PDA

View Full Version : Corsair top speeds ?



jayhall0315
03-16-2009, 05:46 PM
In game I often fly the Corsair F4U-D and in level flight at sea level with radiator closed or '2', and engine at max WEP, I get about ~ 540 to 550 kph max (about 338 mph). Isnt this about 10-15 mph slower than what the actual real-life F4U-D could do under these circumstances ?

The more and more I read about real world Corsairs, the more it seems like their performance in IL2 1946 4.08m or 4.09b has been hamstrung by about 3 to 7%.

Is this really true or am I just mis-informed ?

Also, why was the F4U-4 not included in game ? From all accounts on both paper stats and from real life flying, the F4U-4 was a monster. Equal in many aspects to the La7, the best FW 190s and the best spits.

Jay

VW-IceFire
03-16-2009, 07:27 PM
Which map did you test on? The Crimea map is the best one to test on apparently as the pressure/temperature settings on this map are similar to whats used in standardized testing.

Make sure that you're absolutely flat out with no slip on the ball and with radiators closed. IL-2 Compare says you should be able to do 565kph at 0 meters. If you have any height whatsoever then you do have do factor in the differences between indicated and true airspeed although it shouldn't make a huge difference here.

Make sure you're also using the the virtual cockpit as that will give you a more precise readout.

The reason why we don't have the F4U-4 and a number of other types is a little complicated but it stems from two main factors:

1) Pacific Fighters was largely organized by a group working in relation to Oleg's Maddox Games team but much of the content was submitted by community members who were paid for their contributions. A F4U-4 model was never finished in time for release. Similarly when the original IL-2 came out the latest model of La-5 was the La-5FN. The La-7 arrived in Forgotten Battles.

2) Rumors are not to be discussed here by request of the management.

There were several other types I was hoping to see:

- P-47N
- TBD Devastator
- SB2C Helldiver
- USS Enterprise/Hornet/Yorktown class of carrier

Not to mention a wire array of Japanese types that we're lacking like the Ki-44 and Ki-45. But thats a whole other story.

Moderator Edit in italics

Zeus-cat
03-16-2009, 09:01 PM
Another thing to consdier is that deployed aircraft, ships, and vehicles would never perform as well as factory specs. I'm not saying that the game designers intentionally downgraded performance, but what is reported as top speed in specs would rarely be achieved by anything in the field for any length of time.

Several years ago I attended a talk by a man who was left behind in the Phillipines by MacArthur. He was an aircraft mechanic and he said the Pacific climate took a tremendous toll on men and aircraft. He had one story where a pilot crashed a cargo plane on landing and tore up a wing. They went and got a wing off another crashed aircraft, but couldn't fit it. The two planes were the same model, but made by different companies. At the wing root the wing was a full two inches too long for the aircraft. He said this was not uncommon. He said they would bash aircraft together and the pilots had a heck of a job flying them. Rookie pilots learned quickly or got killed taking off or landing.

One of the most interseting aspects of his talk was that the Japanese soldiers were brutal to prisoners on the Bataan Death March, yet he bore them little ill will. But he could barely speak MacArthur or Secretary Stimson's name without spitting. Over 60 years later and he still hated those two.

R_Target
03-16-2009, 10:02 PM
Originally posted by jayhall0315:
Isnt this about 10-15 mph slower than what the actual real-life F4U-D could do under these circumstances ?

Yes.

X32Wright
03-17-2009, 01:03 AM
Has this something to do in being PWNed by Reisens (Rei Shiki Senotki)?

Romanator21
03-17-2009, 03:14 AM
Three words: trim trim trim. Trim your rudder, and keep the ball centered. Trim your elevator to have a bit of nose down. If you do it right, the plane will fly itself (straight and level) without any input from you. Also bear in mind, that 110% power and WEP is not always effective at lower altitudes. In the P-51 for instance, this will have absolutely no effect at low altitudes, except for cooking your brand new Merlin! I am not entirely sure about the Corsair's engine, however. Also, how heavy is your plane? Is it fully fueled and loaded? This can have a big effect on your acceleration.

Hookecho
03-17-2009, 10:21 AM
How many inches Hg were you pulling? What was the prop RPM? Fuel state? Ammo load?

For the -1, -1a, -1d with a R-2800-8 PW engine:

at S.L.

WEP: 2700 rpm, 57.5" Hg, 5 min duration
Mil Rated: 2700 rpm, 52.5" Hg, 5 min duration
Normal rated: 2550 rpm, 44" Hg, unlimited duration
Max Cruise: 2150 rpm, 34" Hg, 10000 ft min

Try those settings and tell me what you find? IIRC its pretty close.

jayhall0315
03-17-2009, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by X32Wright:
Has this something to do in being PWNed by Reisens (Rei Shiki Senotki)?

Nah...Even Saburo Sakai turns tail when he sees me coming in my all black beautiful F4U.

X32Wright
03-17-2009, 01:03 PM
DO you have an ntrk that shows that? LOL

you never sent the promised ntrks LOL

jayhall0315
03-17-2009, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by Romanator21:
Three words: trim trim trim. Trim your rudder, and keep the ball centered. Trim your elevator to have a bit of nose down. If you do it right, the plane will fly itself (straight and level) without any input from you. Also bear in mind, that 110% power and WEP is not always effective at lower altitudes. In the P-51 for instance, this will have absolutely no effect at low altitudes, except for cooking your brand new Merlin! I am not entirely sure about the Corsair's engine, however. Also, how heavy is your plane? Is it fully fueled and loaded? This can have a big effect on your acceleration.

Thanks Roman and Hookecho - Yes, I had her properly trimmed and with 25% fuel and set up 'tight'. Was just curious. Its always good to hear from the Dr Jekyll side of Delta Squadron, LOL !

Shame they did not include the F4U-4 with 590 kph sea-level speed, six 20mm guns, turn ratio slightly tighter than the F4U-D, nice open bubble canopy for easy killing and strong aluminum frame. Guess they did not want to have any plane that might be superior to that non-cheat cheat mod,.... the Spit 25lbs.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

Hehe -Jay

jayhall0315
03-17-2009, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by X32Wright:
DO you have an ntrk that shows that? LOL

you never sent the promised ntrks LOL

I sent you two Ntrks awhile back, one that detailed the phantom plane and the other showing my encounter and defeat of you know who in you know what squadron. Hehe

Check your emails and if you still dont find them, I will resend them when I get back to the USA next week.

Xiolablu3
03-17-2009, 01:49 PM
Look at the hassle the 25lbs Spit gets.....Can you guys imagine the whining if the Spit XIV was included in the game?

It must be a cheat or overmodelled, Its simply IMPOSSIBLE that the British could build one of the easiest to fly, and best performing prop planes of late WW2 aint it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

No whines when the Fw190 A4, 109F4 and 109G2 are owning everything in 1941/42 however, thats fine cos the Germans had the best planes at all times... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

PS - the Corsair is never going to be a great close-in dogfighter, just compare its size and weight to the Bf109, Spitfire, Zero or La7. What I hate about the games COrsair more than anything is the 'wobblyness'. I find it very hard to keep my gunsight where I want it as its swaying all over the place.

I understand its not going to be a fantastic close-in dogfighter, its big and heavy with only machine guns and no cannons (except for a few right at the end of the war), a good pilot can get around these shortcomings in a fighter, but what I cannot understand is why the nose is so unstable.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif You need your guns to shoot where you are aiming and not have them randomly spraying about as the nose wobbles and sways about.

I generally dont complain about planes modelling in IL2, it is for the most part excellent but trying to aim the Corsairs guns is like trying to aim a gun with a 20 foot long rubber barrel. Madness.

crucislancer
03-17-2009, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Look at the hassle the 25lbs Spit gets.....Can you guys imagine the whining if the Spit XIV was included in the game?

It must be a cheat or overmodelled, Its simply IMPOSSIBLE that the British could build one of the easiest to fly, and best performing prop planes of late WW2 aint it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

No whines when the Fw190 A4, 109F4 and 109G2 are owning everything in 1941/42 however, thats fine cos the Germans had the best planes at all times... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

I find the whining about the Spit IX 25lbs is all a bunch of hooey.



PS - the Corsair is never going to be a great close-in dogfighter, just compare its size and weight to the Bf109, Spitfire, Zero or La7. What I hate about the games COrsair more than anything is the 'wobblyness'. I find it very hard to keep my gunsight where I want it as its swaying all over the place.

Glad to know that my ****-poor flying wasn't the cause of the nose wobble. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Buzzsaw-
03-17-2009, 03:58 PM
Salute

The Corsair and a number of US Pacific aircraft seem overmatched by the late model Japanese versions, however it is important to remember something:

Aircraft such as the J2M5 or Ki-841b/c were produced in TINY numbers, (less than 50 in most cases) appeared in the last days of the war, and really shouldn't be on the same servers as F4U-D's.

The Pacific Theater is missing the F4U-4a, a P-51D running on 115/145 octane fuel at 81 inches boost, or the P-47N. These aircraft were produced in 100 times the numbers of the uber Japanese types listed above.

The only Japanese aircraft which can be considered 'uber' and which saw largescale service, (although in much smaller numbers than the Zero) was the Ki-84a, and even it had lesser performance than the ingame version due to inferior quality fuel, very poor quality control on the engine, and the overall inferior manufacturing standards which dominated the Japanese aero industry in the later half of the war.

As far as the 'wobble' of the Corsair, Thunderbolt and other US aircraft is concerned, this issue has been discussed at great length on these boards in the past. Certainly the fact that the Corsair and Thunderbolt were rated as extremely stable gun platforms in detailed testing by the USAAF and USN throws considerable doubt on the modelling of these aircraft in IL-2.

Hookecho
03-17-2009, 04:18 PM
IIRC they were rock solid until Oleg put in the test FM he was working on for SoW way back ina the 1st or 2nd PF patch....since then they have been some wobbly ducks...

Buzzsaw-
03-17-2009, 04:28 PM
Japanese Fighter production:

A6M (Zero/Zeke) approx. 11,000
Ki-43: 5919
Ki-84-1a: 3514 (approx. 50 1b/1c models)
Ki-61: 3159
N1K1: 1007
N1K2: 428
J2M: 493 (only 43 J2M5)
Ki-100: 275

You can see that a lot of the planes which predominate on the arcade servers were in real short supply.

VW-IceFire
03-17-2009, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by jayhall0315:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Romanator21:
Three words: trim trim trim. Trim your rudder, and keep the ball centered. Trim your elevator to have a bit of nose down. If you do it right, the plane will fly itself (straight and level) without any input from you. Also bear in mind, that 110% power and WEP is not always effective at lower altitudes. In the P-51 for instance, this will have absolutely no effect at low altitudes, except for cooking your brand new Merlin! I am not entirely sure about the Corsair's engine, however. Also, how heavy is your plane? Is it fully fueled and loaded? This can have a big effect on your acceleration.

Thanks Roman and Hookecho - Yes, I had her properly trimmed and with 25% fuel and set up 'tight'. Was just curious. Its always good to hear from the Dr Jekyll side of Delta Squadron, LOL !

Shame they did not include the F4U-4 with 590 kph sea-level speed, six 20mm guns, turn ratio slightly tighter than the F4U-D, nice open bubble canopy for easy killing and strong aluminum frame. Guess they did not want to have any plane that might be superior to that non-cheat cheat mod,.... the Spit 25lbs.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

Hehe -Jay </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
LOL! Six 20mm cannons? Bubble canopy? Trolling?

The F4U-4 had 6 .50cal machine guns just like the 1A and 1D had. The F4U-4B had 4 20mm cannons but that one did not see service in World War II. No major production variant had a bubble canopy - that would be the F2G prototypes. The F4U-4 did have a revised canopy but only slightly.

jayhall0315
03-17-2009, 05:23 PM
Thanks for the corrections IceFire. Call me crazy but since the crosshairs of the F4U gunsight are higher above the forward tip of the nose than with many other planes gunsights, I find the Corsair to be an easy machine to kill with and very stable. I wrote a post about this 'critical difference' about a month back. If only the FW 190 Antons had a nice canopy and elevated gunsight like the Corsairs, .... whooo... it would be Hyperlobby lambs to the slaughter http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Also, I have no trouble believing that the British could make very fine aircraft including the Spit 25lbs and it is inevitable that some plane would have to be THE plane but I think Wright put it best about a month back:

The Spit 25lbs:

Turns almost like a Zero
Climbs like a Bf 109
Fires like a FW 190 Anton
Takes damage like a F4U-C Corsair
Goes almost as fast as an La-7

If you wanted to be really picky, I guess you could say cockpit visibility is only average, the roll rate is only average or slightly below and the dive rate is average, but overall, the Spit 25lbs gets my vote as the one 'uber' plane of the game.

And I dont even mind that, what is so funny though are the inordinate amount of clowns who fly it all day long, day after day for hours and then claim they are an ace (and on open cockpit servers none the less usually, LOL). Then when they have to take anything else (except maybe the La7), like the P38, FW 190 A8, Ki 43 etc.. they piledriver into the ground with high frequency.

The destruction of Spit 25lbs aces is an acquired taste, sorta like a good cherry. And the best weapon it turns out to fight them with is not what people would expect.

Jay

Buzzsaw-
03-17-2009, 07:35 PM
Originally posted by jayhall0315:

...I think Wright put it best about a month back:

The Spit 25lbs:

Turns almost like a Zero
Climbs like a Bf 109
Fires like a FW 190 Anton
Takes damage like a F4U-C Corsair
Goes almost as fast as an La-7



These is the type of comment which gives 'Luftwhining' its name. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

'Turns almost like a Zero'

Any testing of the A6M5 versus the Spit IX 25lb will discover very quickly that the Zeke turns circles round it, UNLESS, the turn contest is at higher speeds.

'Climbs like a Bf 109'

Again, not accurate, the Spit IX SHOULD climb like a K4, but in fact doesn't quite, that despite the fact it weighs the same as a K4, and has the same horsepower, with lower wingloading, and tests of the real aircraft at 25lbs boost showed a climbrate of 5000 ft/sec at sea level.

'Fires like a FW 190 Anton'

Perhaps for someone who can't count... Last time I looked, the Spit IX had two cannon, the 190A has four. Enough said.

'Takes damage like a F4U-C Corsair'

Again, any kind of objective test proves the Spit is much more vulnerable.

'Goes almost as fast as an La-7'

The La-7 does 380 mph on the deck, the Spit IX 25lb does barely 365. Does the Spit ACCELERATE faster than an La-7? Yes, but of course it should, since it has more horsepower, (2000 compared with 1800 for the La-7) and weighs less, (7400 lbs compared to 8400 lbs of the La-7)

The 'one' uber plane.... Not likely, for anyone but a complete NOOB, the 190D9 is a far superior aircraft, and easily THE uber prop plane in the game.

The real issue goes back to what the original poster said, ie. why do the late model Japanese aircraft have the upper hand?

The reason of course, is that for whatever reason, the game is missing nearly all the late model American and British aircraft.

Missing are:

F4U-4 (Asian Theater)
P-51D 150 octane 25lb boost (European Theater)
P-51D 115/145 octane 81 inch boost (Asian Theater)
P-47M (Europe)
P-47N (Asia)
Spitfire XIV (Europe and Asia)
Tempest V +11 and +13 boost (Europe)

If comparable time period German or Japanese aircraft were missing, the game would not have:

Ki-84
NiK1, N1K2
J2M3/5
109G10
109K4
190D9
Ta-152H/C

And you can imagine the screams from the Luftwhiners if that were the case... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

crucislancer
03-17-2009, 09:00 PM
Well said, Buzzsaw. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

jayhall0315
03-17-2009, 09:33 PM
So you are saying Buzzsaw that the Germans, Brits and Russians all got the very late model planes but the Americans got hamstrung ?

R_Target
03-17-2009, 09:49 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
The reason of course, is that for whatever reason, the game is missing nearly all the late model American and British aircraft.

I would settle for just an F6F with WEP performance. Maddox's Hellcat performs only to the "Military Power" rating, i.e. summer 1943.

R_Target
03-17-2009, 09:54 PM
Originally posted by jayhall0315:
So you are saying Buzzsaw that the Germans, Brits and Russians all got the very late model planes but the Americans got hamstrung ?

Not necessarily in the PTO. The superplanes were relatively rare, and most of the late-war fighting was done by the F6F-5 and F4U-1D.

megalopsuche
03-18-2009, 09:24 AM
There's no F4U-4 because the whines about it shooting down La-7s would be deafening. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

horseback
03-18-2009, 09:35 AM
Another factor in the lack of late-war advanced Allied fighters is that it was obvious to the Western Democracies that the war was won by the late summer/early fall of 1944; they were able to finish the contest by largely 'standing pat' with what was mostly already built instead of rushing the new uberplanes into combat.

There was no pressure to get North American's P-51H, Grumman's F8F, or even the P-47N to the front, no radial engined Tempests and the RAF was limited to a relatively few Griffon powered Spits (not wanting the license for that beast to fall into the hands of a US manufacturer, allowing them a leg up in the post war aviation market).

Even with the considerable improvement of late-war Axis aircraft, the air war on either side of the planet was not that much of a contest after mid-44. The Allied techical parity and sheer numbers, coupled with a pool of vastly better trained pilots made the investment of the public treasury in more advanced fighters sooner unneeded.

It was the mid-war models that got all the attention, and the incremental improvements made at the unit level didn't get the notice from Oleg & Co. that an entirely new model would get. Had the 'bubbletop' Mustang or Thunderbolts been given new model numbers (as originally proposed), maybe they would have given them a performance model that more closely matches the historical data.

cheers

horseback

R_Target
03-18-2009, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by megalopsuche:
There's no F4U-4 because the whines about it shooting down La-7s would be deafening. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Heh heh. Gibbage offered to model the F8F for IL2 at no charge. His offer was vehemently rejected.

megalopsuche
03-18-2009, 10:27 AM
Yes, but the F4U-4 saw combat at the unit level, the F8F did not.

ElAurens
03-18-2009, 10:37 AM
BTW, there is no map currently in the game that models the "Standard Day" conditions exactly.

The Crimea is close, as the barometric pressure is correct, but the temperature is 10 degrees Celsius too high at sea level. And as you climb the delta between temp change and altitude in no way matches "Standard Day" conditions.

Therefor it is impossible to accurately compare in game performance with real world specifications at this point in time.

DrHerb
03-18-2009, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by megalopsuche:
Yes, but the F4U-4 saw combat at the unit level, the F8F did not.

IMO, thats kind of an unfair statement, seeing quite a few planes in this sim never even got off the ground, let alone seeing combat at unit level.

Xiolablu3
03-18-2009, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by jayhall0315:
So you are saying Buzzsaw that the Germans, Brits and Russians all got the very late model planes but the Americans got hamstrung ?

The Brits are the worst off in this respect, no SPit XIV, no high boost Tempest, no Typhoon, no Gloster Meteror or De Havillan Vampire.

The only late war birds the Brits have are the Spit 25lbs and Tempest.

I must say alos that I find the Thunderbolt extremly stable as a gun platorm, also the Wildcats and Helcats. However the P51 and even worse is the Corsair for the 'wobbles' IMHO. This is an awful flaw for an aircraft with no 20mm cannons.

I know we have debated it a lot before but I have never heard a credible answer for this. Why should the P51 and Corsair 'wobble around the gunsight' more than any other aircraft?

jayhall0315
03-18-2009, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by megalopsuche:
There's no F4U-4 because the whines about it shooting down La-7s would be deafening. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Yes, but only half as deafening as the roar of whining that would flow from all the Spit 25lb pilots being shot down http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

jayhall0315
03-18-2009, 01:21 PM
Question actually about the Spit 25lbs; What exact variant of the Spitfire is this plane and does it have the Merlin or the Griffon engine ?

Is it an adjusted version of some Spitfire Mk IX ?

Xiolablu3
03-18-2009, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by jayhall0315:
Question actually about the Spit 25lbs; What exact variant of the Spitfire is this plane and does it have the Merlin or the Griffon engine ?

Is it an adjusted version of some Spitfire Mk IX ?

Spitfire IX 25lbs boost trials and comaprison to 'normal' 18lb Spit IX, 8th OCtober 1943 :-

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/jl165rr.html


Spitfire XIV test 10 sept 1943 :-

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-XIV.html

Aaron_GT
03-18-2009, 02:06 PM
The Brits are the worst off in this respect, no SPit XIV, no high boost Tempest, no Typhoon, no Gloster Meteror or De Havillan Vampire.

And a Mosquito FB.VI with only 1943 boost.

In terms of gun platform stability the P-51 and F4U got a fairly lukewarm reception in the JFC assessments compared to the F6F and P-47. (The Spitfire range also got a mediocre rating in this regard).

I do find the F4U is quite squirrely, though, more so than I would have expected so perhaps the precessionary effects are overdone a bit, or perhaps they are right and underdone for others? The stall is also unforgiving so it's not as enjoyable flying experience as the F6F.

thefruitbat
03-18-2009, 02:44 PM
threads like this, are why my sig is what it is...

Woke_Up_Dead
03-18-2009, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by jayhall0315:
The destruction of Spit 25lbs aces is an acquired taste, sorta like a good cherry. And the best weapon it turns out to fight them with is not what people would expect.
Jay

Yes, that's right, the game comes full-circle and it turns out that the P-11c owns the 25lbs Spit. But I think you meant "sherry" not "cherry." Although destroying certain types of "cherries" can also be a fine acquired taste.

VW-IceFire
03-18-2009, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by jayhall0315:
Thanks for the corrections IceFire. Call me crazy but since the crosshairs of the F4U gunsight are higher above the forward tip of the nose than with many other planes gunsights, I find the Corsair to be an easy machine to kill with and very stable. I wrote a post about this 'critical difference' about a month back. If only the FW 190 Antons had a nice canopy and elevated gunsight like the Corsairs, .... whooo... it would be Hyperlobby lambs to the slaughter http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Also, I have no trouble believing that the British could make very fine aircraft including the Spit 25lbs and it is inevitable that some plane would have to be THE plane but I think Wright put it best about a month back:

The Spit 25lbs:

Turns almost like a Zero
Climbs like a Bf 109
Fires like a FW 190 Anton
Takes damage like a F4U-C Corsair
Goes almost as fast as an La-7

If you wanted to be really picky, I guess you could say cockpit visibility is only average, the roll rate is only average or slightly below and the dive rate is average, but overall, the Spit 25lbs gets my vote as the one 'uber' plane of the game.

And I dont even mind that, what is so funny though are the inordinate amount of clowns who fly it all day long, day after day for hours and then claim they are an ace (and on open cockpit servers none the less usually, LOL). Then when they have to take anything else (except maybe the La7), like the P38, FW 190 A8, Ki 43 etc.. they piledriver into the ground with high frequency.

The destruction of Spit 25lbs aces is an acquired taste, sorta like a good cherry. And the best weapon it turns out to fight them with is not what people would expect.

Jay
Your right the gunsight in the F4U and the F6F are exceptional. Actually its pretty good in the F4F as well. I suspect some of this has to do with the necessity for better downward visibility for carrier landings but also the USN had a very strong training program for deflection shooting where most airforces pre-war trained mostly for firing at convergence and mass bomber attacks.

But I have to say that the Spitfire +25lb is not the uber plane that people think it is. One of the maps that I setup for the UK-Dedicated2 server is called Rhur and its a classic late war Western Front dogfight map where you get to choose between Mustangs, Tempests, Spitfires, P-38L Lates...all of the top gear. Plus on the Blue side you have a handful of number controlled (Server Commander) jets and of course the best of the FW190 and Bf109 lineups.

Many people on this map (and I've studied intently) will start with the Spitfire IX +25lb for their first sortie and I would estimate that somewhere between 50% and 75% will switch to another fighter after that first sortie.

Compared to the opposition that the +25lb would be facing between January and April 1945 it has two competitive traits:

- climb rate which is superb
- turn rate at medium to low speeds which is excellent

But its completely outgunned, its not fast enough, it doesn't pickup or retain speed in a dive fast enough (chasing down those pesky Me-262 or Ar-234 bombers), and its roll rate its terrible at speed. Its not the favoured choice in the year that it competes in.

For Allied fighters in the late war 1945 time period on servers with pilots who know what they are doing there are three basic camps:

1) Mustang
2) Thunderbolt
3) Tempest

You might also factor in the P-38L Late specialists.

The Spitfire was a fine fighter and its fantastic in those servers where you have bases 10km apart and people flying around in circles not making the full advantage of their planes. In a scenario like that the Corsair will definitely be at a diadvantage. No doubt about it. I sometimes like to fly planes like the FW190, or Corsair, or even the Hellcat in a scenario like that just to show people what can be accomplished using proper technique and tactics. I'm not even that good...I just know what I'm doing.

Frankly what I see is allot of people going into these dogfight servers where a high power to weight ratio, low wing loading, and firepower are the only traits valued. Most American planes value durability, firepower and armament load, range, and altitude performance. None of these things are valuable when you fly for 30 seconds before finding the enemy.

In fights like that its no small wonder that planes that were designed as short range interceptors are the winners of such fights.

But if you want to know where the Corsair was really valuable online...the Server Wars challenges from a few years ago. The winner of the challenge (before it was stopped) was the UK-Dedicated team and the type they picked was the Corsair. It could fly far, quickly, was tough enough to absorb fire from the flak (targets were two carrier battle fleets and a set of tanks), and it carried 4000lbs of bombs all at the same time. Between the full bomb load and the long range Tiny Tim rockets the Corsair is a war winner....not a dogfighter.

We may not have the F4U-4 but the F4U-1 is quite good on its own and for more reasons than flying circles at 500 meters.

Aaron_GT
03-18-2009, 04:06 PM
you get to choose between Mustangs, Tempests, Spitfires, P-38L Lates

Indeed, if it's a choice between the Tempest V (even at its modest +9 boost) and the Spitfire IX +25 then really it has to be the Tempest V just about every time. Its climb rate is good, BnZ is excellent, cruise speed is good, and armament is better and it is a more stable gun platform. Only if you are going to be doing stuff at around 25,000 ft would you pick the Spitfire, and let's face it online almost no combat happens at 25,000 ft.

X32Wright
03-18-2009, 04:08 PM
THE plane but I think Wright put it best about a month back:

The Spit 25lbs:

Turns almost like a Zero
Climbs like a Bf 109
Fires like a FW 190 Anton
Takes damage like a F4U-C Corsair
Goes almost as fast as an La-7

You had several parts wrong http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I said:

"Almost turns as good as a Zero"
"Climbs like a G2"
"Dives as good as a FW"
"Speeds up like a La7"
and almost NEVER OVERHEATS!

I didn't mention any damage but if you want damage issue you should look at the Raiden J2M which is very hard to damage or the I185 M-71 or the Jug.

If only the Spit25lb would have clipped wings then that would be the perfect plane because now it has the ROLL rate of the FW almost. However its one failure it is high-alt performance which is not good at all.

jayhall0315
03-18-2009, 04:14 PM
I completely agree with almost everything you have just written Icefire.

I remember back about 8 months ago when I was a green noob and I was fighting on some open pit server with every noob's friend the La7 and as I was fighting this gaggle of Spit 25 pounders, La7s and I-185s, this custom skinned Corsair crossed my field of vision. I thought, oh great, another snack for lunch since most Corsairs are flown exceedingly poorly on open pit servers and I gave chase. Just as I closed in, maybe 700 meters away, this guy deployed a little flap, cut into a sharp roll and then reversed (as if to start a horizontal scissors) and then I flew bye and he picked up on my tail and preceded to tear off my wing. LOL

So, I got another La7 and went back up thinking the guy had just been lucky and damn if he didnt down me again. ... And a few minutes later... again. The only time he every went down was when he finally got cornered by 4 or 5 guys. That was one of my first eye openers about what someone can do who has real skill and training.

Even now, as much as I dislike open pit servers for all the slamming, ramming and head on firing passes that guys pull, I still log on occasionally and fight all the Spit 25 lbs, La7s and I-185 M71s in me ole trusty F4U-D or C. Its always fun to see if I can bring guys down with regularity and not get nabbed in return.

Xiolablu3
03-18-2009, 04:18 PM
Listen to Icefire, he is wise....http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

crucislancer
03-18-2009, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">you get to choose between Mustangs, Tempests, Spitfires, P-38L Lates

Indeed, if it's a choice between the Tempest V (even at its modest +9 boost) and the Spitfire IX +25 then really it has to be the Tempest V just about every time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

+1

This is one of the reasons that I don't get the Spitfire +25 lbs "uber" plane mentality. The Tempest is a better aircraft.

jayhall0315
03-18-2009, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by X32Wright:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">THE plane but I think Wright put it best about a month back:

The Spit 25lbs:

Turns almost like a Zero
Climbs like a Bf 109
Fires like a FW 190 Anton
Takes damage like a F4U-C Corsair
Goes almost as fast as an La-7

You had several parts wrong http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I said:

"Almost turns as good as a Zero"
"Climbs like a G2"
"Dives as good as a FW"
"Speeds up like a La7"
and almost NEVER OVERHEATS!

I didn't mention any damage but if you want damage issue you should look at the Raiden J2M which is very hard to damage or the I185 M-71 or the Jug.

If only the Spit25lb would have clipped wings then that would be the perfect plane because now it has the ROLL rate of the FW almost. However its one failure it is high-alt performance which is not good at all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay, the details were a little off, my apologies but I think I got your point across and I agree.

Many folks will say the La7 or I-185 M71 are THE uber planes of the game but I would respectfully disagree. They have mucho limitations in dive speed, climb rates, blackouts, fuel consumption...etc

Like one of the moderators said before, all an airframe is, is a weapons packages with positives and negatives. For general flying across ALL Hyperlobby servers which as we all know rarely, rarely (even on the more serious servers like spits vs 109s and the former UK Ded 3) ever takes place at 7000m in a realistic fashion, the Spit 25lbs is THE uber plane of the game. It is just the plane in-game where the FM has the most positives and the fewest relative negatives, especially with concerns to HL environments.

The Tempest, the F4U-D, the P51 and the FW 190 D9 can all argue as being uber, until you factor in where most HL combat takes place. When everything is averaged out and you consider how most Hyperlobby combat unfolds, even on 'serious' servers, the Spit 25lbs gets my vote for the 'uberest' http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Aaron_GT
03-18-2009, 04:33 PM
I prefer the Tempest V over the F4U as a fighter as it is more stable as a gun platform, but they are in the same overall class (size, weight, peformance, more or less). The F4U is the premier fighter bomber, though.

Xiolablu3
03-18-2009, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
I prefer the Tempest V over the F4U as a fighter as it is more stable as a gun platform, but they are in the same overall class (size, weight, peformance, more or less). The F4U is the premier fighter bomber, though.

Agreed, they are very similar, the cannons on the Tempest are much more powerful than the 6 machine guns on the F4U . The explosive power from the cannons is much more effective than simply holes in the target unless you hit the pilot.

Its much less of an issue when fighting the Jpanese however.

The lack of armour on the Japanese planes means that the 6 50's are adequate. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

R_Target
03-18-2009, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
I do find the F4U is quite squirrely, though, more so than I would have expected so perhaps the precessionary effects are overdone a bit, or perhaps they are right and underdone for others?

As near as I can figure, the problem is extremely poor directional damping. The Corsair did have flaws, but I've never read about this being one of them.


The stall is also unforgiving so it's not as enjoyable flying experience as the F6F.

As it should be. If anything, the difference should be even greater.

R_Target
03-18-2009, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Your right the gunsight in the F4U and the F6F are exceptional. Actually its pretty good in the F4F as well. I suspect some of this has to do with the necessity for better downward visibility for carrier landings but also the USN had a very strong training program for deflection shooting where most airforces pre-war trained mostly for firing at convergence and mass bomber attacks.

The Grummans were intentionally designed with the sloping nose for those two reasons. F4U not so much, but it probably wasn't bad before they moved the tank to the fuselage.


Between the full bomb load and the long range Tiny Tim rockets the Corsair is a war winner....not a dogfighter.

Yup. Some of the virtues of the great planes don't mean beans in a flight sim.

X32Wright
03-18-2009, 05:09 PM
Indeed, if it's a choice between the Tempest V (even at its modest +9 boost) and the Spitfire IX +25 then really it has to be the Tempest V just about every time. Its climb rate is good, BnZ is excellent, cruise speed is good, and armament is better and it is a more stable gun platform. Only if you are going to be doing stuff at around 25,000 ft would you pick the Spitfire, and let's face it online almost no combat happens at 25,000 ft.


You need a good wingman to survive long in a Tempest wheras in a Spit25lb you don't! if you're good enough u can even handle two planes at once. Sure maybe the tempest is a better plane but once you get somebody on ur six and close ur dead meat in a Tempest unlike in a spit25lb u have betetr chances since it can climb and turn and dive and do everything a fighter plane should do.

julian265
03-18-2009, 06:04 PM
I find the tempest outclassed above 3000m, unless you start with a huge altitude advantage.

I flew a few tests with a mate to compare the P47 and Tempest. At and below 3km, the tempest won the fight fairly easily. Up at 6km, after two passes, the P47 held a 1 km altitude advantage.... The Tempest's engine just cannot replenish energy when up high, and this is seen in its obscene time to accelerate to it's good, but almost never achieved maximum speed up high. This seems to match RL reports, but looking at IL2 compare's speed curve alone will tell you a different story.

Also firing the Tempests guns seems to jerk the whole plane around more than the 190, which is yet another reason to avoid head-on attacks.

Aaron_GT
03-18-2009, 06:22 PM
You need a good wingman to survive long in a Tempest wheras in a Spit25lb you don't! if you're good enough u can even handle two planes at once. Sure maybe the tempest is a better plane but once you get somebody on ur six and close ur dead meat in a Tempest unlike in a spit25lb u have betetr chances since it can climb and turn and dive and do everything a fighter plane should do.

The thing to do with the Tempest V is fly it by the figures from the pilot's notes. I have the notes for it and it helps a lot. Control it via the rpm rather than the throttle, come in with an altitude at high cruise speed at a good safety margin on the temperature, keep your speed up, don't get succoured into turning, and rely on snapshots with BnZ, floor the rpm and use the energy retention to get back up. This works even when solo.

In the Tempest you have the same options as the Spitfire (e.g. good climb). You don't have good turn but aileron control in the Tempest at higher speeds is far superior to the Spitfire IX. Where the Tempest is let down by the game engine is one of the worst rear views, whereas in reality it was superior to Spitfires other than those fitted with teardrop canopies (experience from Typhoons, which share the same canopy as the Tempest) being the reason why the Spitfire eventually got it too. Dive of the Tempest was rated, by the RAF, as better than all other prop fighters, although even good dive performance doesn't get you out of gun range very quickly.

If using it as a fighter bomber come in at 15k feet, drop like a stone, drop the rpms, drop the bombs at 3k, pull up, slap the rpm up to full and you are pretty safe unless you get careless.


Up at 6km, after two passes, the P47 held a 1 km altitude advantage....

Yep, above 20k feet the P-47 beats the Tempest (and just about everything else). 20,000 ft is the upper limit for the Tempest as the AFDU assessments make clear. The handover to the Spitfire IX is a bit higher as the Spit IX is well above its FTH by that height whereas the P-47 is still chucking out loads of horsepower.

VW-IceFire
03-18-2009, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by julian265:
I find the tempest outclassed above 3000m, unless you start with a huge altitude advantage.

I flew a few tests with a mate to compare the P47 and Tempest. At and below 3km, the tempest won the fight fairly easily. Up at 6km, after two passes, the P47 held a 1 km altitude advantage.... The Tempest's engine just cannot replenish energy when up high, and this is seen in its obscene time to accelerate to it's good, but almost never achieved maximum speed up high. This seems to match RL reports, but looking at IL2 compare's speed curve alone will tell you a different story.

Also firing the Tempests guns seems to jerk the whole plane around more than the 190, which is yet another reason to avoid head-on attacks.
Versus the P-47 that would be true. The P-47's turbosupercharger is going to give a huge advantage versus most other fighters. The Sabre was historically not the best at altitude which is why the Tempest is largely considered a tactical fighter. But it does compare fairly well up to about 5000 meters...above that its performance does drop off sharply. At 3000 meters the problem is the power drop off...at 3900 meters you should switch to stage 2 at which point you have power again briefly.

Diving does help...kind of like the Mustang in that area actually. A short dive will give a huge increase in speed that you can hold onto very well!

julian265
03-18-2009, 11:56 PM
Yeah that's a good point IceFire. A little dive (~1000ft) gives you speed that you can hold on to, but that would have taken 5 minutes to build up in level flight.

However, do some loops and other manoeuvres up high (whilst being as gentle as possible), and the Tempest runs out of breath and has to dive away from most 109s and 190s. That's my experience anyway!

Aaron_GT
03-19-2009, 02:45 AM
The Sabre was historically not the best at altitude which is why the Tempest is largely considered a tactical fighter.

Yes, various high altitude versions were in development from about 1941 but didn't get anywhere.


That's my experience anyway!

I tend to agree in that I wouldn't want to fight with the Tempest V about about 20,000 ft. You can still win fights above that but it's always wisest to fight where you have maximum advantage. There's no reason not to come in the the Tempest into the battle area at 30,000 ft if you are prepared to be patient enough to get it up there if you think there will be 109s up high. You won't want to fight them up there, but you can pretty much disengage at will by diving if you see any get close. 190As should be in the same boat as the Tempest V about 20,000 ft, the 190D being the greater axis threat.

It's a hard rule to live by (I fail 99% of the time!) to only engage when you have the advantage, but it works.

jayhall0315
03-19-2009, 03:39 AM
Yeah Aaron, but I am not being hard on you but how many engagements have you seen that take place on ANY Hyperlobby server at 7000m plus ? I started with Il2 almost 10 months back and have flown alot on 'advanced' servers like Spits vs 109s, UK Ded 3, etc... and the number of engagements I have fought at 6500m plus I can count on one hand.

VW-IceFire
03-19-2009, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by jayhall0315:
Yeah Aaron, but I am not being hard on you but how many engagements have you seen that take place on ANY Hyperlobby server at 7000m plus ? I started with Il2 almost 10 months back and have flown alot on 'advanced' servers like Spits vs 109s, UK Ded 3, etc... and the number of engagements I have fought at 6500m plus I can count on one hand.
Not sure if WarClouds is still around but I think half of the time I was flying up at 5000 meters plus. One of the most interesting fights I had was flying a Mustang at 9500 meters against a 109. There were several Mustangs and several 109s. Totally different style of engagement at that altitude.

julian265
03-19-2009, 06:01 PM
Originally posted by jayhall0315:
...how many engagements have you seen that take place on ANY Hyperlobby server at 7000m plus ? ...

Many, on WarClouds, and also Spits vs 109s.

Stiletto-
03-19-2009, 11:36 PM
Where do you think all the P-47's are? 7000m.

X32Wright
03-20-2009, 02:19 AM
You're always seem to be flying low Jayhall. The real fights are above 5K meters! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

jayhall0315
03-20-2009, 02:30 AM
.... Yeah and when I get up there all I see is Bag.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

BigKahuna_GS
03-21-2009, 11:48 PM
The more and more I read about real world Corsairs, the more it seems like their performance in IL2 1946 4.08m or 4.09b has been hamstrung by about 3 to 7%.

Is this really true or am I just mis-informed ?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You are absolutly right.


Problems in IL2

#1.Problem no F4U-4 in Pacific Fighters, this would be representative against late model japanese fighters.

#2.All Corsair models without rocket stubs are about 10mph too slow at sea level.

#3.Wobbles ---ah this was not a feature of the real Corsair. The F4U had excellent stability. At the JFC the F4U was rated number one in elevator response and 2-3 at airleron response.

#4.Emergency take off power setting of 2800rpm which results in shorter take offs and larger payloads (not modeled).

#5.Corsairs on carriers had access to 145grade aviation fuel and over-boosting.


When Pacific Fighters came out the Corsair did 366mph at sea level, now it does around 356-357mph at sea level a (minus 8-10mph).

When Pacific Fighters came out the Ki84 did 356mph at sea level, during patches it was relisted at 363mph in IL2, but actually goes 366mph(+3) for a total (plus 10mph).

One IL2 Corsair varient has fixed rocket stubs on the wings. So somebody at Maddox F/M modeling decided to take the easy way out and make ALL IL2 Corsairs fly like they had the parasitic drag of rocket stubs on their wings. A generic "one F/M fits all Corsairs" mode has pretty much been taken.

And even this parasitic drag is wrong because the drag from rocket stubs was only 2-3mph where as the drag from pylons is around 8mph. So ALL IL2 Corsair models fly too slow at sea level and with the parasitic drag of plylons+.

I have read here before that a minus 9-10mph was beyond the F/M modeling IL2 was shooting for.
10 mile/hour (mph) = 16.093 kilometer/hour too slow.

There is really no reason for Corsairs without rocket stubs not to go 366mph at sea level as when Pacific Fighters was released. This speed is well documented.


Almost Everyone over-boosted. To what degree ukwn. But this much is known Carriers had 145grade aviation fuel on board so the ETO isn't the only place 150grade fuel was found. I have talked to Corsair pilots that ran their F4U1-Ds at 65"-70"MAP on this fuel for Kamikaze intercepts.
I can't seem to find a book or charts documenting this though. This was before the Dash-4 went operational.

A slightly overboosted F4U-1 on 130grade fuel at 65"MAP, wax job/sand fill(like so many USAAF & Luft tests), and an early model 4-bladed prop did 435mph at 18,000ft


http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/19728170.jpg

megalopsuche
03-22-2009, 09:19 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
It's a hard rule to live by (I fail 99% of the time!) to only engage when you have the advantage, but it works.

A worthwhile rule if you might actually die by losing the engagement. Adherence to maxims like that in an online sim will never teach you ACM, and that many never progress beyond this flying style is half the reason why I win a big majority of the engagements where I start at a *disadvantage*. If you only fight when you have an advantage, then you won't have a clue what to do when energy states are equal, and you'll be hopeless when at a disadvantage. Everyone who wants to learn more will be shot down a lot in the process, but the beauty of this hobby is that you always get a shiny new plane with which to try it again. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

horseback
03-22-2009, 11:46 AM
One of the things that makes me extremely uncomfortable with 1C's modeling of US fighters is their apparent lack of respect for US data, particularly when it involves the late war fighters that never came to them via Lend-Lease. It looks to me as though they decided that the Mustang was a faster, less maneuverable and correspondingly twitchy version of the P-39 and that the Corsair must be its overweight Naval cousin.

The wobbling of the Mustang & the Corsair (both were considered very stable gun platforms, just not quite so much so as the P-47 or Hellcat-which is also far more wobbly than it should be), the ineffectiveness of the .50 M2 (especially when you compare the in-game performance of a single UB 12.7mm to six or more fifty cals at any range but convergence), the hamstringing of the P-38 (even the so-called 'Late' version fails to match the factory data for a mid series J) and the general sluggishness in terms of acceleration and handling compared to the depiction of all their contemporaries just makes the late-war US fighters considerably less fun to fly, especially offline.

Yes, they 'hit their numbers' plus or minus 10% (almost always minus), but the trimming response is excessive (due perhaps to delayed trim response?), making it much harder to line up and hit your target, and when you do hit it, the damage done is usually minimal because the damage modeling favors cannons' heavy explosive rounds over multiple kinetic/incendiary MG rounds (unless fired by an ai bomber's gunner), especially when the M2 is apparently modelled to have burnt out barrels (was this a problem with Lend-Lease fighters--a lack of firing discipline by Soviet pilots who went overboard, knowing that they had bags more ammo to expend?).

As for you cherry pickers who love to quote the Joint Fighter Conference, bear in mind that the Mustang was voted the best fighter below 25,000ft, and that its cockpit layout was also rated highly, behind the three late model Grumman fighters (two of which never saw action in WWII). That by itself should argue pretty strongly that it was a pretty good gun platform.

The point is that that it and the Corsair were rated against the best US fighters, and not being as stable as the P-47 doesn't mean a fighter was remotely unstable. The Jug was to stability what the Ki-27 (Nate) was to maneuverability; the Zero was not nearly as maneuverable as the Nate, but it still managed to fly rings around every Allied fighter it faced in that regard.

When it comes to 'stability' as a gun platform, the P-47 is generally rated the high standard amongst frontline WWII fighters; the Hellcat, FW-190 and the P-38 were maybe a half a step back, and the Spitfire, Mustang, 109, Corsair, and the top Soviet fighters were probably pretty closely bunched in the next group.

Similarly, most references to the Corsair's twitchiness and 'instability' are made in direct comparison to the Hellcat, which was by far the easiest Allied fighter to fly and master, and an absolute paragon of stability when flying low and slow. By definition, Naval fighters (and particularly US naval fighters) had to be very responsive at low speeds and altitudes; there's little point to building something as expensive and complex as an aircraft carrier if it can expect to lose half its fighter complement attempting to land them--ask the Fleet Air Arm about the Seafire vs the Corsair I. The Corsair was intially harder to land than the Hellcat, Grumman already had a very efficient supply line to the Navy already in place, and in terms of the opposition, was still vastly superior.

It was like having to choose between Emmit Smith and Barry Sanders--how could you lose?

At high speeds EVERY fighter bounced around to some degree, in relation to its weight and tendency to compressability effects (which would make the Corsair more stable than the P-38 at high speeds, particularly at alts over 20K).

Seeing that the basic Corsair design stayed in production for over ten years and was used for both high alt air superiority and ground attack roles in preference to most of its contemporaries, it too, had to be a stable gun platform, certainly more so than depicted here.

I cannot help but think that the differences, especially between the Western Allied fighters and the Eastern Front core group, have been exaggerated to the detriment of the Anglo-American representatives in this sim.

cheers

horseback

ElAurens
03-22-2009, 11:58 AM
The in game P51 is 1000 pounds overweight.

Just sayin.

jayhall0315
03-22-2009, 02:45 PM
Yep. When I was writing my Newbie's Guide to IL2 Online Dogfighting, I put a small section in there about how I felt that Oleg's development team had not done such a good job with many American airframes. For example the US Navy acquired a captured FW 190 and put it up against the Corsair in flight tests and the two were rated equal in many respects.

Well I received a huge amount of criticism for writing that one paragraph (much of it from Ubi moderators) who said I was being too harsh.

And yet the more I learn (which is not much compared to what some folks here know), the more and more I come away feeling that many American airframes did get the short end of the stick by about 3 to 10% in many regards. I dont think it was intentional and I dont think Oleg's team 'hates America', I just think they got rushed and did not get the models detailed correctly.

Me personally, I would love to fly a properly modeled F4U-4 against a the La7 3xB 20. By all accounts, on paper and in the air, the F4U-4 was a badass machine. As someone else said, it would not be a good up close turn and burner but I think it would do very well indeed.

megalopsuche
03-22-2009, 03:12 PM
Fwiw, Aces High is a flight sim created in Texas and that community also voices suspicion that the American aircraft are under-modeled, so I think national origin has nothing to do with it. You should read some of the epic whines over there about the P-51's turn-rate.

Also, the most stream-lined F4U, the F4U-1A, also does less than 360mph at sea level in AH; so the two sims are consistent in terms of top speed. Where they are inconsistent in F4U modeling is flaps. In Aces High the F4U has "hover flaps" that make it competitive in a turnfight against the Spitfire VIII. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Xiolablu3
03-22-2009, 03:14 PM
Yep, Jay you rightly got criticised for putting that in a guide designed to help newbies with dogfighting.

It had nothing to do withg being 'too harsh', it was simply the wrong place for such comments. DO you see any personal opinions on flight models in Bearcats excellent 'nuggets guide' or Skycats guide?

DO you still not see why it wasnt the right place for that discussion?


By all means write a piece about your feelings on how US planes are hard done by in IL2's modelling, but dont put it in a newbies guide and then constanly pm mods as to why it cant be a sticky or added to various 'helpful' posts on the forum.

I seem to remember that you first came here after arguments over your guide at another forum. Does that not tell you anything?

jayhall0315
03-22-2009, 04:44 PM
Well I changed those comments because I actually did think they made the case too strongly. And I did agree with you actually.

As for putting personal opinions in your own work; Are you telling me that an author who makes a guide can never include his own opinions ?

Must every 'guide' be a dry, humorless piece of writing that sticks only to know facts ?

I dont recall ever forcing anyone to read my guide. My opinion has always been to offer up hopefully helpful or funny, yes funny, material (like the Rammer story) and to help new guys from making the mistakes I did. If it helps some guys then great and if not, oh well, no big deal. It even states on page one, if you strongly disagree with what I have written, then stop reading. What could be more simple? Should I include one of those silly stickers on it like you find at Lowes or Home Depot on rotary saws that says, "Do not stick fingers near blade while power is on"? My gosh.

As for Sim HQ, get your facts straight please. I set up the guide there because that was the first flight sim place I knew of (had not even heard of Ubi forums at that early date) and I was eager to help other noobs avoid my Hyperlobby mistakes. After I got the guide up and posted all the pictures to go with it, which took a long time, some moderator came along and deleted half the work because of the numerous pictures taking up bandwidth (even though Dart had previously approved that). I asked him why and he acted like a d!ck. I called him on it and he banned me. It was frustrating at the time but still no biggie.

And IL2 veterans and moderators can criticize me all they like, but not a week goes by on Hyperlobby where I dont run into a bunch of new guys who keep wondering why the P51 and Corsair dont live up to their historical reputations. If I recall correctly, there was even a long thread here at Ubi that had the title of, "The P51, Why is it so dang hard to fly ?".

At this date, I am leaving it what you suggested for my guide bc I tend to agree. But I must also say, as I learn more and more (and I must admit, I am no WWII airframe specialist by any means), that several American birds are not living up to either their published reports or their historical abilities as far as I can tell. I would say they are off (depends on plane) by 3 to 10% overall. I am not mad, I dont blame Oleg.. and I dont think its a conspiracy. I just think that Oleg and his team just about 'nailed' many of the Bf 109, FW 190, La5/7, IL2, etc models. On the Spits they seem just a little off but it is slight indeed. With the American airframes the discrepancies are larger and more noticeable. But the name of the game is IL2 1946 and not Battle for the Pacific 1944, LOL

Jay

Frequent_Flyer
03-22-2009, 05:13 PM
I cannot help but think that the differences, especially between the Western Allied fighters and the Eastern Front core group, have been exaggerated to the detriment of the Anglo-American representatives in this sim.

cheers

horseback


You could not be more correct in everything you stated. Especially the summation. The two best aircraft to fly( in this Sim) of the US offerering are the P-40 and the P-39.Not surprizing they were lend lease aircraft. How and why the same six guns fired from the P-40 are infinately more effective than the F4F or the P-51.

Intellectually, I think its hard for Oleg and team to grasp how such large USAAf/USN fighters could perform so well both at altitude and down low.

This sim/ game engine was designed for the tiny Russian and German aircraft with little range, a cannon or two, fighting at low altitude. The F4U and the P-47 both can carry more ordanance than the IL-2 and were both world class fighters. This is difficult concept for Oleg and team to come to terms with. The reliable data is plentiful, its just not accepted.
The dicouraging fact is the same team will be modeling these aircraft in the next generation of sim. Assuming it ever becomes a reality.

X32Wright
03-22-2009, 05:18 PM
Hey Jayhall,

You are relatively new to this game and didn't see the whole debacle that still isn't allowed to talk about here. There was a whole situation that Oleg and company had to ENDURE BADLY regarding 'Pacific Fighters'. That's the most 'clean' way I could describe it and I should not say more because I do know some private information regading this issue.

All I could tell you is that the data that Oleg had excellent data from Russian manufacturers and they didn't ask for a cent for this data unlike his experience with American aeronautic companies. I am not saying that he purposely 'PORKED' American planes, he simply has better data regarding Russian and maybe German planes too.

I would tell you one thing, based on the P-51 I think he got that correct and this is AFTER using Miss Strega's tips. I for one would admit that I didn't know HOW to fly the Mustang well with CEM until her tips came by. NOW you don't hear me complaining about American airframes being porked at all and even any plane in the game. And this is largely because I am not flying with all 10 INPUTS and having tested and known most if not all the subtleties of the airframes that I fly. Knowing one's plane and your opponent's is one way to maximize your potential as a killer fighter pilot as well as live within the limitatiosn and exploit the advantages of the plane you fly.

The only Corsair pilot that I've seen really deadly is somebody that you know very well which is BENGALtiger.

I cannot tell you about the Corsair because I don't fly that airframe and would rather kill it with my Rei Shiki Sentoki http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

This is just giving you an overview of what went on the past and possibly why things are such in the game. I still would rather rely on Oleg's data about anything than a mod tweak to reflect somebody's report about a certain airframe though.

jayhall0315
03-22-2009, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

I cannot help but think that the differences, especially between the Western Allied fighters and the Eastern Front core group, have been exaggerated to the detriment of the Anglo-American representatives in this sim.

cheers

horseback


You could not be more correct in everything you stated. Especially the summation. The two best aircraft to fly( in this Sim) of the US offerering are the P-40 and the P-39.Not surprizing they were lend lease aircraft. How and why the same six guns fired from the P-40 are infinately more effective than the F4F or the P-51.

Intellectually, I think its hard for Oleg and team to grasp how such large USAAf/USN fighters could perform so well both at altitude and down low.

This sim/ game engine was designed for the tiny Russian and German aircraft with little range, a cannon or two, fighting at low altitude. The F4U and the P-47 both can carry more ordanance than the IL-2 and were both world class fighters. This is difficult concept for Oleg and team to come to terms with. The reliable data is plentiful, its just not accepted.
The dicouraging fact is the same team will be modeling these aircraft in the next generation of sim. Assuming it ever becomes a reality. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

With what little I know, and it is still little at this point, I am inclined to agree with your post Flyer. I think you put your point across very well.

Frequent_Flyer
03-22-2009, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by X32Wright:
Hey Jayhall,

You are relatively new to this game and didn't see the whole debacle that still isn't allowed to take about here. There was a whole situation that Oleg and company had to ENDURE BADLY regarding 'Pacific Fighters'. That's the most 'clean' way I could describe it and I should not say more because I do know some private information regading this issue.

All I could tell you is that the data that Oleg had excellent data from Russian manufacturers and they didn't ask for a cent for this data unlike his experience with American aeronautic companies. I am not saying that he purposely 'PORKED' American planes, he simply has better data regarding Russian and maybe German planes too.

I would tell you one thing, based on the P-51 I think he got that correct and this is AFTER using Miss Strega's tips. I for one would admit that I didn't know HOW to fly the Mustang well with CEM until her tips came by. NOW you don't hear me complaining about American airframes being porked at all and even any plane in the game. And this is largely because I am not flying with all 10 INPUTS and having tested and known most if not all the subtleties of the airframes that I fly. Knowing one's plane and your opponent's is one way to maximize your potential as a killer fighter pilot as well as live within the limitatiosn and exploit the advantages of the plane you fly.

The only Corsair pilot that I've seen really deadly is somebody that you know very well which is BENGALtiger.

I cannot tell you about the Corsair because I don't fly that airframe and would rather kill it with my Rei Shiki Sentoki http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

This is just giving you an overview of what went on the past and possibly why things are such in the game. I still would rather rely on Oleg's data about anything than a mod tweak to reflect somebody's report about a certain airframe though.

There is much more reliable data on US planes than Russian planes. The US planes were used by numerous other nationalities who without bias have documented performance of these aircraft.

Oleg used Russian records only to produce the flight models for the Russian aircraft. He calls that reliable...that is just practising bad sceince.

You can review archives from four independent authorities, different nations, for the performance data on many of the USAAF/USN aircraft.

Yet he doubts its authenticity . However, the Russian data is considered the benchmark of accuracy. Oleg may be a programer but his sceince and research are flawed.

jayhall0315
03-22-2009, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by X32Wright:
Hey Jayhall,

You are relatively new to this game and didn't see the whole debacle that still isn't allowed to take about here. There was a whole situation that Oleg and company had to ENDURE BADLY regarding 'Pacific Fighters'. That's the most 'clean' way I could describe it and I should not say more because I do know some private information regading this issue.

All I could tell you is that the data that Oleg had excellent data from Russian manufacturers and they didn't ask for a cent for this data unlike his experience with American aeronautic companies. I am not saying that he purposely 'PORKED' American planes, he simply has better data regarding Russian and maybe German planes too.

I would tell you one thing, based on the P-51 I think he got that correct and this is AFTER using Miss Strega's tips. I for one would admit that I didn't know HOW to fly the Mustang well with CEM until her tips came by. NOW you don't hear me complaining about American airframes being porked at all and even any plane in the game. And this is largely because I am not flying with all 10 INPUTS and having tested and known most if not all the subtleties of the airframes that I fly. Knowing one's plane and your opponent's is one way to maximize your potential as a killer fighter pilot as well as live within the limitatiosn and exploit the advantages of the plane you fly.

The only Corsair pilot that I've seen really deadly is somebody that you know very well which is BENGALtiger.

I cannot tell you about the Corsair because I don't fly that airframe and would rather kill it with my Rei Shiki Sentoki http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

This is just giving you an overview of what went on the past and possibly why things are such in the game. I still would rather rely on Oleg's data about anything than a mod tweak to reflect somebody's report about a certain airframe though.

Oh I am not miffed Wright. I tend to think if there are mistakes they are slight.

Actually, I have to compliment Oleg, with the year 1997 to 2000 technology, to code for and write a game this great and with this many options... my hats off to him and his team.

If American airframes did accidently get slighted just a bit, no big deal... at least not for me.

These days all I ever hear about is mod this and mod that... dang it.. now I am just waiting for someone to do a nice and exacting F4U-4 mod. Would love to put that up against the Spit 25lbs, Spit XIV (not in game either), the FW 190 D9 and the La7. Hehe

horseback
03-22-2009, 07:15 PM
I would only say this about the Mustang in this game: if Oleg got it "right", then almost every one of the Eastern Front core group is being treated entirely too charitably in comparison.

If the early Soviet fighters were modelled to the same degree of accuracy, you wouldn't be able to see through the yellowed canopy, the bulbs in the reflector gunsights would burn out half the time and the engine would boil over at a heated glance, even if you ran with the radiators wide open all the time (like the VVS' pilots usually did). The mid to late war models got better canopies, but the engines still had to carefully nursed, and range and ammo capacity were generally very limited (I recently scored seven kills in a single off-line campaign mission that lasted over 90 minutes in an La-5, PLUS I landed without a single bounce--all absolutely impossible in real life). Also, they would usually perform at something like 10-15% less than the factory ideals until you reached the 1943 era fighters.

If modelled to the same standard, the Focke-Wulf 190A would also be much more prone to overheat and vastly more vulnerable to engine strikes than the R-2800 powered US fighters. To be fair, it would also be be a lot quicker off the mark. The 109 would be the next best thing to impossible to take off or land in anything but ideal weather conditions, have considerably less endurance, far 'twitchier' at high alts, be much more likely to lose a wing than a Mustang in a high G turn or recovery and all of them would be a lot more demanding of their pilots' attention to fly than a Mustang.

And finally, if the Mustang's FM is accurate, then the P-38, Corsair and the Hellcat FMs are thoroughly and absolutely porked.

cheers

horseback

PS-yes, I know that the Yak 9D had excellent range--but if you think it handled better than a Mustang did when it had a full fuel load, recheck your sources. They probably mention Spitfires with wooden tails.

X32Wright
03-22-2009, 08:53 PM
There is much more reliable data on US planes than Russian planes. The US planes were used by numerous other nationalities who without bias have documented performance of these aircraft.

Reliable data or not they did not come directly from the manufacturer of these US planes. Oleg had direct access to data from the Russian manufacturers of the planes we see in the game. This is not true for most of the other planes specially American.

Also have you ever done 3D modeling and done some programming of all the vectors and such to make a sim like this? There is a lot of work involved that not many know how complicated this is done.

Through the years I know that many people here have directly given Oleg data from various sources but if I was Oleg I would rather have this data from the aircraft manufacturer than from USAAF tests or some other data and this is what he had for the Russian planeset.

Frequent_Flyer
03-22-2009, 09:06 PM
Originally posted by X32Wright:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">There is much more reliable data on US planes than Russian planes. The US planes were used by numerous other nationalities who without bias have documented performance of these aircraft.

Reliable data or not they did not come directly from the manufacturer of these US planes. Oleg had direct access to data from the Russian manufacturers of the planes we see in the game. This is not true for most of the other planes specially American.

Also have you ever done 3D modeling and done some programming of all the vectors and such to make a sim like this? There is a lot of work involved that not many know how complicated this is done.

Through the years I know that many people here have directly given Oleg data from various sources but if I was Oleg I would rather have this data from the aircraft manufacturer than from USAAF tests or some other data and this is what he had for the Russian planeset. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That certainly does not make the Russian data more reliable. Rather than use numerous sources, compare and contrast, he ultimately guessed on the performance? relying on his prejudice, rather than well documented data to implement the US planeset. The Russians copied the B-29 down to the last bolt. Because they could not nor did they have the engineering intellect or capacity to arrive a t such a sophiticated air craft. Its not surprising Oleg could not accept the performance of the US aircraft and their power plants.

X32Wright
03-22-2009, 09:10 PM
Well nobody is making anybody buy this game and this goes for Oleg much less fly this. I think that if one feels there are too many errors in a game then one should no longer play it.

I for one knows no other game close to this and would rather rely on oleg for the data than someplace else at least I know it comes from a single source, judgment and perspective.

I am a 3d Modeler and you don't see me trying to point out the myriad of errors in the cockpits of this game. I take it for what it is fully knowing the geometry limitations Oleg had in 1998-1999 in making this sim. I could point out the shortcuts that were taken but I know why they were made and fully accept them because ultimately it is HIS game and we just were given privilege to enjoy it.

Frequent_Flyer
03-22-2009, 09:19 PM
Originally posted by X32Wright:
Well nobody is making anybody buy this game and this goes for Oleg much less fly this. I think that if one feels there are too many errors in a game then one should no longer play it.

I for one knows no other game close to this and would rather rely on oleg for the data than someplace else at least I know it comes from a single source, judgment and perspective.

I am a 3d Modeler and you don't see me trying to point out the myriad of errors in the cockpits of this game. I take it for what it is fully knowing the geometry limitations Oleg had in 1998-1999 in making this sim. I could point out the shortcuts that were taken but I know why they were made and fully accept them because ultimately it is HIS game and we just were given privilege to enjoy it.

I would think for the sake of " historical accuracy " you would prefer , Oleg got it right. It would be much more enjoyable for those of us who prefer historical accuracy as opposed to Russian propoganda, and insecurity.

VW-IceFire
03-22-2009, 09:43 PM
I have to point out that Russian aircraft have their problems too. Like how the entire Yak series, regardless of power, has insane amounts of torque that are next to impossible to get it flying straight and level. Or how the Yak-9UT has the wrong weapons loadout.

The Lavochkin series got the good end of the stick and the Yakolev series got the bad end of it...yet both are Russian.

Or how about the Pe-2 series with the ShKAS machine gun that fires like a shotgun but its magically alright on the I-16.

Japanese planes have problems too. The A6M5b is missing a gun. The Ki-100 is under performing in all aspects. The Ki-61-Tei is missing from the planeset. Etc.

The problem in my mind is that the game was designed long ago to do one plane at low levels and while its scaled very well its never quite shaken its roots plus Pacific Fighters wasn't planned as well as it should have been.

But given that some Russian planes are as badly flawed as the American/German/Romanian/Japanese ones...I still cannot agree to the nationalistic bias stuff being tossed around. Oleg's favourite aircraft is the 109...or at least thats what he says and that one has some serious errors/bugs too. Its much more likely that the game is so massive and the datasets even larger...its impossible to get it all right. Well intentioned or not.

crucislancer
03-22-2009, 10:30 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
But given that some Russian planes are as badly flawed as the American/German/Romanian/Japanese ones...I still cannot agree to the nationalistic bias stuff being tossed around.

I can't agree to it, either.


Well nobody is making anybody buy this game and this goes for Oleg much less fly this. I think that if one feels there are too many errors in a game then one should no longer play it.

Indeed. The way some people here complain about it, they should have stopped playing long ago. Or, perhaps they have stopped playing, they just come here it complain now. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

As far as WWII air combat sims, it's the best we have, and I think it has more going for it then flawed flight models. Yup, it's got issues, but I don't see anything better right now.

Stiletto-
03-22-2009, 11:44 PM
It will be interesting, when SoW comes out knowing that is designed to handle a broad range of aircraft and parameters.. If we will see some more accurate numbers.

joeap
03-23-2009, 04:13 AM
Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:

There is much more reliable data on US planes than Russian planes. The US planes were used by numerous other nationalities who without bias have documented performance of these aircraft.

Oleg used Russian records only to produce the flight models for the Russian aircraft. He calls that reliable...that is just practising bad sceince.

You can review archives from four independent authorities, different nations, for the performance data on many of the USAAF/USN aircraft.

Yet he doubts its authenticity . However, the Russian data is considered the benchmark of accuracy. Oleg may be a programer but his sceince and research are flawed.

Can you point me to an exact quote where Oleg doubted US data and refused to use it?

Xiolablu3
03-23-2009, 05:18 AM
I think a lot of the US planes strenths dont come across well in a sim where most fights take place 2km from their base at around or below 3000m.

Range doesnt matter as noone flies more than 15mins to the targets, pilots havent got a life to safe if they get damaged.

Short range, light, cannon armed dogfighters like the La7/Spitfire/Me109/Zero are far more useful in this respect than a long range Mustang with weaker guns. The advantages the Mustang brought simply are not as useful in this sim.

The P51 was such a revalation because of its range, that is completely useless in this sim online, a Spitfire carries plenty of fuel for an hours flight.

A good quote about not needing the P51's range comes from the Israeli 101 squadron, who used SPitfires and P51's against the Egyptions in 1948 :-

Syd Antin enjoyed his Mustang time:

"Wonderful airplane. Great airplane. But for our situation there, not as good as the Spitfire. The reason? The Mustang was built for longer range, it was a heavier aircraft - it could not maneuver as tightly as the Spitfire. The Spitfire was designed and built as a short-range fighter. You gotta remember that all it had to was cross the English Channel and it was in a war zone. The Mustang was designed and built to escort long-range bombers and to defend them in the air. Consequently, it had to have more armament and more fuel capacity, so it was heavier and it couldn't maneuver anywhere near as good as the Spitfire. "

http://101squadron.com/101real/mustangs.html

Yeah, so it wasnt designed as a long range escort, he go that bit wrong, but his opinion on the merits of each fighter stands.


More comments on why planes like the Spitfire doe so well online, they are simple to fly :-

Jack Cohen, too, enjoyed the Spitfire.

"Well as far as the Spitfire was concerned, she was just the perfect aeroplane to fly. She had no vices - you did something wrong she'd turn around and say, you know, "don't do it again." Not like some of these American planes. I mean, you know they'd turn round and bite you the second you did something wrong. But the Spit really didn't have any faults - it was like flying a Tiger Moth. Very easy to fly."


http://101squadron.com/101/aircraft.html

I know I have posted these before, but they are great comparisons of these planes as these guys went to war in both and compared them constanly :-

Gordon Levett compares the three combat aircraft flown by the 101:

"In mock dog-fights, we concluded that the Messerschmitt could out-climb, out-dive and out-zoom the Spitfire and Mustang. The Spitfire could out-turn the Messerschmitt, the most important manoeuvre in air combat, and both could out-turn the Mustang. The Mustang was the fastest, the Messerschmitt the slowest, though there was not much in it. The Mustang had the best visibility, important for a fighter aircraft, the Messerschmitt the worst. The Spitfire cockpit fitted like a glove, the Messerschmitt like a strait-jacket, the Mustang like a too comfortable armchair. The Spitfire had two 20-mm cannon and four .303-in machine guns (sic; actually, the 101 Squadron Spits had two .50s, not four .303s), the Mustang six 12.7-mm machine guns (i.e. .50-calibre), and the Messerschmitt two 20-mm cannon and two 7.92-mm machine guns (sic; actually two 13.1-mm machine guns) synchronised to fire through the arc of the propeller.... Despite the pros and cons the Spitfire was everyone's first choice."

M_Gunz
03-23-2009, 09:05 AM
Ahhhh Xio? Zero was never a short range fighter! Light, yes. Cannon, yes. Short range, no.

Xiolablu3
03-23-2009, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Ahhhh Xio? Zero was never a short range fighter! Light, yes. Cannon, yes. Short range, no.

Yeah I realised that after I wrote it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif, but they really only substituted armour etc for fuel, so I left it without explanation. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Its still a 'light fighter', I reckon http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The P51, 109 or Spit could have carried as much fuel, if they had completely left out armour protection and self sealing fuel tanks. SOme Japanese pilots even took out the radio to save weight.

megalopsuche
03-23-2009, 09:18 AM
Xio, do you know which variants were being discussed in any of those quotes? I find the third one, comparing a 2x20mm armed 109 to a P-51, to be very suspect. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif The only 109 model I can think of that had 2x20mm cannon was the E-series.

-------

Edit, the 109 in the quote is no 109 at all, but an Avia S-199; it's like the ugly degenerate cousin of the 109 family. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Xiolablu3
03-23-2009, 10:01 AM
It wasn't a 109 at all mate, they just called it a 'Messerschmitt' (not 109) cos it used the 109G airframe.

It was an Avia S199 (109G airframe with a Jumo 211 He111 bomber engine. Apparantly awful to fly. It had 2x20mm gunpods under the wings.)

The P51 was the D model and the Spitfire was the Spitfire IX LF

http://101squadron.com/101/aircraft.html

EDIT : I see you found it anyway http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

M_Gunz
03-23-2009, 10:54 AM
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 M_Gunz:
Ahhhh Xio? Zero was never a short range fighter! Light, yes. Cannon, yes. Short range, no.

Yeah I realised that after I wrote it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif, but they really only substituted armour etc for fuel, so I left it without explanation. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Its still a 'light fighter', I reckon http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The P51, 109 or Spit could have carried as much fuel, if they had completely left out armour protection and self sealing fuel tanks. SOme Japanese pilots even took out the radio to save weight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

For sure the pilot only _had_ the radio taken out. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

It gives me cause to wonder how much difference there was between a fully fueled Zero and one that had reached its'
combat radius or just not tanked up. The difference could have been put down to pilot experience.

It's very possible that the Zero was the first long range fighter of WWII. Naval aviation over the Pacific required
such a thing. It makes me wonder if the Japanese were the first to employ carriers in what the US later called the
"Jeep" role, as floating stop-off points between distant islands. Perhaps they never had to.

ElAurens
03-23-2009, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Ahhhh Xio? Zero was never a short range fighter! Light, yes. Cannon, yes. Short range, no.

Indeed, until the P51 with rear tank came on the scene it was the longest ranged single seater in the world.

I think the 109 is too small in overall dimension to carry enough fuel to go 1200 miles, even with armor removed.

M_Gunz
03-23-2009, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by X32Wright:
[QUOTE]There is much more reliable data on US planes than Russian planes. The US planes were used by numerous other nationalities who without bias have documented performance of these aircraft.

Reliable data or not they did not come directly from the manufacturer of these US planes. Oleg had direct access to data from the Russian manufacturers of the planes we see in the game. This is not true for most of the other planes specially American. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oleg came on this board years ago and stated that he used US data for US planes, German data for German planes and British
data for British planes, etc. Manufacturer's data? LOL! Lockheed numbers don't all agree with what the military got
from the same planes! Ditto Messerschmidt to Rechlin! Notes on the Spitfire tests site tell that British testing had
amounted to a rubber stamp (quickly checked and approved) on Supermarine numbers, it's right there.

Not all serial production met the best spec anywhere. A 5% variance was expected as realistic.

Russian plane data for IL2 series was the average of best to worst, we have been told.

But along come the "this therefore that" people who make their own "Fakts"....
How many remember when "gravity is not modeled" was the whine du jour?
Or the Russian "lazer" guns and the faked-up "proof"?

Why say "History" when it's "History As You Would Have It"?
Oh yeah, I forgot. It's because it's SACRED NATIONAL IDENTITY! And I am a Blaphemous Infidel!

ElAurens
03-23-2009, 03:37 PM
Some still call the Russian machine guns lazers.

If they did the tiniest bit of research they would find that the Russian MGs were indeed some of, if not the best, aerial machine guns used in WW2.

Xiolablu3
03-23-2009, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
Some still call the Russian machine guns lazers.

If they did the tiniest bit of research they would find that the Russian MGs were indeed some of, if not the best, aerial machine guns used in WW2.

But apparantly the cannon shells were far less effective, or so I have read, mate.

Just take a look at the shells for the SHVak and the B20 cannons...

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/20mm1.jpg

The 6th from the left is the Soviet 20mm cannon cartridge. See how much less explosive powder it contained compared to the Hispano (far right) and other 20mm cantridges...the casing makes up most of the shell.

Wouldnt this mean that it had better AP capabilities but less explosive power as it has less powder?
This cartridge was developed in the late 1930s for the Soviet ShVAK aircraft cannon. In fact, the gun was first produced in 12.7x107R calibre, using a rimmed case which was quite different from the later (and still current) 12.7x108. However, that saw very little use, the cartridge soon being necked out to 20 mm calibre.

This is what Anthony G Williams, the gun and cartridge expert writes about the Soviet Shvak and 20mx99 shell...

"The gun had a good rate of fire, but the performance of the cartridge was not impressive, as the light shells held little HE.As well as being extensively used in Soviet aircraft during WW2, the gun was also fitted to some light tanks. At the end of the war, the Berezin B-20 appeared, a lighter gun chambered for the same cartridge. The cartridge has survived to this day because it is used in sub-calibre training devices."

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.u...to_collecting_20.htm (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/an_introduction_to_collecting_20.htm)

It seems that the Hispano was the most powerful of the 20mm aircraft cannons used in WW2. Its not surprising looking at the Hispano shell (20x110 on the pic above) compared to the MG151/20 shell (20x82 on the picture above) According to this guy's tables, anyway...

Xiolablu3
03-23-2009, 06:04 PM
Just a note about the US planes flight models, I understand that they were quite heavy and most of them couldnt manouver as tightly at low speeds as the small, light fighters already listed like the 109,Spit,Zero etc.

However its the d*mn unstableness that I cannot understand. WHY should they be so much more unstable in manouvres? (I am talking principally the P51 and Corsair here.) I just want to be able to shoot where I want without the plane porpoising or wobbling as I manouvre, or an explanation as to why they should have the 'wobbly' characteristic?

As has been said before, the person in the world who has flown more types than any otyher pilot, Captain Eric Brown, listed the P51 in his top 3 WW2 prop fighters that he has flown, along with the Spitfire XIV and the FW190D. Can anyone really suggest that he would put IL2's P51D in his top3 aircraft?

OK so it might be unstable with a full fuel load, but when carrying only 25% fuel?

I dont believe that all US aircraft in the sim are undermodelled, the P47 is pretty awesome, but there are certainly a few issues with some of them. Just wanted to clarify my position on these things. My mind would be put to rest if I could just hear an explanation as to why the Corsair and P51 are so unstable. I cannot say for sure that they are incorrect, but when aircraft such as the P39 and Lagg3 are more stable around the gunsight, I do wonder...

Woke_Up_Dead
03-23-2009, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:

I would think for the sake of " historical accuracy " you would prefer , Oleg got it right. It would be much more enjoyable for those of us who prefer historical accuracy as opposed to Russian propoganda, and insecurity.

I don't know how accurately the US planes are modeled in this game, but I find the idea that they were porked on purpose for "propaganda and insecurity" reasons to be silly. It's not just Oleg who made this game, I'm sure it took a whole team of at least dozens of people to create it. I am certain that many of them were also interested in historic accuracy, and I'm sure most of them have professional pride in their work. And on top of that, they and their management knew that the American market would account for a huge part of their game's sales.

Besides, most of the Russians I know don't link their national pride to the products their country makes; even during the height of the Cold War they probably knew that their Ladas and Volgas were not as good as Fords and Cadillacs. These days Russian "insecurity and propaganda" would manifest itself in another way than a premeditated and spiteful 5% performance reduction of American equipment.

VW-IceFire
03-23-2009, 07:22 PM
Originally posted by Stiletto-:
It will be interesting, when SoW comes out knowing that is designed to handle a broad range of aircraft and parameters.. If we will see some more accurate numbers.
I have to agree there...I'm hoping that smaller packages of planes being added plus the foresight and experience with IL-2 will make for a much smoother process with fewer tweaks to flight models required.

With damage models too. IL-2 still has issues with some planes having a more sophisticated damage model while others have a less sophisticated one. Some of the problems have been negated somewhat but they are still around.

Buzzsaw-
03-23-2009, 07:26 PM
Salute

The problem with the game is not that the Western Allied aircraft which are in the game are modelled particularly poorly, it is that some models are simply missing.

There are instances of slightly lower performance for some Western Allied aircraft, but generally that can be attributed to honest mistakes.

The real issue is that there simply isn't any of the list which I noted earlier, and which others added to, ie:

Spit XIV
Tempest +11 boost
Tempest +13 boost
Mosquito +25 boost

F4U-4
P-51D 150 octane 25lb boost (European Theater)
P-51D 115/145 octane 81 inch boost (Asian Theater)
P-47M
P-47N

These aircraft should have been in the game, there is no real logical reason why they aren't.

It's a mystery, and one which unfortunately leads to a completely skewed version of the war in the air, one heavily biased in favour of the Axis and Soviets.

jayhall0315
03-23-2009, 08:01 PM
Yep, Buzzsaw the game would be more balanced if those airframes had been included. I did not even know this until you posted that list. I went to wikipedia and did a little reading and came away more enlightened. I sure would love to pit a properly modeled F4U-4 against a Spit 25lbs or La7 in this game, that is for sure.

horseback
03-23-2009, 08:22 PM
Well, it was posted on these boards by Gibbage, the guy who actually did the P-38 for this game purely out of love for this sim, just before the Aces Expansion Pack to Forgotten Battles came out that when he gave Oleg the P-38's performance specs, Oleg dismissed them out of hand as 'propaganda' and gave it an FM closer to what he thought it should be. He could not wrap his mind around the concept of a twin engined fighter that used props rotating in opposite directions to eliminate torque effect.

It took literally years for its fans to convince Oleg and his crew that the USAAF documentation wasn't some kind of hoax. The FM is still well short of contemporary descriptions of its true capabilities vs its usual opponents, and it remains subject to compressability effect at sea level, when it has been well documented that the Lightning could dive safely below 18,000 ft.

You rarely if ever hear form Gibbage here any more, not least because of the grief the whole affair caused him...

The original FM for the P-47 gave it a roll rate inferior to the He-111, and it took, again, literally years before the FM began to approach the real thing's exhaustively documented capabilities in relation to the FW 190A or Bf 109G. It still falls well short of the real thing in many areas, especially in a mid-44 scenario, when fighter groups still equipped with the P-47, like the 56th and 78th FGs, were fully equipped with paddle blade props, which literally transformed the Jug's medium alt performance and climb to something approximating the Mustang's.

The original Hellcat in Pacific Fighters had a big old stain on the canopy, obscuring the player's view, and it has never had the performance or handling that made it a war winner. It continues to have a slightly lesser 'wobble' than the Mustang and Corsair, which most late war American fighters received with the 4.0X series of patches, and have never quite lost since.

Shall we go on into the Great Fifties Synching Fiasco, where all American fighters were equipped with guns that all fired at the same time, so that their targets could quite often fly between rounds?

My point is that there is a nationalistic streak to the (mis)treatment of US aircraft that did not make it to the Soviet Union via Lend-Lease, and that when Oleg (and let me be clear here; I think that this is a terrific sim, far and away the best available, but some aircraft are clearly favored, not just by the overall model but because Oleg consciously chose to do it that way), who is The Man In Charge at 1C, was questioned by US fans who churlishly hoped that he would get their favorite fighters approximately right, he went into diva mode.

The reason that the Mustang, the Corsair and the Hellcat wobble is because he wants them to, and he's found a couple of references that speak of 'porpoising' at high speeds, which he interprets to mean anything over 350kph. That will show those American lawyers, and those ungrateful American simmers to diss his creation!

cheers

horseback

Frequent_Flyer
03-23-2009, 09:07 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Just a note about the US planes flight models, I understand that they were quite heavy and most of them couldnt manouver as tightly at low speeds as the small, light fighters already listed like the 109,Spit,Zero etc.

However its the d*mn unstableness that I cannot understand. WHY should they be so much more unstable in manouvres? (I am talking principally the P51 and Corsair here.) I just want to be able to shoot where I want without the plane porpoising or wobbling as I manouvre, or an explanation as to why they should have the 'wobbly' characteristic?

As has been said before, the person in the world who has flown more types than any otyher pilot, Captain Eric Brown, listed the P51 in his top 3 WW2 prop fighters that he has flown, along with the Spitfire XIV and the FW190D. Can anyone really suggest that he would put IL2's P51D in his top3 aircraft?

OK so it might be unstable with a full fuel load, but when carrying only 25% fuel?

I dont believe that all US aircraft in the sim are undermodelled, the P47 is pretty awesome, but there are certainly a few issues with some of them. Just wanted to clarify my position on these things. My mind would be put to rest if I could just hear an explanation as to why the Corsair and P51 are so unstable. I cannot say for sure that they are incorrect, but when aircraft such as the P39 and Lagg3 are more stable around the gunsight, I do wonder...

The P-38 outweights the 109 considerable and is more manuverable at high speed. Not to mention at some slower speeds. The wildcat, Hellcat and Corsair all out weigh and out manuver the 109. This of course was in the real world not in Oleg's.

Frequent_Flyer
03-23-2009, 09:26 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
Well, it was posted on these boards by Gibbage, the guy who actually did the P-38 for this game purely out of love for this sim, just before the Aces Expansion Pack to Forgotten Battles came out that when he gave Oleg the P-38's performance specs, Oleg dismissed them out of hand as 'propaganda' and gave it an FM closer to what he thought it should be. He could not wrap his mind around the concept of a twin engined fighter that used props rotating in opposite directions to eliminate torque effect.

It took literally years for its fans to convince Oleg and his crew that the USAAF documentation wasn't some kind of hoax. The FM is still well short of contemporary descriptions of its true capabilities vs its usual opponents, and it remains subject to compressability effect at sea level, when it has been well documented that the Lightning could dive safely below 18,000 ft.

You rarely if ever hear form Gibbage here any more, not least because of the grief the whole affair caused him...

The original FM for the P-47 gave it a roll rate inferior to the He-111, and it took, again, literally years before the FM began to approach the real thing's exhaustively documented capabilities in relation to the FW 190A or Bf 109G. It still falls well short of the real thing in many areas, especially in a mid-44 scenario, when fighter groups still equipped with the P-47, like the 56th and 78th FGs, were fully equipped with paddle blade props, which literally transformed the Jug's medium alt performance and climb to something approximating the Mustang's.

The original Hellcat in Pacific Fighters had a big old stain on the canopy, obscuring the player's view, and it has never had the performance or handling that made it a war winner. It continues to have a slightly lesser 'wobble' than the Mustang and Corsair, which most late war American fighters received with the 4.0X series of patches, and have never quite lost since.

Shall we go on into the Great Fifties Synching Fiasco, where all American fighters were equipped with guns that all fired at the same time, so that their targets could quite often fly between rounds?

My point is that there is a nationalistic streak to the (mis)treatment of US aircraft that did not make it to the Soviet Union via Lend-Lease, and that when Oleg (and let me be clear here; I think that this is a terrific sim, far and away the best available, but some aircraft are clearly favored, not just by the overall model but because Oleg consciously chose to do it that way), who is The Man In Charge at 1C, was questioned by US fans who churlishly hoped that he would get their favorite fighters approximately right, he went into diva mode.

The reason that the Mustang, the Corsair and the Hellcat wobble is because he wants them to, and he's found a couple of references that speak of 'porpoising' at high speeds, which he interprets to mean anything over 350kph. That will show those American lawyers, and those ungrateful American simmers to diss his creation!

cheers

horseback

Horseback, Again you could not be MORE correct.Most that still post here just want a historically accurate sim. No matter what you fly.

This is a combat sim, yet Oleg still has not accuratelly modelled the armament on any of the US planes. How can the same 6 guns on the P-40 be so much more effective than the same number and configuration on P-51, Corsair, Wildcat and Hellcat.

This fact alone should cause consternation among any fan of historical accuracy. Yet the same usual suspects talking on and on about the Spitfire and the 109 etc. Never really address this inequity from a pure lack of " historical accuracy.

Frequent_Flyer
03-23-2009, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by Woke_Up_Dead:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:

I would think for the sake of " historical accuracy " you would prefer , Oleg got it right. It would be much more enjoyable for those of us who prefer historical accuracy as opposed to Russian propoganda, and insecurity.

I don't know how accurately the US planes are modeled in this game, but I find the idea that they were porked on purpose for "propaganda and insecurity" reasons to be silly. It's not just Oleg who made this game, I'm sure it took a whole team of at least dozens of people to create it. I am certain that many of them were also interested in historic accuracy, and I'm sure most of them have professional pride in their work. And on top of that, they and their management knew that the American market would account for a huge part of their game's sales.

Besides, most of the Russians I know don't link their national pride to the products their country makes; even during the height of the Cold War they probably knew that their Ladas and Volgas were not as good as Fords and Cadillacs. These days Russian "insecurity and propaganda" would manifest itself in another way than a premeditated and spiteful 5% performance reduction of American equipment. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Respectfully, you cannot "be sure" of any of the developers intention. However, if you follow this thread it can be demonstrated that "Russian propaganda and insecurity" are much more likely to be the reason reliable data was selectively overlooked and Oleg's prejudice was substittuted in the flight models and armament performance of the US aircraft.

Frequent_Flyer
03-23-2009, 09:58 PM
Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:

There is much more reliable data on US planes than Russian planes. The US planes were used by numerous other nationalities who without bias have documented performance of these aircraft.

Oleg used Russian records only to produce the flight models for the Russian aircraft. He calls that reliable...that is just practising bad sceince.

You can review archives from four independent authorities, different nations, for the performance data on many of the USAAF/USN aircraft.

Yet he doubts its authenticity . However, the Russian data is considered the benchmark of accuracy. Oleg may be a programer but his sceince and research are flawed.

Can you point me to an exact quote where Oleg doubted US data and refused to use it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes I can. Why do you ask?

Viper2005_
03-23-2009, 10:05 PM
IME, people tend to be over-sensitive to the possibility of a conspiracy.

What I have been able to deduce from test flying the various models in IL2 is that they have been built by different people who have a different view of how models should be built.

Some aeroplanes can dive very much faster than VNE; others like the Mosquito will breakup quite close to their R/L VNE.

When the Mustang III was first added to the game it had +25 psi boost but no reduction in Full Throttle Height, and could therefore fly at almost 500 mph at altitude.

In this particular case I started a thread in ORR and was eventually able to get the model changed to more closely match the available data.

I don't think that there is any particular nationalistic bias at 1C. I think that it's simply a complex process to design and input a model, that the process is complex, the data arrives in various formats and in various languages, and mistakes are inevitably made. I think that it is inevitable that Russian developers are going to find it easier to build models of Russian aeroplanes because they will have Russian test data available directly, rather than being forced to rely upon a translation. It follows that we should expect fewer mistakes to be made when Russians are modelling Russian aeroplanes, just as I would do a better job modelling a British aeroplane than a German or Russian one.

We also suffer from the fact that the IL2 model is rather limited in many respects, most notably compressibility, CEM (The Overheating model is laughable!), and structural load limits (all the aircraft fail at 15 g).

CEM is one of the biggest problems with the P-51. The Automatic radiator is simply wrong. It shouldn't open in high speed flight, and when it does open, it shouldn't produce anything like as much drag as it does in the game. If you don't use manual radiator, you'll find that your aeroplane is far slower than it should be.

Then again, the 190 has similar performance problems, suffering from poor automatic prop performance (it seems likely that the minimum blade angle is set too high). This is especially noticeable on the 1.65 ata A5, which will just run out of rpm if you ever get slow.

Older models are simpler than newer models, and this is especially obvious when they take damage. You can actually shoot the whole tail of the Bf-109Z and keep flying. If you watch closely when taxiing, you can see that the game treats it as a conventional taildragger, even though it actually has a much more complex landing gear.

This is an inevitable consequence of building a general flight simulator and then using it to simulate a wide variety of aeroplanes.

If you only use IL2 at low altitudes, and fly the kind of aeroplanes for which it was originally designed, the results are reasonable. If you operate it outside of the scope of the original assumptions then There Be Dragons.

But this applies across the board.

Look at the FMs produced by AAA - in many cases, they don't match the data too well either. It's not easy to make an accurate performance model of an aeroplane. Oleg & Co have done a very good job IMO, but it's time to move on.

I hope that they incorporate compressibility, realistic engine handling and realistic aircraft structural strength into SoW... However I don't hold out huge hope, because these features would make it much harder for the armchair pilot to convince himself that he would have been an ace rather than a target had he been born in time to fly in WWII.

Frequent_Flyer
03-23-2009, 10:35 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
IME, people tend to be over-sensitive to the possibility of a conspiracy.

What I have been able to deduce from test flying the various models in IL2 is that they have been built by different people who have a different view of how models should be built.

Some aeroplanes can dive very much faster than VNE; others like the Mosquito will breakup quite close to their R/L VNE.

When the Mustang III was first added to the game it had +25 psi boost but no reduction in Full Throttle Height, and could therefore fly at almost 500 mph at altitude.

In this particular case I started a thread in ORR and was eventually able to get the model changed to more closely match the available data.

I don't think that there is any particular nationalistic bias at 1C. I think that it's simply a complex process to design and input a model, that the process is complex, the data arrives in various formats and in various languages, and mistakes are inevitably made. I think that it is inevitable that Russian developers are going to find it easier to build models of Russian aeroplanes because they will have Russian test data available directly, rather than being forced to rely upon a translation. It follows that we should expect fewer mistakes to be made when Russians are modelling Russian aeroplanes, just as I would do a better job modelling a British aeroplane than a German or Russian one.

We also suffer from the fact that the IL2 model is rather limited in many respects, most notably compressibility, CEM (The Overheating model is laughable!), and structural load limits (all the aircraft fail at 15 g).

CEM is one of the biggest problems with the P-51. The Automatic radiator is simply wrong. It shouldn't open in high speed flight, and when it does open, it shouldn't produce anything like as much drag as it does in the game. If you don't use manual radiator, you'll find that your aeroplane is far slower than it should be.

Then again, the 190 has similar performance problems, suffering from poor automatic prop performance (it seems likely that the minimum blade angle is set too high). This is especially noticeable on the 1.65 ata A5, which will just run out of rpm if you ever get slow.

Older models are simpler than newer models, and this is especially obvious when they take damage. You can actually shoot the whole tail of the Bf-109Z and keep flying. If you watch closely when taxiing, you can see that the game treats it as a conventional taildragger, even though it actually has a much more complex landing gear.

This is an inevitable consequence of building a general flight simulator and then using it to simulate a wide variety of aeroplanes.

If you only use IL2 at low altitudes, and fly the kind of aeroplanes for which it was originally designed, the results are reasonable. If you operate it outside of the scope of the original assumptions then There Be Dragons.

But this applies across the board.

Look at the FMs produced by AAA - in many cases, they don't match the data too well either. It's not easy to make an accurate performance model of an aeroplane. Oleg & Co have done a very good job IMO, but it's time to move on.

I hope that they incorporate compressibility, realistic engine handling and realistic aircraft structural strength into SoW... However I don't hold out huge hope, because these features would make it much harder for the armchair pilot to convince himself that he would have been an ace rather than a target had he been born in time to fly in WWII.

It is a "complex process" that uniformally and unilaterally discounts performance from the US aircraft and armamennt-a rather odd and unfortunate coincidence..or mistranslation... don't you think? I understood the laws of physics and mathmatics to be universal no matter your native tongue.

Kettenhunde
03-23-2009, 11:17 PM
I understood the laws of physics and mathmatics to be universal no matter your native tongue.


The forces and behaviors are universal. However our ability to describe them is not.

http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/760/correctiondifferences.jpg (http://img26.imageshack.us/my.php?image=correctiondifferences.jpg)

http://aerade.cranfield.ac.uk/...947/naca-tn-1328.pdf (http://aerade.cranfield.ac.uk/ara/1947/naca-tn-1328.pdf)

Bluntly put, the United States, England, Japan, and Germany used different rulers and methods to describe them. Each is accurate IF we adjust all the parameters to the same conditions.

All the best,

Crumpp

Xiolablu3
03-24-2009, 08:14 AM
I find no difference in the P40 guns, US model or lend lease, and the other US 50 cal guns.

Only that its harder to aim the guns in the P51 and the Corsair.

jasonbirder
03-24-2009, 08:49 AM
I can't help but think that given Russia was allied with the US and the US supplied Russia with many Lend Lease Aircraft, whereas Russia fought against the Germans and the Japanese...
That if the conspiracy theorists are right and 1C has gone out of its way to gently fudge some of the performance data that was used in the creation of the Flight Models, then surely they would have hamstrung the German and the Japanese Aircraft instead...
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Not that I believe the consiracy theorists for one second...
Maybe I just believe the T34 won teh war!

Viper2005_
03-24-2009, 09:27 AM
The propaganda thing is nonsensical.

If 1C make one country's aeroplanes better, they are automatically implying that their pilots are worse, and vice versa, because the end result is fixed in history.

megalopsuche
03-24-2009, 09:34 AM
This thread is hilarious. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif Why do all the boards for WW2 combat flight sims have the same whines? It's uncanny, really. As usual, it's all based on anecdotal evidence, or combat reports against axis pilots with <20 hours of flight training. Do you all think it's some vast conspiracy that a guy from Texas also created a WW2 flight sim where the American aircraft are not dominant? I'm sure he and Oleg got together in 1999 and laid out their plans to nerf American aircraft, never mind the fact that Dale Addink doesn't speak Russian. My guess as to why American aircraft don't live up to their "Dogfights" reputation in *both* Il-2 and Aces High is that the game creators used similar data sets, yet likely obtained them from different sources. If that doesn't speak to something approaching accuracy, I don't know what does. But no one says any computer model is perfect, there is going to be a % of error, yet it's going to be small enough to barely impact the overall results over a large distribution of engagements. Most of the aircraft we fly are close enough in performance for pilot quality to be the big deciding factor. Those who want to succeed in high wingloading aircraft in an arena environment *that does not simulate WW2 aircombat* are going to have to make some adjustments. They are going to have to learn ACM that goes beyond merely pointing your lift vector at the bandit; learn to force overshoots; learn vertical maneuvers that foil their opponent's superior flat turn rate. It's a tough road that requires a lot more effort than simply hopping in a Spit or La-7 and bagging a few kills...

As for the .50cal Browning, Mike Williams has convincingly demonstrated that it was a "mediocre" air-to-air weapon compared to the auto-cannons of the day: its high weight was too big a penalty for the resulting lethality, which was sufficient for downing enemy fighters, but lacking for larger targets. However, the USAAF and USN stuck with it because it was reliable, easy to aim, and sufficient for the job that needed to be done. War-time requirements are always different from what you'd want in an ideal situation, i.e. a computer simulation.

If you want to talk propaganda, look no further than our own media. The television spews cheap documentaries that tout the superiority of American aircraft; and coffee-table aircraft "history" books repeat the same anecdotal garbage with a slightly more sophisticated vocabulary. Maybe it's not enough that we beat the enemy with superior pilot training and quantity of material, some still need to believe that we always had the best aircraft, but pilot training and quantity were the two biggest factors in the outcome of the air wars over Europe and the Pacific.

ElAurens
03-24-2009, 10:46 AM
What I think is the real problem is the IL2 game engine that was designed around one aircraft, the IL2, and the lighter VVS and German fighters. When the FM engine in the game comes up agianst a heavy (by comparison) fighter like a P51 or F4U, and sees it's performance figures it just goes WTF!, and tries to make it happen, and the only algorithms it has adds a ton of instability on all axis just to give it the proper maneuver performance.

IMHO.

X32Wright
03-24-2009, 12:52 PM
Ultimately for me those who feel that their favorite plane are porked falls on one of these categories:

1) Wrong HARDWARE-INPUT setting in the game: Try an all 100 input before you complain about the mustang's ability to stall and its inability to TURN!! PLEASE!!!

2) Try the USAAF recommendation of 300 yards or 274 Meters convergence for .50 cals before you complain it is PORKED. And PLEASE do shoot in sustained deflection shots with .50 cals. You would never shoot anything down with .50 cals if you dont do sustained shots. Short burts shots like it is a MG 151/20 won't work in the .50 cals.

3) Relative beginner who dosn't know how to do energy and angle fighting and tend to attck without advantage and tend to circle when attcked. In short they VIOLATE every rule of the DICTA BOELCKE or do not know what the 'Dicta Boelcke' is.

4) A veteran who never really learned the nuance of every plane in the game hence feels that one plane is better than the other because the data used was unreliable or worse inaccurate because of some 'nationalism' or 'country pride' that stake! Ultimately the insecurity they show id their own because the game doesnt seem to reflect the pilot accounts when in reality it is their level of experience and flying that is more of a factor than some number in the game.

5) Do not take advantage of their plane's strength and does not exploit their oppnent's plane's weaknesses: This is where most people probably afll into and this is related to NOT know your OWN plane as well as your enemy plane's performance and abilities.

6) They'd rather WHINE than FLY: No need to explain this one http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WORDS are CHEAP but Flying and gunnery are GOLD!!!

Bremspropeller
03-24-2009, 01:07 PM
All beware the US-fighter-conspiracy BS-spree! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Time for a classic Brain32... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

R_Target
03-24-2009, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
All beware the US-fighter-conspiracy BS-spree! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Time for a classic Brain32... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

There'll be another Bf109 elevator thread soon enough. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

M_Gunz
03-24-2009, 03:29 PM
Someone call Nanny 9-1-1 for the Whaaaambulance!

Xiolablu3
03-24-2009, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:

There is much more reliable data on US planes than Russian planes. The US planes were used by numerous other nationalities who without bias have documented performance of these aircraft.

Oleg used Russian records only to produce the flight models for the Russian aircraft. He calls that reliable...that is just practising bad sceince.

You can review archives from four independent authorities, different nations, for the performance data on many of the USAAF/USN aircraft.

Yet he doubts its authenticity . However, the Russian data is considered the benchmark of accuracy. Oleg may be a programer but his sceince and research are flawed.

Can you point me to an exact quote where Oleg doubted US data and refused to use it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes I can. Why do you ask? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can we see it?

megalopsuche
03-24-2009, 06:09 PM
Yup, that's called burden of proof.

Frequent_Flyer
03-24-2009, 06:26 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 Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:

There is much more reliable data on US planes than Russian planes. The US planes were used by numerous other nationalities who without bias have documented performance of these aircraft.

Oleg used Russian records only to produce the flight models for the Russian aircraft. He calls that reliable...that is just practising bad sceince.

You can review archives from four independent authorities, different nations, for the performance data on many of the USAAF/USN aircraft.

Yet he doubts its authenticity . However, the Russian data is considered the benchmark of accuracy. Oleg may be a programer but his sceince and research are flawed.

Can you point me to an exact quote where Oleg doubted US data and refused to use it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes I can. Why do you ask? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can we see it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why do you ask to see it? Where do you stand on this issue? The Flight models of the P-51, 47, 38, Corsair and Hellcat. Do you have the answers to the issues Horseback has raised ? i.e. roll rate of the 38 and 47. Top speed of the Hellcat. Etc.

X32Wright
03-24-2009, 06:28 PM
YEAH SHOW IT. Back up your statements here.

Frequent_Flyer
03-24-2009, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
The propaganda thing is nonsensical.

If 1C make one country's aeroplanes better, they are automatically implying that their pilots are worse, and vice versa, because the end result is fixed in history.

Oleg exhibits the classic short man's syndrom, a reaction to his snubbing by the US aircraft manufacturing.

Frequent_Flyer
03-24-2009, 06:33 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I find no difference in the P40 guns, US model or lend lease, and the other US 50 cal guns.

Only that its harder to aim the guns in the P51 and the Corsair.

Is that historically accurate ? Please provide the data to support this.

Frequent_Flyer
03-24-2009, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I understood the laws of physics and mathmatics to be universal no matter your native tongue.


The forces and behaviors are universal. However our ability to describe them is not.

http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/760/correctiondifferences.jpg (http://img26.imageshack.us/my.php?image=correctiondifferences.jpg)

http://aerade.cranfield.ac.uk/...947/naca-tn-1328.pdf (http://aerade.cranfield.ac.uk/ara/1947/naca-tn-1328.pdf)

Bluntly put, the United States, England, Japan, and Germany used different rulers and methods to describe them. Each is accurate IF we adjust all the parameters to the same conditions.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

whatever hieroglyph you use to describe them the laws are immutable.

Viper2005_
03-24-2009, 07:12 PM
Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
The propaganda thing is nonsensical.

If 1C make one country's aeroplanes better, they are automatically implying that their pilots are worse, and vice versa, because the end result is fixed in history.

Oleg exhibits the classic short man's syndrom, a reaction to his snubbing by the US aircraft manufacturing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This doesn't seem especially logical. You're saying that he makes the P-39 and P-40 better because these aeroplanes were given to the USSR via lend-lease, whilst the superior P-38, P-47 and P-51 which weren't are modelled as being inferior. So you're suggesting that Oleg has taken personal offence at this almost 70 year-old historical fact and decided to exact some form of revenge upon his customers for this?

This doesn't stack up. Why does the Spitfire V model have so many problems? It was given to the USSR, but AFAIK the issues with its model have been well documented.

I really don't believe that national bias is the reason behind the FM problems with IL2.

I think that language barriers and limited availability of data and understanding of how these machines were designed and operated are the main explanation for what we might term "fixable" issues.

Some issues are inherent to the computer model itself, and cannot be fixed without writing a new model.

TBH, I think that if anything, IL2 favours the P-38 and P-47 over other aeroplanes in high altitude combat, because it doesn't model their faults. The P-38's compressibility is modelled as a function of IAS, and therefore doesn't bite when it should at high altitude. The P-47 has no high altitude problems at all, when it should run into trouble at M=0.71. Neither have any engine handling limitations associated with their turbochargers. You can do what you like with the engine controls, and the only thing you have to worry about is the overheat message.

IRL, the P-47 was a very impressive machine, but much like the Harrier today, the additional lever on the left hand side of the cockpit imposed considerable additional pilot workload, and so whilst a good pilot could get a lot out of it, the average pilot would undoubtedly have done better in the P-51, which had the additional advantage of considerable automation.

Oleg has modelled the R-2800 in a way which doesn't please the P-47 fans, yet if you read Graham White's extremely comprehensive book on the P-47, he points out that P&W only ever approved the mighty -57 engine of P-47M fame for 2100 bhp; whilst you certainly could get 2800 bhp out of it in theory, the reality was that doing so would make you a test pilot. Whilst this is certainly preferable to being shot down, I wouldn't want to make a habit of it either!

Pilots report surviving incredible damage; this is recorded precisely because it was almost incredible. Some P-47s came home missing cylinders, but then again there's the story of one Lancaster pilot who lost an engine on takeoff and continued to Berlin because he wanted to log another op and finish his tour. Whilst both of these engines were certainly rugged, this is hardly surprising; they were designed to be! Most of the famous war stories are of course statistical outliers, which are quite unrelated to the normal experience of reality. We hear about lottery winners on the news, but nobody interviews the other few million people who bought tickets and won nothing. War is of course more extreme; dead men tell no tales.

I don't think that there is a particular problem with the ability of radial engines to take damage in IL2. OTOH, I think that there is a very serious problem with the system modelling in IL2 which makes liquid cooled engines appear to be relatively much tougher than they should be.

I have been shot down in P-51s and Fw-190Ds and Spitfires probably at least 1000 times. I don't recall ever seeing a realistic radiator leak. I tend to die either because somebody blasts me to atoms or because something serious (wing or horizontal stabiliser) falls off. Sometimes the engine quits.

There was a time when my 190 suffered a "magic" fuel leak. Why was this magic? Because all of the other aeroplanes in the game have magic self sealing fuel tanks! The 190's fuel leak was probably closer to reasonable (though it probably shouldn't have drained the whole system, since I don't have a diagram of the plumbing I can't say for sure). In the end after epic whine, the "magic" fuel leak was fixed to be in line with everything else. Sad but true.

There was a time when I could land my 190 on the trimmer with only rudder and throttle. This got "fixed" in a patch, so now when you lose control links you lose the lot. IMO the previous system was much more realistic because most aeroplanes run the trimmer on a separate control circuit. What would have been interesting would have been if 1C had modelled the various permutations of control failure.

Usually trim tabs work by moving the datum point of the main control surface. The elevator trim tab is like a mini elevator for the elevator. So it works in the opposite sense to the elevator itself.

If your aeroplane's elevator control cables break then you can use the trimmer in its normal sense to fly the aeroplane.

OTOH, if your aeroplane's elevator is jammed then the trimmer will just act as a mini elevator for the aeroplane, and so it will work backwards.

Modelling both kinds of failure would make life interesting.

But I digress; it's late at night, I have a phd thesis to write and it's much more comfortable to complain about Oleg's aircraft performance model than to knuckle down to my thermodynamics...

Kettenhunde
03-24-2009, 08:58 PM
whatever hieroglyph you use to describe them the laws are immutable.


You are correct but there are different methods to describe those laws. The effects of compressibility are universal. If I was using Prandtl-Glauert then I must use that system throughout. If I want to compare another airplane on paper, then I have to ensure I use Prandtl-Glauert as well.

I can't compare one aircraft using Prandtl-Glauert with another whose performance curves were derived using Chaplygin or Temple and Yarwood.

All the best,

Crumpp

Frequent_Flyer
03-24-2009, 09:29 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
The propaganda thing is nonsensical.

If 1C make one country's aeroplanes better, they are automatically implying that their pilots are worse, and vice versa, because the end result is fixed in history.

Oleg exhibits the classic short man's syndrom, a reaction to his snubbing by the US aircraft manufacturing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This doesn't seem especially logical. You're saying that he makes the P-39 and P-40 better because these aeroplanes were given to the USSR via lend-lease, whilst the superior P-38, P-47 and P-51 which weren't are modelled as being inferior. So you're suggesting that Oleg has taken personal offence at this almost 70 year-old historical fact and decided to exact some form of revenge upon his customers for this?

This doesn't stack up. Why does the Spitfire V model have so many problems? It was given to the USSR, but AFAIK the issues with its model have been well documented.

I really don't believe that national bias is the reason behind the FM problems with IL2.

I think that language barriers and limited availability of data and understanding of how these machines were designed and operated are the main explanation for what we might term "fixable" issues.

Some issues are inherent to the computer model itself, and cannot be fixed without writing a new model.

TBH, I think that if anything, IL2 favours the P-38 and P-47 over other aeroplanes in high altitude combat, because it doesn't model their faults. The P-38's compressibility is modelled as a function of IAS, and therefore doesn't bite when it should at high altitude. The P-47 has no high altitude problems at all, when it should run into trouble at M=0.71. Neither have any engine handling limitations associated with their turbochargers. You can do what you like with the engine controls, and the only thing you have to worry about is the overheat message.

IRL, the P-47 was a very impressive machine, but much like the Harrier today, the additional lever on the left hand side of the cockpit imposed considerable additional pilot workload, and so whilst a good pilot could get a lot out of it, the average pilot would undoubtedly have done better in the P-51, which had the additional advantage of considerable automation.

Oleg has modelled the R-2800 in a way which doesn't please the P-47 fans, yet if you read Graham White's extremely comprehensive book on the P-47, he points out that P&W only ever approved the mighty -57 engine of P-47M fame for 2100 bhp; whilst you certainly could get 2800 bhp out of it in theory, the reality was that doing so would make you a test pilot. Whilst this is certainly preferable to being shot down, I wouldn't want to make a habit of it either!

Pilots report surviving incredible damage; this is recorded precisely because it was almost incredible. Some P-47s came home missing cylinders, but then again there's the story of one Lancaster pilot who lost an engine on takeoff and continued to Berlin because he wanted to log another op and finish his tour. Whilst both of these engines were certainly rugged, this is hardly surprising; they were designed to be! Most of the famous war stories are of course statistical outliers, which are quite unrelated to the normal experience of reality. We hear about lottery winners on the news, but nobody interviews the other few million people who bought tickets and won nothing. War is of course more extreme; dead men tell no tales.

I don't think that there is a particular problem with the ability of radial engines to take damage in IL2. OTOH, I think that there is a very serious problem with the system modelling in IL2 which makes liquid cooled engines appear to be relatively much tougher than they should be.

I have been shot down in P-51s and Fw-190Ds and Spitfires probably at least 1000 times. I don't recall ever seeing a realistic radiator leak. I tend to die either because somebody blasts me to atoms or because something serious (wing or horizontal stabiliser) falls off. Sometimes the engine quits.

There was a time when my 190 suffered a "magic" fuel leak. Why was this magic? Because all of the other aeroplanes in the game have magic self sealing fuel tanks! The 190's fuel leak was probably closer to reasonable (though it probably shouldn't have drained the whole system, since I don't have a diagram of the plumbing I can't say for sure). In the end after epic whine, the "magic" fuel leak was fixed to be in line with everything else. Sad but true.

There was a time when I could land my 190 on the trimmer with only rudder and throttle. This got "fixed" in a patch, so now when you lose control links you lose the lot. IMO the previous system was much more realistic because most aeroplanes run the trimmer on a separate control circuit. What would have been interesting would have been if 1C had modelled the various permutations of control failure.

Usually trim tabs work by moving the datum point of the main control surface. The elevator trim tab is like a mini elevator for the elevator. So it works in the opposite sense to the elevator itself.

If your aeroplane's elevator control cables break then you can use the trimmer in its normal sense to fly the aeroplane.

OTOH, if your aeroplane's elevator is jammed then the trimmer will just act as a mini elevator for the aeroplane, and so it will work backwards.

Modelling both kinds of failure would make life interesting.

But I digress; it's late at night, I have a phd thesis to write and it's much more comfortable to complain about Oleg's aircraft performance model than to knuckle down to my thermodynamics... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I will agree with a good portion of your points. However,this being an arial combat sim,with the emphsis on air to air combat.Of all the gyrations you mentioned the virtual pilot performs. The most critical moment is bringing your weapons to bare on your enemy. In many contests this represents a micro second when opportunity, range, your own safety, and convergence of your weapons are aligned. Rock steady stability a quality all USAAF aircraft share is only a rumor in Olegs creation.I have been a student of WW II avaition for 30 years. The US aircraft, were piloted by many nations pilots. If you read the various reports both pilots and performance data. The reports are contray to Oleg's rendition of these aircraft.

I give great creedance to the Polish pilots many of whom flew Hurricanes, Spitfires and P-51 or P-47s. They compare and contrast from a first person experience all of these aircraft. Their experience is contray to the handling and performance Charecteristics Oleg has given USAAF aircraft.

The poor workmanship and crudely put together VVS airframes and their notorious powerplants that leaked oil and were constantly overheating, without intense care taking. Making it nearly impossible for any of VVS aircraft to attain their theoretical design numbers. Is absence in your above reply.

Viper2005_
03-24-2009, 11:06 PM
There are Two main issues here.

<span class="ev_code_red">The Reliability of Russian aeroplanes</span>

Obviously IRL, , reliability was a big problem for pilots in WWII. Reliability is a nightmare to model, and 1C have neatly sidestepped the problem by simply saying that they assume all aeroplanes have 100% reliability and perform as designed (or rather as the test reports claim).

This inevitably favours Russian aeroplanes because firstly they were relatively unreliable, and secondly they were probably reported upon favourably in order to avoid the wrath of Stalin...

However, I don't think that it is fair to accuse 1C of nationalist bias for making this assumption, because although it inevitably does result in bias, reliability really is a nightmare to model, and very few virtual pilots want to fly an aeroplane which has sub-standard performance because of poor quality construction, wear & tear or sabotage.

<span class="ev_code_red">The stability & control of American aeroplanes</span>

Stability & control is a big subject, so this isn't really much more than a bluffer's guide to the issues.

However, as I see them there are basically 2 problems with flightsims:

1) Stick free vs stick fixed stability.

IRL if you take your hands off the stick in a simple aeroplane with manual controls, you'll find that it moves. The behaviour of the aeroplane "hands off" is governed by this "stick free" behaviour. When you actually fly the aeroplane, the stick free behaviour is responsible for the forces that oppose your control movements.

Computer flightsims cannot model this by definition, unless they require all of their users to have force feedback sticks. Since this would greatly decrease the size of their market, unless they were to bundle the input devices with the software as seen with "guitar hero"*, they are unlikely to go down this path.

Stick fixed, you will find that all aeroplanes appear far less stable. See Quill on the Spitfire for example; the increased control resistance associated with the pressure cabin of the Mk. VII greatly reduced the already marginal pitch stability of the aeroplane such that they had to install bob-weights to increase the stick force per g to a reasonable level.

Aerodynamically the aeroplane was the same, but the control feel had gone, and suddenly it was a different beast. This malady afflicts all aeroplanes modelled in flightsims, unless the user is forced to work with a powerful force-feedback control system.

2) Stick forces.

The test report above talks about 20 lbf per g for the P-51D. This is representative of a civil aeroplane at light fuel loads; with military loadings and power settings things were rather different. However, just think about applying 20 lbf per g in IL2.

Unless your stick is bolted down, you simply cannot do it!

Having spend considerable money on a Cougar modded to FSSB R2 standard, I have about 8 lbf for full stick deflection. This is nothing compared with realistic stick forces, but when I tested an X-52 for amusement in a shop I nearly broke it! My experience has been that with higher stick forces it becomes much easier to fly accurately and therefore to shoot accurately.

What I am saying here is that whilst the sim probably is mathematically correct within the scope of its assumptions, the experience that it delivers is likely to be greatly at odds with the experience of flying the real aeroplanes, not simply because of the limitations inherent in the modelling strategy, but also because of the limitations imposed by the end-user's input devices.

The only way to accurately simulate an aeroplane is to build a dedicated tool for the purpose, which can replicate the control forces, the instrumentation and all the other things that add up to make the experience of flying.

1C have produced some software which is excellent within its own frame of reference, but which is inherently limited by the fact that they have no control over the system that the end-user will use to run that system.

I honestly believe that if the community spent more time trying to understand the fundamental issues associated with simulating aircraft performance on a desktop PC then there would be a lot less red/blue or nationalist angst around here. The fact is that all simulations are built upon simplifying assumptions, and those assumptions inevitably have consequences.

*A few years ago the guys in the crowd (rock & roll isn't quite like the movies; the crowd is mostly full of geeks [says me!], and the girls tend to follow the singer rather than the rest of us) used to play air guitar. Now they play air guitar hero. So I play a serious guitar solo, and these guys just mime tapping 4 buttons really fast...

megalopsuche
03-25-2009, 12:11 AM
Great post, viper.

I also wonder how many of the conspiracy theorists have been serious about y-axis scaling and dampening to reduce perceived instability. When I first tried this sim, I also found that it was hard to keep the nose of the aircraft pointed at once place, but I scaled the y-axis much more aggressively, added some dampening, and the problem was solved (at least, to a standard comparable to other flight sims).

As for joysticks, a lot of the hardware people use is absolute crap. The difference in fine control between and X-52 and CH is worth the difference in price.

M_Gunz
03-25-2009, 01:22 AM
IMO the whiners exhibit the greatest bias simply in their choice of facts and rumors and what they ignore.

Yet they stay.

Xiolablu3
03-25-2009, 07:13 AM
Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I find no difference in the P40 guns, US model or lend lease, and the other US 50 cal guns.

Only that its harder to aim the guns in the P51 and the Corsair.

Is that historically accurate ? Please provide the data to support this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have no idea if its accurate or not, I have never fired a .50 cal..

BigKahuna_GS
03-25-2009, 08:04 PM
S!

My Sqdrn mate was one of the first if not the first US beta tester. This is going way back to FB and the introduction of the first P47 model. Our Squad was a Russian squad and we principly flew
only Russain fighters and lend lease US A/C in online war "Forgotten Skies" & "Scorched Earth".

Thru my squadmate I started an email dialogue with 1C that lasted over 4years and I also became a beta tester. Our emails were always cordial and respectful. Oleg is a good guy, but I did have many questions about F/M modeling especially the new P47 which had the roll rate and handeling of a He111. This relationship & documentation would later lead to the P38 Late and P47 Late models being added to the sim.

I am a nuts and bolts type of guy and my main focus was about meeting the basic specs: V-Max, climb rate, roll rate, horsepower, stall speeds, FTH, manifold pressure all at various altitudes.

All other aspects were modeled by 1C.


Here is what I learned thru 4 years of emails with the Big Guy at 1C.

There is a translation problem.

Here is what I was constantly thinking-"The mastering of the American aircraft was complicated by the absence of technical manuals and instructions in the Russian language." from the Russain Lend-Lease web site.

We had much to learn from each other-as a general rule americans were not as familar about the Eastern Front air war as they should be and conversely 1C was not familar with the high altitude
Western Front air war and how the 8thAF utilized the P47, P51, P38, 150 grade fuel, overboosting,
high speed aerial dogfights, G-suits, dive speed advantage, high altitude performance advantage.

Early flight models at the time of FB were mainly based on VVS documentation of captured aircraft testing, lend lease fighter testing and VVS pilot impressions. This is one of the main things that upset Luft pilots early on, what about US A/C drivers? It would be a long time before "documentation from the country of origin" would become the norm.

Here is a direct quote concerning the IL2 FB P47 "Later models are worser not better"

So the later P47 models with paddle blade props, water injection, more horspower, with new improved turbos were inferior to early model P47C's ?

The 470mph, 2800HP, P47M & N models according to 1c were "worser" because they were even bigger and heavier than the early C models? This has been the general viewpoint of US aircraft F/Ms in IL2.

1C does not like "Amercias Hundred Thousand" as a refrence source because of inconsistencies in data.

There was/is a relunctance to accept NACA documentaion/data.

For any positive added there is usually a negative added. Didn't really agree with this concept.

Offical USAAF, USN flight test data can be acceptable but any and all parts of the test are subject to rejection by 1c.

A couple of USAAF ETO pilots that didn't like the P38 were consulted (biggest complaint-high altiude coldness). No PTO/Med P38 pilots where it excelled were consulted.

I had eaten dinner with P51 aces Bob Goebels & Bud Anderson. Thru conversation both offered to evaluate the IL2 P51 for free. Since Bud Anderson still flew the 51 as a civilian I thought he would be an excellent choice since he had both combat/civilian experience. I passed their email addresses on to 1c.

Neither P51 pilot was contacted for input.



Here is an example of what people are trying to convey about F/Ms- the Lend Lease P40 Russain version powered by M-105P.

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/...nenko/p-40/index.htm (http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/romanenko/p-40/index.htm)

"The mastering of the American aircraft was complicated by the absence of technical manuals and instructions in the Russian language."

"Because there were no spare Allison engines, and the fighters were in great demand, the regiment commander Major A. A. Matveyev, suggested that <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Soviet-manufactured engines M-105P and M-105R be installed in the P-40Es.</span> More than 40 fighters were duly modified at the 1st Aviation Repair Base of 13th Air Army (at the same time several single-seaters were converted into two-seaters. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Naturally, the installation of a less powerful engine resulted in a diminution of the fighter's performance.</span> <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">The maximum speed of a P-40E with the M-105P engine and VISh-61P propeller was reduced by 12 kmh (from 477 to 465 kmh).</span> Therefore the modified fighters were quickly transferred to another regiment (196th IAP)."


The IL2 Russain M-105P P40 vs IL2 US Allison powered model (When first introduced)

The M-105P powered IL2 P40 has always been considered the "Hot" P40 model with more performance than the Allison powered version reguardless of what Russains said above about the real M-105P engine.

Russain P40 .50cals guns fired unsynchronized from the beginning without any added "features" like excessive yaw.

US P40 .50cals fired synchronized

Russain P40 stage 2 supercharger performance exceeded US P40 performance by a large margin. (see article again)

The consenses of the entire Squad was the Russain version P40 was the best and had better guns and proved such during online wars.

As far as I know the Russain P39 version also had unsynchronized .50cals while the US version did not.

The big question why ? US fighters always operated with unsynchronized .50cals

When all US fighters finally had unsynchronized .50cals modeled the added(For any positive added there is usually a negative added) "feature" was excessive yaw when firing the guns.

Why would Russain versions of the same aircraft never have this "feature" and US a/c would ?

It took time to finally have this "feature" removed.

After all these years ammo load out for the .50cals is still wrong--No amor piercing incendiary.


For whatever reason the US Aircraft as a group have had the most F/M problems historically speaking in IL2 when compared to any other aircraft group. Many of the aircraft still do not meet specs in the most basic of flight performance.

As said before many of the late war Brit and US fighters are missing from the sim.

I think as a group we all can agree that we would of rather seen more accurate flight models than aircraft that never flew added to IL2.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted Mon March 23 2009 04:18 Xiolablu3
Syd Antin enjoyed his Mustang time:

http://101squadron.com/101/aircraft.html

I know I have posted these before, but they are great comparisons of these planes as these guys went to war in both and compared them constanly :-

Gordon Levett compares the three combat aircraft flown by the 101:

"In mock dog-fights, we concluded that the Messerschmitt could out-climb, out-dive and out-zoom the Spitfire and Mustang. The Spitfire could out-turn the Messerschmitt, the most important manoeuvre in air combat, and both could out-turn the Mustang. The Mustang was the fastest, the Messerschmitt the slowest, though there was not much in it. The Mustang had the best visibility, important for a fighter aircraft, the Messerschmitt the worst. The Spitfire cockpit fitted like a glove, the Messerschmitt like a strait-jacket, the Mustang like a too comfortable armchair. The Spitfire had two 20-mm cannon and four .303-in machine guns (sic; actually, the 101 Squadron Spits had two .50s, not four .303s), the Mustang six 12.7-mm machine guns (i.e. .50-calibre), and the Messerschmitt two 20-mm cannon and two 7.92-mm machine guns (sic; actually two 13.1-mm machine guns) synchronised to fire through the arc of the propeller.... Despite the pros and cons the Spitfire was everyone's first choice."

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



The IAF's air war was much like the Eastern Front and I would of choose the Spit as well http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

General flight opinons of these pilots are somewhat relevant but we are not talking apples to apples here. There is no way these pilots were flying the Mustang overboosted with 150 grade fuel as in the ETO & Pacific theaters. Also German, US & Brit pilots said that the P51 & P47 had dive speed advantages over german fighters. See Gunther Ralls quotes (Training Commandant)at the Fin pilot's web site, training officer comments for Jg26 late war and Brit tests at WW2 AircraftPerformance.



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
El Aurens-When the FM engine in the game comes up agianst a heavy (by comparison) fighter like a P51 or F4U, and sees it's performance figures it just goes WTF!, and tries to make it happen, and the only algorithms it has adds a ton of instability on all axis just to give it the proper maneuver performance.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You may very will be right but my gut tells me that these are added "features" -- purposely added.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Viper--Oleg has modelled the R-2800 in a way which doesn't please the P-47 fans
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The problem is well documented and has been around for years. A small caliber bullet can stop the IL2 Pratt & Whitney R2800 dead in it's tracks with 1 round. This does not happen with the german radial.

All 47 drivers wanted was for the R2800 & german radials -- is to have the same damage modeling.
Is that not fair?

As for toughness of radial engines you seem to think the stories of taking damage are the exception to the rule. My dad flew various aircraft with radial engines both land & shipboard based all throughout WW2. He had seen enough battle damage to his fellow Squadron mates to know the Navy had made a very wise decision selecting a radial engine for their aircraft.

-

Kettenhunde
03-25-2009, 09:20 PM
Aircraft Types Flown by 101 Squadron



Importantly for 101 Squadron, Spitfires would have serial numbers of the form 20XX, S-199s would be 19XX, and P-51s would carry 23XX.


Gordon Levett compares the three combat aircraft flown by the 101:

In mock dog-fights, we concluded that the Messerschmitt could out-climb, out-dive and out-zoom the Spitfire and Mustang. The Spitfire could out-turn the Messerschmitt, the most important manoeuvre in air combat, and both could out-turn the Mustang. The Mustang was the fastest, the Messerschmitt the slowest, though there was not much in it. The Mustang had the best visibility, important for a fighter aircraft, the Messerschmitt the worst. The Spitfire cockpit fitted like a glove, the Messerschmitt like a strait-jacket, the Mustang like a too comfortable armchair. The Spitfire had two 20-mm cannon and four .303-in machine guns (sic; actually, the 101 Squadron Spits had two .50s, not four .303s), the Mustang six 12.7-mm machine guns (i.e. .50-calibre), and the Messerschmitt two 20-mm cannon and two 7.92-mm machine guns (sic; actually two 13.1-mm machine guns) synchronised to fire through the arc of the propeller.... Despite the pros and cons the Spitfire was everyone's first choice. (Levett 1994)

http://101squadron.com/101/aircraft.html

Frequent_Flyer
03-25-2009, 10:19 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
IMO the whiners exhibit the greatest bias simply in their choice of facts and rumors and what they ignore.

Yet they stay.

Is 609IAP_Kahuna a whiner? because he does not share your opinion. Does his latest post contitute a whine. You do know the " Oleg " he is refering to created this sim?

eindecker
03-26-2009, 05:41 AM
Not worth getting into this thread.
M_Gunz has developed a insulting combative attitude to any person
disagreing with him.
I am wondering if there is any moderation in this message board after watching M_Gunz constant infantile behavior (in every thread he posts in).

Eindecker

Bremspropeller
03-26-2009, 06:00 AM
I think we all agree that there's a use in the mod-community, bringing all aircraft up to their RL-performance data. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Xiolablu3
03-26-2009, 06:02 AM
Originally posted by eindecker:
Not worth getting into this thread.
M_Gunz has developed a insulting combative attitude to any person
disagreing with him.
I am wondering if there is any moderation in this message board after watching M_Gunz constant infantile behavior (in every thread he posts in).

Eindecker

If we banned anyone who disagreed then we wouldnt have a forum left http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

M_Gunz
03-26-2009, 06:42 AM
Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
IMO the whiners exhibit the greatest bias simply in their choice of facts and rumors and what they ignore.

Yet they stay.

Is 609IAP_Kahuna a whiner? because he does not share your opinion. Does his latest post contitute a whine. You do know the " Oleg " he is refering to created this sim? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kahuna doesn't play at conspiracy theories and rumors. He shows data and leaves the rest out of it.

And as for the "new member" eindecker, yeah uh-huh.

ADD: BTW, this being an open board -- well you figure out how posts apply, you're reading a lot in that wasn't put there,
or maybe just trying to steer things around if I read your post the way you read mine. You DO show an agenda FF.

M_Gunz
03-26-2009, 06:53 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
I think we all agree that there's a use in the mod-community, bringing all aircraft up to their RL-performance data. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I thought the mod community agreed not to touch the FM/DM of planes already included?

There's a new thread about an evaluation of US Warbirds taken and surprise surprise it doesn't agree with what a LOT of people
here would have done to the Corsair and P-51 just to mention two of the four. I mention this simply as example of how much
we don't need either fans or detractors having their way with what actual professionals have done. We've had mix and match
charts as justification to make a model climb like one chart done with a prop best suited for and rigged to climb and yet to
also have the speed of another model with the same first name but high speed prop and rigging, things wired shut, etc.
Same plane IRL won't do both but "this model is wrong, it meets these specs but not those, we got charts!".

You've been here long enough to have seen the games and agendas, you should know better given your education.

Here's the Warbird Flyoff thread, for -anyone- who missed it. (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/7651002447)

Frequent_Flyer
03-26-2009, 05:59 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 Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I find no difference in the P40 guns, US model or lend lease, and the other US 50 cal guns.

Only that its harder to aim the guns in the P51 and the Corsair.

Is that historically accurate ? Please provide the data to support this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have no idea if its accurate or not, I have never fired a .50 cal.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's interesting, You have never piloted a Spitfire. Yet in this thread alone,you qoute others who have. Accepting their nonsense as fact. You probally have thousands of post( I'm guessing) dedicated to the Spitfire, quoting many pilots espousing its wonders. However, your not qualified to comment on the historical accuracy of the stability of the US planes as a gun platform- "I have no idea if its accurate or not, I have never fired a .50 cal." Your reasoning is flawed and very selective. In contrast your agenda is quite obvious.

Frequent_Flyer
03-26-2009, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
IMO the whiners exhibit the greatest bias simply in their choice of facts and rumors and what they ignore.

Yet they stay.

Is 609IAP_Kahuna a whiner? because he does not share your opinion. Does his latest post contitute a whine. You do know the " Oleg " he is refering to created this sim? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kahuna doesn't play at conspiracy theories and rumors. He shows data and leaves the rest out of it.

And as for the "new member" eindecker, yeah uh-huh.

ADD: BTW, this being an open board -- well you figure out how posts apply, you're reading a lot in that wasn't put there,
or maybe just trying to steer things around if I read your post the way you read mine. You DO show an agenda FF. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have 707 post since this forum opened. I could not care less about most of the nonsense.

Why don't you, or anyone that shares the same opinin constructively respond to 609IAP_Kahuna
post. Also, Horseback's post regarding the FM of US planes? Unless, english is not you first language 609IAP_Kahuna just demonstrated the " conspiracy "and prejudice imparted by Oleg. Horseback and others, myself included have pointed out other relavent facts in this thread. Your certainly free to waste posts makeing whinning comments. I would enjoy a couple intelligent sentences refuting 609IAP_Kahuna ?

Frequent_Flyer
03-26-2009, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> whatever hieroglyph you use to describe them the laws are immutable.


You are correct but there are different methods to describe those laws. The effects of compressibility are universal. If I was using Prandtl-Glauert then I must use that system throughout. If I want to compare another airplane on paper, then I have to ensure I use Prandtl-Glauert as well.

I can't compare one aircraft using Prandtl-Glauert with another whose performance curves were derived using Chaplygin or Temple and Yarwood.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Introduce them to Mr. Google and a conversion chart. Even if they used Pig Latin it changes nothing .

horseback
03-26-2009, 07:23 PM
The problem is simple.

I can't accept the idea that the sim's overall FM just can't cope with the Mustang, Corsair and Hellcat because they are too fast or because of their combination of mass and high wing loading. Were this the case, the FW 190 would suffer similarly, and I would expect the Tempest to be far worse.

That is not the case.

If Oleg and his team have depicted the P-39 and P-40 accurately, given the reams of Russian language data undoubtedly available about them, why did he ignore all the information available that compares the Mustang's handling directly to the P-40 and/or the P-39?

Why does the Mustang require trim adjustment for every 10 mph change in speed, when that is what the P-40 required in real life, and EVERY pilot description I've read that compares the two in this regard states that the Mustang was less demanding to fly and had lighter stick forces even without trim at even the highest speeds?

What is the point of hitting the performance numbers if 95 out of a hundred simmers cannot get the damned things to fly straight and level even when using decent quality controllers (I've been using CH products for 6 years now--it's not like I've been using some cheap twisty stick all these years).

That's bass-ackwards when you consider that the Mustang, the Spitfire and the Hellcat were considered the easiest fighters in the Allied inventory for a pilot to use to their full combat potentials.

Saying the P-51 or F4U are less stable gun platforms than the P-47 is like saying that a P-40 or Wildcat is less maneuverable than an Oscar. Nothing in the Allied inventory was as maneuverable as an Oscar, not even the Spitfire.

It's a matter of degree. If the P-47 is a 10 on the stable gun platform scale, is the Mustang or Corsair a 9 or a 3? Is the P-40 a 9.5 or a 2.5? More importantly, is the FW 190A/D or Me 109G/K a 9.9 or a 2?

Oleg & his supporters claim that he and he alone knows.

Me? After almost fifty years of reading and studying everything I can get my hands on about the subject, I'm not so sure.

cheers

horseback

Frequent_Flyer
03-26-2009, 07:45 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
The problem is simple.

I can't accept the idea that the sim's overall FM just can't cope with the Mustang, Corsair and Hellcat because they are too fast or because of their combination of mass and high wing loading. Were this the case, the FW 190 would suffer similarly, and I would expect the Tempest to be far worse.

That is not the case.

If Oleg and his team have depicted the P-39 and P-40 accurately, given the reams of Russian language data undoubtedly available about them, why did he ignore all the information available that compares the Mustang's handling directly to the P-40 and/or the P-39?

Why does the Mustang require trim adjustment for every 10 mph change in speed, when that is what the P-40 required in real life, and EVERY pilot description I've read that compares the two in this regard states that the Mustang was less demanding to fly and had lighter stick forces even without trim at even the highest speeds?

What is the point of hitting the performance numbers if 95 out of a hundred simmers cannot get the damned things to fly straight and level even when using decent quality controllers (I've been using CH products for 6 years now--it's not like I've been using some cheap twisty stick all these years).

That's bass-ackwards when you consider that the Mustang, the Spitfire and the Hellcat were considered the easiest fighters in the Allied inventory for a pilot to use to their full combat potentials.

Saying the P-51 or F4U are less stable gun platforms than the P-47 is like saying that a P-40 or Wildcat is less maneuverable than an Oscar. Nothing in the Allied inventory was as maneuverable as an Oscar, not even the Spitfire.

It's a matter of degree. If the P-47 is a 10 on the stable gun platform scale, is the Mustang or Corsair a 9 or a 3? Is the P-40 a 9.5 or a 2.5? More importantly, is the FW 190A/D or Me 109G/K a 9.9 or a 2?

Oleg & his supporters claim that he and he alone knows.

Me? After almost fifty years of reading and studying everything I can get my hands on about the subject, I'm not so sure.

cheers

horseback

Again you raise some great points, that none of folks who side with Oleg bother to address.
The following is an expert from another thread runninng concurrent to this:,
<span class="ev_code_Yellow">

FLYING CHARACTERISTICS

6. The Mustang III is very similar to fly and land as the Mustang 1. It is therefore delightfully easy to handle. It is as easy to fly as a Spitfire IX with the exception that the rudder is needed whenever changing bank (in order to prevent skid, and to prevent the sight from swinging off). This soon becomes automatic. The engine feels very smooth.</span>


Note Well: these were the comments of a RAF pilot. According to this pilot" The Mustang III is as easy to fly as the Spitfire IX"
(If anyone is interested in the entire report go to the thread started by R Target entitled
modern U.S. warbird flyoff)
Not in this Sim,would anyone make a similar comparision. Not honstly!

M_Gunz
03-26-2009, 07:56 PM
LOL! P-51 flown at 4G's is not historic because they run at less than full ever used power! LMAO!
Of course stability increases with more power and speed! ROFL!

And since Xio never flew a Spitfire and only quotes people who have, HE doesn't know anything yet....

For sure the representatives from Whine Country are here to protect their Holy Turf.

Viper2005_
03-26-2009, 07:57 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
I think we all agree that there's a use in the mod-community, bringing all aircraft up to their RL-performance data. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.war-clouds.com/modu...ile=viewtopic&t=4866 (http://www.war-clouds.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=4866)

Frequent_Flyer
03-26-2009, 08:15 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
LOL! P-51 flown at 4G's is not historic because they run at less than full ever used power! LMAO!
Of course stability increases with more power and speed! ROFL!

And since Xio never flew a Spitfire and only quotes people who have, HE doesn't know anything yet....

For sure the representatives from Whine Country are here to protect their Holy Turf.

I simple asked the obviously "brillant" spokes person of the anti- whiners defamation league to impart some of his/her ( are you a him or a her?) wisdom on the irrational among us by refutting
609IAP_Kahuna post. Are you distracted, is it difficult for you to focus on this task.I sense this from your attempt at humor. I'll check back to see if you have a pair.

Viper2005_
03-26-2009, 08:19 PM
Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
The problem is simple.

I can't accept the idea that the sim's overall FM just can't cope with the Mustang, Corsair and Hellcat because they are too fast or because of their combination of mass and high wing loading. Were this the case, the FW 190 would suffer similarly, and I would expect the Tempest to be far worse.

That is not the case.

If Oleg and his team have depicted the P-39 and P-40 accurately, given the reams of Russian language data undoubtedly available about them, why did he ignore all the information available that compares the Mustang's handling directly to the P-40 and/or the P-39?

Why does the Mustang require trim adjustment for every 10 mph change in speed, when that is what the P-40 required in real life, and EVERY pilot description I've read that compares the two in this regard states that the Mustang was less demanding to fly and had lighter stick forces even without trim at even the highest speeds?

What is the point of hitting the performance numbers if 95 out of a hundred simmers cannot get the damned things to fly straight and level even when using decent quality controllers (I've been using CH products for 6 years now--it's not like I've been using some cheap twisty stick all these years).

That's bass-ackwards when you consider that the Mustang, the Spitfire and the Hellcat were considered the easiest fighters in the Allied inventory for a pilot to use to their full combat potentials.

Saying the P-51 or F4U are less stable gun platforms than the P-47 is like saying that a P-40 or Wildcat is less maneuverable than an Oscar. Nothing in the Allied inventory was as maneuverable as an Oscar, not even the Spitfire.

It's a matter of degree. If the P-47 is a 10 on the stable gun platform scale, is the Mustang or Corsair a 9 or a 3? Is the P-40 a 9.5 or a 2.5? More importantly, is the FW 190A/D or Me 109G/K a 9.9 or a 2?

Oleg & his supporters claim that he and he alone knows.

Me? After almost fifty years of reading and studying everything I can get my hands on about the subject, I'm not so sure.

cheers

horseback

Again you raise some great points, that none of folks who side with Oleg bother to address.
The following is an expert from another thread runninng concurrent to this:,
<span class="ev_code_Yellow">

FLYING CHARACTERISTICS

6. The Mustang III is very similar to fly and land as the Mustang 1. It is therefore delightfully easy to handle. It is as easy to fly as a Spitfire IX with the exception that the rudder is needed whenever changing bank (in order to prevent skid, and to prevent the sight from swinging off). This soon becomes automatic. The engine feels very smooth.</span>


Note Well: these were the comments of a RAF pilot. According to this pilot" The Mustang III is as easy to fly as the Spitfire IX"
(If anyone is interested in the entire report go to the thread started by R Target entitled
modern U.S. warbird flyoff)
Not in this Sim,would anyone make a similar comparision. Not honstly! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Mustang is one of the easiest aeroplanes to fly in the sim. It has plenty of power, good flaps and reasonably docile low speed handling, provided that you don't push your luck.

It is also very easy to stay alive whilst flying it in a hostile environment because speed is life.

It is not good at scoring kills however, especially in an online environment where the enemy are easily able to be suicidally brave to save their pride (oh and their aeroplanes as well http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif ) and where there is massive competition from short range, cannon armed fighters which IRL were often not within 100 miles of the Mustangs' battles.

On of the biggest problems around here is that people confuse success with scoring lots of kills. IRL, a good fighter was one that brought you home, not one that helped you to die heroically...

Its performance is certainly hobbled by excessive rack and radiator drag, but this malady affects many aeroplanes in the game.

As for the lack of API, I agree that ammunition is a big problem (just look at the 151/20 issues). However, I think that the main reason for machine guns falling down against cannon is the lack of realistic systems modelling. In the current model you can really only bring down the enemy by killing pilots, stopping engines, or blasting the enemy a/c to atoms. Fuel leaks are largely a thing of the past, even in the 190. Fire is pretty rare across the board with the exception of 109s and the Japanese aeroplanes. Radiator leaks don't seem to happen at all, which of course makes radials look bad. There is no oxygen system model, and I don't recall ever using the emergency landing gear lowering system in anger.

So machine guns of any sort, having no systems to damage, are bound to appear impotent next to cannon which can just blast their target to dust.

However, I also think that cannon effects are over-played for effect because this "makes better television" if you will. There really isn't that much footage of aeroplanes being de-winged. More often than not, you can see the cannon rounds chew up the target without it actually falling apart. Instead the victim gradually bleeds to death as the radiator coolant, oil, hydraulic fluid, fuel or indeed blood leaks away. It seems likely that many people simply failed to make it home, rather than going down in an unambiguous blaze of glory...

Again, this pushes the balance in favour of the cannon in game.

BTW Frequent_Flyer, the Tempest has one of the most problematic models in the game IMO, with a strange engine rating (+9/3700 was really a rather early Typhoon rating), strange armament (Tempests didn't use rockets during WWII; again this was what Typhoons were for), and an awful rear view (it should be at least as good as the bubble top P-47, since Republic copied the Tempest's canopy outright!). I can't say that I'm exactly enamoured with its stall either, which gives less warning than a clean 190. In fact I sometimes wonder if the Tempest model we have was actually built to test an approach to 190 stall modelling for SoW...

Frequent_Flyer
03-26-2009, 08:43 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
The problem is simple.

I can't accept the idea that the sim's overall FM just can't cope with the Mustang, Corsair and Hellcat because they are too fast or because of their combination of mass and high wing loading. Were this the case, the FW 190 would suffer similarly, and I would expect the Tempest to be far worse.

That is not the case.

If Oleg and his team have depicted the P-39 and P-40 accurately, given the reams of Russian language data undoubtedly available about them, why did he ignore all the information available that compares the Mustang's handling directly to the P-40 and/or the P-39?

Why does the Mustang require trim adjustment for every 10 mph change in speed, when that is what the P-40 required in real life, and EVERY pilot description I've read that compares the two in this regard states that the Mustang was less demanding to fly and had lighter stick forces even without trim at even the highest speeds?

What is the point of hitting the performance numbers if 95 out of a hundred simmers cannot get the damned things to fly straight and level even when using decent quality controllers (I've been using CH products for 6 years now--it's not like I've been using some cheap twisty stick all these years).

That's bass-ackwards when you consider that the Mustang, the Spitfire and the Hellcat were considered the easiest fighters in the Allied inventory for a pilot to use to their full combat potentials.

Saying the P-51 or F4U are less stable gun platforms than the P-47 is like saying that a P-40 or Wildcat is less maneuverable than an Oscar. Nothing in the Allied inventory was as maneuverable as an Oscar, not even the Spitfire.

It's a matter of degree. If the P-47 is a 10 on the stable gun platform scale, is the Mustang or Corsair a 9 or a 3? Is the P-40 a 9.5 or a 2.5? More importantly, is the FW 190A/D or Me 109G/K a 9.9 or a 2?

Oleg & his supporters claim that he and he alone knows.

Me? After almost fifty years of reading and studying everything I can get my hands on about the subject, I'm not so sure.

cheers

horseback

Again you raise some great points, that none of folks who side with Oleg bother to address.
The following is an expert from another thread runninng concurrent to this:,
<span class="ev_code_Yellow">

FLYING CHARACTERISTICS

6. The Mustang III is very similar to fly and land as the Mustang 1. It is therefore delightfully easy to handle. It is as easy to fly as a Spitfire IX with the exception that the rudder is needed whenever changing bank (in order to prevent skid, and to prevent the sight from swinging off). This soon becomes automatic. The engine feels very smooth.</span>


Note Well: these were the comments of a RAF pilot. According to this pilot" The Mustang III is as easy to fly as the Spitfire IX"
(If anyone is interested in the entire report go to the thread started by R Target entitled
modern U.S. warbird flyoff)
Not in this Sim,would anyone make a similar comparision. Not honstly! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Mustang is one of the easiest aeroplanes to fly in the sim. It has plenty of power, good flaps and reasonably docile low speed handling, provided that you don't push your luck.

It is also very easy to stay alive whilst flying it in a hostile environment because speed is life.

It is not good at scoring kills however, especially in an online environment where the enemy are easily able to be suicidally brave to save their pride (oh and their aeroplanes as well http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif ) and where there is massive competition from short range, cannon armed fighters which IRL were often not within 100 miles of the Mustangs' battles.

On of the biggest problems around here is that people confuse success with scoring lots of kills. IRL, a good fighter was one that brought you home, not one that helped you to die heroically...

Its performance is certainly hobbled by excessive rack and radiator drag, but this malady affects many aeroplanes in the game.

As for the lack of API, I agree that ammunition is a big problem (just look at the 151/20 issues). However, I think that the main reason for machine guns falling down against cannon is the lack of realistic systems modelling. In the current model you can really only bring down the enemy by killing pilots, stopping engines, or blasting the enemy a/c to atoms. Fuel leaks are largely a thing of the past, even in the 190. Fire is pretty rare across the board with the exception of 109s and the Japanese aeroplanes. Radiator leaks don't seem to happen at all, which of course makes radials look bad. There is no oxygen system model, and I don't recall ever using the emergency landing gear lowering system in anger.

So machine guns of any sort, having no systems to damage, are bound to appear impotent next to cannon which can just blast their target to dust.

However, I also think that cannon effects are over-played for effect because this "makes better television" if you will. There really isn't that much footage of aeroplanes being de-winged. More often than not, you can see the cannon rounds chew up the target without it actually falling apart. Instead the victim gradually bleeds to death as the radiator coolant, oil, hydraulic fluid, fuel or indeed blood leaks away. It seems likely that many people simply failed to make it home, rather than going down in an unambiguous blaze of glory...

Again, this pushes the balance in favour of the cannon in game.

BTW Frequent_Flyer, the Tempest has one of the most problematic models in the game IMO, with a strange engine rating (+9/3700 was really a rather early Typhoon rating), strange armament (Tempests didn't use rockets during WWII; again this was what Typhoons were for), and an awful rear view (it should be at least as good as the bubble top P-47, since Republic copied the Tempest's canopy outright!). I can't say that I'm exactly enamoured with its stall either, which gives less warning than a clean 190. In fact I sometimes wonder if the Tempest model we have was actually built to test an approach to 190 stall modelling for SoW... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

However, The RAF pilot claimed it was as easy to fly as the Spitfire IX. Yes or No ? If you care to honestly answer this without all the cavets and qualifiers. I will bet you a dollar to your donut this community , by a large margin will disagree with the real pilots assesment. Based upon this Sim.

I have no doubt this Sim was designed and programed for the puny German and VVS fighters, to play in the dirt. Armed with a few cannons. a couple teaspoons of fuel. To fight a battle a few miles from the front. It was not designed for the more sophisticated high powered aircraft. However, this does not preclude the accurate rollrate, speed and stability of the US aircraft from being represented.

Romanator21
03-26-2009, 08:45 PM
Just because the Mustang flies as easily as a Spitfire does not mean that the two fly the same, or are equally fast, maneuverable, powerful, and stable.
I am surprised no one has mentioned this yet: The late P-51 had a fuel tank in the rear that greatly disrupted the center of gravity and made it very unpleasant to fly. Pilots would only engage after this back tank was empty.
Ok now the fun part:
Go to the QMB and set only 25% Fuel in the P-51. Look at the floor. The two wings tanks read empty. Look behind your left shoulder. The back tank is still 80% FULL!!! Duh?! The P-51 is so unstable boo hoo. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif This is why. As far as I can tell, you can't really select fuel tanks in this game, so it is only a limitation of the engine, not a "feature".

Frequent_Flyer
03-26-2009, 08:55 PM
Originally posted by Romanator21:
Just because the Mustang flies as easily as a Spitfire does not mean that the two fly the same, or are equally fast, maneuverable, powerful, and stable.
I am surprised no one has mentioned this yet: The late P-51 had a fuel tank in the rear that greatly disrupted the center of gravity and made it very unpleasant to fly. Pilots would only engage after this back tank was empty.
Ok now the fun part:
Go to the QMB and set only 25% Fuel in the P-51. Look at the floor. The two wings tanks read empty. Look behind your left shoulder. The back tank is still 80% FULL!!! Duh?! The P-51 is so unstable boo hoo. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif This is why. As far as I can tell, you can't really select fuel tanks in this game, so it is only a limitation of the engine, not a "feature".

WoW I see your point, an unstable aircraft is as easy to fly as a stable one. So the " fly by wire " technology is unnecessary and a waste of tax payers money. I'll be at Boeing next week on an unrelated matter, I'll be sure and bring this up.Can I quote you ?

Viper2005_
03-26-2009, 08:56 PM
Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
However, The RAF pilot claimed it was as easy to fly as the Spitfire IX. Yes or No ? If you care to honestly answer this without all the cavets and qualifiers.

The quote talks about how easy it was to fly the aeroplane. It says nothing about how easy it was to score points in a dogfight server using it.

To put forward a rather crass example, a Cessna 150 is pretty easy to fly; certainly easier to fly than a Spitfire, which requires its pilot to deal with a tail wheel, retractable undercarriage, supercharger, and so on. But this doesn't mean that the Cessna would be a good combat aeroplane. It's pretty obvious why this sort of comparison is crass, but if you just asked for a yes/no answer as to which aeroplane was easier to fly then it's equally obvious what the answer would be.

If you don't provide caveats and qualifiers when trying to tackle complex questions, you're either being economical with the truth or you simply don't understand the problem.

Romanator21
03-26-2009, 09:03 PM
Stability is relative. The instability of the Mustang is nothing like that of the F-16 or the B-2 which are practically flown by the computer, but it is certainly less stable that a Spitfire. Thanks for stretching my comments out of proportion and taking them out of context.

But my apologies for not being clear: I meant stability as a gunnery platform, not in the same sense as what you had in mind.

Frequent_Flyer
03-26-2009, 09:03 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
However, The RAF pilot claimed it was as easy to fly as the Spitfire IX. Yes or No ? If you care to honestly answer this without all the cavets and qualifiers.

The quote talks about how easy it was to fly the aeroplane. It says nothing about how easy it was to score points in a dogfight server using it.

To put forward a rather crass example, a Cessna 150 is pretty easy to fly; certainly easier to fly than a Spitfire, which requires its pilot to deal with a tail wheel, retractable undercarriage, supercharger, and so on. But this doesn't mean that the Cessna would be a good combat aeroplane. It's pretty obvious why this sort of comparison is crass, but if you just asked for a yes/no answer as to which aeroplane was easier to fly then it's equally obvious what the answer would be.

If you don't provide caveats and qualifiers when trying to tackle complex questions, you're either being economical with the truth or you simply don't understand the problem. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The point of the interchange of ideas was the inaccurate flight models of the US aircraft contrary to the published data from many unrelated sources. For the sake of simplicity, we have a RAF pilot( a source other than the US mfg.) documenting flight chariteristic of the P-51 that is not accurately represented in the sim.The P-51 was designed as a fighting aircraft from its inception. The Spitfire was not. For a RAF pilot to say their Flying charecteristic were the same speaks volumes to the P-51's engineering- It essentiallyu matched a sight seeing/ racing aircrafts charecteristics and was tremendously more efficent at what was critical for an instrument of war.

Viper2005_
03-26-2009, 09:32 PM
You're not another one of these people who wants to suggest that the Spitfire was an S6B with guns are you?

The Spitfire was a fighting aeroplane which happened to be designed by a company famous for its racing sea planes, in much the same way as the Mustang was a fighting aeroplane designed by a company which at the time was famous for its training aircraft.

As I have said several times in this thread and others, there are certainly issues with the P-51's FM in IL2. But I think that your line of argument is fundamentally flawed.

Post data on stick force per g or the stick-fixed stability characteristics as a function of CoG, Q or Mach number, or speed vs roll rates and it should be possible to conduct objective tests.

Without data which may be objectively tested, we might as well debate which colour of the rainbow is the best - you and your supporters will always say that the American aeroplanes are hard done by, you'll preach to the converted and argue with those whose opinion you do not share, but in the end there will be nothing but somewhat unsatisfactory rhetorical stalemate.

BTW, on the subject of roll rates, IIRC NACA868 roll rate data seems to show that most aeroplanes in the game are significantly in error in this department, though as ever, some suffer to a greater extent than others...

Viper2005_
03-26-2009, 09:35 PM
Originally posted by Romanator21:
Just because the Mustang flies as easily as a Spitfire does not mean that the two fly the same, or are equally fast, maneuverable, powerful, and stable.
I am surprised no one has mentioned this yet: The late P-51 had a fuel tank in the rear that greatly disrupted the center of gravity and made it very unpleasant to fly. Pilots would only engage after this back tank was empty.
Ok now the fun part:
Go to the QMB and set only 25% Fuel in the P-51. Look at the floor. The two wings tanks read empty. Look behind your left shoulder. The back tank is still 80% FULL!!! Duh?! The P-51 is so unstable boo hoo. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif This is why. As far as I can tell, you can't really select fuel tanks in this game, so it is only a limitation of the engine, not a "feature".

AFAIK that's just because the game can only handle one fuel tank. I don't think that the CoG moves at all, even when you drop ordnance.

This could be tested by measuring the degree of damping of the short period oscillation as a function of loadout/fuelstate using the device link autopilot or some similar objective input device, if anybody really wants to make the point and has a few days to kill...

Frequent_Flyer
03-26-2009, 10:07 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
You're not another one of these people who wants to suggest that the Spitfire was an S6B with guns are you?

The Spitfire was a fighting aeroplane which happened to be designed by a company famous for its racing sea planes, in much the same way as the Mustang was a fighting aeroplane designed by a company which at the time was famous for its training aircraft.

As I have said several times in this thread and others, there are certainly issues with the P-51's FM in IL2. But I think that your line of argument is fundamentally flawed.

Post data on stick force per g or the stick-fixed stability characteristics as a function of CoG, Q or Mach number, or speed vs roll rates and it should be possible to conduct objective tests.

Without data which may be objectively tested, we might as well debate which colour of the rainbow is the best - you and your supporters will always say that the American aeroplanes are hard done by, you'll preach to the converted and argue with those whose opinion you do not share, but in the end there will be nothing but somewhat unsatisfactory rhetorical stalemate.

BTW, on the subject of roll rates, IIRC NACA868 roll rate data seems to show that most aeroplanes in the game are significantly in error in this department, though as ever, some suffer to a greater extent than others...

. When an RAF pilot, and many have claimed, as he has, the two aircraft were as easy to fly. You keep offering reasons why Oleg's version of the Mustang is not as " easy " to fly as a Spitfire. Therefore, either the Spitfire is incorreclty represented or the Mustang is .Its just that simplpe. Why complicate the answer. You pointed out many times that certain properties are absent fom the universal flight model in this sim.However,In real life " you can't fool mother nature". All of the varibles remain constant for both aircraft.In this environment both the P-51 and the Spitfire were as easy to fly.-Not so in the environment Oleg created.He could compensate and correct this he chooses not to.

Woke_Up_Dead
03-26-2009, 11:26 PM
Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
Unless, english is not you first language 609IAP_Kahuna just demonstrated the " conspiracy "and prejudice imparted by Oleg.

Kahuna demonstrated no conspiracy. In his thoughts about the reasons for the inaccuracies he argues mainly that they occur because of problems in translation, 1C's unfamiliarity of the "high altitude
Western Front air war and how the 8thAF utilized the P47, P51, P38..." and other reasons that basically amount to mistakes and faulty assumptions and methodology. Nowhere does Kahuna suggest that Oleg is a "small man" angry at being "snubbed" by former Cold War adversaries.

And "English" is spelled with a capital "E", Mr. "English is my first language."

Xiolablu3
03-27-2009, 03:34 AM
Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I find no difference in the P40 guns, US model or lend lease, and the other US 50 cal guns.

Only that its harder to aim the guns in the P51 and the Corsair.

Is that historically accurate ? Please provide the data to support this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have no idea if its accurate or not, I have never fired a .50 cal.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's interesting, You have never piloted a Spitfire. Yet in this thread alone,you qoute others who have. Accepting their nonsense as fact. You probally have thousands of post( I'm guessing) dedicated to the Spitfire, quoting many pilots espousing its wonders. However, your not qualified to comment on the historical accuracy of the stability of the US planes as a gun platform- "I have no idea if its accurate or not, I have never fired a .50 cal." Your reasoning is flawed and very selective. In contrast your agenda is quite obvious. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You really are reaching now FF....

Just for you I will clarify my statement better 'I have never fired a .50 cal nor have I ever researched if there is any difference between the US gun and the Russian gun.'


'Their nonsense'? lmao, some of those pilots are US WW2 vets who flew for the Israelis, Lmao


USAAF 31st FG War Diary (when transferring from Spitfires to P-51s): "Although pilots think that the P-51 is the best American fighter, they think the Spitfire VIII is the best fighter in the air."

USAAF pilot Charles McCorkle (who flew both in combat), reporting on a mock combat between a Spitfire and Mustang in 1944: "Now we could see which was the better aircraft...a Mustang and a Spit took off for a scheduled 'combat', flown by two top young flight commanders. When the fighters returned, the pilots had to agree that the Spitfire had won the joust. The Spit could easily outclimb, outaccelerate, and outmaneuver its opponent..."


http://www.af.mil/bios/bio.asp?bioID=6363

William Dunn (US fighter ace who flew Spitfires, P-51s, Hurricanes, and P-47s): "Now, if I had to make the choice of one fighter aircraft above all the others - one that I'd rather have tied to the seat of my pants in any tactical situation - it would be, without any doubt, the world's greatest propeller driven flying machine - the magnificent and immortal Spitfire."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_R._Dunn

"Capt. George Lichter joined the 361st Fighter Group, 374th Fighter Squadron at Richmond Army Base in May 1943. The Group departed for overseas in November 1943 on the liner Queen Elizabeth. Captain Lichter flew 88 combat missions and was credited with destroying 2 enemy aircraft, 1 probable and 3 damaged. He was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross and Air Medal and attained the position of Squadron Flight Leader. After returning to the states in December 1944 upon completing his combat, Captain Lichter joined the Israeli Air Force in 1948 where he flew combat in the Messerschmitt 109[sic Avia 199], P51D and Supermarine Spitfire. This was during the Israeli War of Independence. When this war ended, he trained fighter pilots and was head of the Israeli Advanced Flying School. He became chief instructor in 1950 and returned to the States in 1951."


Like many other pilots, [George] Lichter loved flying the Spitfire most of all. "It was an absolute dream. The Thunderbolt was like a truck, and the Spitfire was like a Porsche."


I have no "agenda", its just obvious that the Spitfire was better IN SOME AREAS than the P51, I have researched it, its fact, just live with it.

Instead of just trying to wind others up, why dont you actually research the subject? One obvious place you could start is the range, where the P51 easily has the Spitfire beat...
I have not seen you post one piece of historical evidence yet.

jamesblonde1979
03-27-2009, 04:15 AM
Of course a Spit Mk VIII is going to be a better scoring plane against a P-51 on average, it's easier to fly and has excellent performance.

It takes a superb pilot to get the best out of a 'Stang, but then a superb pilot is going to win in anything.

Bremspropeller
03-27-2009, 04:32 AM
So FF, why don't you just dl the mod, and design a good FM for all the US planes you whish to be changed?

What do you expect from your rant?
You certainly have a point, but it's been quite a while since Oleg has made clear that IL-2 and all it's versions are dead to him.
Nothing's gonna be changed from now on.
Your only way of getting your "fixed/ correct/ you name it" "FM/DM you name it" issues is making some of your own.

Want a correct P-47?
Alright, take the game's LOD or even make a new one and create a mod about it.
Call it P-47_fixed and be happy.
That's the only option left.

It's as easy as that.


BTW: there's lots of stuff that isn't modelled in this game which hampers american fighters specificly.
A couple of things have already been mentioned.
But hey, this games's engine dates back to 1998-2001.
Gimme only one game that had only half the features we have today back then.

Xiolablu3
03-27-2009, 06:28 AM
Originally posted by jamesblonde1979:
Of course a Spit Mk VIII is going to be a better scoring plane against a P-51 on average, it's easier to fly and has excellent performance.

.

To some here it isnt obvious at all....

M_Gunz
03-27-2009, 09:36 AM
Originally posted by Romanator21:
Just because the Mustang flies as easily as a Spitfire does not mean that the two fly the same, or are equally fast, maneuverable, powerful, and stable.
I am surprised no one has mentioned this yet: The late P-51 had a fuel tank in the rear that greatly disrupted the center of gravity and made it very unpleasant to fly. Pilots would only engage after this back tank was empty.
Ok now the fun part:
Go to the QMB and set only 25% Fuel in the P-51. Look at the floor. The two wings tanks read empty. Look behind your left shoulder. The back tank is still 80% FULL!!! Duh?! The P-51 is so unstable boo hoo. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif This is why. As far as I can tell, you can't really select fuel tanks in this game, so it is only a limitation of the engine, not a "feature".

In IL2 engine, CoG is a fixed-set point regardless of fuel states. That is a limit of the game from years before P-51 was in.

P-51 didn't start like this but a group sent documents to Maddox Games showing tested stick lbs/G to "get more elevator authority".
It's supposed to be really low according to those historic tests. Does that kind of tell something about fuel state during said
tests and closeness of CoG to CoL? Hmmmm? In any case, Maddox Games changed the model to comply with provided US documents and
the CoG we have with the wonderful elevator authority has resulted. Demands backed by documents were met, there's been whining
ever since.

I have yet to see any conspiracy or bias theory backed by jack -- only rumor, opinion and outright lies. As for disparities, yes
and they are all spread out. ALL performance figures cannot be met with a non-tabled FM that runs on a home PC, SOME will be
short. Tabled-FMs are lousy at handling and no FM that runs on a home PC can be perfect.

There will always be shortcomings. Those too immature to deal with that -will- pick and whine and go beyond simple facts as if
entitled to. Perhaps the same ones will have careers as lobbyists, lawyers, politicians or gossipy housewives.

Falcke
03-27-2009, 10:20 AM
Still, the difference in performance between a 100% and a 25% fuel load for the P51 is probably the biggest of all the planes in the game.

staticline1
03-27-2009, 02:47 PM
People have mentioned the wobbles before. I'm kind of curious by just removing the wobbling from the FM code for these specific a/c how much of a difference it would make in peoples perception to their handling. Not sure how the wobbling actually got into the code, maybe someone was hitting the vodka a little too much. It wouldn't do anything for the roll rate for the T-bolt but it would be nice to get rid of.

VW-IceFire
03-27-2009, 04:21 PM
Some of the lateral instability problems are caused by peoples control setup and input sensitivity. Since this seems to varry somewhat between different hardware/software configurations its difficult to be sure that everyone is having the same issue.

My rudder settings are set to be very gradual so that what input I put in is very minimal unless I crank the stick over to the side (I'm using a twist stick). The folks on rudder pedals probably spent some time tweaking as well.

If you left it at the default settings...well...pretty much everything is going to wobble and anything with a hint of lateral instability will turn into a monster.

M_Gunz
03-27-2009, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by Falcke:
Still, the difference in performance between a 100% and a 25% fuel load for the P51 is probably the biggest of all the planes in the game.

Weight changes even though CoG does not. P-51D had huge fuel capacity. 25% fuel in that seems like as much or more than 100% in
many others.

The planes are balanced on Center of Lift like a seesaw. Tail pushes down on a long lever arm and opposite end is Center of Gravity
on short lever arm pushing on that end. The shorter the CoG lever, the easier it is for the tail to make effect but the harder to
control so well.

Just how that position affects yaw or what length to there from prop does with torque versus effects on tail in the models I dunno.
People might be able to play with CoG reposition for offline and soon find that pulling out of high speed dive is more like in 109.
It is not so simple as a bunch of values to push up everything "good" and nothing else is affected in a "bad" way.

BigKahuna_GS
03-27-2009, 11:29 PM
S!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bremspropeller--BTW: there's lots of stuff that isn't modelled in this game which hampers american fighters specificly. A couple of things have already been mentioned.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please be patient Brem with US aircraft enthusiasts.

So many fans of this sim were and are so dissapointed that so many late war allied
aircraft were left out. Aircraft that had they been in the plane set would of brought a
more even playing field in many ways. I was really looking forward to flying a Spit14,
Tempest 13-lbs Boost, P47M & N, F4U-4, Mustang Mk.4/P51D at 81"MP and maybe just maybe the
F8F Bearcat that was on board carriers enroute to Japan when the war eneded.

The hardest part for me was to watch fantasy paper aircraft that never flew being added
to this sim when more important aircraft that were missing should of been added instead.

Then there was the patches and changes to flight models. You never knew how each patch would effect your ride but each patch was supposed to be the "most correct".

For example the earley 3 patch series had for the first time real dive speed acceleration superiority for the P51 & P47 over the 109 and 190. I had an email confirming 1c's intention to have it this way and for the P51 to retain greater speed and energy over the 109 but not turn as tight. I thought to myself----Great! I am a happy man.

However this did not last very long and within a few patches there was no longer any dive superiority and no way to escape for a P51 or P47 as the 109 & 190 intial dive was faster until reaching critical mach. The only way to escape is for them to hit critical mach before you do. The patches kept evolving until you weren't sure where your A/C group stood.

In the series 4 patches (SOW beta features) the wobbles, & CoG issues were introduced. Fly the Mustang Mark III then the P51D and you'll understand. Before this there was no CoG/Wobbles problems.

There is way more than "couple of things" wrong with US aircraft and the list of problems is deeper than you know. Between the patches, changes in performance, changes in flight models, .50cal issues and missing late war fighters it has been a very fustrating journey.

Many of the problems could have been so easily resolved leaving all sides happy and feeling good.

Take the .50cal issue---all IL2 US.50cals MGs should of been unsynchronized from the very beginning just like lend lease Russain A/C--with no adverse abnormal yaw features --That would of been huge !

Then just add API to the ammo load out, viewable tracers from the cockpit, and a decent mil spread and it's done. This could been accomplished from the very beginning instead of being dragged out for years and never really being fixed which cast doubts about 1c intentions and fairness.

That is just one issue and it lasted the whole life span of IL2 without ever really being fixed--Was that neccesary? Was that the right way to handle this easily fixed problem ?

Did any other A/C group have issues like this with their primary weapon to shoot down enemy aircraft with and with that weapons ammo load that lasted the entire life span of this sim?

Think about that one for awhile.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Romenator-As far as I can tell, you can't really select fuel tanks in this game, so it is only a limitation of the engine, not a "feature".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You never could select which tanks to fill only the amount 25%-100%.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M_Gunz--In IL2 engine, CoG is a fixed-set point regardless of fuel states. That is a limit of the game from years before P-51 was in.

The planes are balanced on Center of Lift like a seesaw
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More like the head of a pin.

The P51D Mustang & P38 Late never had any CoG problems until the later 4 series patches. Fly the Mustang Mark III then the P51D; the P38J then the P38 Late and you will be able to see the difference.


-

M_Gunz
03-28-2009, 06:30 AM
Was it Godfrey or Clostermann who got caught in a fight in a P-51D early over the continent and experienced control reversal
during a hard turn? Do we get that maybe and how would you know without FFB?

Do you have an idea how much the lack of stick force feel back to the player screws with us as players?

Or what strength-based control interface means when the backforces on the controls changes faster than the plane nose moves?
Simple hint: when the backforces change and your hand does not move your joystick then the control surfaces so move as the
pilot strength applied to backforce relation changes.

The P-51 does have super-ability to change pitch which does have both plus and minus. I wish that whoever it was that sent
those docs to Maddox Games (they bragged about it back when) had not done so or at least been less pushy about it.

It's not totally forked by any means but you do have to be gentle with it, finesse instead or horse around. It doesn't
take to sudden aim changes at all and the more prop rpm and power you have applied when you do the worse the outcome.
Keep fighting that using visual pipper to target position and you end up with PIO syndrome big time. However much the
model is unstable, any player can compound that multiple times easily. It is true that many other planes don't have it
so bad yet nose bobbing was first complained about in the 109's back in the original IL2 and then it was bias against
the German planes conspiracy. We had less torque back then and the auto-rudder as well.

Entirely my suggestion is that if a player feels sensitive to certain planes then that player should play other planes only.
IOW don't turn it into a religious experience and you won't end up speaking in tongues.

Bremspropeller
03-28-2009, 08:24 AM
I know what you're concerned about Kahuna and I fully understand your frustration.

But as I said before (this one particulary being linked to the cal 50's weakness in-game), this engine has just too many limitations to correctly simulate kinetic-related damage.
There is no airframe-stress modelled (at least not sophisticatedly).
For example a wing with a couple of 50s-holes will certainly snap under less g-force than an undamaged wing. There's no way in simulating this in this game - it just lacks the sophistication.

Meanwhile, the only way of getting FMs and maybe DMs on par with real-world figures is creating mods.
Look what they have done with the Fw 190A-3.
It's a brilliant a/c that models all features as close as they can get in this sim.
And there are more a/c in the pipe.

Would be nice if some group gathers up and decides to make-over a couple of american fighters.

Xiolablu3
03-28-2009, 08:53 AM
Here SId Cohen is flying a SPitfire LF IX with 2x.50s and 2x20mm cannon :-

"Two REAF Macchis were destroyed on the ground. On the way back, Wilson and his wingman, Syd Cohen, detoured toward Faluja.

"Near the Faluja pocket, I caught an Egyptian Spit flying escort for a C-46, which was dropping canisters and supplies. I just slid in behind this Spit. He started to make a tight turn but I tightened with him. We were so short of ammunition, we'd been asked not to use our cannons. So I machine-gunned his engine cowlings. He spiraled down and blew up."


"They always told us to go easy on the ammo. A single shot from a 20-mm cannon cost about four dollars. Even a .50-calibre shell ran to about 50 cents."

staticline1
03-28-2009, 09:39 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller: Would be nice if some group gathers up and decides to make-over a couple of american fighters.

There is an attempt to redo all the versions of the Mustang including adding the H model over at AAA. New FM and I believe DM as well. So far looks promising.

crucislancer
03-28-2009, 09:49 AM
Originally posted by staticline1:
There is an attempt to redo all the versions of the Mustang including adding the H model over at AAA. New FM and I believe DM as well. So far looks promising.

Are they making new planes or fiddling with the ones in game? IIRC, they said they wouldn't mess with the FM/DM of planes in game, just add new ones.

ElAurens
03-28-2009, 10:23 AM
New slot aircraft.

P51D-25

P51D-30

R_Target
03-28-2009, 11:03 AM
Hmmmmmmmm.

F6F-3 Early

F6F-5 Early

F6F-5 Late

XF6F-6

Sounds good to me.

Frequent_Flyer
03-28-2009, 05:29 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 Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I find no difference in the P40 guns, US model or lend lease, and the other US 50 cal guns.

Only that its harder to aim the guns in the P51 and the Corsair.

Is that historically accurate ? Please provide the data to support this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have no idea if its accurate or not, I have never fired a .50 cal.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's interesting, You have never piloted a Spitfire. Yet in this thread alone,you qoute others who have. Accepting their nonsense as fact. You probally have thousands of post( I'm guessing) dedicated to the Spitfire, quoting many pilots espousing its wonders. However, your not qualified to comment on the historical accuracy of the stability of the US planes as a gun platform- "I have no idea if its accurate or not, I have never fired a .50 cal." Your reasoning is flawed and very selective. In contrast your agenda is quite obvious. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You really are reaching now FF....

Just for you I will clarify my statement better 'I have never fired a .50 cal nor have I ever researched if there is any difference between the US gun and the Russian gun.'


'Their nonsense'? lmao, some of those pilots are US WW2 vets who flew for the Israelis, Lmao


USAAF 31st FG War Diary (when transferring from Spitfires to P-51s): "Although pilots think that the P-51 is the best American fighter, they think the Spitfire VIII is the best fighter in the air."

USAAF pilot Charles McCorkle (who flew both in combat), reporting on a mock combat between a Spitfire and Mustang in 1944: "Now we could see which was the better aircraft...a Mustang and a Spit took off for a scheduled 'combat', flown by two top young flight commanders. When the fighters returned, the pilots had to agree that the Spitfire had won the joust. The Spit could easily outclimb, outaccelerate, and outmaneuver its opponent..."


http://www.af.mil/bios/bio.asp?bioID=6363

William Dunn (US fighter ace who flew Spitfires, P-51s, Hurricanes, and P-47s): "Now, if I had to make the choice of one fighter aircraft above all the others - one that I'd rather have tied to the seat of my pants in any tactical situation - it would be, without any doubt, the world's greatest propeller driven flying machine - the magnificent and immortal Spitfire."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_R._Dunn

"Capt. George Lichter joined the 361st Fighter Group, 374th Fighter Squadron at Richmond Army Base in May 1943. The Group departed for overseas in November 1943 on the liner Queen Elizabeth. Captain Lichter flew 88 combat missions and was credited with destroying 2 enemy aircraft, 1 probable and 3 damaged. He was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross and Air Medal and attained the position of Squadron Flight Leader. After returning to the states in December 1944 upon completing his combat, Captain Lichter joined the Israeli Air Force in 1948 where he flew combat in the Messerschmitt 109[sic Avia 199], P51D and Supermarine Spitfire. This was during the Israeli War of Independence. When this war ended, he trained fighter pilots and was head of the Israeli Advanced Flying School. He became chief instructor in 1950 and returned to the States in 1951."


Like many other pilots, [George] Lichter loved flying the Spitfire most of all. "It was an absolute dream. The Thunderbolt was like a truck, and the Spitfire was like a Porsche."


I have no "agenda", its just obvious that the Spitfire was better IN SOME AREAS than the P51, I have researched it, its fact, just live with it.

Instead of just trying to wind others up, why dont you actually research the subject? One obvious place you could start is the range, where the P51 easily has the Spitfire beat...
I have not seen you post one piece of historical evidence yet. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Xiolablu3
You have this obsessive compulsive( in lieu of an agenda ) need to quote spitfire pilots no matter the focus of the thread and dialog. Ignoring the spirit of the discourse.(The historical inacuracy of the US aircrafts flight model in IL-2)The following is an excerpt from a report flied by RAF pilot.

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">FLYING CHARACTERISTICS

6. The Mustang III is very similar to fly and land as the Mustang 1. It is therefore delightfully easy to handle. It is as easy to fly as a Spitfire IX with the exception that the rudder is needed whenever changing bank (in order to prevent skid, and to prevent the sight from swinging off). This soon becomes automatic. The engine feels very smooth.</span>

These comments in no way impugn the Spitfire.

Do you agree with this pilot's assesment ? I know you have flown neither aircraft in the real world, I am refering to Oleg's representation of both aircrafts flying CHARACTERISTICS in IL-2. Do you agree or disagree with the RAF pilot (the Mustang )"It is as easy to fly as a Spitfire IX"

M_Gunz
03-28-2009, 06:41 PM
LOL! Fly the IL2 Spit IX's without using rudder through turns and watch the slip needle some time! LMAO!

Hey Xio! You aren't expert enough to pick the quotes since you never flew any of those planes!

ElAurens
03-28-2009, 07:23 PM
You know it's really is a good thing that figher pilots don't pick the aircraft that their respective air forces purchase.

If they did we would still be in Fokker DR1s and Sopwith Tripes.

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

There are probably less than five folks in this whole community that are really qualified to comment on the characteristics of the P51, or any other real WW2 fighter aircraft, and not one of you would believe what they say because you don't trust the pilots that actually did the job. Real warbird pilots who have flown the sim laugh at you.

Really, they do.

Freaking hypocrite gamers, the lot of you.

M_Gunz
03-28-2009, 10:44 PM
What? Doesn't anybody who can dig up a quote automatically carry the full authority of whoever they're quoting?
And doesn't every last been there and done it war pilot have infallible and perfect judgment?
Doesn't everyone who can read know exactly what the person quoting is saying? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

And lastly, once you've found and read the quote, doesn't that make you expert enough to duplicate the feat?

I mean really, there's members here who follow all those steps carefully and they really deserve all the respect they give
when they demand justice.

Viper2005_
03-28-2009, 11:51 PM
I dislike being called a "hypocrite gamer". Intensely, and on both counts.

JtD
03-29-2009, 01:47 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
LOL! Fly the IL2 Spit IX's without using rudder through turns and watch the slip needle some time! LMAO!

What's so funny? It doesn't move. It shouldn't move. What's so funny?

M_Gunz
03-29-2009, 04:14 AM
If I don't rudder in turns in the Spit IX's the slip needle goes way off to the side.
But then I have torque toggled ON.

Xiolablu3
03-29-2009, 04:49 AM
Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I find no difference in the P40 guns, US model or lend lease, and the other US 50 cal guns.

Only that its harder to aim the guns in the P51 and the Corsair.

Is that historically accurate ? Please provide the data to support this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have no idea if its accurate or not, I have never fired a .50 cal.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's interesting, You have never piloted a Spitfire. Yet in this thread alone,you qoute others who have. Accepting their nonsense as fact. You probally have thousands of post( I'm guessing) dedicated to the Spitfire, quoting many pilots espousing its wonders. However, your not qualified to comment on the historical accuracy of the stability of the US planes as a gun platform- "I have no idea if its accurate or not, I have never fired a .50 cal." Your reasoning is flawed and very selective. In contrast your agenda is quite obvious. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You really are reaching now FF....

Just for you I will clarify my statement better 'I have never fired a .50 cal nor have I ever researched if there is any difference between the US gun and the Russian gun.'


'Their nonsense'? lmao, some of those pilots are US WW2 vets who flew for the Israelis, Lmao


USAAF 31st FG War Diary (when transferring from Spitfires to P-51s): "Although pilots think that the P-51 is the best American fighter, they think the Spitfire VIII is the best fighter in the air."

USAAF pilot Charles McCorkle (who flew both in combat), reporting on a mock combat between a Spitfire and Mustang in 1944: "Now we could see which was the better aircraft...a Mustang and a Spit took off for a scheduled 'combat', flown by two top young flight commanders. When the fighters returned, the pilots had to agree that the Spitfire had won the joust. The Spit could easily outclimb, outaccelerate, and outmaneuver its opponent..."


http://www.af.mil/bios/bio.asp?bioID=6363

William Dunn (US fighter ace who flew Spitfires, P-51s, Hurricanes, and P-47s): "Now, if I had to make the choice of one fighter aircraft above all the others - one that I'd rather have tied to the seat of my pants in any tactical situation - it would be, without any doubt, the world's greatest propeller driven flying machine - the magnificent and immortal Spitfire."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_R._Dunn

"Capt. George Lichter joined the 361st Fighter Group, 374th Fighter Squadron at Richmond Army Base in May 1943. The Group departed for overseas in November 1943 on the liner Queen Elizabeth. Captain Lichter flew 88 combat missions and was credited with destroying 2 enemy aircraft, 1 probable and 3 damaged. He was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross and Air Medal and attained the position of Squadron Flight Leader. After returning to the states in December 1944 upon completing his combat, Captain Lichter joined the Israeli Air Force in 1948 where he flew combat in the Messerschmitt 109[sic Avia 199], P51D and Supermarine Spitfire. This was during the Israeli War of Independence. When this war ended, he trained fighter pilots and was head of the Israeli Advanced Flying School. He became chief instructor in 1950 and returned to the States in 1951."


Like many other pilots, [George] Lichter loved flying the Spitfire most of all. "It was an absolute dream. The Thunderbolt was like a truck, and the Spitfire was like a Porsche."


I have no "agenda", its just obvious that the Spitfire was better IN SOME AREAS than the P51, I have researched it, its fact, just live with it.

Instead of just trying to wind others up, why dont you actually research the subject? One obvious place you could start is the range, where the P51 easily has the Spitfire beat...
I have not seen you post one piece of historical evidence yet. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Xiolablu3
You have this obsessive compulsive( in lieu of an agenda ) need to quote spitfire pilots no matter the focus of the thread and dialog. Ignoring the spirit of the discourse.(The historical inacuracy of the US aircrafts flight model in IL-2)The following is an excerpt from a report flied by RAF pilot.

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">FLYING CHARACTERISTICS

6. The Mustang III is very similar to fly and land as the Mustang 1. It is therefore delightfully easy to handle. It is as easy to fly as a Spitfire IX with the exception that the rudder is needed whenever changing bank (in order to prevent skid, and to prevent the sight from swinging off). This soon becomes automatic. The engine feels very smooth.</span>

These comments in no way impugn the Spitfire.

Do you agree with this pilot's assesment ? I know you have flown neither aircraft in the real world, I am refering to Oleg's representation of both aircrafts flying CHARACTERISTICS in IL-2. Do you agree or disagree with the RAF pilot (the Mustang )"It is as easy to fly as a Spitfire IX" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I really dont know, I have never flown one. I would think, judging by the evidence, that the Spitfire was a little easier to fly than the P51, just from the weight of quotes and evidence from pilots. But I am not calling this RAF pilot a liar, he might well have found the P51 almost as easy as the Spit.

The last quote I posted was about the strength of 50cals IRL, not the Spitfire. See how this guy has been asked not to use his 20mm, so he 'casually machine guns the engine cowling" with 2x50's? and the aircraft is destroyed? How hard would that be in IL2? I can hardly shoot down anything with the Italian G50 which has 2x.50s.

I know you dont see it, but I am actually on your side on some of htis subject. Especially the 'wobbles' and also the more I read, the more I think the .50's might be a bit underpowered too. It COULD just be my pooor shooting skills however.

I just dont believe that ALL US aircraft are porked. I love the 'cats', and the P40 is good. The TBolt is pretty awesome.

JtD
03-29-2009, 05:39 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
If I don't rudder in turns in the Spit IX's the slip needle goes way off to the side.
But then I have torque toggled ON.

The turn needle goes way off to the side, the slip needle stays almost in the centre.

I still don't get the joke.

Aaron_GT
03-29-2009, 05:41 AM
There are interesting results in the Fly off thread which also fit with comments from the JFC.

As I read it (which may be wrong!) the FG-1 has good static stability, as measured in the fly off and mentioned in the JFC, i.e. it tends to want to continue in the way it is pointing, but this means that it will tend to resist directional change, and it feels like that in the game. Also it may be related to the issues with damping in that the oscillatory period may be larger. I'd welcome input from someone with more knowledge of aerodynamics, though.

Whether the extent of this effect is correctly modelled is another matter.

There are all sorts of things that aren't modelled - control reversal due to rear fuel tanks, or the tendency of elevators to progressively tighten the turn on Spitfires. They are probably just beyond the engine. I hope we see this sort of fidelity in SoW.

The P-51 had other issues, though - the rear fuel tank (the similar one in the Spitfire caused exactly the same sort of problems) and instability when the bubble canopy was fitted (which also affected the P-47) that was dealt with via fin fillets.

Going off topic issues with A2A tracking was one of the reasons the USN rejected the P-51. The other was they were doing well with the F6F and F4U and really what they wanted was a short range interceptor with a high rate of climb and the F8F to support fleets under constant attack in an invasion of Japan and one from a manufacturer with a proven track record in naval aviation fitted the bill. A high rate of climb was more possible with the P-51H but that would have been harder to navalise. The difference in climb rates might not seem enormous but still translate to having an extra minute to engage a contact coming in at 10,000 feet and with a 4 20mm cannon loadout that might be enough to destroy it.

M_Gunz
03-29-2009, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
If I don't rudder in turns in the Spit IX's the slip needle goes way off to the side.
But then I have torque toggled ON.

The turn needle goes way off to the side, the slip needle stays almost in the centre.

I still don't get the joke. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So I am centering the turn needle by using the rudder even while the plane is turning cleanly and the other needle
is still off to the side I would think is turn?

It is possible to watch the gage and still see out just over the top of the dash.

horseback
03-29-2009, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
There are interesting results in the Fly off thread which also fit with comments from the JFC.

As I read it (which may be wrong!) the FG-1 has good static stability, as measured in the fly off and mentioned in the JFC, i.e. it tends to want to continue in the way it is pointing, but this means that it will tend to resist directional change, and it feels like that in the game. Also it may be related to the issues with damping in that the oscillatory period may be larger. I'd welcome input from someone with more knowledge of aerodynamics, though.

Whether the extent of this effect is correctly modelled is another matter.

There are all sorts of things that aren't modelled - control reversal due to rear fuel tanks, or the tendency of elevators to progressively tighten the turn on Spitfires. They are probably just beyond the engine. I hope we see this sort of fidelity in SoW. I generally dislike using the quotes for the JFC because they give far too much leverage to cherry pickers. There is always a negative quote you can pull from amongst the majority of positive quotes to prove any point you like. There was more than one participant at the conference with an ax to grind.

We are better served by looking at how the aircraft were ranked in their desirable & undesirable traits, and even then, we only have a general hierarchy of US fighters, not how they directly compare to their Allied or Axis counterparts.
The P-51 had other issues, though - the rear fuel tank (the similar one in the Spitfire caused exactly the same sort of problems) and instability when the bubble canopy was fitted (which also affected the P-47) that was dealt with via fin fillets. The whole CoG issue with the Mustang's fuselage tank has been done to death. It was a very early problem coinciding with the installation of the tanks in mid-range and later P-51D/C models, and they apparently weren't installed at all in the RAF's Mustang IIIs (is that reflected in the FM?).

As a matter of general practice (and yes there were noted exceptions-but they're in the same class as all those explosions and de-winging caused by .50 HMGs; being exceptional and spectacular is what led to their being remembered over the normal ho-hum daily occurances, right?) the fuselage tanks were no more than half full when the overwhelming majority of Mustangs containing them entered combat.

Oleg has stated that the CoG doesn't change with the loss of fuel, so I have to wonder if he came up with a compromise CoG somewhere between the combat CoG and fully loaded CoG, given the handling issues with the Mustang's oversensitivity to trim input,and the wobble that it's had to some degree since the 4.0X patches.

It has considerably improved over the early disaster, but it's still there to a lesser degree, and no one has convinced me that it ever should have been there at all if no other country's fighters don't have some degree of it too.
Going off topic issues with A2A tracking was one of the reasons the USN rejected the P-51. The other was they were doing well with the F6F and F4U and really what they wanted was a short range interceptor with a high rate of climb and the F8F to support fleets under constant attack in an invasion of Japan and one from a manufacturer with a proven track record in naval aviation fitted the bill. A high rate of climb was more possible with the P-51H but that would have been harder to navalise. The difference in climb rates might not seem enormous but still translate to having an extra minute to engage a contact coming in at 10,000 feet and with a 4 20mm cannon loadout that might be enough to destroy it. There was only ONE reason that the Mustang wasn't accepted for carrier service--it wasn't designed to land on a carrier, and there were plenty of better designs for that purpose already in service or in the pipeline.

The carrier suitability tests of the Mustang were strictly political/public relations stunts done to satisfy the man on the street who couldn't comprehend why the spectacular success of the Mustang in the ETO couldn't translate into the Pacific theater. The ONLY thing that mattered was that it was not suitable for landing on carriers. It could not take the stress of repeated carrier landings, and it wasn't very good at the low-speed flight approach necessary for making those landings. Everything mentioned after those two things is window dressing, and may or may not be precisely true.

If you need an illustration of the difference between carrier and land-based aircraft, there's a famous shot of the XF-17 Cobra prototype built by Northrop to compete with the F-16 back in the '70s sitting next to one of its descendents, an F/A-18A Hornet. The XF-17 looks like a greyhound sitting next to a pit bull.

The constant comparisons between the Mustang and the Spitfire are due to the fact that they use the same engine to different formulas and were both flown by the USAAF and the Commonwealth Air Forces, so several pilots in all those services had a chance to compare them directly.

Most of them said the same thing: both were easy to fly and responded well to the pilots' input. What I take that to mean is that both fighters did what the pilot expected them to do to the degree that the pilot expected, i.e., no surprises.

The Spit was lighter and built as an interceptor/knifefighter; more agile and faster in acceleration & climb, BUT a Mustang was faster, had better dive acceleration and would have considerably more choice about whether to engage or disengage. In a hit and run/ambush scenario, the more heavily built, longer ranged and faster aircraft has the advantage, both as attacker and defender. However much both were designed to different priorities, the common thread was that a pilot felt that he was in control of his mount, and that he could trust it to do what he wanted it to do.

By comparison, a P-39 was usually considered full of surprises; the descriptions of its flying qualities indicates that not only did it require a very delicate touch, but that individual aircraft (not just from one production series to the next) tended to vary in their response to pilot input and often the process was described as balancing on the head of a pin.

Oleg captured much of that quality in the game's Airacobras; but I think that when he modeled the late war US fighters he may have depended a little too heavily on comparison to the German Bf 109G series and the FW 190A in the way they got faster but less agile and harder to handle as the war ground on.

Remember what Kahuna said about "Later models are worser not better"?

The problem is that he may not have been able to accept that:

1. Most American late-war aircraft were designed to burn off a significant fraction of their load before entering combat, and were more effective once that load was gone (and they were fueled in accordance with their distance from the combat zone).

2. They were constantly being improved both on the factory lines and in the field to a degree unimaginable (and unavailable) to the VVS in WWII.

3. American air forces' training films and documentation of the time was not heavily larded with propaganda about performance and handling; the conviction that the 'real' info was carefully classified & hidden away is not limited to the former Soviet Union these days. these days, it seems that everyone is a conspiracy theorist.

I learned a long time ago that 'new & different' facts are not necessarily true facts, even if they cater to my prejudices. Sometimes the same old facts everyone agreed upon at the time they occurred are really the way things were, and don't need revision.

cheers

horseback

Frequent_Flyer
03-29-2009, 01:47 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 Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I find no difference in the P40 guns, US model or lend lease, and the other US 50 cal guns.

Only that its harder to aim the guns in the P51 and the Corsair.

Is that historically accurate ? Please provide the data to support this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have no idea if its accurate or not, I have never fired a .50 cal.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's interesting, You have never piloted a Spitfire. Yet in this thread alone,you qoute others who have. Accepting their nonsense as fact. You probally have thousands of post( I'm guessing) dedicated to the Spitfire, quoting many pilots espousing its wonders. However, your not qualified to comment on the historical accuracy of the stability of the US planes as a gun platform- "I have no idea if its accurate or not, I have never fired a .50 cal." Your reasoning is flawed and very selective. In contrast your agenda is quite obvious. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You really are reaching now FF....

Just for you I will clarify my statement better 'I have never fired a .50 cal nor have I ever researched if there is any difference between the US gun and the Russian gun.'


'Their nonsense'? lmao, some of those pilots are US WW2 vets who flew for the Israelis, Lmao


USAAF 31st FG War Diary (when transferring from Spitfires to P-51s): "Although pilots think that the P-51 is the best American fighter, they think the Spitfire VIII is the best fighter in the air."

USAAF pilot Charles McCorkle (who flew both in combat), reporting on a mock combat between a Spitfire and Mustang in 1944: "Now we could see which was the better aircraft...a Mustang and a Spit took off for a scheduled 'combat', flown by two top young flight commanders. When the fighters returned, the pilots had to agree that the Spitfire had won the joust. The Spit could easily outclimb, outaccelerate, and outmaneuver its opponent..."


http://www.af.mil/bios/bio.asp?bioID=6363

William Dunn (US fighter ace who flew Spitfires, P-51s, Hurricanes, and P-47s): "Now, if I had to make the choice of one fighter aircraft above all the others - one that I'd rather have tied to the seat of my pants in any tactical situation - it would be, without any doubt, the world's greatest propeller driven flying machine - the magnificent and immortal Spitfire."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_R._Dunn

"Capt. George Lichter joined the 361st Fighter Group, 374th Fighter Squadron at Richmond Army Base in May 1943. The Group departed for overseas in November 1943 on the liner Queen Elizabeth. Captain Lichter flew 88 combat missions and was credited with destroying 2 enemy aircraft, 1 probable and 3 damaged. He was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross and Air Medal and attained the position of Squadron Flight Leader. After returning to the states in December 1944 upon completing his combat, Captain Lichter joined the Israeli Air Force in 1948 where he flew combat in the Messerschmitt 109[sic Avia 199], P51D and Supermarine Spitfire. This was during the Israeli War of Independence. When this war ended, he trained fighter pilots and was head of the Israeli Advanced Flying School. He became chief instructor in 1950 and returned to the States in 1951."


Like many other pilots, [George] Lichter loved flying the Spitfire most of all. "It was an absolute dream. The Thunderbolt was like a truck, and the Spitfire was like a Porsche."


I have no "agenda", its just obvious that the Spitfire was better IN SOME AREAS than the P51, I have researched it, its fact, just live with it.

Instead of just trying to wind others up, why dont you actually research the subject? One obvious place you could start is the range, where the P51 easily has the Spitfire beat...
I have not seen you post one piece of historical evidence yet. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Xiolablu3
You have this obsessive compulsive( in lieu of an agenda ) need to quote spitfire pilots no matter the focus of the thread and dialog. Ignoring the spirit of the discourse.(The historical inacuracy of the US aircrafts flight model in IL-2)The following is an excerpt from a report flied by RAF pilot.

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">FLYING CHARACTERISTICS

6. The Mustang III is very similar to fly and land as the Mustang 1. It is therefore delightfully easy to handle. It is as easy to fly as a Spitfire IX with the exception that the rudder is needed whenever changing bank (in order to prevent skid, and to prevent the sight from swinging off). This soon becomes automatic. The engine feels very smooth.</span>

These comments in no way impugn the Spitfire.

Do you agree with this pilot's assesment ? I know you have flown neither aircraft in the real world, I am refering to Oleg's representation of both aircrafts flying CHARACTERISTICS in IL-2. Do you agree or disagree with the RAF pilot (the Mustang )"It is as easy to fly as a Spitfire IX" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I really dont know, I have never flown one. I would think, judging by the evidence, that the Spitfire was a little easier to fly than the P51, just from the weight of quotes and evidence from pilots. But I am not calling this RAF pilot a liar, he might well have found the P51 almost as easy as the Spit.

The last quote I posted was about the strength of 50cals IRL, not the Spitfire. See how this guy has been asked not to use his 20mm, so he 'casually machine guns the engine cowling" with 2x50's? and the aircraft is destroyed? How hard would that be in IL2? I can hardly shoot down anything with the Italian G50 which has 2x.50s.

I know you dont see it, but I am actually on your side on some of htis subject. Especially the 'wobbles' and also the more I read, the more I think the .50's might be a bit underpowered too. It COULD just be my pooor shooting skills however.

I just dont believe that ALL US aircraft are porked. I love the 'cats', and the P40 is good. The TBolt is pretty awesome. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you are inclined to beleive Oleg's representation of the .50's are underpowered. Than it would imply, all the US aircraft have been inaccurately represented to some degree.The Ammo" belting" is inaccurate as well. The " wobbles" or the instability(another inaccurate representation) will exacerbate the weakened .50's. I think many in this community suffer from ' sudden lack of aim ' when piloting certain US aircraft.This seems very pronounced in the Corsair or P-51. Irronically their aim "resharpens" when they fly the P-40 .

I find Horseback and 609IAP_Kahuna posts in this thread to be very concise and lucid. I'm not sure what " porked " denotes. Historically innaccurate puts it in context for me.

R_Target
03-29-2009, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
I generally dislike using the quotes for the JFC because they give far too much leverage to cherry pickers. There is always a negative quote you can pull from amongst the majority of positive quotes to prove any point you like. There was more than one participant at the conference with an ax to grind.

One of my favorites is the "ground handling" section of the F6F-5 responses: "Visibility Good-3"..."Visibility Fair-1"..."Visibility Poor-2". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Whenever I read through the JFC comments, I always keep in mind that "The comments therefore are about half from contractor's pilots, a fifth or so from British pilots, and the remainder from the service not sponsoring the aircraft in question". So, Army pilots flying Navy planes, Navy pilots flying Army planes, and manufacturers' test pilots flying the competition's planes.

Frequent_Flyer
03-29-2009, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
There are interesting results in the Fly off thread which also fit with comments from the JFC.

As I read it (which may be wrong!) the FG-1 has good static stability, as measured in the fly off and mentioned in the JFC, i.e. it tends to want to continue in the way it is pointing, but this means that it will tend to resist directional change, and it feels like that in the game. Also it may be related to the issues with damping in that the oscillatory period may be larger. I'd welcome input from someone with more knowledge of aerodynamics, though.

Whether the extent of this effect is correctly modelled is another matter.

There are all sorts of things that aren't modelled - control reversal due to rear fuel tanks, or the tendency of elevators to progressively tighten the turn on Spitfires. They are probably just beyond the engine. I hope we see this sort of fidelity in SoW. I generally dislike using the quotes for the JFC because they give far too much leverage to cherry pickers. There is always a negative quote you can pull from amongst the majority of positive quotes to prove any point you like. There was more than one participant at the conference with an ax to grind.

We are better served by looking at how the aircraft were ranked in their desirable & undesirable traits, and even then, we only have a general hierarchy of US fighters, not how they directly compare to their Allied or Axis counterparts.
The P-51 had other issues, though - the rear fuel tank (the similar one in the Spitfire caused exactly the same sort of problems) and instability when the bubble canopy was fitted (which also affected the P-47) that was dealt with via fin fillets. The whole CoG issue with the Mustang's fuselage tank has been done to death. It was a very early problem coinciding with the installation of the tanks in mid-range and later P-51D/C models, and they apparently weren't installed at all in the RAF's Mustang IIIs (is that reflected in the FM?).

As a matter of general practice (and yes there were noted exceptions-but they're in the same class as all those explosions and de-winging caused by .50 HMGs; being exceptional and spectacular is what led to their being remembered over the normal ho-hum daily occurances, right?) the fuselage tanks were no more than half full when the overwhelming majority of Mustangs containing them entered combat.

Oleg has stated that the CoG doesn't change with the loss of fuel, so I have to wonder if he came up with a compromise CoG somewhere between the combat CoG and fully loaded CoG, given the handling issues with the Mustang's oversensitivity to trim input,and the wobble that it's had to some degree since the 4.0X patches.

It has considerably improved over the early disaster, but it's still there to a lesser degree, and no one has convinced me that it ever should have been there at all if no other country's fighters don't have some degree of it too.
Going off topic issues with A2A tracking was one of the reasons the USN rejected the P-51. The other was they were doing well with the F6F and F4U and really what they wanted was a short range interceptor with a high rate of climb and the F8F to support fleets under constant attack in an invasion of Japan and one from a manufacturer with a proven track record in naval aviation fitted the bill. A high rate of climb was more possible with the P-51H but that would have been harder to navalise. The difference in climb rates might not seem enormous but still translate to having an extra minute to engage a contact coming in at 10,000 feet and with a 4 20mm cannon loadout that might be enough to destroy it. There was only ONE reason that the Mustang wasn't accepted for carrier service--it wasn't designed to land on a carrier, and there were plenty of better designs for that purpose already in service or in the pipeline.

The carrier suitability tests of the Mustang were strictly political/public relations stunts done to satisfy the man on the street who couldn't comprehend why the spectacular success of the Mustang in the ETO couldn't translate into the Pacific theater. The ONLY thing that mattered was that it was not suitable for landing on carriers. It could not take the stress of repeated carrier landings, and it wasn't very good at the low-speed flight approach necessary for making those landings. Everything mentioned after those two things is window dressing, and may or may not be precisely true.

If you need an illustration of the difference between carrier and land-based aircraft, there's a famous shot of the XF-17 Cobra prototype built by Northrop to compete with the F-16 back in the '70s sitting next to one of its descendents, an F/A-18A Hornet. The XF-17 looks like a greyhound sitting next to a pit bull.

The constant comparisons between the Mustang and the Spitfire are due to the fact that they use the same engine to different formulas and were both flown by the USAAF and the Commonwealth Air Forces, so several pilots in all those services had a chance to compare them directly.

Most of them said the same thing: both were easy to fly and responded well to the pilots' input. What I take that to mean is that both fighters did what the pilot expected them to do to the degree that the pilot expected, i.e., no surprises.

The Spit was lighter and built as an interceptor/knifefighter; more agile and faster in acceleration & climb, BUT a Mustang was faster, had better dive acceleration and would have considerably more choice about whether to engage or disengage. In a hit and run/ambush scenario, the more heavily built, longer ranged and faster aircraft has the advantage, both as attacker and defender. However much both were designed to different priorities, the common thread was that a pilot felt that he was in control of his mount, and that he could trust it to do what he wanted it to do.

By comparison, a P-39 was usually considered full of surprises; the descriptions of its flying qualities indicates that not only did it require a very delicate touch, but that individual aircraft (not just from one production series to the next) tended to vary in their response to pilot input and often the process was described as balancing on the head of a pin.

Oleg captured much of that quality in the game's Airacobras; but I think that when he modeled the late war US fighters he may have depended a little too heavily on comparison to the German Bf 109G series and the FW 190A in the way they got faster but less agile and harder to handle as the war ground on.

Remember what Kahuna said about "Later models are worser not better"?

The problem is that he may not have been able to accept that:

1. Most American late-war aircraft were designed to burn off a significant fraction of their load before entering combat, and were more effective once that load was gone (and they were fueled in accordance with their distance from the combat zone).

2. They were constantly being improved both on the factory lines and in the field to a degree unimaginable (and unavailable) to the VVS in WWII.

3. American air forces' training films and documentation of the time was not heavily larded with propaganda about performance and handling; the conviction that the 'real' info was carefully classified & hidden away is not limited to the former Soviet Union these days. these days, it seems that everyone is a conspiracy theorist.

I learned a long time ago that 'new & different' facts are not necessarily true facts, even if they cater to my prejudices. Sometimes the same old facts everyone agreed upon at the time they occurred are really the way things were, and don't need revision.

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If Oleg was/is a student of avaition history and combined this knowledge with formal education in the discipline of aerodynamics. It would seem the relavant information you and 609IAP_Kahuna have posted should not exceeed his comprehension.

I hope he goes back to school and masters a converstion table.Although the documentation has not changed I want to avoid the " poor translation" of US data, and the corresponding effect in SOWBOB.

Frequent_Flyer
03-29-2009, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
What? Doesn't anybody who can dig up a quote automatically carry the full authority of whoever they're quoting?
And doesn't every last been there and done it war pilot have infallible and perfect judgment?
Doesn't everyone who can read know exactly what the person quoting is saying? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

And lastly, once you've found and read the quote, doesn't that make you expert enough to duplicate the feat?

I mean really, there's members here who follow all those steps carefully and they really deserve all the respect they give
when they demand justice.

Ms/Mr? Gunz
Are you formulating your rebuttals to the statements advanced by Horseback and 609IAP_Kahuna. If reasoning is not your strong suit.( It would appear humor escapes you as well.) Feel free to quote whom ever if this helps.

JtD
03-30-2009, 12:17 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:

So I am centering the turn needle by using the rudder even while the plane is turning cleanly and the other needle is still off to the side I would think is turn?

It is possible to watch the gage and still see out just over the top of the dash.

Now this was too complicated for my English. Say again in simpler words?

M_Gunz
03-30-2009, 05:37 AM
Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
What? Doesn't anybody who can dig up a quote automatically carry the full authority of whoever they're quoting?
And doesn't every last been there and done it war pilot have infallible and perfect judgment?
Doesn't everyone who can read know exactly what the person quoting is saying? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

And lastly, once you've found and read the quote, doesn't that make you expert enough to duplicate the feat?

I mean really, there's members here who follow all those steps carefully and they really deserve all the respect they give
when they demand justice.

Ms/Mr? Gunz
Are you formulating your rebuttals to the statements advanced by Horseback and 609IAP_Kahuna. If reasoning is not your strong suit.( It would appear humor escapes you as well.) Feel free to quote whom ever if this helps. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your ability to read matches The Joke's ability at math and Raiiid's ability at physics.
Go buy some clues at the dollar store, school hasn't done ya much good.

BigKahuna_GS
03-30-2009, 08:35 AM
Going off topic issues with A2A tracking was one of the reasons the USN rejected the P-51

The main reasons I heard passed around---1. inline engine/radiator, 2. stall qualities, 3. landing gear, 4. no folding wings

The US Navy would never accept a carrier aircraft without a radial engine during WW2.
Carriers had 145grade fuel and were overboosting Corsair for Kamikaze intercepts.
Corsair Dash-4's were coming down the pipeline and it had an excellent climb rate.



JFC Comments

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Originally posted by horseback:
I generally dislike using the quotes for the JFC because they give far too much leverage to cherry pickers. There is always a negative quote you can pull from amongst the majority of positive quotes to prove any point you like. There was more than one participant at the conference with an ax to grind.


One of my favorites is the "ground handling" section of the F6F-5 responses: "Visibility Good-3"..."Visibility Fair-1"..."Visibility Poor-2". Whenever I read through the JFC comments, I always keep in mind that "The comments therefore are about half from contractor's pilots, a fifth or so from British pilots, and the remainder from the service not sponsoring the aircraft in question". So, Army pilots flying Navy planes, Navy pilots flying Army planes, and manufacturers' test pilots flying the competition's planes.

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


Well said !

Something that always came to mind was Navy vs Army rivelary

Paid test pilots comments ==== conflict of intrest ?

-

R_Target
03-30-2009, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
Paid test pilots comments ==== conflict of intrest ?

Civilian test pilots were prohibited from flying competitors' planes which were still in development, which is why there were no contractor reply cards for XF8F-1 and XF4U-4. There would be no point in unfairly criticizing planes that had already been accepted for production by USAAF or USN.

I don't think the Army/Navy rivalry impacted the comments so much as that many would be inexperienced in flying the type they are commenting on. The nature of some of the comments give away who's making it though, e.g. a Navy pilot probably wouldn't call a plane a ship.

horseback
03-30-2009, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
Paid test pilots comments ==== conflict of intrest ?

Civilian test pilots were prohibited from flying competitors planes which were still in development, which is why there were no contractor reply cards for XF8F-1 and XF4U-4.

I don't think the Army/Navy rivalry impacted the comments so much; but that many would be inexperienced in flying the type they are commenting on. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>In development, maybe, but there was clearly a lot of trading flights between Republic's P-47 test team and Grumman's F6F test pilots on Long Island, and a bit less between these companies and Vought's F4U test team.

On the other hand, I don't get the impression that Lockheed and North American were even on speaking terms...

cheers

horseback