PDA

View Full Version : New FM got ya down? Let Uncle BaldieJr give you some advice...



BaldieJr
07-06-2005, 12:29 PM
GET YOUR THROTTLE OUT OF THE #$!@#4 FIREWALL YOU N00B!!!1

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

Cajun76
07-06-2005, 12:33 PM
You nice?



(alternatively)



Got trim?



http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

darkhorizon11
07-06-2005, 12:39 PM
Haha, no kidding...

Although to be honest with you I don't see what the big deal is its not THAT different anyways.

GAU-8
07-06-2005, 01:18 PM
not that different??

fly a P-39 exclusively, pre-, then post patch. say hello to multipple death scenarios induced by you, by mearly touching the stick http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

i am the first to say it... i dont WANT HISTORICAL i want my oleg P-39 back! now shes a un-performer like she really was historically. wish i had better sence to fly something else. but i dont. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Udidtoo
07-06-2005, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by GAU-8:
not that different??

fly a P-39 exclusively, pre-, then post patch. say hello to multipple death scenarios induced by you, by mearly touching the stick http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

i am the first to say it... i dont WANT HISTORICAL i want my oleg P-39 back! now shes a un-performer like she really was historically. wish i had better sence to fly something else. but i dont. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

On the + side though the unrecoverable spin is almost non-exsistant.ust don't touch the controls and 3 to 5 revolutions and its self healing, lol.

Seriously though, what areas do you have the most issue with? I spent a few hours in the P-400 yesterday morning and other than a very stingy ammo load it still felt realitivly ok. Can't really say good as it never really qualified as good.

VW-IceFire
07-06-2005, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by BaldieJr:
GET YOUR THROTTLE OUT OF THE #$!@#4 FIREWALL YOU N00B!!!1

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
SO TRUE http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Oilburner_TAW
07-06-2005, 05:16 PM
lol, baldie your in BTG..played ya'll in CAL a year or so ago..

GAU-8
07-06-2005, 11:13 PM
ya, ive noticed the "no touch" self healing now. but if i do a scissor manuever...and it starts to spin, thats it in most cases. luckily a few blue want to shoot me in this prone position. and if they manage small caliber hits on me...it undoes the spin! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif and i limp back home http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

tsisqua
07-06-2005, 11:19 PM
Originally posted by Cajun76:
You nice?. . .

(alternatively). . . got trim?
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Lord, did you ever nail it with that statement! I always wondered what it would be like to have that kind of horse power twisting the prop on the front of my fighter! I knew that trimming was so frequent that it sometimes seemed to the pilot that was all he ever was able to do. I have been taking off with several planes a day, just to see the incredible torque effect that we have now!!!!!!!

This patch is the one that I thought that I'd never see. No complaints here, at least where major things are concerned. There still seems to be a torque problem with my regular ride, the P-38, but I don't mind trimming out. She's well worth it, and if I remember right, the flight engine has a limitation where twin engine AC are concerned. It was not made to model flyable twins, so there had to be some major code rewriting. Not buggy enough to be a problem.

I love the clouds. Unfortunately, I get poor frames so I have been leaving them turned off. Doesn't matter. I have my flight model. Like I said, it's giving me a good idea of what it might be like to actually throttle up a single engine fighter.

I am pretty happy with it.

Tsisqua

Cajun76
07-07-2005, 06:02 AM
Actually, I believe the limitation is two torques, canceling each other out in balance, like the P-38 was designed for. If they modeled it touque-less like the jets, there would be little problem flying at low speeds on one engine, extremely unrealistic.

I work on the engines of the C-130 Hercules, and rarely are any two engines symetrical on power, much less all 4 engines producing the same amount of power. Various means are used to get them to "line up", so that there's not an excessive difference between torque and turbine temperature between all 4. Mostly a pilot assist feature, but I can see the point. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I figure the real life P-38 didn't always have two engines pulling exaclty the same.

I'm not knocking you Tsisqua, just merely observing that real planes, even new from the factory, were not the pristine models we have in the game, a fact I think some people forget when "discussing" different a/c's performance. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

tsisqua
07-07-2005, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by Cajun76:
Actually, I believe the limitation is two torques, canceling each other out in balance, like the P-38 was designed for. If they modeled it touque-less like the jets, there would be little problem flying at low speeds on one engine, extremely unrealistic.

I work on the engines of the C-130 Hercules, and rarely are any two engines symetrical on power, much less all 4 engines ...etc

I figure the real life P-38 didn't always have two engines pulling exaclty the same.

I'm not knocking you Tsisqua, . . .etc http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Cajun, my friend! Long time since we talked http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Never took a word you said as hostile, . . . remember me? Patience of a saint Tsisqua? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

No mate, I definitely agree with you. I just had a talk with my friend, who is in the process of completing a cd history of the 79th FS. The P-38 was way more difficult in real life than our model. The list of things to do before begining an attack reads like the preflight checklist. Auto-lean to auto-rich, switch to main fuel tanks, select and drop external tanks, and oh yeah . . . you had to turn on the heater . . . yes, heater . . . for the machine guns as the gun heater was a big drain on the electrical system. If we had to do all that in the game we would be dead way before we could ever respond to an attacker. Some of those switches were out of the view of the pilot and had to be found by feel.

However, the experienced pilots that knew the routine well enough to respond automatically were deadly in the Lightning, whereas those new to the machine were soon simply dead, that according to a pilot's review of the bird during the war.

Oh yeah . . . in-game trimming: There's always exactly (unless you have selected some bad weather) the same amount of pull to the left as if I never even had counter rotating props. I would actually expect a variable pull, and once in awhile, when I'm lucky enough, none at all. I will say that the effect has been toned down a good bit, but its still thinks it's a single engine fighter, at least a little bit.

Stalls: The plane will now stall straight forward, and not wing-over untill you pull back hard enough to cause said effect. You have to enable outside views, or look at your VSI to see it, but YAHOO!!! It's there.

Cajun, you know me well enough to know that I'm not a complainer. Especially where this sim is concerned. I have a way better product than I ever expected from my purchase. Any problems are all related to one simple, yet disconcerting fact: <span class="ev_code_RED">It's Not Real!!</span>

But man, sometimes it feels real enough. To me, anyway.

Good talking torque with a Hercules guy http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Tsisqua/Larry

Chuck_Older
07-07-2005, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by GAU-8:

i am the first to say it... i dont WANT HISTORICAL i want my oleg P-39 back! now shes a un-performer like she really was historically.

You're not the first. And other sims are available, as well as version 3.04 of this sim. Nobody's forcing you to fly 4.01.

If you fly online, get a 3.04 server going

Cajun76
07-07-2005, 11:22 PM
Howdy Tsisqua! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Actually, the only part really pertaining to you was the deal about difficulty of torque-less twin modeling, the rest was kinda meant for anyone reading in general, hence the disclaimer near the bottom... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Speaking of electrical generators on the P-38, wasn't only one engine equipped with a generator? The left one, IIRC. A real pain if you had to shut down the engine with the only generator.


Good talking torque with a Hercules guy

Just like computers, I know just enough to be dangerous. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

msalama
07-08-2005, 04:59 AM
i dont WANT HISTORICAL i want my oleg P-39 back!

BAAAAALONEY!

All v.4x Cobras are just grrrrreat as they are!

I've started to fly the P-63C-5 exclusively - I flew LaGGs for a while, but granted, they _do_ feel a bit too ├╝ber w/ their UFO slats, unbreakable engines & titanium delta wood construction. So it's back to the Cobras now, and...

And what the hey can I say??? Either the new FM _really_really_ suits my way of screwing up things, or I have suddendly improved as an air combatant, but let me tell ya, even the 37mm. feels OK now. Why, I just blew a Ju-88 to smithereens after an oh-so-cool corkscrew approach from his 5 yesterday night - one shot was all it took, and KA-BLAMMO! All she friggin' wrote http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

So yeeeaahhh - gotta love them Cobras cuz they's BAAAAD muhfuhs http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

PS/EDIT: There was a thread about bombers never exploding or something like that a while ago somewhere. Well, I can personally witness that it's not true... and this was the _2nd_ time already, actually...

tsisqua
07-08-2005, 09:41 AM
Speaking of electrical generators on the P-38, wasn't only one engine equipped with a generator? The left one, IIRC. A real pain if you had to shut down the engine with the only generator.


Just had a look at my P-38 pilot's manual, and there are two generator switches and two ammeters in the pit. The one battery was stored in the rear of the left boom. My manual covers all models through the P-38H. However, since the one battery (now why in the world wasn't there a backup battery in case of electrical failure?) was indeed stored in the left boom, both generators may be turned by the same engine, similar to the mags in a single engine plane . . . I will have to do more research now as I simply can't find it in this book that was written for pilots, not mechanics.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ah, you've made me think! Now off to my aviation library.

Tsisqua

SKIDRO_79FS
07-08-2005, 02:42 PM
Tsisqua and I just spoke on the phone a few hours ago and he mentioned that someone had discovered one of the P-38's major design flaws - THE SINGLE GENERATOR. I thought I would post since I have discussed this exact topic at length with a former P-38 pilot and instructor, Capt. Arthur Heiden who flew with the 79th Fighter Squadron in the ETO and with the Occupational Forces in Japan post-war..

Capt. Heiden brought this subject up in a round of e-mails that circulated among a few researchers then, in 1999, he put his thoughts down in writing for a magazine article which appeared in Air Power International magazine:

"Another problem seldom mentioned was the single generator problem. If a generator was lost or you had a low battery the Curtis Electric prop would lose the Dynamic Brake and go to extreme Low Pitch. This was called a RUN AWAY. It could happen on Take Off with a low battery. Since you couldn't feather it set up a lot of drag making it difficult to make it around to land. The Killer situation was to lose the Generator or lose the engine with the Generator on it while 2 or 3hrs into Germany. Procedure was to SET the Props then turn off all electrical power. Then momentarily turn it back on to reset the props as needed. Being sure everything electrical was also turned off -- No Radios. The forgotten thing was you were at altitude and the OAT was -60degrees and the little old battery was cold soaked, hence, dead as a dog. Result, with a lot of altitude you have less than an hour with one or two props in RUNAWAY.

"I have no statistics to back me up on this, but believe, that more P-38s were lost from this than any other factor including combat. This simple problem did not receive attention until April, '44.

"This leads us to another vague fact. This is the need of boost pumps to maintain fuel pressure to the engines at around 20,000' and above. No boost pumps, a pilot will need to get down to 20K or below, and if he needs more than cruise power he will have to get way down low.

"My only experience in these problems, was of course the runaway prop, and once when the boost pump circuit breakers popped while we were engaged with some 109s. So there I was holding in the circuit breakers with my right hand while flying with my left, hoping to get to a lower altitude before something burned up.

"P-38 units from the moment of going on initial operational status were committed to MAX EFFORT. No two ways about it. No time to shake things out, to discover your problems. You got there and zap, you were in up to your eyeballs. This meant that everything flyable went and everything that still had wings would be made flyable. No matter what. This in effect was the same as demanding, by direct order, that everyone and everything must have, immediately if not sooner, 100 percent combat capabilities. Like Casey Jones, the pressure was all the way up without any margins whatsoever.

"Despite these revolting developments, the pilots of the 8th knew that the P-38 could outturn, outclimb, outrun and outfight anybody's airplane in the air so they set about rectifying their problems.

"Every one of these problems was solved with the introduction of the P-38L."

It has been theorized that the second generator and second battery were left out of the early model P-38s because of their extra weight they added to the aircraft. If this is indeed true, I am sure that many of the pilots who died or were POWs would've sacrificed those added few pounds to have made it home safely.

As to why there were two generator switches and two ammeters, I am at a loss and I have contacted Capt. Heiden and an authority on the P-38 to see if they might know, I will post what they have to say when I receive a reply.

Cajun76
07-08-2005, 03:39 PM
I remember reading that exact article Skidro, it's just been awhile. Thanks for the post!

SKIDRO_79FS
07-08-2005, 06:01 PM
My pleasure, Cajun.

BTW, I should mention that the article was written by a man named Carlo Kopp. The online version of it appears here:

http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38.html