PDA

View Full Version : Me262 Petition -nt



XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 03:08 PM
nt = No Text

http://www.student.richmond.edu/~vk5qa/images/forumsig.jpg

"Come on in, I'll treat you right. I used to know your daddy."

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 03:08 PM
nt = No Text

http://www.student.richmond.edu/~vk5qa/images/forumsig.jpg

"Come on in, I'll treat you right. I used to know your daddy."

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 03:13 PM
I'm starting to get a little bit annoyed by all those people saying "FIX MY PLANE PLZ! I'VE GROWN TOO ATTACHED TO IT AND NOW I CANT FLY ANYMORE!".

me262's, bf109's, p47's you name it.

anyway, I *love* the post-patch me262, so you won't get any backup from me!

*YAWN*

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 03:16 PM
Oops, nt

Guys,
I think they've really clipped the 262's wings. It's a shame how this lovely bird bleeds energy the moment she goes into a climb. Now, it may be that Oleg knows what he's doing, and that the Me262 is accurately modelled now, but I propose that we establish this for certain. Oleg refuses to listen to whining, unless we can back our whining up with data. Well, so let's turn to the experts. www.stormbirds.com (http://www.stormbirds.com) are building 5 Me262s. Even though they've had to make changes to the internals to make the plane safer to fly, the aerodynamic shape remains as it was on the originals. I'm fairly certain they'd have lots of data on the original Me262. Let's approach them and obtain as much data from them as is possible, and then verify that the 262 in the sim performs as per the data. This way, we'd have overwhelming data with which to get Oleg to change the 262 FM. At that point, we can post in the ORR, presenting our case. I'm asking you guys to help, because while I could probably collect all the data myself, I'm pretty sure I won't be able to test the in-sim 262 all by myself. So, let me know if you're interested.

http://www.student.richmond.edu/~vk5qa/images/forumsig.jpg


"Come on in, I'll treat you right. I used to know your daddy."

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 03:24 PM
<object ID="MediaPlayer1" width=240 height=210 classid="CLSID:22D6F312-B0F6-11D0-94AB-0080C74C7E95" codebase="http://activex.microsoft.com/activex/controls/mplayer/en/nsmp2inf.cab#Version=6,0,02,902" standby="Loading Microsoft Windows Media Player components..." type="application/x-oleobject">
<PARAM NAME="FileName" VALUE="http://users.pandora.be/vnnet/frys_mission.wmv"></OBJECT>

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 04:22 PM
Freshness, I'm not kidding about this. If you don't want to help, then don't bother posting here, you're wasting your time and everyone elses as well.

http://www.student.richmond.edu/~vk5qa/images/forumsig.jpg


"Come on in, I'll treat you right. I used to know your daddy."

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 04:29 PM
So you really want the stormbirds version of the Me-262 and not the original, made by NAZI Germany?


Really, do you think that the stormbird version, powered by bizzjet engines, would perform exactly like the real thing?



The Me-262 was a heavy plane, and those early jet engines, wheren't really that powerfull. So, no wonder the jet figters of that time lost loads of energy during climbs.

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye
shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be
measured to you again.

http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/templates/subSilver/images/logo_phpBB.gif (http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php)

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 04:33 PM
UR_Spinne wrote:
- Freshness, I'm not kidding about this.

hey, me neither! I just thought a comical intermezzo would be appropriate. the future of mankind is not dependant on this thread, so do lighten up.

- If you don't want to help

I do want to help, but on 'projects' that are worth while the invested time & effort. I don't think this falls into that category.

- then don't bother posting here, you're
- wasting your time and everyone elses as well.

somehow, I don't think so.


cheers

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 04:36 PM
I don't want the Stormbirds 262, but, don't you think that if they're building 262s, then they've done their homework and have, possibly, more data on the actual Luftwaffe 262 than anyone else on the planet? If you do know of a better source of information, then post it here, and I'll see about getting data from them.

http://www.student.richmond.edu/~vk5qa/images/forumsig.jpg


"Come on in, I'll treat you right. I used to know your daddy."

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 04:39 PM
Maybe Maddox and stormbird allready share data?



Maddox went all the way to new zealand for the I-16's and the Chaika too. (possibly other historic planes as well) they are in the 'special thanks' section in the manual.

Really, why do you think that maddox used inferior data for modelling the 262? just because it doesn't fly quite as nice as you would like?

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye
shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be
measured to you again.

http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/templates/subSilver/images/logo_phpBB.gif (http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php)

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 04:48 PM
Q9: Are the new Me 262s going to be a lot faster with the J-85 engines?

A9: In theoretical terms, a significant potential speed increase is to be expected. However, the critical issue here has little to do with speed, as the original aircraft was already capable of near-transonic flight. We are far more concerned with pilot safety and airframe preservation, and there is simply no need to push these airframes into the 600+ mph range.

As such, the Me 262 Project will place a placarded airspeed limitation upon the jets. Aside from the obvious reliability advantages over the Jumo 004, the real performance benefits of the J-85 will be realized during much shorter takeoff distances and higher climb rates.

This and several related performance issues are examined in greater detail in the TECHNICAL pages.


How about using the flight data of the Merlin powered Me-109s

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 04:49 PM
I would propose to do these calculations after we receive the next patch (covers head with hands in attempt to dodge flames).

The reason why is that Oleg already said high alt FM is not 'right'. So why testing things when conditions are not good?

just an idea,


anyway UR_Spinne, I am willing to help you now. Just let me know what you want me to do/test on the me262

btw: A1 or A2 or both? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 04:52 PM
It's not that I'm implying that Maddox uses incorrect data for the 262. All I'm saying is that I liked the pre-patch 262's climb characteristics a lot better, and so, if I find that the patched 262s FM isn't accurate I'd like to see it rectified. If, however, I find that the current FM is correct, I'd be more than happy to continue flying the 262 as it is. All I'm saying is that I'd like to see for myself. Being a Maths/Physics major, I think it's only appropriate. If anyone feels the same way, help me out. If you're happy the way things are, great, I'll see you online.

http://www.student.richmond.edu/~vk5qa/images/forumsig.jpg


"Come on in, I'll treat you right. I used to know your daddy."

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 05:06 PM
The high alt FM is porked for just about every plane. I do hope they get it right by the time they relese the Normandy map with the B-17. Intercepting the Fortress at 1000m just doesn't sound right! Freshness, let's do the low alt evaluation now. That way, atleast we'll know if there's anything to be fussed about. I've contacted Stormbirds and asked them for whatever data they have on the original 262 A-1. I don't think there's much of a difference between the A-1 and A-2. The loss of the two 108s is made up for by the two SC250 bombs IMO anyway. We can benchmark both eventually. I'm now waiting for Stormbirds to get back to me.

http://www.student.richmond.edu/~vk5qa/images/forumsig.jpg


"Come on in, I'll treat you right. I used to know your daddy."

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 05:12 PM
UR_Spinne wrote:
- It's not that I'm implying that Maddox uses
- incorrect data for the 262. All I'm saying is that I
- liked the pre-patch 262's climb characteristics a
- lot better, and so, if I find that the patched 262s
- FM isn't accurate I'd like to see it rectified.

In short, I don't like some charistics of the Me-262, after the patch. I would like to see it was made real AGAIN so, I could be happy again.


- If,
- however, I find that the current FM is correct, I'd
- be more than happy to continue flying the 262 as it
- is. All I'm saying is that I'd like to see for
- myself. Being a Maths/Physics major, I think it's
- only appropriate. If anyone feels the same way, help
- me out. If you're happy the way things are, great,
- I'll see you online.
-

Previously, you said something else:

-Guys,
-I think they've really clipped the 262's wings. It's
-ashame how this lovely bird bleeds energy the moment she
-goes into a climb. (blabla)

okay, now I am whining myself, this is my last post here. You can PM me!

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye
shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be
measured to you again.

http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/templates/subSilver/images/logo_phpBB.gif (http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php)

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 05:16 PM
Taken from a Messerschmitt climb graph in "Messeschmitt Me 262" ISBN 0-88740-516-9, the climb rated varied from 19m/s @ SL to 3.5m/s @ 10km. The line is almost straight with a very slight concave for the mid altitudes.

How does the FB Me262 compare to Messerschmitt numbers?

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-stormclouds2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 05:21 PM
in Janes World War Two Fighters the me262 was fast in level flight but as soon as it started climbing if late war prop fighters were nearby they could always catch it. jets had to fly several miles away then start climbing to be safe from prop fighters. i think many of the FM characteristics of janes were more accurate than in F.B. now after the patch the jug and the jet AND the fw190 AND the 109 all fly a lot closer to the janes flight models,almost identical now. which leads me to believe that oleg is starting to look at the planes statistics instead of just making them fly how he thinks they should fly.

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of the 11 time Champions Team AFJ. 6 Years Flying http://www.world-data-systems.com/aerofiles/albums/userpics/p47-22.jpg 47|FC=

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 05:22 PM
I think the Me 262 flies great. The plane was an early jet not an F-22. If this plane was any better then how were kills made on them in WWII. I just think it had a little edge on the prop planes which it does now.

http://www.hardrockhotel.com/rock/memorabilia/elvis.jpg


Thankya Thankya very much
Van Elvis

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 05:45 PM
Hey Spinne, I recommend you start your own software company and produce a simulation that has flight models that you agree with. It really is as easy as that. This would completely solve the problem.

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 06:08 PM
Are you going to help finance my company? Tell you what, 'I'll make you an offer you can't refuse", I'll sell you executive stock now at low rates, and that way, you'll have a say in the FMs. Honestly people, all I'm asking is if anyone else wants to look at the262 a little more closely, and determine for themselves if it fies in Fb like it did in reality. I'm not whining, and I'm not complaining. If at the end, I find that the current FM is accurate, I'll drop the topic like a bunch of hot potatoes. I'm quite surprised I'm being flamed so much for what seems to me to be a fairly reasonable offer.

http://www.student.richmond.edu/~vk5qa/images/forumsig.jpg


"Come on in, I'll treat you right. I used to know your daddy."

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 06:25 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- Taken from a Messerschmitt climb graph in
- "Messeschmitt Me 262" ISBN 0-88740-516-9, the climb
- rated varied from 19m/s @ SL to 3.5m/s @ 10km. The
- line is almost straight with a very slight concave
- for the mid altitudes.


That value is for a weight of 7000kg. Gross weight varied from 5800 to 7000kg. Also fuel load varied from 1800l to 2500l. Most often used value for gross weight is 6100kg. Me-262 was built in numerous subvariants since an adquate way of employing it was still researched.
In russian tests Me-262 had an initial climb of 21.5m/s. Test was made at loaded weight.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 06:28 PM
<center>
http://gallery.yimg.com/c/256wm/11407460.jpg

Ummm Would you like some Cheese with that???

<CENTER>http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p837.jpg
<CENTER>><FONT COLOR="blue">Please visit the 310thVF/BS Online at our NEW web site @:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="orange"> http://members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron/
<CENTER>A proud member Squadron of IL-2 vUSAAF
<CENTER>310th VF/BS Public forum:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW"> http://invisionfree.com/forums/310th_VFBG/
<CENTER><CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW">
Proud Sponsor of IL-2 Hangar Forums
<CENTER> Visit the Hangar at:
http://srm.racesimcentral.com/il2.shtml


Message Edited on 08/22/0312:35PM by Copperhead310th

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 06:50 PM
Huckie, the numbers were posted not as an absolute number but for anyone doing any climb testing, for comparison purposes.

But, thanks for saying the testing should be done with a full load of fuel./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Can you supply climb data for the 6100kg weight, so climb rate testing can be done in FB at that weight? It looks like your 6100 number is with not a full load of fuel - so much for the air time.


Dipl. Ing. W. Degel lists the weight of the Me262A-1 as follows:

airframe > 1676kg
engine/tanks system > 1859kg
installations/ equipement > 239kg
armament > 334kg
armour > 196kg

equiped weight > 4404kg

added for pilot, lub, fuel, ammo > 2573kg

TO weight > 6977kg

Glad you gave some credit to Russian testing of German a/c./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-stormclouds2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 07:04 PM
Trolling around milo?
Look here for take-off weight. Me-262 could not take-off on less than full fuell load if the pilot wanted to do more than take-off and landing (you know for somthing like testing/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif ). Flight time at low alt was only 45min on full fuel load.


http://mywebpages.comcast.net/bogdandone/me262A1.JPG



<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 08/22/0301:19PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 08:23 PM
I think this deserves bumping as I think the energy bleed is too great during zoom climbs now too. No way to currently prove it though. All thse guys come on here and say stuff about how heavy it was and that it was slow to accelerate, had a poor power/weight ratio, so it should not zoom climb well, yada, yada, yada!! Well they don't understand the fundamentals of physics at all. For one thing, regardless of how long it took to get up to 700Kph or so, the fact is, it would have a tremendous build up of stored energy. And the superb aerodynamics would help too. The power to weight ratio wouldn't even factor into the equation until it started to lose energy, then it would start slowing down at an exponential rate due to the lack of thrust. A good P/W ratio and loads of thrust would help, but that's only one factor in a complex equation. If you took a giant rubber band and a sling shot and propelled the 262 to high speed with engines off, it would still have lots of energy ( for a while ) for zoom climbing. The fact is it would initially have a tremendous amount of zoom and all that weight coupled to the slippery aerodynamics would only help it at first. Yes, you heard me right, all that weight at high speed would actually help it's zoom climb in the first 10 seconds or so, depending on the speed you entered the zoom climb!! Even with no thrust at all, if you for example get up to 900kph or more in a dive, then completely shut off the engine, it would still have a unbelievable amount of energy to expend and would zoom quite well I'm afraid!! Too few of the people who post here have any comprehension of basic physics at all. Hypothetically, a very lightwight 262 at high speed would have a good zoom climb too, but would have a better ability to sustain it due to the increased power to weight ratio. But the heavy ( real one ) would have a better intial amount of energy stored up and so would go up well too, but when it did start to peter out , it would lose it fast. In Fb1.0 the zoom climb was perhaps over-modelled a tad but now it's substantially under-modelled in my estimation. I feel it's most likely more realistic to go somewhere in between. So I'm bumping this post with a big bump. People who don't understand physics should think twice before coming in here and posting like they know it all. I'm not a total expert but I can tell I know more than a lot of these people who come on here and start typing stuff they don't understand.


Also I think it would be easy for those "new" 262's they are building to simulate the old Jumo engines if they simply fly it at the engine speed that duplicates the thrust of the older engines.
If the new more powerful engines develop more thrust, ( which they do easily ) then they could just fly them at 60% N1 or so, whatever engine speed would give the same thrust as the old Jumo. So it can be done. All someone would have to do would be to figure out what N1 RPM speed that would be and go out and fly it like that. I wish I could afford one and get rated in one, I'd prove my theories about the zoom climb of the 262. Of course I'd have to leave U.S airspace to do it though. Since the speed limit is 250 IAS under 10,000 ft in our airspace. But it would be a dream to either afford one or to get to fly one http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif Any millionaires out there??

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin - 1755



Message Edited on 08/22/03 07:47PM by mortoma

Message Edited on 08/22/0307:48PM by mortoma

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 08:31 PM
vanelvis wrote:
- I just
- think it had a little edge on the prop planes which
- it does now.
-

it has more than a lil edge on prop planes right now. flown right the me-262 can not be shot down by a prop plane. i love how the me-262 flies right now. i dont care if its left the way it is.

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 08:57 PM
Really, have you tried to go over 7,500 meters in it???
If you don't care about how it flies now, leave this post for those of us who do. You may be satisfied but many aren't. Sure it's still fast but it was a better energy fighter in RL probably. From what I've read anyway.
I want realism, there are lots of planes that are nice to fly in a simulation but that doesn' mean they are realistic as they are currently modelled.
I like to fly the P-39 too, but I'd rather have it harder to fly and less of a performer like it was in RL. We should strive for realism, not for what we like or dislike. Flight sims will never be perfect, not even FB, but I think there's always room for improvement.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin - 1755

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 09:21 PM
Totaly agree anyone who is not posting constructively should not be posting, just because some people are happy with the plane as is or because it is effective still does not mean the FM is not correct, too many people have complained about this problem for it to be nothing.

Im sure if the yak3 or la7 were underperforming or couldn't reach altitudes over 7500m this forum would be onfire be sure so give these guys a break and let them help get this problem corrected if need be, all we want is for the 262 to be close to historical as possible why should it just be left if it is wrong.

Anyone who dosn't like the plane then don't fly it, if it is is too much an anoyance online beacause its
effective and kicks ur la7 or yak3's but then tough luck thats how it was in real life.

Even without the data it needs correcting anyway from what is in object viewer for a start it can get nowhere near its service ceiling and is too slow at most altitudes especialy the higher you go.

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 09:36 PM
I don't think the Me-262 was really meant as a zoom-climber. It was meant to outrun enemy fighters and attack the bombers, flying very fast, in absolute level flight. Why zoom climbing? it is only loss of airspeed, wich was the primal reason for existence for the Me-262.


I'm not sure tough.

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye
shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be
measured to you again.

http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/templates/subSilver/images/logo_phpBB.gif (http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php)

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 09:47 PM
im sorry if u misunderstood me. i do want the me-262 to be changed to be historically correct. its just that i wouldnt be outraged if it was left the way it is right now.

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 09:51 PM
Platypus_1.JaVA wrote:
- I don't think the Me-262 was really meant as a
- zoom-climber. It was meant to outrun enemy fighters
- and attack the bombers, flying very fast, in
- absolute level flight. Why zoom climbing? it is only
- loss of airspeed, wich was the primal reason for
- existence for the Me-262.
-
-
- I'm not sure tough.
-

Even though it was not meant as a zoom climber does not mean it wasnt any good at zoomclimbing, if it is wrong now then it should be corrected.

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 09:54 PM
johno__UK wrote:
-
- Platypus_1.JaVA wrote:
-- I don't think the Me-262 was really meant as a
-- zoom-climber. It was meant to outrun enemy fighters
-- and attack the bombers, flying very fast, in
-- absolute level flight. Why zoom climbing? it is only
-- loss of airspeed, wich was the primal reason for
-- existence for the Me-262.
--
--
-- I'm not sure tough.
--
-
- Even though it was not meant as a zoom climber does
- not mean it wasnt any good at zoomclimbing, if it is
- wrong now then it should be corrected.
-
You are right.

But I don't think the Me-262 was that good of a climber. It was pretty big and heavy and those early jets wheren't that powerfull.

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye
shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be
measured to you again.

http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/templates/subSilver/images/logo_phpBB.gif (http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php)

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 10:02 PM
Me-262 was not the fastest climber, but that does not mean that it could be catch by anybody in climb. Initial climb was 21.5m/s but it climbed at 480kmh whereas most prop fighters had best climb rate at speeds below 300kmh. Me-262 simply leaved them in the dust.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 10:15 PM
Huckie, if you are going to participate in an English language forum, please do something to increase your English comprehension.

Only you would think it was trolling, Huckie, with your lack of comprehesion.


Now,

Note, I was not saying the 262 did not fly at 6100kg.(engage brain, if at all possible)

1/ Where did the 900kg difference come from?

Be specific now. fuel load? ammo loaded yes/no? Need this for FB testing.

2/ Where is the climb graph for 6100kg that was asked for?

If you can't supply it, then you are only flapping your gums. At least with the numbers I supplied, people have a basis, and a standard weight, for doing some FB climb testing of the 262, unlike the garbage you posted.


http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-stormclouds2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 11:00 PM
I sign the petition to restore to the 262 it's pre patch greatness.
Personally I believe it was probably deliberetaly toned down for online gaming purposes.
Even though it's never been my a/c of choice online(I've had a lot of fun with it offline setting up missions),I still think it should be made the untouchable beast it was(whenever it's engines worked that is).
Oleg, if you are going to leave the 262 the way it is, I personally prefer it had never been included in the game in the first place.
I never read it was a truck anywhere.


<center>http://users.compulink.gr/ilusin@e-free.gr/bf109[2)1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 12:49 AM
Consider this. To attack enemy bomber formations, Me262s used the Roller Coaster attack. Basically, you start off from a position behind the enemy formation, and dive to a point a little under and just behind the formation. Then you climb up shooting your guns at the bomber's soft unprotected belly where the bomb bays are. After passing the bomber (now hopefuly in peices), you climb, and dive onto the next bomber, and coninue climbing and diving alternately to attack each bomber in front of you, until you're out of the box. Then you perform an Immelman turn and get behind the enemy again. Now, all that climbing when in the roller coaster requires your plane to be a good energy fighter. Otherwise, you won't be able to keep up the attack. Now, if this tactic was developed specifically for the 262, then it must have been because it can keep it's energy up.
Anyway, right now, I'm waiting for someone at the stormbirds site to get back to me with the data.

http://www.student.richmond.edu/~vk5qa/images/forumsig.jpg


"Come on in, I'll treat you right. I used to know your daddy."

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 01:03 AM
MiloMorai wrote:
- If you can't supply it, then you are only flapping
- your gums. At least with the numbers I supplied,
- people have a basis, and a standard weight, for
- doing some FB climb testing of the 262, unlike the
- garbage you posted.

Agree 100%



<font size= 3> <font color= blue>
TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 01:17 AM
UR_Spinne wrote:
- It's not that I'm implying that Maddox uses
- incorrect data for the 262. All I'm saying is that I
- liked the pre-patch 262's climb characteristics a
- lot better,

Ok...

- and so, if I find that the patched 262s
- FM isn't accurate I'd like to see it rectified.

With regards to climb characteristics... Heck.. that is a pretty easy test aint it? I mean Im sure there is some data on how long it took to reach a certain alt? So just do it?



<font size= 3> <font color= blue>
TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 02:19 AM
"Personally I believe it was probably deliberetaly toned down for online gaming purposes."


Wow, did you ever hit the nail on the head!! That's what I said all along. There were so many complaints about the 262 being banned from most of the servers, that to keep the peace and get it back on most of them, they ( Maddox )softened it up quite a bit. I really disagree if that is really what happened because it's not fair to the offline community to get a castrated 262 simply because of the onliners. I've even seen some online 262 fans post that they are happy that it's porked a little now, since a lot of servers hosts will now allow it once again. What an attitude!! Personally, I'd rather have it as realistic as it can be. Screw the servers bans, I don't care because I'm an offline player mostly.


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin - 1755

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 03:15 AM
Got a question here... since I finished my 262 campaign long before the patch came out, can you still lure la7s up into a steep climb, and hammerhead back down onto them?

In any case, if you guys are looking for a place to fly 262s online, I occasionally host a 262-allowed server. But thats occasionally, and I do allow AI planes.

I don't fly the 262 a whole lot, but last time I did it flew just fine. Till I ended up strafing a train filled with high explosive at a alt of 20m... Ow. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 03:17 AM
Christos_swc wrote:
- I sign the petition to restore to the 262 it's pre
- patch greatness.
- Personally I believe it was probably deliberetaly
- toned down for online gaming purposes.
- Even though it's never been my a/c of choice
- online(I've had a lot of fun with it offline setting
- up missions),I still think it should be made the
- untouchable beast it was(whenever it's engines
- worked that is).
- Oleg, if you are going to leave the 262 the way it
- is, I personally prefer it had never been included
- in the game in the first place.
- I never read it was a truck anywhere.
Beautiful Post. Bravisimmo.

http://www.stormbirds.com/warbirds/header.jpg


<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_henry_blake.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 05:02 AM
Korolov asked:
"Got a question here... since I finished my 262 campaign long before the patch came out, can you still lure la7s up into a steep climb, and hammerhead back down onto them?"

No, I'm afraid Korolov, that tactic can no longer be used effectively. I used to use it all the time, but now even a P-39 will be right on my tail if I try that. Because they really decreased the energy zoom climb of the 262, sadly.....tragically.



"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin - 1755

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 10:16 AM
hopefuly when ur spin gets that data back tests can be done and hopefully get it rectified because now the 262 is a joke and yes i too think it was deliberate because of the whiners. And that BS bl1 seems to still have a FM of the saturn rocket....

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 01:42 PM
I haven't heard back from the Stormbirds people yet, but Hw Finn (hope I've got the name right!) has finished some testing on the 262, and according to him, the zoom climb is correct at this point. I'll badger the Stormbirds people with one more messege, and failing that, I'll look for a good book on the 262 on Amazon. Later...

http://www.student.richmond.edu/~vk5qa/images/forumsig.jpg


"Come on in, I'll treat you right. I used to know your daddy."

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 01:43 PM
Sorry, thats Huckbein_FW

http://www.student.richmond.edu/~vk5qa/images/forumsig.jpg


"Come on in, I'll treat you right. I used to know your daddy."

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 09:43 PM
bump

http://www.student.richmond.edu/~vk5qa/images/forumsig.jpg


"Come on in, I'll treat you right. I used to know your daddy."