one participant bangs the other for using "stuff that was posted by some person in a gaming forum" and a couple of posts later the same participant uses some other stuff posted by another person in this forum (wich by the way also is a gaming forum) to back his own story up... Difference being I never said it was PROVEN to be false. As if there was some creditable source to be had. To say there is proof, and than link to someone who is clearly biased is not what I would call proof! It is interesting, it is input, but it is far from proof.
SAVVY SALLY?

CUJO_1970
10-01-2006, 10:24 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Not true! Lowell never said DORA, never said Fw190D, never said Fw190D-9, all he did say is "long nose 190".


LOL! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Here, take another shovel and dig yourself deeper into the "stupid-hole".

And never mind that Galland wasn't even in Berlin at the time Lowell says the fight took place http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

But old myths like this usually die slow, agonizing deaths - some people just don't want to let it go http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif - especially when it is one of their most beloved "stories".

F6_Ace
10-01-2006, 10:29 AM
So Tagert's entire argument is actually that Lowell didn't say that it was a Dora or a 190D or a D9?

Oh, and there was I thinking that this debate was something of importance.

What other types of long nosed 190s were there?

Ugly_Kid
10-01-2006, 11:18 AM
He also said he never read the book but alas even if you did and dare take the story with grain of salt, bashful "Luftie" you are http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The story is, however, coming from Lowell himself and I don't remember anyone else recounting it, the least Galland himself. It has quite a "I met Hartmann" sound to it - entertaining story though. I am terribly sorry but I remain sceptic.

ICDP
10-01-2006, 11:37 AM
Tagart please don't assume to know what I do or do not care about. If you read my post I was stating that I could care less if Lowell's acocunt was true or not.

The sole reason for my post was to point out to you that you were mistakingly (or deliberately!) claiming that Cujo was misquoting Lowell. Cujo has merely taken Lowell's statement to be a referrence to the Fw190D. Given that the Fw190D9 was frequently called "long nosed 190" it is not an incorrect assumption to make.

You can try to split hairs all you want, there was no other plane in WWII called a "long nosed 190" other than the Fw190D.

F6_Ace
10-01-2006, 11:54 AM
In actual fact, the 190A9 had a nose that was 1.3mm longer than that of the 190A8 so maybe it's this what was being referred to?

(And yes, I did just make that up)

AKA_TAGERT
10-01-2006, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
LOL! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Here, take another shovel and dig yourself deeper into the "stupid-hole". Poor Nancy.. but maybe I am being too hard on this squaw broke young lad? Maybe you have to actually have made it past puberty to realize that memories fade with time? Maybe I can understand how easy it is to forget the minor details in that at 45 I don't remember all the finer details in my life. But like Lowell, I do remember the basic story. For example.. back in the early 90s I went down to FL to visit a buddy of mine. He was in SF and working at the SF dive school in the Florida Keys. Well every so often the SF guys have to jump from an airplane to keep getting jump pay. I just so happened that I was there the week they were going to make the jump. They called it a real Hollywood type of jump in that they didn't have the typical assortment of gear that they would have up at fort brag. Here just shorts and fins in that they were going to land in the water. At the time I was in the reserves and my buddy asked his 1st Sgt if it would be ok if I went along for the ride to take pictures.. Note jump mind you, just take pictures of the guys as they jumped out of the back of the C130. Well they put me right at the back of the plane on opposite side that all the SF guys were sitting. My right foot was basically at the point where the rear door hinged open, and when it did.. I could feel a slight vacume effect pulling on me. But I was strapped in tight and not going anywhere. Well once we got over the water the first batch of guys stood up and connected their rip cords to the cable that ran from the front of the plane to the rear. They exited the plane without incident. Now before the next batch of guys stood up to hook up the plane was getting near the edge of the drop zone and had to turn around. About this same time the flight crew was trying to retrive the rip cords from the 1st batch that went out. Problem was as the C130 was banking to the right the rip cords were whipping around up near the top RHS of the door and when the flight crew pulled on them they got snagged. Typical the flight crew would manually pull them in with this reterval cord. Basically this cord was another cord that ran the full length of the cord that all the guys hooked up to, expect it was used to retrive the rip cords hanging out the back. This cord was connected to a ring, this ring was around the cord that everyone hooked up to. The other end of this cord was connected to an electric motor connected to the bulk head of the plane at the front of the plane. Well, after the flight crew noticed they were snagged and he could not manually pull on the reterval cord he decided to turn on the electric motor to try and pull them in. Well the whole time I'm sitting there watching this thinking to myself that aint going to work, it is just going to wedge them in tighter. Well about as soon as I thought that I heard a loud crash.. To be honest I must have blinked because before the crash I could see my buddy and the other SF guys sitting across from me doing a final check on their gear, when I opened up my eyes I saw all of them laying on the floor and blood everywhere and that electric motor that use to be mounted on the bulk head in the front of the plane now sitting on the floor rolling around with all the SF guys who were bleeding from all kinds of places. Also a pretty good size hole in the side of the plane where the motor hit. Well, about that time the fight crew started freaking out and one of them ran to the front of he plane. I was sitting there pretty much helpless and didn't want to move because I could feel the air pulling on me and I didn't have a chute. Well the plane was in a shallow climb.. and the SF guys were kind of rolling near the open door, so I disconnected and held onto the seat and grabbed that guy before he rolled out. At that time a few of the guys were starting to come out of it and were looking around in a daze. The worst part was my buddy was the SF medic and he was still out with a lot of blood on his face. Well about this time the C130 went into a steep dive, now all the bodys started rolling towards the front of the plane. Me along with them kind of like a big slide! Well I found out later, once we were on the ground, that the flight crew guy who ran to the front of the plane told the pilots that "WE LOST AN ENGINE". The flight crew guy was excited and was talking about the electric motor, and the pilot was sure they didn't loose one of the engines on the wing in that all the gages were good but he declared and emergency and headed for home ASAP. Once on the ground, all the guys were rushed to the hospital, they all recovered well enough to rejoin the unit except for one. One of the guys, not my buddy, got hit in the head pretty hard and had "issues" that basically put him out of the service. Long story short, I can remember a lot about that day, the chane of events that lead up to it, it, and the aftermath. Like how cool it look when those fist group of guys jumped out, all the blood on the floor, the guys face I saved holding onto him before he fell out the back of the plane.. but I for the life of me can not remember if it was a long body version of the C130 or the short version of the C130. SAVVY?


Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
And never mind that Galland wasn't even in Berlin at the time Lowell says the fight took place http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif
I see you still have not read Xiolablu3 post? Allow me


Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Just a quick point here, not all Gallands victorys are listed in his claims.

He had to fly 'undercover' a lot of the time because he was officially supposed to be somewhere else.
SAVVY SALLY?


Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
But old myths like this usually die slow, agonizing deaths - some people just don't want to let it go http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif - especially when it is one of their most beloved "stories".
At least we don't have to resort to revisionist history to try and discredit someone to make our stories hold, all of the errors in Lowell's story can be explained away by a simple fuzzy memory, where as to buy into your story we would have to belive that Lowell was lying on purpose. Again, nice try Nancy but still no sale! Maybe someday when your sac dropps you will understand just how wrong you are today! And that goes for you other squaw broke ladds that recently chimmed in!

AKA_TAGERT
10-01-2006, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by ICDP:
Tagart please don't assume to know what I do or do not care about. If you read my post I was stating that I could care less if Lowell's account was true or not. I don't have to assume in that all I was doing is showing that you cared enough to reply. SAVVY?


Originally posted by ICDP:
The sole reason for my post was to point out to you that you were mistakingly (or deliberately!) claiming that Cujo was misquoting Lowell.
By the way, you were wrong about that too! CUJO was misquoting Lowell in that Lowell never said Fw190D-9


Originally posted by ICDP:
Cujo has merely taken Lowell's statement to be a reference to the Fw190D. Given that the Fw190D9 was frequently called "long nosed 190" it is not an incorrect assumption to make.

You can try to split hairs all you want, there was no other plane in WWII called a "long nosed 190" other than the Fw190D.
So, let me see if I understand what you guys are trying to sell here. Your saying that Lowell was sharp as a whip and that there was no chance that he remembered the length of the nose incorrectly and was purposely lied about it? Sorry, that is hard to belive. What is easier to belive is that Lowell simply recalled the length of the nose wrong after the war, much like I can not remember if that C130 was a short or long version.

WOLFMondo
10-01-2006, 12:42 PM
Every reference to a long nose FW190 I've ever read or heard, refers to the Dora. Some even refer to it as the long nose 190, rather than calling it a Dora.

ICDP
10-01-2006, 01:00 PM
So Lowell was sharp enough to tell that there were exactly sixteen of them but he is stupid enough to get his 190's mixed up?

Unless you have serious comprehension difficulties you will see that what I could care less about is the validity of the story. The story is NOT the reason for my post. The SOLE UNIQUE reason for my post was to show you that YOU were attributing a statement to Cujo that he DID NOT make.

Now you could split hairs all you want about what Lowell actually said. There is not a single person other than you who is arguing that the term "Long nosed Fw-190s" does not refer to the 190D9. He specifically used the term "Long nosed Fw-190s", now you are entertaining the idea that Lowell maybe made a mistake. That in my experience is called ignoring the facts to suit your own agenda.

Let me emphasise one again that I do not care about the validity of the story. What I do care about is YOU attributing quotes to other people to suit your own BIASED agenda.

AKA_TAGERT
10-01-2006, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by ICDP:
So Lowell was sharp enough to tell that there were exactly sixteen of them but he is stupid enough to get his 190's mixed up?
Your kidding right? You can not see the difference between seeing 16 planes vs. checking the length of each 16 planes that passed by? Seriously? Please tell me your kidding! In that if you can not see the difference between the two than there is no reason to discuss this with you any further.


Originally posted by ICDP:
Unless you have serious comprehension difficulties you will see that what I could care less about is the validity of the story. The story is NOT the reason for my post. Sorry, no sale.


Originally posted by ICDP:
The SOLE UNIQUE reason for my post was to show you that YOU were attributing a statement to Cujo that he DID NOT make.
Still not true, say it ten more times and it still wont be true.


Originally posted by ICDP:
Now you could split hairs all you want about what Lowell actually said.
Im splitting hairs? PLEASE! The only thing I am saying is it is easy for an adult male to understand how a guy could get the lenght of the nose wrong 50 years later but get the count right. As in my story about the C130 shows I remember the events, the sequence of events, some of the specifics, but not all. In that I can not remember if the C130 was a short or streached model.


Originally posted by ICDP:
There is not a single person other than you who is arguing that the term "Long nosed Fw-190s" does not refer to the 190D9.
Nice try Sally, but wrong again! I am not saying that "long nose" does not equate to Fw190D! Never have! But your biased Luftie squaw broke point of view is not allowing you to see that simple FACT! All I did was point out that CUJO was revising history by misquoting Lowell by saying Lowell said (as in quote) Fw190D-9. Again, if you can not understand the difference between casually saying "long nose" and calling out a specific model than I feel sorry for you. As I pointed out, people trying to discredit someone will do such things.. ie miss-quote them and take things out of context to try and spin it in thier direction. In that the whole premise here is the Lufties are thing to paint Lowell as some kind of liar, instead of an old man that miss-spoke about one aspect of a much larger story. They like to hang the story up at the beggining so they dont have to address the end of the story where Galland acknolages the fight and that it was over heard by others standing around Galland and Lowell.


Originally posted by ICDP:
He specifically used the term "Long nosed Fw-190s", now you are entertaining the idea that Lowell maybe made a mistake.
Makes more sense than he was laying about it, in that Galland acknolaged it.


Originally posted by ICDP:
That in my experience is called ignoring the facts to suit your own agenda.
Since when does 5th grade finger painting count as experience?


Originally posted by ICDP:
Let me emphasise one again that I do not care about the validity of the story.
For a guy who does not care about the story you sure have alot to say about it!


Originally posted by ICDP:
What I do care about is YOU attributing quotes to other people to suit your own BIASED agenda.
Than get on you buddies arse for miss-quoting Lowell, in that I have yet to miss-quote anyone here Nancy

ICDP
10-01-2006, 01:26 PM
Blah blah blah, the usual AKA BS.

You have got to be one of the most laughable and moronic characters I have ever had the misfortune to have to interact with.

You repeatedly lie and cherry pick information to suit your own agenda. You think nothing of telling outright lies to prove someone wrong even though all can see though your BS.

You're not worth the effort since you obvioulsy have very limited reading comprehension. Reading your biased opinions and outright lies and cherry picking posts is becoming tiresome. It is also laughable that you childishly call me a Luftie because I have the audacity to challenge your lies. The typical defence of the biased moron is to label the other guy biased ROFL http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

AKA_TAGERT
10-01-2006, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by ICDP:
Blah blah blah, the usual AKA BS. Nope, sory sally.. but your wrong again. Not a member of the AKA


Originally posted by ICDP:
You have got to be one of the most laughable and moronic characters I have ever had the misfortune to have to interact with. Funny, that is 180 out of what your mom said


Originally posted by ICDP:
You repeatedly lie and cherry pick information to suit your own agenda.
Pfffffffffffft! Classic! This Sally thinks it is easier to belive that Lowell, Galland, and everyone else standing around was lying about the whole story instead of Lowell simply getting the lenght of the nose wrong 50 years later! And I am the cherry picker! LOL!


Originally posted by ICDP:
You think nothing of telling outright lies to prove someone wrong even though all can see though your BS. Sorry sally! Nice Luftie try though! Accuse someone of lying without actully quoting the lie. I only set the record straight, CUJO missquoted Lowell. If that gets your panties in a wad, too bad for you!


Originally posted by ICDP:
You're not worth the effort since you obvioulsy have very limited reading comprehension.
Again, 180 out of what your mom had to say


Originally posted by ICDP:
Reading your biased opinions and outright lies and cherry picking posts is becoming tiresome. It is also laughable that you childishly call me a Luftie because I have the audacity to challenge your lies. The typical defence of the biased moron is to label the other guy biased ROFL http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif WOW! Easy Nancy.. your starting to repeat yourself! You better sit back down before you blow a gasket!

KG66_Gog
10-02-2006, 02:46 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
The 109's worked because it went from auto to manual and back again. The Tempest is different because it doesn't have an automatic PP in this sim.

hehe...he said automatic PP! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

waffen-79
10-02-2006, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by KG66_Gog:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
The 109's worked because it went from auto to manual and back again. The Tempest is different because it doesn't have an automatic PP in this sim.

hehe...he said automatic PP! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LMAO http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

IIJG69_Kartofe
10-02-2006, 06:22 PM
Ok ...


So again !

Tempest exploit.... Becomes : Lowels said that... No he seeems to said that but probably would mean something else because his memory is deficient.

Yep...

I think everybody agree:

http://www.derui.easynet.be/santa/thread_direction.gif

And of course!

http://www.derui.easynet.be/santa/derailed1.jpg

TX-Gunslinger
10-02-2006, 07:39 PM
Summary of Luftwaffe Opinions of Allied Aircraft:

https://webspace.utexas.edu/joem/FW190%20historical%20Tech/503_1150648529_gafopinions.jpg

F6_Ace
10-03-2006, 06:17 AM
Damn, you beat me to it. The last line of the P38 paragraph says it all for me.