PDA

View Full Version : american planes performance in game



Codger1949
12-22-2006, 08:26 AM
Not trying to start anything but could somebody direct me to some posts describing the modeling charcateristics, performance contraversy, whatever r.e. the american planes. I'm just curious about the subject. I did a couple of searches and can't find squat. But I just know for a fact somebody has made some observations.

Cold Meat Platter
12-22-2006, 10:15 AM
just open a random thread<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

"bark" - dog

EJGrOst_Caspar
12-22-2006, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by Cold Meat Platter:
just open a random thread

Didn't he just do?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Caspar

Supporter of the idea!
http://rrgstudios.com/img/1946/box.jpg

VW-IceFire
12-22-2006, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by Codger1949:
Not trying to start anything but could somebody direct me to some posts describing the modeling charcateristics, performance contraversy, whatever r.e. the american planes. I'm just curious about the subject. I did a couple of searches and can't find squat. But I just know for a fact somebody has made some observations.
What controversy? There are modeling controversy's about every plane. Go to the Russian forums and they complain about the Yak's and LaGGs. Go to the German forum and they complain about the 109s and the 190s. Go here and the Americans are complaining about the American planes.

Most planes are within a pretty good level of accuracy for performance. Some bugs, problems, and issues here and there for every single plane.

I honestly wouldn't go looking for this sort of trouble unless you have a stack of official NACA do***ents and a library of recorded tracks from the game.

EDIT: How is "d-o-c-u-m-e-n-t" being caught by the profanity filter?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/icefire-tempestv.jpg
Find my missions at Flying Legends (http://www.flying-legends.net/php/downloads/downloads.php?cat_id=19) and Mission4Today.com (http://www.mission4today.com).

FritzGryphon
12-22-2006, 01:19 PM
Simply singling out any one nation immediately loses one's credibility. The bugs do not kindly confine themselves to the American planeset, or the Russian planeset, or the German planeset, be sure.

I'd venture a guess that the most popular planes in IL-2 also have the most accurate performance. They're only whined about because of how much scrutiny they recieve by fans finding, or imagining, errors in them.

The P.11c is the most porked plane! But it gets no love because it's a cr@p plane.

Skycat_2
12-22-2006, 04:02 PM
Doc-Q-ment. It's the middle part.

You can say cam, or comm. Just not ... that word. (I graduated summa com laude?)<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IL-2/FB/AEP/PF FAQs (http://www.airwarfare.com/sturmovik_101/faq_index.htm) * Nutcase's Full Mission Builder tutorials (http://www.jumpintojapan.com/index.html) * Lowengrin's DCG (http://www.lowengrin.com/news.php) * Downloads at Netwings (http://www.netwings.org/library/)
UbiSoft Customer Solution Center: Pacific Fighters (http://ubisoft.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/ubisoft.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=10061&p_created=1099077749&p_sid=3_uGGxsh&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PWRmbHQmcF9ncmlkc29yd D0mcF9yb3dfY250PTQmcF9zZWFyY2hfdHlwZT1zZWFyY2hfbmw mcF9wcm9kX2x2bDE9ODgmcF9wc) * CombatAce.com (http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?act=downloads&Itemid=70) * Hyperlobby (http://hyperfighter.sk/) * UberDemon UQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/) * <A HREF="http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/26310365/m/9901017394" TARGET=_blank>
I mapped my keyboard controls so they're easier to remember, and added user- defined commands</A>

msalama
12-22-2006, 04:48 PM
EDIT: How is "d-o-c-u-m-e-n-t" being caught by the profanity filter?

D O C U M E N T. That's how, sad as it indeed is http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

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

Hippies FTW!

Treetop64
12-22-2006, 05:12 PM
Well, as for the LaGGs, (particularly the LaGG-1s and the entire LaGG-3 series), historically that plane was a bit of a POS anyway, in its build quality as well as its less than optimum performance. This was especially true during takeoff and landing. The later LaGG-5, -7, and up, were outstanding performers with the new radial engine installation but still retained the tricky takeoff and landing characteristics.

Read on it, for this is a well do***ented Russian aircraft of WWII.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

------------------------------
"It breaks my heart, but I am almost certain that raaaid will get the Nobel Prize in physics before we get the Avenger in PF."
-- Zeus-cat
------------------------------

Codger1949
12-23-2006, 06:07 AM
Well, I don't have time to read NACA do***ents and I don't give a damn about my credibility because I ask about American planes. What I do know is a whole lot of folks are flying spits or the la or the 109g2 over everything else. People flying American planes are as scarce as hen's teeth. Gee... I wonder why? Could it be because they fly like lead bricks with 2x4s for wings ya think? Now is it unreasonable for a humble, ignorant novice, like me, to ask the question: "Did American fighters really perform this badly"? My uneducated, uninformed guess is... NO! So, what gives? And from what I've read on the internet and seen on the History Channel and that war channel that used to be "Wings" something is fishy in Denmark, so to speak. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

Chuck_Older
12-23-2006, 06:26 AM
Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
Simply singling out any one nation immediately loses one's credibility. The bugs do not kindly confine themselves to the American planeset, or the Russian planeset, or the German planeset, be sure.

I'd venture a guess that the most popular planes in IL-2 also have the most accurate performance. They're only whined about because of how much scrutiny they recieve by fans finding, or imagining, errors in them.

The P.11c is the most porked plane! But it gets no love because it's a cr@p plane.


best
pic
EVER

Chuck_Older
12-23-2006, 06:34 AM
Originally posted by Codger1949:
Well, I don't have time to read NACA do***ents and I don't give a damn about my credibility because I ask about American planes. What I do know is a whole lot of folks are flying spits or the la or the 109g2 over everything else. People flying American planes are as scarce as hen's teeth. Gee... I wonder why? Could it be because they fly like lead bricks with 2x4s for wings ya think? Now is it unreasonable for a humble, ignorant novice, like me, to ask the question: "Did American fighters really perform this badly"? My uneducated, uninformed guess is... NO! So, what gives? And from what I've read on the internet and seen on the History Channel and that war channel that used to be "Wings" something is fishy in Denmark, so to speak. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

OK, firstly, History Cahnnel and Wings are Entertainment, not Symposiums http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif And the internet....hoo, let's not go into the equation online info+quest for knowledge=X http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

here is something to consider crefully regarding your question:

We do not fly these planes correctly. We do not use them as they were intended to be used, we do not have the discipline to fly them as they really were flown, and they suffer from not a single solitary historic technical problem such as jammed guns, or inferior fuels. Nor do they need maintenance or replenishment of fuel oxygen or ammunition. Nor is there a single penalty for not flying in an historical manner- for instance you cn abandon your wingman any time you like. In addition, most players fully misunderstand the use and application of air combat manuevering in general- so they start with a misconception of what they need to do in the first place.

Given this climate, even aircraft modelled with 100% exact historical accuracy in 100% of given situations will not show historical results from engagements in the sim, likewise, this still would not gaurantee that players use planes the way they should or even could

GoToAway
12-23-2006, 06:41 AM
Originally posted by Codger1949:
Well, I don't have time to read NACA do***ents and I don't give a damn about my credibility because I ask about American planes. What I do know is a whole lot of folks are flying spits or the la or the 109g2 over everything else. People flying American planes are as scarce as hen's teeth. Gee... I wonder why? Could it be because they fly like lead bricks with 2x4s for wings ya think? Now is it unreasonable for a humble, ignorant novice, like me, to ask the question: "Did American fighters really perform this badly"? My uneducated, uninformed guess is... NO! So, what gives? And from what I've read on the internet and seen on the History Channel and that war channel that used to be "Wings" something is fishy in Denmark, so to speak. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif Did you ever consider that perhaps you don't know how to fly them correctly?

The P-38 and P-47 can be particularly nasty if flown correctly. The F6F and F4U are also back on top of their games with the recoil bug solved.

The vast majority of the people whining about aircraft seem to get their impressions solely from the history channel.

hening_880Sqn
12-23-2006, 07:30 AM
Hi Codger,

I've had a chance to fly a few WWII air sims and the general characteristics apply from one to the other. The American designs included armor and heavy guns. This makes the aircraft weigh more and takes away the chance for it to be as nimble. If you get your guns on a Zero for example, they go into flames fast. If you try to turn and dance with a Zero, you lose energy fast and the Zero wins.

You will notice that all aircraft get heavier as the war goes on. I seem to do much better in a Hurricane than a P47, but it's only because the Hurricane is light and easy to fly. It also runs out of ammo quicker and has a fabric coating. Picking your aircraft has to do with which tactics you use in flight and what you are up againts. Different aircraft operate better at different altitudes and you need to learn how to fight in the different designs and make the best use of their benefits and avoid their weaknesses. Also, WWII pilots worked in teams to win and you don't see too much of that in flight sims http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I find that the aircraft in IL2 are the best out there in terms of accuracy. The P47 is very flyable in IL2 and that is one heavy bird. I had the pleasure of meeting a pilot that flew one in China and he described the flight characteristics well. I don't think it's a matter of picking on a nation's aircraft. Don't forget that many US models were flown by other countries. Also, on the forums it's best not to come off like an ugly American (I'm one too) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

Doug97
12-23-2006, 07:57 AM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
most players fully misunderstand the use and application of air combat manuevering in general- so they start with a misconception of what they need to do in the first place.

Could you enlighten us?

Chuck_Older
12-23-2006, 08:00 AM
Originally posted by Doug97:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
most players fully misunderstand the use and application of air combat manuevering in general- so they start with a misconception of what they need to do in the first place.

Could you enlighten us? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. Read John Boyd's book, and stop picking fights with people who would otherwise help you. That should do for a start

tigertalon
12-23-2006, 08:32 AM
Originally posted by Codger1949:
Well, I don't have time to read NACA do***ents and I don't give a damn about my credibility because I ask about American planes. What I do know is a whole lot of folks are flying spits or the la or the 109g2 over everything else. People flying American planes are as scarce as hen's teeth. Gee... I wonder why? Could it be because they fly like lead bricks with 2x4s for wings ya think? Now is it unreasonable for a humble, ignorant novice, like me, to ask the question: "Did American fighters really perform this badly"? My uneducated, uninformed guess is... NO! So, what gives? And from what I've read on the internet and seen on the History Channel and that war channel that used to be "Wings" something is fishy in Denmark, so to speak. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

Into addition what other guys said...

I will pick any mustang over any spitfire for any kind of mission. American planes, particularly P-51, late P47 in 44/45, F6F in '43 and F4U in '43,44,45 are a killers, they are at least on a par or far better than their opposition is.

Question though: how often do you fight above 4K? I think a large portion of your confusion may lie in the answer to this question... Once the fight takes place at all heights from 0 to 40k, you start to admire max speed, zoom climb and terminal dive velocity far more than agility. And that's exactly what american planes are superb at. Aditionally throw in a rugged airframe and some armour, and you have a formula of succsess.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

<span class="ev_code_BLACK"><pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">?In the size of the lie there is always contained a certain factor of credibility,

JadehawkII
12-23-2006, 09:22 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but could the factor be due to the .50's being synched and causing trouble in getting accurate shots in? This new release de-synches the .50's and well, just maybe ya'll see more online now. More so with the new improved flight model? Give it time.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v104/Onyxwing2004USA/La-5FN_Logo-1.jpg
http://www.flying-legends.net/
http://www.screenshotart.com/

Brave good Men and Women won the war...PERIOD!

Codger1949
12-23-2006, 01:32 PM
Damn good answers gents and exactly what I was looking for. E.g.: the altitudes we usually end up are low indeed; due to the nature of the sim we aren't utilizing the strengths of the bird, as perhaps we should, no wing man, inexperience as a virtual pilot, lack of knowledge in tactics, etc.
I admit to shortcomings in all areas. By the way, the History Channel, although emphasizing entertainment, had some very valid points on the 38, 47 and 40, as far as I can determine from what they say and what I've read. I find that all three, particularly the 38 (my preferred bird) to be absolutely awesome in the boom and zoom mode. But as far as the turn and burn mode the American machines just don't seem to excel, although I've heard that some were quite adequate. I just basically wondered if some expert on this forum could confirm whether the performance of these a/c were in the ball park. I just bet if we got actual pilots of these machines in the discussion there would be just as much heated debate about performance characteristics as there would be about the perfect gun and ammunition amongst hunters. In the final analysis I suppose it doesn't really matter. The sim is marvelous and a delightful "extension of reality".( I read in this forum somewhere some guy who responded with that when another fellow called it a game. My wife called it a game and I was quite indignant about that. I have flown civilian fixed wing and military rotary wing and this is no mere game.) Anywhosal, thanks for the replies.

ImpStarDuece
12-23-2006, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by Codger1949:
Damn good answers gents and exactly what I was looking for. E.g.: the altitudes we usually end up are low indeed; due to the nature of the sim we aren't utilizing the strengths of the bird, as perhaps we should, no wing man, inexperience as a virtual pilot, lack of knowledge in tactics, etc.
I admit to shortcomings in all areas. By the way, the History Channel, although emphasizing entertainment, had some very valid points on the 38, 47 and 40, as far as I can determine from what they say and what I've read. I find that all three, particularly the 38 (my preferred bird) to be absolutely awesome in the boom and zoom mode. But as far as the turn and burn mode the American machines just don't seem to excel, although I've heard that some were quite adequate. I just basically wondered if some expert on this forum could confirm whether the performance of these a/c were in the ball park. I just bet if we got actual pilots of these machines in the discussion there would be just as much heated debate about performance characteristics as there would be about the perfect gun and ammunition amongst hunters. In the final analysis I suppose it doesn't really matter. The sim is marvelous and a delightful "extension of reality".( I read in this forum somewhere some guy who responded with that when another fellow called it a game. My wife called it a game and I was quite indignant about that. I have flown civilian fixed wing and military rotary wing and this is no mere game.) Anywhosal, thanks for the replies.

If you want to turn and burn in US fighters, do it above 20,000 feet.

Why?

They all have large wings, on large airframes with powerful engines built for performance at high altitudes.

T'n'B is all about wing loading, spanloading and power-to-weight. You need the ability to pull high AoAs for short/medium periods without bleeding too much energy, or the ability to regain theat lost energy very quickly.

As US fighters, generally speaking, have lower power-to-weight ratios and higher wingloading than their more lightly built European counterparts, they need to maximise their size and absolute power advantages, and that doesn't happen until you get up into the thin air above 20,000 feet, where 109s and 190s start to struggle to hold onto the air with their small wings.

If your at 22,000 feet in A P-47/P-51/F4U ect, you can dive 5,000 feet to disengage, restock your E and come back at your opponent on level terms.

You can't do the same manouver with nearly as much sucess if your fooling around at 5,000 feet.

Remember that when the P-47 was initially deployed in Europe, the 8th AF declared a 18,000 ft 'hard floor' for fighter operations with the type. While this was eventually rescinded, it gives you some idea of how the USAAF was thinking with regards to their fighter types. The majority of P-51 kills happened between 15-25,000 feet. Up high is where the late war US fighters BELONG, where their high speed and rugged construction mean they rule the roost.

Treetop64
12-23-2006, 06:38 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

...and Chuck's post, too.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

------------------------------
"It breaks my heart, but I am almost certain that raaaid will get the Nobel Prize in physics before we get the Avenger in PF."
-- Zeus-cat
------------------------------

Aaron_GT
12-24-2006, 01:58 AM
But as far as the turn and burn mode the American machines just don't seem to excel,

Turn and burn is essentially a WW1 style of fighting back from the days when armament was one or two machine guns and if you tried a high speed dive your wings would come off. To damage a fabric covered aircraft enough it took a effort to keep your guns trained on it and hit something important.

Fast forward to WW2 and aircraft had recently changed to monoplane designs with high speeds and much heavier armament, but it was a new development, but it made boom and zoom possible, but some aircraft were still constructed with a turn and burn philosophy.

In general, though, boom and zoom is the tactic of choice - you try to down as many aircraft as you can in the first unobserved bounce, and then you try to keep your energy high so you can disengage relatively easily if you can, vastly improving your chances of surviving - and here the extra few mph that most US aircraft had at most altitudes comes in very handy.

Boom and zoom takes a lot more mental effort to execute as you have to plan ahead and think in three dimensions much more. I bet if you had tested the three dimensional reasoning abilities of the likes of Bong, Yeager, Johnson, or Rall, you'd find they were much better than the average. We get lots of stick time in the game, but it's mentally easy to get into turn and burn. We are under no real threat either, so there isn't so much incentive to go the extra mental mile.

Played with BnZ the American aircraft do well, apart from the armament not being as good in a single pass as, say, the Tempest V's 4 20mm cannon. They do better than the Spitfires, Yaks, etc., too as they can't sustain high enough dive speeds to make BnZ as effective.

Bearcat99
12-25-2006, 06:47 AM
To answer your question in relation to 46. IMO the performance of American planes has improved. The 5s seem to hit better. Zom climb is better.. the Pony accelerates better.. it is still twitchy.. as it should be... but if you keep within the confines of the aircraft's handling then it will be good to you. It still has a glass jaw.. as it should. The F-6s are better.... I think for the most part the major problem with American planes was that wobble and that 50s.... and on some the acceleration.. and it appears those have been addressed. Now whether or not it will be to the satisfaction of folks here... I think that will be like it will always will.... some will be happy some wont.. but I think more will.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://star.walagata.com/w/bearcat/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://www.tuskegeeairmen.org)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE> 332nd V.F.G. (http://www.geocities.com/bearcat99th/) [/list]
<span class="ev_code_GREEN">It is easier to train a boy than to repair a man.</span>
Sturmovik Essentials (http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=51910959) | Magnum PC.Com (http://www.magnum-pc.com/) | Joint Operations (http://www.joint-ops.com/joil2fb/default.asp)

Codger1949
12-25-2006, 06:02 PM
Thanks Gentlemen. I appreciate your analysis.

As an aside, wouldn't it be novel to experience the g forces those pilots endured? Of course at our age some of us might stroke out right inside our virtual cockpits enduring those stresses. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

VW-IceFire
12-25-2006, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by Codger1949:
Well, I don't have time to read NACA do***ents and I don't give a damn about my credibility because I ask about American planes. What I do know is a whole lot of folks are flying spits or the la or the 109g2 over everything else. People flying American planes are as scarce as hen's teeth. Gee... I wonder why? Could it be because they fly like lead bricks with 2x4s for wings ya think? Now is it unreasonable for a humble, ignorant novice, like me, to ask the question: "Did American fighters really perform this badly"? My uneducated, uninformed guess is... NO! So, what gives? And from what I've read on the internet and seen on the History Channel and that war channel that used to be "Wings" something is fishy in Denmark, so to speak. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif
You don't see a lot of American planes on quake style dogfight servers because American planes were never designed for that sort of work. Those servers favour the aircraft with the absolute biggest guns and engines at the expense of all other abilities.

American fighters feature more heavily in COOPs and proper team games. Thats when you see their attributes like range, durability, payload capability, and altitude performance factor into the equation. American fighters were designed to actually be useful in a war rather than playing in the weeds at 50 meters all the time.

A La-7 with its raw dogfight performance is all fine and good but check out its dogfight performance at 25,000 feet. A Mustang or Thunderbolt will eat it alive.

I would also take whatever they say on the American History Channel with a grain of salt. They tend to gloss over details and make things really exciting when the truth is far more murky. For that sort of information you need to dive into many interesting and uninteresting history books.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/icefire-tempestv.jpg
Find my missions at Flying Legends (http://www.flying-legends.net/php/downloads/downloads.php?cat_id=19) and Mission4Today.com (http://www.mission4today.com).

RamsteinUSA
12-26-2006, 06:07 AM
They backup their data with facts and interviews form engineers and the pilots who fly/flew them...
is this more of the Amercians are wrong thread?
This is rediculous...

it's your opinion that you don't trust American History Channel. Ok, don't trust it, but some of these kids are impressionable and will grab the the first hook they can to get on the don't trust American History bandwagon.. how about looking how other countrys distort information and make it if fair and balanced?
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif




Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Codger1949:
Well, I don't have time to read NACA do***ents and I don't give a damn about my credibility because I ask about American planes. ...............

I would also take whatever they say on the American History Channel with a grain of salt. They tend to gloss over details and make things really exciting when the truth is far more murky. For that sort of information you need to dive into many interesting and uninteresting history books. <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Disabled USAF Veteran

Aaron_GT
12-26-2006, 06:25 AM
They do better than the Spitfires, Yaks, etc., too as they can't sustain high enough dive speeds to make BnZ as effective.

Just to clarify what I said - I mean the Spitfire and Yak have problems with vibrations or wings coming off in high speed dives.

Aaron_GT
12-26-2006, 06:30 AM
it's your opinion that you don't trust American History Channel.

Whilst there is some good information on the History Channel the format is relatively short programmes lacking depth for the purposes of selling advertising in the breaks. It's entertainment to some extent. There are a whole host of books on the P-51 and P-47 or USAAF combat operations which give a much more in depth and better view of things, including ones written by veterans. RAF aircraft are what I am interested in and there is simply no comparasion between a History Channel programme on the Spitfire or about the Battle of Britain compared to what you can get from a couple of good books on the subject (it's always best to get at least two from differing points of view to get a more rounded picture).

jasonbirder
12-26-2006, 07:57 AM
it's your opinion that you don't trust American History Channel

Never rely solely on one source of information...cross reference and use judgement and sketicism before forming an opinion. Books are usually more trustworthy, indepth and accurate than entertainment television as a source of information http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
12-27-2006, 10:19 AM
The bottom line is that even if the planes were 100% perfectly modelled, the low to medium altitude turn and burners would still rule the online dogfight server

Why? Because that's the type of plane that type of game server demands<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/clarkchampion.jpg
Flower of Scotland, will we see your like again?

Codger1949
12-27-2006, 12:46 PM
Yes indeed. I do believe that is the key.

HayateAce
12-27-2006, 01:00 PM
Full Throttle>Press G>Hold Down Trigger servers are not where you want to use a U.S. aircraft.

This is a contender for my 2007 Sig, even though I don't particulary care for LiceFire.

"American fighters were designed to actually be useful in a war rather than playing in the weeds at 50 meters all the time."<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://aerofiles.com/lock-p38j.jpg

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sloganizer.net/en/image,Luftwhiners,black,white.png (http://www.sloganizer.net/en/)

Codger1949
12-27-2006, 06:13 PM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
Full Throttle>Press G>Hold Down Trigger servers are not where you want to use a U.S. aircraft.


I guess the "full switch" servers are where you want to use the U.S. a/c. Or maybe it's setting up a campaign. I've never done that. Limited time and all that rot. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

shahram177
12-28-2006, 01:13 PM
God this is a complicated thread.
The best way I can compare the Yank planes to the other planes is by comparing them to motorcycles. Yank planes are like Harley's, long a bit wide, weigh a metric ton and don't turn or stop very well but can cruz for days at 70mph.
You average Jap<span class="ev_code_yellow">anese</span> plane is much like your 600cc Ninja (or my beloved 87 700VFR). Not the fastest thing in the world but boy can she turn like a ***** in heat! woo hoo! And the acceleration! waaaah! Can we say 125mph!
But when you can't hold it very long. Your back gets all twisted and if you so much as hit a fart you tank slap you way to Graceland!
So what's better, a fat hog or a razor Ninja?
Its a tough call.
You average Jap<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">anese</span> plane is allot more forgiving and you can just manhandle the thing around! Which for a new guys is nice. The same goes for the older Spits. They are just so darn light and the engines have so little effect on the plane.
Now you get in your average yank plane and its like dancing with a hippo on ice skates!
You really can't push her around too much because she will fall flat on her *** with you under her! Not fun!
But the problem is that the average server here, hippos don't do so well. Way too many tight turns. And lets face it the average guy can't spend hours playing just one game. It gets really boring climbing up to say 25k feet!
So what is a guy to do?
Ok here are my suggestions. And note I'm an old NOOB.
1) Fly with a 1/4th full gas tank! The yank planes are like yank women, FAT AS HELL! You don't need to be carrying any extra fat! NO ONE LIKES TO DANCE WITH A FAT GIRL! ITS DANGEROUS!
2) Fly away from the action to gain altitude then do a nice wide turn into the action and dive in!
3) You have lots and lots of bullets! Use them like a mad man! At about 700m start unloading. AIM AT THER NOSE AND WORK YOUR WAY BACK!
4) Use soft rudder inputs to chase the target.
5) If the target pulls hard don't chase it like a rabid dog! Pull your nose up and fly away and look for another target!
5A) Ok so your a rabid dog and want to dog fight (your one of those guys how likes fat chicks too hu? Its ok they need loving too but they have to pay!),
To tighten a turn in a yank plane you will need to reduce its gyroscopic weight. To do so either reduce pitch and or ease off the gas. 400mph flat spins aren't out of the question, pulling hard into a corner with that fat beefy engine will do wonders for you CG!
5B) Ok now your on that zeeks *** but you just need a little bit more bight. Grab your flaps man! slowly use them to bring your nose up for the kill. I've actually used landing flaps to out turn a zeek. Did it work, yah! Did it look nice? No. And allways reember AIM FOR THEIR NOSE!
6) The best way to get a kill is not to fight, its to cheat!
6a) If you are high and see a target lower than you gun the engines push her over and dive under the target and as you pull up unload your guns. Cut him a new a hole! Yah its not nice, and no it doesn't look cool and no you won't have time to enjoy seeing him catch fire and crash into the ground but it works.
7) After the pull up and the kill don't push her over! Flip her go inverted pull some G's and push the nose to the ground a little to regain some air speed.
8) Understand that you are a huge target! Especially the twin engine fighters! THEY SUCK! and thus you have to really zoom hard and think way ahead and are just not much fun. But they do get you home safe and sound and can really kill bombers!
9) And this is very important, don't get angry, its only a freaking game! The moment you get angry just push your chair back, stand up stretch a little think of what you did wrong or how that guy got you and try not to do it again.

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Be advised there are many Japanese members of this forum and many find the term "Jap" offensive so as a courtesy to them would you please refrain from using it here. Thank yiu for your cooperation</span>

Tator_Totts
12-28-2006, 03:27 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif Great and funny post. One of the best post this year [yank planes like Yank women, fat as hell]. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://home.carolina.rr.com/squad/AG-51/Stanger.gif

XyZspineZyX
12-28-2006, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
Full Throttle>Press G>Hold Down Trigger servers are not where you want to use a U.S. aircraft.

This is a contender for my 2007 Sig, even though I don't particulary care for LiceFire.

"American fighters were designed to actually be useful in a war rather than playing in the weeds at 50 meters all the time."

Icefire does a fair bit for the community and is a nice guy to boot. You're not impressing anyone with your BS talk about him<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/clarkchampion.jpg
Flower of Scotland, will we see your like again?

Aaron_GT
12-28-2006, 04:44 PM
For optimal survivability (something that counted a lot in WW2 when people were at risk of dying, although not such an issue in the virtual skies) TnB is a bad choice when you are the one doing the bounce or with the initiative. If the enemy tries to turn by all means stay with it for part of a turn to get a guns solution, but then break off and extend, find another target, or come back for another pass. And always have a wingman who can check that it is safe to extend without being bounced. Keep your speed up.

These tactics go for most planes apart from the biplanes. They are something that the US planes do well at, especially at altitude, hampered only by the guns not being one-shot-one-kill when you have only a brief guns solution. If they'd stuck the Mustang IA 4 20mm cannon armament in the Mustang III it would be virtually unbeatable short of using jets if flown as a BnZ plane.

Ultimately planes like the P51 were built to be effective and survivable. The aircraft were expensive, but all that pilot training and experience was worth a lot too, let alone the desire not to lose too many people.

shahram177
12-29-2006, 08:51 AM
God you know the guys is right!
Last night I was in a little Ki-84 and there was a P-38 at my low 9, I just rolled her over and gave chase. That poor guy didn't stand a chance!
He gunned it and did some fun stuff but since that thing is suck a pig I could simply out turn him. And even with those big engines pushing he couldn't get away. I just kept firing little bursts above him to count for the arc of fire till he caught on fire and crashed.
Now don't get me wrong I've seen a few guys who know how to fly the P-38 at low speeds and are more than capable of kicking me out of their sky. But those are few and far between.
Sure the yank planes have better engines and are harder to kill but once you get on their 6 at any thing close to the deck and its by by Mr. Bond! They just can't get away and don't have the low speed maneuverability.
i.e. like a fat chick at Layne Bryant they accelerate slow and don't like to turn much!
But still like some advanced Ahlsimers after I landed, I switched sides and took out a late model P-51.
How many guns did that thing come with? Wasn't it suppose to be 6-50's?
Why is there only 4? Why is that?

JG52Karaya-X
12-29-2006, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by shahram177:
God you know the guys is right!
Last night I was in a little Ki-84 and there was a P-38 at my low 9, I just rolled her over and gave chase. That poor guy didn't stand a chance!
He gunned it and did some fun stuff but since that thing is suck a pig I could simply out turn him. And even with those big engines pushing he couldn't get away. I just kept firing little bursts above him to count for the arc of fire till he caught on fire and crashed.
Now don't get me wrong I've seen a few guys who know how to fly the P-38 at low speeds and are more than capable of kicking me out of their sky. But those are few and far between.
Sure the yank planes have better engines and are harder to kill but once you get on their 6 at any thing close to the deck and its by by Mr. Bond! They just can't get away and don't have the low speed maneuverability.
i.e. like a fat chick at Layne Bryant they accelerate slow and don't like to turn much!
But still like some advanced Ahlsimers after I landed, I switched sides and took out a late model P-51.
How many guns did that thing come with? Wasn't it suppose to be 6-50's?
Why is there only 4? Why is that?

Read up on the P51 versions:

P51B/C had 4 guns, D had 6

About the P38: Well it sure does turn worse than a plane half its weight, and a Ki84 is definitely a deadly opponent, try to fly the P38 against Zeros, Ki61/100 and the like and you wont be touched that easily!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v639/Karaya/Black_Devil.gif (http://www.geocities.com/jg52thebutcherbirds/index1.html)
The tiger leaves no smell and doesn't make a sound, but you know he is there.
There is something in the shadows - it's the tiger waiting for you.

KIMURA
12-29-2006, 02:15 PM
sharam, who cares about turn radius of a IJN/JAAf a/c if your Corsair or P-47 is faster?? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://mypage.bluewin.ch/a-z/kimura-hei/Ki1.jpg

tigertalon
12-29-2006, 07:52 PM
Turning? What's turning? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

<span class="ev_code_BLACK"><pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">?In the size of the lie there is always contained a certain factor of credibility,

Codger1949
12-29-2006, 08:39 PM
Originally posted by tigertalon:
Turning? What's turning? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif You must be a 190 driver. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif By the way, intruiging sig.

Codger1949
12-29-2006, 08:48 PM
Originally posted by KIMURA:
sharam, who cares about turn radius of a IJN/JAAf a/c if your Corsair or P-47 is faster?? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif I sure as the devil care if I foolishly wasted all my E chasing about some nimble A6 trying to get an angle after, I thought, was a well planned dive on the little &%#@!!, and missed.

shahram177
12-29-2006, 08:48 PM
Originally posted by KIMURA:
sharam, who cares about turn radius of a IJN/JAAf a/c if your Corsair or P-47 is faster?? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Fast shmast!
P-38 in a dive, fast.
Bullets from any plane DAM FAST!
If your under 0.5km (500m+/-) you just don't stand a chance in hell in a fat pig like that! Even with the engins maxed and the nose down.
You just don't accelerate fast enough. And god forbid you pull up or turn! Then your even a fater target!
It takes balls to go mano a mano in a yank plane vs any thing! Thats why there are so few in the air at any given time. Sure they are faster but lets be honest most of these servers are knife fights is phone booths. And what a yank plane is good at are wide open spaces fights with lots of zoom and boom and we just don't have that. And if we did the server would be dead! No one wants to devote 5 hours of their day to just one mission. Half of us have lives and the other half have immaginarry girl friends!

Codger1949
12-29-2006, 08:52 PM
Originally posted by shahram177:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KIMURA:
sharam, who cares about turn radius of a IJN/JAAf a/c if your Corsair or P-47 is faster?? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Fast shmast!
P-38 in a dive, fast.
Bullets from any plane DAM FAST!
If your under 0.5km (500m+/-) you just don't stand a chance in hell in a fat pig like that! Even with the engins maxed and the nose down.
You just don't accelerate fast enough. And god forbid you pull up or turn! Then your even a fater target!
It takes balls to go mano a mano in a yank plane vs any thing! Thats why there are so few in the air at any given time. Sure they are faster but lets be honest most of these servers are knife fights is phone booths. And what a yank plane is good at are wide open spaces fights with lots of zoom and boom and we just don't have that. And if we did the server would be dead! No one wants to devote 5 hours of their day to just one mission. Half of us have lives and the other half have immaginarry girl friends! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL. BRAVO. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif A beautiful reply. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

leeG727
12-30-2006, 12:02 AM
I always thought the brilliance of the original IL2 as an online game was that it was based on the air war on the Eastern front. All the action was below 10,000 feet. Opposing airfields were close to each other. The Eastern air war was ?Air Quake? for real. This is a perfect setting for online gamers. Take off and instantly be in action. No wasted time. The popular plane choices on the servers reflect the planes specifically designed for that kind of war.

But with the expansion in aircraft and maps to include the European and Pacific theaters, confusion has been created among some players. They mistaking think IL2 is now a Strategic Air War simulation. Sorry gang, its not. None of you are going to spend 8 hours simulating a long rang bomber escort mission for the possibility of maybe 10 minutes of combat.

Add to this the limitation of monitor technology. The principal American high-altitude escort-fighters, Mustangs and Thunderbolts, at lower altitudes were superb boom-n-zoomers. But you have to be able to see the enemy far below to use this tactic effectively. I?ve looked down on other airplanes from my sailplane, and I?ve looked down at other airplanes in IL2. IL2 comes nowhere close to what I can see in real life.

The aircraft models are visually stunning. The cockpits are superb. The flight models are excellent. I personally use this game as ?living? reference in my studies of World War II aircraft and history.

But here?s the deal. As a combat simulation you are effectively stuck below 10,000 feet because everyone seems to want instant action. And you have the normal computer game limitations of low visual resolution and no g-force. Planes that in real life did well on the Eastern front do well in IL2. The rest are out of their element.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

----------
http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g258/leeG727/IL2/leeG-sig.gif

csThor
12-30-2006, 01:08 AM
It's nothing new that the masses are slinging mud at 3k ft or below. It's been this way ever since flight sims made their way to the online world.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

______________________________
Ab heute heissen wir Meier!

http://home.arcor.de/csthor/bilder/ubi_sig.jpg

Codger1949
12-30-2006, 05:18 AM
Originally posted by leeG727:


But here?s the deal. As a combat simulation you are effectively stuck below 10,000 feet because everyone seems to want instant action. And you have the normal computer game limitations of low visual resolution and no g-force. Planes that in real life did well on the Eastern front do well in IL2. The rest are out of their element.
That, in my opinion, is a pretty darn good summary of the situation at hand. Although I prefer to refer to it as a sim, (more dignified old boy) it is, afterall in the final analysis, a first person shooter with wings. The desire of the majority is to kick some booty and do it darn quick.

Concerning the visibility observation. A speck is a speck, so to speak, in real life and in this sim. Half the time when ATC advises you of A/C in the area you can't spot them.

Time again being the factor I enjoy those servers that disable the plane icons and enable the plane icons on the map. They're still hard to spot but the map, being kinda of like a radar, cuts down on the time spotting them. Those servers that are "full realism"? I can fly a full hour and never have an engagement, which is fine if you want to spend all your time craning your neck and doing s turns.

But now I'm beginning to understand that the American planes had great strengths which don't fit in the restraints of this sim and our time. This saved me a whole lot of time doing research on the net. I wonder if some enterprizing individual ever put out a web page comparing the strengths and weaknesses of ww2 fighters?

Aaron_GT
12-30-2006, 06:05 AM
The best way to avoid air quake is to find a group of like minded people and set up coops as you can then set up things like escort missions at 25,000 ft. You can also ensure that people wing, etc. Some squadrons organise campaigns with other squadrons, hold training days, and the like. It's the best way to fly, it just takes organisation.

shahram177
12-31-2006, 10:00 AM
Ok This is what happens when a 30yo mechanical engineer is home on a saterday night, his wife is at work and all his mates are MIA.
He whips out his trusted old big red engineering book and digs trying to figure out
WTF is the matter with the yank planes!
So this is how it went.
Shah reads
scratches head
reads some more
Questions, wow was I awake in any of these classes and if so how hung over was I?
Oh yah now I remember i was too buissy hung over trying to look down the shirt of my lab mate Sexy Stew...wow she was hot..i wonder if my wife would be interested in a three.....oh there is it!
CG equations. Oh look there are some aero equations as well! What the hell does that S thing whats with all the greek letters! Why are there more letters than numbers? Dam I was hung over, and Sexy Stew did have a nice rack I wonder if I have any photos of her on my.....hell i have X plane! Let me see if any one has made any yank planes for x plane and i'll just mess around with the CG and the CL and th CD till i get the same **** flight behavior as i get in this game...
Hay there is a P-51D woo hoo
I then spend about 5 hour looking up nude photos of Star Jones to clear the thought of Sexy Stews rack from my head and about 5 min flying X plane and tweaking the CG till the P-51D could flat spin at 300+mph.
Finally figured it out. THE FREAKING CG IS OFF! WAY OFF! For some odd reason its way too forward by about two feet. Almost to the back of the jockeys seat! When the CG was moved back to where it should have been the dam thing flys like viper, fast quick and nimble. Push it forward and it will flop all over the place in high speed turns and get into low speed spins like its its job!
That and its a little low. See boys and the one girl who hangs here the CG must be behind the CL for an air frame to be stable but not too far becasue that would just be strange! The CG of the P-51D in our little game here is way too far forward and is almost on top of the CL which puts alot of strain the on elevator to keep the thing from flipping *** over head. And I'm no rocket scientist but i play one on TV but i would bet that the problem gets wose when your flying with say %25 of your allowance of hydro carbon. So I know I'm amazing and so dam awsome but if some one knows any programing maybe you can go in and push the cg of the P-51 back by say 2ft and maybe lift it a little?
Nost likely it was just a mistake made by the programers.

RamsteinUSA
12-31-2006, 02:43 PM
We have begged for this fix for many years... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif
welcome to our bad crappy nightmare.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif



Originally posted by shahram177:
Ok This is what happens when a 30yo mechanical engineer is home on a saterday night, his wife is at work and all his mates are MIA.
He whips out his trusted old big red engineering book and digs trying to figure out
WTF is the matter with the yank planes!
So this is how it went.
Shah reads
scratches head
reads some more
Questions, wow was I awake in any of these classes and if so how hung over was I?
Oh yah now I remember i was too buissy hung over trying to look down the shirt of my lab mate Sexy Stew...wow she was hot..i wonder if my wife would be interested in a three.....oh there is it!
CG equations. Oh look there are some aero equations as well! What the hell does that S thing whats with all the greek letters! Why are there more letters than numbers? Dam I was hung over, and Sexy Stew did have a nice rack I wonder if I have any photos of her on my.....hell i have X plane! Let me see if any one has made any yank planes for x plane and i'll just mess around with the CG and the CL and th CD till i get the same **** flight behavior as i get in this game...
Hay there is a P-51D woo hoo
I then spend about 5 hour looking up nude photos of Star Jones to clear the thought of Sexy Stews rack from my head and about 5 min flying X plane and tweaking the CG till the P-51D could flat spin at 300+mph.
Finally figured it out. THE FREAKING CG IS OFF! WAY OFF! For some odd reason its way too forward by about two feet. Almost to the back of the jockeys seat! When the CG was moved back to where it should have been the dam thing flys like viper, fast quick and nimble. Push it forward and it will flop all over the place in high speed turns and get into low speed spins like its its job!
That and its a little low. See boys and the one girl who hangs here the CG must be behind the CL for an air frame to be stable but not too far becasue that would just be strange! The CG of the P-51D in our little game here is way too far forward and is almost on top of the CL which puts alot of strain the on elevator to keep the thing from flipping *** over head. And I'm no rocket scientist but i play one on TV but i would bet that the problem gets wose when your flying with say %25 of your allowance of hydro carbon. So I know I'm amazing and so dam awsome but if some one knows any programing maybe you can go in and push the cg of the P-51 back by say 2ft and maybe lift it a little?
Nost likely it was just a mistake made by the programers. <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Disabled USAF Veteran

Codger1949
12-31-2006, 09:12 PM
Nice dissertation. I was getting interested in Sexy Stew, not to mention the aeronautical engineering stuff about the 51 (which flys amazingly like a barn door in the sim... no wonder if the cg is off), but what is "CL" and "CD"?

gates123
12-31-2006, 10:33 PM
Codger,

I'm American, I've flown this sim online alot for the last 3-4 years. Over 2000 hrs At least. In my opinion these planes are pretty accuratly modeled to thier historical values. Very close.

This sim is designed up to 10,000 meters not 10,000 ft, thats well within the p-51's sweet spot. The pony does well in its designed role, especially with 50% or less fuel (which is all you need online). With 25% it can hold its own down low, be sure.

Just know theres alot of experten pilots online, don't blame too much on certain plane preformances because you find yourself in a crater one too many times for your liking. If you die its most likely your fault or at least, you not knowing your plane to its fullest extent, put in more stick time before you go start complaining. People like to whine about a certain plane's preformance especially when they get owned in their favorite bird venturing online, it only get worse on "full switch" servers.. With the likely hood of running into 1 if not 5 very good pilots is high, you will get shot down. Its not about how many kills you get, its about how many sorties you survived. Look at at that way...

The trick is to know your plane, and be deciplined in its strengths. Once you get away from that you'll be putting yourself in a position to be picked up and shot down. Don't engage someone at co-alt if you don't have to, especially in a Pony. Take the extra 8 minutes and get above the fight

Don't get caught up with alot of what you read, especially with 1944 and 1945 american pilot accounts. By that time the German's lost the majority of their highy skilled pilots before the p-51d showed up on mass, so your reading accounts that are varied widely by pilot skill. A 109 could out-turn a p-51d at almost any altitude under 22k contrary to popular american belief. I say that just because what todays warbird pilots have argued. Mark Hanna (warbird and air show legend) flew both 109's and p-51's and always said the 109 (which killed him)was a better turner the the p-51 which is contrary to what you hear on the history channel or again most late war historical pilot accounts (unless you ask a luftwaffe pilot).

Again its the pilot not the plane that in the end will decide who wins.

This sim I think produces very close the values of historical plane preformances no matter what people say on this board. Thers alot of homerism posted here. We all know Oleg will go to his grave saying he's modeled these planes to the best that he's sees with all his historical and and limited cpu resources and I think he's done an unbelievable job.

For me I fly all planes, I love them all and there's not one I won't fly. I suggest for a good plane match-ups you fly online at either winds of war, historia or spits vs 109's. Thats where you'll get good at this game (avoid icons if possible) without the excuses that you hear from alot of homers on this board. Try out the Jug, you'll love it if you want good high/mid and decent low alt preformance for the ETO. P-40 is way underatted and does great in a '42 planeset. The p-39 can hang if you know her well. P-38 is a machine in all phases but avoid the German 30mm if your down low. Just run. The Hellcats and Corsairs do great against zeros if you keep your speed up. Against better planes in the IJA you will have your hands full, beware of most Ki's, in the hands of a good pilot your in for a fight and will most likely be looking for help http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif. Don't forget elevator trim is EVERYTHING!!!!!!

Anyway enough of my rant, I don't write on this board too much because I rather be mixed up on the deck in a p-40 or Dora or bailing a wingout out in trouble, be sure. But I will admit when you make a tactical error online you will probably pay in a life or if your lucky you'll find a road near by to ditch over friendly lines. Fly smart, know your plane, and be patient. You will live longer and die less. Good Luck and happy new year to all.

P.S Try a Tempest and set your convergence low to like 150m. Shoot to kill and boom to zoom.
Great ride<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://www.fightingcolors.com/custompagestuff/b17visibility72.jpg
Did anyone see that or was it just me?

Tully__
12-31-2006, 10:52 PM
Originally posted by Codger1949:
Nice dissertation. I was getting interested in Sexy Stew, not to mention the aeronautical engineering stuff about the 51 (which flys amazingly like a barn door in the sim... no wonder if the cg is off), but what is "CL" and "CD"?
Centre of Gravity, Centre of Lift and Centre of Drag.

Further, Shahram is not entirely correct. Many aircraft fly quite nicely with CG well forward of CL, it just means that the net lift of the horizontal stabilizer is negative (down) instead of positive (up) for the aircraft to fly level. If you'd like more information on that check out See How It Flies (http://www.av8n.com/how/), especially the chapters on
4 Lift, Thrust, Weight, and Drag (http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/4forces.html)
5 Vertical Damping, Roll Damping, and Stalls (http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/vdamp.html) AND
6 Angle of Attack Stability, Trim, and Spiral Dives (http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/aoastab.html)<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

<center>
http://jennirivers.actewagl.net.au/sig.jpg
SST X-45 profile (http://jennirivers.actewagl.net.au/fb.zip) | SST X-52 Profile (http://jennirivers.actewagl.net.au/fbx52.zip) | Joysticks & IL2/FB/PF (http://www.airwarfare.com/tech/sticks.htm) | IL2Sticks Utility (http://www.airwarfare.com/Sims/FB/fb_essential_files.htm#087)
Maddox Forums Moderator</center>

BigKahuna_GS
01-02-2007, 05:27 AM
S!

__________________________________________________ _____________________________________________
Bearcat--IMO the performance of American planes has improved. The 5s seem to hit better. Zom climb is better.. the Pony accelerates better.. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">it is still twitchy.. as it should be... </span> but if you keep within the confines of the aircraft's handling then it will be good to you. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">It still has a glass jaw.. as it should. The F-6s are better</span>.... I think for the <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">most part the major problem with American planes was that wobble and that 50s.... and on some the acceleration.. </span> and <span class="ev_code_RED">it appears those have been addressed.</span>
__________________________________________________ _______________________________________________



Salute Bearcat,
I respect your opinon and I have always thought of you as a fair person. I know the Pony is a personal favorite for you. I agree that in some areas US aircraft have improved ie .50cals, Pony accel & zoom. While I am thankful for these small changes, I can't help but wonder why it took years to fix this.

I am curious about a few of your statemants :

Bearcat (P51)--"It still has a glass jaw.. as it should."

The P51 should no more have a glass jaw than any other liquid cooled fighter aircraft. That includes the Spitfire, 109, Tony, etc. Hits to the engine comparment should cause the same amount of damage to these types of fighters. Maybe you ment that, but for some reason many people here think the P51 should be more vulnerable than other liquid cooled fighter----which is not true.

On the other hand the Pratt & Whitney R2800 is still taken out by small arms fire. The R2800 was legendary for reliability, over-boosting and the ability to absorb battle damage while continuing to operate while flying many miles back to base. The R2800 should at least be at the same standard of damage modeling as any of the german radial engines in the FW190 series. No one is asking for the moon here, they are asking for parity & equality in damage modeling for the R2800 engine which is fair and reasonable.


Bearcat- (P51)"it is still twitchy.. as it should be..."

I have personally spoken to many P51 aces about the P51 handeling qualities. The only twitchy charectoristis was the the CoG reverse stick problem with a full rear fuel tank. That is why the rear fuel tank was burned off to below 50% before entering combat. Since the majority of weight of US a/c was attributed to very large fuel loads, US a/c would proportinatley gain performance faster than short ranged german fighters with smaller fuel loads. Wingloading for the P51 entering the combat zone was some 20% better than 190 models and comperable with 109s at 3/4 fuel load.

The stall modeling of the IL2 P51 was one of it's biggest flaws. Stall modeling seems to be improved. Thank you- Oleg.



Bearcat--"The F-6s are better"

My virtual squadmate was a Naval Aviator and flew the F6F Hellcat. His biggest gripe was stall speed and handeling. He emailed Oleg about this several times over the last 1 1/2 years with no effect. That is still his his biggest gripe about the Hellcat. The F6F still has a rather nasty accelerated stall which snaps the plane inverted onto it's back. My dad was a
30year Marine Corps fighter pilot and flew both the Hellcat & Corsair in combat. My dad's comments along with my virtual squadmate and hundreds of Navy Fighter pilots flight reports said the F6F was the most forgiving fighter aircraft they ever flew with no nasty stall habits. They compared the ease of flying the Hellcat with that of a trainer.



Bearcat--"the major problem with American planes was that wobble"

This is a mixed bag. I still have the wobbles with the P51, Corsair, & P47. The yaw effect when firing the .50cals is toned down in some aircraft but still present as in the P47. Why is it that Lend Lease aircraft such as the the P40 & P39 never suffered from the wobbles & yaw effect when firing wing mounted guns ? Whatever their F/M is it should be passed on to all US a/c with wing mounted guns.

As for energy retention in the F4U & F6F. I noticed an immediate difference between 407 & 407.1 as the beta patch reduced energy retention in both a/c. All in all I am still thank full for the fixes in some US a/c.


There seems to be alot of talk in this thread about US a/c mass/weight. Common sense would dictate that greater mass would usually equate into a stronger airframe that could absorb more battle damage. For US a/c in IL2 that does not seem to be the case.

P38--a single 20mm hit can remove the entire elevator or an entire boom. A few 20mm hits near the gondola/wing root cuts the plane in half and whole plane comes apart like it has been built with explosive bolts. This goes entirely against combat reports and aircraft losses against the most difficult of ground targets heavily defended by triple AAA.

P47---PW R2800 engine killed by small arms fire and single hits. The P47 is often blown in half behind the cockpit by cannon fire. The P47 was a very rugged overbuilt aircraft. The area behind the cockpit contained the turbo-supercharger and was structerally very tough.

F6F Hellcat & F4U Corsair--a unique combination of power, fairly low wingloading and stall speeds for a large single engine 12,000lb+ aircraft that were over built to handle the repeated stresses of carrier landings. Both the F6F & F4U will sometimes catch fire and burn almost as easily as a Zeke which is very suprising, both a/c will readily come apart or completely explode from a few 20mm hits. My dad's combat experiences with these planes and the damage they could take was very much differnet than this sim.



__________________________________________________ ______________________________________________
shahram177 ---Last night I was in a little Ki-84 and there was a P-38 at my low 9, I just rolled her over and gave chase. That poor guy didn't stand a chance! He gunned it and did some fun stuff but since that thing is suck a pig I could simply out turn him. And even with those big engines pushing he couldn't get away. I just kept firing little bursts above him to count for the arc of fire till he caught on fire and crashed.
__________________________________________________ _______________________________________________


That is because the IL2 Ki84 is operating at speeds from a US test with high octane fuels that were not availble in wartime Japan. Obviously Ki84 performance would have been affected by lower octane fuels, poor fuel quality & fuel availability in late wartime Japan. Also torque effect from high power at low speed does not negatively impact single engine fighters causing torque roll/stall as compared to real life. The P38 would have a clear advantage fighting on the deck at high power levels while stall fighting because of counter rotating props and the lift generated from the prop wash over the wings. The P38 had an amazing low stall speed with flaps and higher power levels. Stall speeds were between 53mph to 65mph IAS at roughly 16,500lbs to 17,500lbs.

There are also many combat reports of P38s chasing down and catching Ki84s in high speed chases that lasted many miles (see below).

Try reading about one of the most successful P38 Sqdns in the PTO the 49th FG. A very long list of P38 aces getting the absolute most out what the P38 was capable of doing.

http://us.st11.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/airplanepictures_1931_62163788

http://www.acepilots.com/475_book.gif
http://www.kilroywashere.org/003-Pages/Tilley-John/03-Harm-Tilley-story.html (see stall fight speed against Oscar & ki84 chase/shoot down)
http://p-38online.com/links.html
http://www.acepilots.com/usaaf_macdonald.html
http://www.amazon.com/49th-Fighter-Group-Pacific-Aviation/dp/1841767859
http://pacificwrecks.com/people/veterans/oneill.html
http://www.475thfghf.org/


__________________________________________________ ______________________________________________
Kimura-- who cares about turn radius of a IJN/JAAf a/c if your Corsair or P-47 is faster??
__________________________________________________ ______________________________________________


Faster than late model japanese fighters even at altitude ?

The IL2 Corsair v-max at sea level runs about 356-358mph (no Cockpit- TAS) for the F4U-1A, F4U-1C, F4U-1D. Wartime Navy Fleet Corsairs were 366mph v-max at sea level at 60"Hg, at 65"Hg they going 376mph. That's about 10mph too slow for the Corsair at just the low end. The Ki84 is faster on the deck, climbs better, accelerates quicker and retains energy better. Now wouldn't that missing 10mph for the Corsair help it to be a little more competative.


__________________________________________________ ______________________________________________
gates123----Don't get caught up with alot of what you read, especially with 1944 and 1945 american pilot accounts. By that time the German's lost the majority of their highy skilled pilots before the p-51d showed up on mass, so your reading accounts that are varied widely by pilot skill. A 109 could out-turn a p-51d at almost any altitude under 22k contrary to popular american belief. I say that just because what todays warbird pilots have argued. Mark Hanna (warbird and air show legend) flew both 109's and p-51's and always said the 109 (which killed him)was a better turner the the p-51 which is contrary to what you hear on the history channel or again most late war historical pilot accounts (unless you ask a luftwaffe pilot).
__________________________________________________ _______________________________________________



Thats pretty interesting considering the P51 didnt start flying escort missions until January 44' and it took almost a full year to phase out P38s & P47s with P51s. The only planes available to fly deep escort into germany in early 44' were P38s & P51s and since they were in short supply this early on they would be heavily out numbered in the skies over germany. There was still plenty of fighting to be done and the Luftwaffe didnt start to die until just before D-Day when air supremacy was established over the beach head.

http://www.ofmc.co.uk/mah/mah.htm

You left out some important facts about the ability of the 109 & P51 to turn circles all centered around the speed of the two aircraft. As speeds increased the P51 was more manueverble than the 109

PILOT NOTES ON THE ME 109
Me 109 G:
"So how does the aeroplane compare with other contemporary fighters ? First, let me say that all my comments are based on operation below 10,000 feet and at power settings not exceeding +12 (54") and 2700 rpm. I like it as an aeroplane, and with familiarity I think it will give most of the allied fighters I have flown a hard time, particularly in a close, hard turning, <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">slow speed dog-fight. It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight, the roll rate and slow speed characteristics being much better.</span> The Spitfire on the other hand is more of a problem for the '109 and I feel it is a superior close in fighter. Having said that the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot abilty would probably be the deciding factor. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">At higher speeds the P-51 is definitely superior, and provided the Mustang kept his energy up and refused to dogfight he would be relatively safe against the '109.</span>
I like the aeroplane very much, and I think I can understand why many of the Luftwaffe aces had such a high regard and preference for it."
- Mark Hanna of the Old Flying Machine Company flying the OFMC Messerschmitt Bf 109 G (Spanish version).

109 G:
"The roll rate is very good and very positive below about 250 mph. Above 250 mph however the roll starts to heavy up and up to 300 or so is very similar to a P-51. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">After that it's all getting pretty solid and you need two hands on the stick for any meaningfull roll rates.</span> Pitch is also delighful at 250 mph and below. It feels very positve and the amount of effort on the control column needed to produce the relevant nose movement seems exactly right to me. The aircraft is perfectly happy carrying out low-level looping maneuvers from 300 mph and below. Above 300 mph one peculiarity is a slight nose down trim change as you accelerate. The rudder is effective and if medium feel up to 300. It becomes heavier above this speed but regardless the lack of rudder trim is not a problem for the type of operations we carry out with the aeroplane."
- Mark Hanna of the Old Flying Machine Company flying the OFMC Messerschmitt Bf 109 G (Spanish version).


Me 109 G:
- How difficult was it to control the 109 in high velocities, 600 kmh and above?
The Messerschmitt became stiff to steer not until the speed exceeded 700kmh. The control column was as stiff as it had been fastened with tape, you could not use the ailerons. Yet you could control the plane."
- Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association


<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">After that it's all getting pretty solid and you need two hands on the stick for any meaningfull roll rates.</span><div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://airplanesandmore.com/prodimages/largeSting%20of%20the%20Yellow%20Jackets.jpg
The Yo-Yo is very difficult to explain. It was first perfected by the well-known Chinese fighter pilot Yo-Yo Noritake. He also found it difficult to explain, being quite devoid of English.
? Squadron Leader K. G. Holland, RAF.


It is generally inadvisable to eject directly over the area you just bombed.

? USAF Manual

Tator_Totts
01-02-2007, 07:20 AM
Has anybody done test with Mustang with 4.05 and then 4.07 to see the real performance difference. People say allied planes have better performance. Is this a warm and fuzzy feeling?

Il2 compare says something different. Climb and turn in fact is worse for all planes. P-51d20 gained 273.73KG in takeoff weight. With extra weight, loss of climb and turn where is the gain in performance?


Great post Kahuna.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://home.carolina.rr.com/squad/AG-51/Stanger.gif

shahram177
01-02-2007, 03:11 PM
Look I don't care what people say, if I get into another 300mph flat spin I'm just going to go nuts and start flying spits!
There is twitchy and then there is just nuts!
A 300mph zoom run with a had banked right handers with the nose shouldn't turn into a game of frizbee golf!
On your average prop lawn mower you want the CG just behind the CL, say 3 behind the controll surfaces of the wing. The closer you move your CG to those pesky moving parts the more interesting the ride becomes till you have a
F-111 which required cybernetic computers to keep the thing in the air!
Don't believe me go pick up X plane move CG forward to about where your hind quarters would be and then have fun. After your 15000 flap spin them nove it back to about 3ft from the wing and the dam thing flies like hot kinky jello inspired sex! Turns on a dime zooms like a mofo and does amazing things LIKE NOT FLAT SPING AT 300MPH!
If you ask me it was a programing error. say some one messed up 100cm with 100mm.
Try it in x plane. The dam thing is just oh so sexy when the CG is moved back by that three feet.
As with the P-38, no clue on that fat little number. Sure its kind of fast but for the life of me I can't figure out why its not more.....twitchey. If the P-51 is like Kate Moss on a three day dender of E and coco puffs the 38 is like Opera after she cleaned out an all you can eat chineese buffet!
It has huge controll surfaces and those sexy wings and the CG is in the right spot....but she rolls and turns like a fat chick at the prom with the skinny kid.
Never the less like a moron every time I fly I still give those two girls a shot. You know kind of like when your drunk at a bar and you insist on hitting on the two fat chicks but your friends keep pulling you away and pointing you to that hot English number with the great leggs who goes by the name Spits.

Tully__
01-03-2007, 12:34 AM
Shahram, it's only a model but the principles are the same, check this out for CoG in a Mustang:
http://www.hobby-lobby.com/p51_marie.htm

Look for the pics about half way down, just above the parts list. That thing is balanced fairly close to where the real one did ('cept when the fuselage tank was full and the CoG moved far enough back to make them almost unmanagable) and they fly fine like that. In order to fly fine like that the horizontal stabiliser is set up to provide negative lift (down force instead of up force) as the CoG is forward of CoL at cruise and combat speeds, but it's perfectly stable like that and actually easier and safer to trim out and design that way that with the CoG aft of CoL. Read the article I linked earlier for more info.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

<center>
http://jennirivers.actewagl.net.au/sig.jpg
SST X-45 profile (http://jennirivers.actewagl.net.au/fb.zip) | SST X-52 Profile (http://jennirivers.actewagl.net.au/fbx52.zip) | Joysticks & IL2/FB/PF (http://www.airwarfare.com/tech/sticks.htm) | IL2Sticks Utility (http://www.airwarfare.com/Sims/FB/fb_essential_files.htm#087)
Maddox Forums Moderator</center>

shahram177
01-03-2007, 06:56 AM
WOW that thing is so freaking hot!
But don't worry, I could care less, I just got 46 and well now I can care less because now i have JETS BABY JETS! WHOO HOO! Who worries abut CG when you got gets and rockets and other cool things!

hening_880Sqn
01-03-2007, 08:34 AM
No doubt that the P51 is an amazing ride in RL. I never found it to be that handy in IL2, but I'm sure it's me. I have to say that the Tempest brought with it what I thought the P51 would be. People whine about Spit jockeys, but the Tempest is one amazing model in IL2 both in dogfights and jabo roles. I'm sure it will soon become the #1 cloud whine. Great ride, very flyable and packs a real punch.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

BigKahuna_GS
01-03-2007, 07:56 PM
shahram177--If you ask me it was a programing error. say some one messed up 100cm with 100mm. Try it in x plane. The dam thing is just oh so sexy when the CG is moved back by that three feet. As with the P-38, no clue on that fat little number. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Sure its kind of fast but for the life of me I can't figure out why its not more.....twitchey. </span> If the P-51 is like Kate Moss on a three day dender of E and coco puffs the 38 is like Opera after she cleaned out an all you can eat chineese buffet! It has huge controll surfaces and those sexy wings and the CG is in the right spot....but she rolls and turns like a fat chick at the prom with the skinny kid.


Hya sham,

I posted links about the P38 in my post above. Did you read it ?

The P38 would be superior to most WW2 fighters on the deck especially as the fight got slower--"stall fighting". The reason for this is No Torque from the counter rotating props allowing the P38 to use much higher power levels without the fear of Torque Rolling/Stalling as with a single engine fighter (high power at low speed==torque roll). The slip stream from 2 props pushing air directly over the wing creates more lift than a single engine fighter--see NACA & FAA reports I listed in another thread. Finally the power loading of a P38J on 150 grade fuel allowed up to 2000hp per engine or 4000hp total, the P38L on 130Grade fuel had 1,725hp per engine or 3,450hp total. The power loading of the P38J/L is as good or better than a TA152 and it's stall speed is much lower at 53mph---65mph at 16,500lbs to 17,500lbs.

So even though you think the P38 is a fat lady in reality it is a stud airplane with high total horsepower/powerloading, high climb rate, great medium to high speed roll rate (hydraulic boosted airlerons), manuevering/combat & dive flaps and a very low stall speed.
-<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://airplanesandmore.com/prodimages/largeSting%20of%20the%20Yellow%20Jackets.jpg
The Yo-Yo is very difficult to explain. It was first perfected by the well-known Chinese fighter pilot Yo-Yo Noritake. He also found it difficult to explain, being quite devoid of English.
? Squadron Leader K. G. Holland, RAF.


It is generally inadvisable to eject directly over the area you just bombed.

? USAF Manual

Bearcat99
01-04-2007, 10:08 AM
@Kahuna.... I agree with you about the engine thing..... and pretty much everything else you said.... the P&Ws could still stand a bit more sturdiness.... and yes... the glass jaw of the Pony should be the same as any other inline engine.... I didnt know about the F-6 being so forgiving.... and I dont really have stall problems with it.. never did..<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://star.walagata.com/w/bearcat/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://www.tuskegeeairmen.org)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE> 332nd V.F.G. (http://www.geocities.com/bearcat99th/) [/list]
<span class="ev_code_GREEN">It is easier to train a boy than to repair a man.</span>
Sturmovik Essentials (http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=51910959) | Magnum PC.Com (http://www.magnum-pc.com/) | Joint Operations (http://www.joint-ops.com/joil2fb/default.asp)

WOLFMondo
01-04-2007, 10:57 AM
On one hand the 12.7mm/.50 can destroy a Tiger tank acccording to some members here. On the other hand it shouldn't be able to take out an R2800 in one shot.

No wonder Oleg gets things wrong when he has a forum full of people making obsurd claims like that.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Cheers!!

joeap
01-04-2007, 11:29 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
On one hand the 12.7mm/.50 can destroy a Tiger tank acccording to some members here. On the other hand it shouldn't be able to take out an R2800 in one shot.

No wonder Oleg gets things wrong when he has a forum full of people making obsurd claims like that.

Hmmm who REALLY believed .50 cals could take out a Tiger...and I do think the R2800 were very sturdy, as all radial engines compared to inlines.

WOLFMondo
01-04-2007, 03:05 PM
Do the search for any of those daft .50's threads. Some pulled out all the stops to show a .50 round to kill a Tiger.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Cheers!!

BigKahuna_GS
01-05-2007, 10:52 AM
Bearcat.... I agree with you about the engine thing..... and pretty much everything else you said.... the P&Ws could still stand a bit more sturdiness.... and yes... the glass jaw of the Pony should be the same as any other inline engine.... I didnt know about the F-6 being so forgiving.... and I dont really have stall problems with it.. never did..

Hya Bearcat,

Is there anyway the R-2800 could have parity with german radial engines ?

How do feel the damage modeling is reflected vs the size/weight ?
(see last posting)

The F6F was one of the best turning Navy fighters and it had exceptional handeling. In IlL2 it has a nasty accelerated stall which invertes the aircarft on it's back. From my sqademate who flew the real plane this behavior is wrong.


__

Wolfmondo quit trying to muddy the waters here. Your .50cal vs Tiger statemnts are exagerated and misleading--a single .50cal killing a Tiger. Most P47s strafing Tigers would aim for the fuel trailer being towed directly behind the Tiger tank. If this fuel trailer was set on fire burning fuel could run under the tank possibly catching the engine comparment on fire. Of course any fire under the tank (steel) would cause high radiated heat problems for the crew inside along with smoke inhalation/aphysiaxtion. The other tatic was to rhicochet bullets from the ground/road to the underside of the tank. A 1 sec trigger pull from the P47 sends 13lbs of lead flying at the Tiger, the most that could be hoped for was lucky hits causing some minor damage or some lucky rounds finding their way into the engine comparment. Without hitting the fuel trailer which could destroy a Tiger, simple straffing could maybe cause a temporary disablement--not a kill. However stopping or delaying armored & supporting columns from reaching an objective is an effective tactic which could decide the outcome of an engagement many miles away.

Anyways this is not a .50cal/Tiger thread.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://airplanesandmore.com/prodimages/largeSting%20of%20the%20Yellow%20Jackets.jpg
The Yo-Yo is very difficult to explain. It was first perfected by the well-known Chinese fighter pilot Yo-Yo Noritake. He also found it difficult to explain, being quite devoid of English.
? Squadron Leader K. G. Holland, RAF.


It is generally inadvisable to eject directly over the area you just bombed.

? USAF Manual

WOLFMondo
01-05-2007, 11:01 AM
I'm not muddying the waters. People were making highly detailed claims that a .50 round could penetrate a Tigers actual armour.

One thing someone pointed out recently is the magneto mounting on the R2800....the magic BB might just be hitting that and not the engine itself.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Cheers!!

hening_880Sqn
01-05-2007, 12:16 PM
You have to select ".50 Spent Uranium Round" under the sub ordnance selection (right click while clicking your heels together three times).

Aaron_GT
01-06-2007, 07:05 AM
The other tatic was to rhicochet bullets from the ground/road to the underside of the tank.

But that is total bollocks (wonder if that will be caught by the profanity filter!) and you know it, Kahuna, as you are a smart guy. For one thing for the richochet theory you'd have to attack either directly ahead or astern of the tank otherwise the wheels and tracks would get in the way!

-HH-Quazi
01-06-2007, 07:18 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The other tatic was to rhicochet bullets from the ground/road to the underside of the tank.

But that is total bollocks (wonder if that will be caught by the profanity filter!) and you know it, Kahuna, as you are a smart guy. For one thing for the richochet theory you'd have to attack either directly ahead or astern of the tank otherwise the wheels and tracks would get in the way! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not sure if it is bullocks or not after watching a Military Channel show with footage of P-47's strafing Tigers and the pilot commentating on his strategy of aiming just behind the rear of the tank and bouncing rounds off the pavement into the the Tiger tanks belly. The footage even showed an explosion on a Tiger tank after a P-47 strafing run. I tend to believe the men that flew these missions and attacked Tiger tanks in such a manner.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

<center>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v289/HH_Beebop/Personal/HHLoGo3.jpg

Hunters' Magnum-PC House (https://magnum-pc.com/Search/External/)
So You're Interested In Water Cooling? (http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=70)
Welcome To The Dogz Hound Pound! (http://www.k9squadrons.com)
Mission 4Today (http://www.mission4today.com/)

Bearcat99
01-06-2007, 07:57 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Do the search for any of those daft .50's threads. Some pulled out all the stops to show a .50 round to kill a Tiger.

BS..... A 50 caliber round cannot kill a Tiger tank. Everyone except the most naive among us knows this. Can a lot of em say like 750-850rpm in the right spot stop a tiger? You bet. They can stop just about anything on wheels with enough of em. It was done...... now whether or not it destroyed it, a lucky incendiary to the fuel I dont know... a few rounds ricocheting inside the compartment ripping up the crew... again I dunno.... it is possible....



Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
Hya Bearcat,
Is there anyway the R-2800 could have parity with german radial engines ?
How do feel the damage modeling is reflected vs the size/weight ?
(see last posting)
<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://star.walagata.com/w/bearcat/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://www.tuskegeeairmen.org)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE> 332nd V.F.G. (http://www.geocities.com/bearcat99th/) [/list]
<span class="ev_code_GREEN">It is easier to train a boy than to repair a man.</span>
Sturmovik Essentials (http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=51910959) | Magnum PC.Com (http://www.magnum-pc.com/) | Joint Operations (http://www.joint-ops.com/joil2fb/default.asp)

Aaron_GT
01-06-2007, 08:55 AM
Not sure if it is bullocks or not after watching a Military Channel show with footage of P-47's strafing Tigers and the pilot commentating on his strategy of aiming just behind the rear of the tank and bouncing rounds off the pavement into the the Tiger tanks belly. The footage even showed an explosion on a Tiger tank after a P-47 strafing run. I tend to believe the men that flew these missions and attacked Tiger tanks in such a manner.

A good read is the assessments the 2nd TAF (RAF) made of the results of Normandy. Of the claims of hundreds of tanks being destroyed by Typhoons with rockets (either 60lb HE, or 25lb AP) it turned out that next to none were.

In terms of bouncing bullets off the road, the shooter may have been trying to do this, but bullets that will bounce of relatively soft roads and are then somewhat deformed and slowed down are unlikely to penetrate around an inch of steel at a very shallow angle.

Anyway, this has been hashed to death before.

Aaron_GT
01-06-2007, 09:00 AM
BS..... A 50 caliber round cannot kill a Tiger tank. Everyone except the most naive among us knows this. Can a lot of em say like 750-850rpm in the right spot stop a tiger? You bet. They can stop just about anything on wheels with enough of em. It was done...... now whether or not it destroyed it, a lucky incendiary to the fuel I dont know... a few rounds ricocheting inside the compartment ripping up the crew... again I dunno.... it is possible....

Apart from hitting a towed fuel bowser the chances of even stopping a Tiger with 50 cals (even 8 of them) due to the actual effect of the rounds is approximately zero. If it had been significant then the M16 GMC would have been used against armour - 4 guns, closely spaced and much less problem aiming.

Now if the question is will an air attack involving 50 cal MGs cause some crews to temporarily abandon a tank, the answer may well be yes as the concern was (altough 2nd TAF reports suggest the concern was more than the risk) that the attack would be backed up by bombs. You don't want to be in a Tiger if a P47 is going to drop a couple of 500lb bombs on you! As a crew you might feel that the strafing is simply a preparatory run to ensure that there is no light AAA to impair the bomb run. It might even be that the crew would choose to deploy smoke (and stop in the middle of the plume) to make the air attack less effective, and this might have been misinterpreted as the tank being disabled.

Even so the big threat to tanks from fighter bomber aircraft was to things like their associated troops, tenders, trucks, etc., without which they could not operate effectively. Plus a more general threat from bombing to bridges, roads, junctions, etc.

Matz0r
01-06-2007, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by -HH-Quazi:
Not sure if it is bullocks or not after watching a Military Channel show with footage of P-47's strafing Tigers and the pilot commentating on his strategy of aiming just behind the rear of the tank and bouncing rounds off the pavement into the the Tiger tanks belly. The footage even showed an explosion on a Tiger tank after a P-47 strafing run. I tend to believe the men that flew these missions and attacked Tiger tanks in such a manner.

That is such nonsense. An AP round fired from a WW2 Browning M2 could penetrate 25mm of armor with a 90 degree hit from 100m, by chance the thinnest parts of a tiger - top and bottom are also 25 mm. There's just the problem of placing the fighter within a 100m from the angled 90 degrees from the top or the bottom of the tank. From a P47 90 degrees can never be achieved since it's guns are mounted in the wings, pilots could maybe side slip and only aim one wing's set of guns on the tank, at 100m, vertically... not very likely that you would get away to tell about something like that.

Then there's the bouncing theory http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif Setting aside the angle of impact and range requirements from above. To get a ricochet you would have to fire at the surface below a certain angle dictated by the hardness of the material you're shooting at - too high angle or too soft material and the bullet will just bury itself instead of ricocheting. This would mean that the bottom 25mm steel plate of the Tiger was softer than the ground, take also in account that the projectile will loose alot of its energy, possible start to tumble after it has bounced off the ground. Stupid Jerries should have built tanks out of concrete and gravel http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Since the allied airforces were most commonly tasked with strafing German columns heading toward the front behind the lines on the western front. In transport, as not in combat, tanks would carry extra fuel externally or in trailers to extend range. I find it more believable that the AF set external fuel tanks, trailers on fire while strafing transport columns and thus getting "Tiger" kills.

Allied air forces killed alot of "Tigers" on the western front, they killed more tigers than there were produced throughout the war by themselves.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--
F16VS http://flygflottilj16.se/
Visit ~VALHALLA~ our full real server on Hyperlobby, hosting early war historical planesets and missions.
http://home.swipnet.se/hotascougar/pics/fokker_now.jpg

berg417448
01-06-2007, 09:33 AM
P-47 pilot Robert V Brulle wrote the book "ANGELS ZERO". In his book, one thing he sought to discover was the actual effect of the 50 caliber strafing upon armored vehicles.

From that book:

"During the war we thought the penetration power of our armor piercing round was sufficient to disable a tank by shooting off the tank tracks. To research this issue and keep the record factual, I contacted several armored vehicle historians and specialists. Their collective views on this issue are summarized below.

The 50 caliber armor piercing round fired from fast moving aircraft does indeed have a high momentum but the German tank armor was very hard and massive and the round only dinged the armor. The most vulnerable area (least armor thickness) is the rear deck engine compartment and the top of the turret. The tracks are extremely hard steel and 50 caliber rounds were shrugged off with little damage. A lucky hit was possible that might cause the tank to throw a track, but if they were on a hard surface they could just keep moving on the road wheels. The Germans in 1944-1945 had three main battle tanks in use. They were the Mark IV which was a medium tank comparable to the American M4 Sherman tank, and two 50 plus-ton heavy tanks, the Mark V Panther and the Mark VI Tiger. The Panther and Tiger tanks completely dominated the M4 Sherman.

The Mark IV had a lightly armored rear deck that could be penetrated by our 50 caliber rounds and set the engine on fire, but the Panther and Tiger were mostly impervious to our strafing. In those tanks the tank crew would button up and hope that we wouldn't call in some aircraft that had bombs since that would finish them. There is a case on record where a Panther tank was strafed by P-47s for an extended time. The massive strafing shot off all the equipment parts carried outside of the tank, and entombed the crew by dinging the hatch lips, essentially welding the hatches closed. If we could catch the tanks while on the road march far from the front line they sometimes carried extra fuel and ammunition strapped to the outside. In those cases strafing could ignite the fuel or ammunition, possibly destroying them. Although we couldn't be sure of damaging or destroying a heavy tank, our strafing was sure to affect the crew psychologically, having to stay cooped up and hear the constant rattle of our rounds hitting the tank and not knowing when a bomb or other heavy gun would finish them off. In summary, strafing a tank could do nothing or it could destroy them, depending on the circumstances."

PlusWave
01-06-2007, 10:48 AM
Nice Info berg http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

And a PzIV (with additional armor plates) could easily be misrecognized as a Tiger from some distance.
Some British and Canadian Tankers reported Tigers although they 'only' faced PzIV with additional armor plates.

I have another (German) source reporting the effect of masses of light hits (MG and light gun calipers 45mm and lighter etc on a Panther.
The tank was hit by many shots per second, reported as 'murderous defensive fire'
The tank retreated although nor vital hits were achieved.

So such a hitting orgy doesn't kill the tank but can do something for a limited time.

WOLFMondo
01-06-2007, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by berg417448:
P-47 pilot Robert V Brulle wrote the book "ANGELS ZERO". In his book, one thing he sought to discover was the actual effect of the 50 caliber strafing upon armored vehicles.

From that book:

"During the war we thought the penetration power of our armor piercing round was sufficient to disable a tank by shooting off the tank tracks. To research this issue and keep the record factual, I contacted several armored vehicle historians and specialists. Their collective views on this issue are summarized below.

The 50 caliber armor piercing round fired from fast moving aircraft does indeed have a high momentum but the German tank armor was very hard and massive and the round only dinged the armor. The most vulnerable area (least armor thickness) is the rear deck engine compartment and the top of the turret. The tracks are extremely hard steel and 50 caliber rounds were shrugged off with little damage. A lucky hit was possible that might cause the tank to throw a track, but if they were on a hard surface they could just keep moving on the road wheels. The Germans in 1944-1945 had three main battle tanks in use. They were the Mark IV which was a medium tank comparable to the American M4 Sherman tank, and two 50 plus-ton heavy tanks, the Mark V Panther and the Mark VI Tiger. The Panther and Tiger tanks completely dominated the M4 Sherman.

The Mark IV had a lightly armored rear deck that could be penetrated by our 50 caliber rounds and set the engine on fire, but the Panther and Tiger were mostly impervious to our strafing. In those tanks the tank crew would button up and hope that we wouldn't call in some aircraft that had bombs since that would finish them. There is a case on record where a Panther tank was strafed by P-47s for an extended time. The massive strafing shot off all the equipment parts carried outside of the tank, and entombed the crew by dinging the hatch lips, essentially welding the hatches closed. If we could catch the tanks while on the road march far from the front line they sometimes carried extra fuel and ammunition strapped to the outside. In those cases strafing could ignite the fuel or ammunition, possibly destroying them. Although we couldn't be sure of damaging or destroying a heavy tank, our strafing was sure to affect the crew psychologically, having to stay cooped up and hear the constant rattle of our rounds hitting the tank and not knowing when a bomb or other heavy gun would finish them off. In summary, strafing a tank could do nothing or it could destroy them, depending on the circumstances."

Thats similar to the RAF's review of rocket attacks. While they could kill a tank and most certainly disable one, they did more damage to moral.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Cheers!!

leeG727
01-06-2007, 02:55 PM
I used to do aircraft battle damage tolerance design. Ignoring the Tiger Tank obfuscation, the M2 was an excellent aircraft weapon. It has good range, good rate of fire and flat trajectory. The armor-piercing cartridge was designed for use against lightly armored vehicles, giving it more than enough power to destroy any WW2 structure capable of flight.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

----------
http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g258/leeG727/IL2/leeG-sig.gif

hening_880Sqn
01-06-2007, 04:29 PM
[/QUOTE]

Not sure if it is bullocks or not after watching a Military Channel show with footage of P-47's strafing Tigers and the pilot commentating on his strategy of aiming just behind the rear of the tank and bouncing rounds off the pavement into the the Tiger tanks belly. The footage even showed an explosion on a Tiger tank after a P-47 strafing run. I tend to believe the men that flew these missions and attacked Tiger tanks in such a manner.[/QUOTE]

They were simple flying a really old version like 1.1 back in 1944 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

BigKahuna_GS
01-11-2007, 11:09 AM
Wolfmondo--One thing someone pointed out recently is the magneto mounting on the R2800....the magic BB might just be hitting that and not the engine itself.


That's interesting. I heard several other possibilities also. So if the magneto is being hit couldnt you just switch magnetos (from A to B) and keep flying ?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://airplanesandmore.com/prodimages/largeSting%20of%20the%20Yellow%20Jackets.jpg
The Yo-Yo is very difficult to explain. It was first perfected by the well-known Chinese fighter pilot Yo-Yo Noritake. He also found it difficult to explain, being quite devoid of English.
? Squadron Leader K. G. Holland, RAF.


It is generally inadvisable to eject directly over the area you just bombed.

? USAF Manual

WB_Outlaw
01-11-2007, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
That's interesting. I heard several other possibilities also. So if the magneto is being hit couldnt you just switch magnetos (from A to B) and keep flying ?

You normally fly with both magnetos on so there would be no need to switch if one mag system fails. I can't say for sure but I believe that dual mags were used as a safety factor in case of a mechancial or electrical failure of one ignition system and not to provide redundacy against battle damage. Such a design criteria could lead to both ignition systems being close together and thus prone to total destruction by a single hit or burst. Redundacy against battle damage design criteria should lead to systems being placed as far apart as possible.

An example of this is the airliner that crashed in Sioux City after a complete loss of hydraulics. The aircraft was equipped with redundant hydraulic systems to protect against mechanical failure of the piping, fittings, and/or pumps. When a major turbine failure in one of the engines sent a large piece of metal through the airframe, it struck and severed the piping of all redundant systems which were running side by side down the fuselage. Conversely, the redundant hydraulic systems of the A-10 are widely spaced and are further backed up by a cable system, which has saved at least one pilot in combat. I can't remember her name but her call sign is "Killer Chick". Google it for a good read.

--Outlaw.

WOLFMondo
01-11-2007, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Wolfmondo--One thing someone pointed out recently is the magneto mounting on the R2800....the magic BB might just be hitting that and not the engine itself.


That's interesting. I heard several other possibilities also. So if the magneto is being hit couldnt you just switch magnetos (from A to B) and keep flying ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It just needs Oleg to confirm if the physical representation of the magnetos and associated hit box are on the R2800 is in this sim. It would explain allot.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Cheers!!

JerryFodder
01-12-2007, 04:58 AM
Originally posted by shahram177:
WOW that thing is so freaking hot!
But don't worry, I could care less, I just got 46 and well now I can care less because now i have JETS BABY JETS! WHOO HOO! Who worries abut CG when you got gets and rockets and other cool things!


Go out and buy Lock On. IL2 is not for you.

Deadmeat313
01-12-2007, 06:59 AM
As for US fighters and T&B:

I thought the term originated as a warning to US pilots? ie "turn and you will burn".


T.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

"I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it." --- Jack Handey

Codger1949
01-12-2007, 07:58 AM
Originally posted by Deadmeat313:
As for US fighters and T&B:

I thought the term originated as a warning to US pilots? ie "turn and you will burn".


T.
Makes sense to me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif I love that sig.

DustyBarrels77
01-12-2007, 11:52 AM
apparantly in this game community you can only request improvements to german ac which are flying excellent in my opinion and best planes in game easily.

If you speak of any usn us or british anything you get 10-20 people calling you names etc.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:M98REgPM-RPbEM:http://www.me-air-company.de/crash_gross/005.jpg

Codger1949
01-12-2007, 08:07 PM
Originally posted by DustyBarrels77:
apparantly in this game community you can only request improvements to german ac which are flying excellent in my opinion and best planes in game easily.

If you speak of any usn us or british anything you get 10-20 people calling you names etc.
Actually, I think the Russian beauties outdo the German lovlies.

I kinda wish the developers would offer, eventually, some interiors of bombers that we all love and admire and perhaps some bombers that are equally magnificent as currently presented, like the Lancaster. Sorry for getting off topic but the question was begged. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif