PDA

View Full Version : What's the deal with the Go-229?



Objektskaya
05-04-2008, 05:41 PM
More properly called the Ho IX, this flying wing seems to be nearly useless in Il-2. I can't get it much past 300 km/h at altitude, and the weirdest thing: it pitches up randomly. I mean really steep pitch-up, to the point that you could easily crash. And there are no warning signs - it just starts pitching up, even though I had it trimmed perfectly a moment before.

I'm particularly baffled by the lack of speed. At 3000-or-so meters, it is slower than several of the prop aircraft.

Why is it so slow, and what's the deal with the random pitch maneuvers?

M_Gunz
05-04-2008, 05:51 PM
You are doing at least one thing wrong, be sure!

When the Go-229 was released as a model, that disk came with tracks showing how to use it.

One way to be slow in it is to start out slow and keep the nose high to hold it up.
The engines it has have very low power at lower speeds but gain power with speed, as real.
You've got to get it up to where you can shallow dive to reach good operating speed then
stay fast or faster than that.

Other than that, check flaps and gear for sure.

Wildnoob
05-04-2008, 05:58 PM
and with the ME-262 ?

it's speed advantage is notable at low and medium altitude, but at high altitude it's like it dissapear.

I can't get speed at high altitude, a P-51 can outrun me in a ME-262 at high altitude.

I'm probably using it on the wrong way, but wish to discovery how.

Objektskaya
05-04-2008, 06:00 PM
Originally posted by Wildnoob:
and with the ME-262 ?

it's speed advantage is notable at low and medium altitude, but at high altitude it's like it dissapear.

I can't get speed at high altitude, a P-51 can outrun me in a ME-262 at high altitude.

I'm probably using it on the wrong way, but wish to discovery how.

Same here. I couldn't get to 10000 m with the Me-262, no way. Its climb ability peters out around 9700 m, and just to stay level there, you're puttering along around 250-300 km/h.

JSG72
05-04-2008, 06:03 PM
You have to use the accelorator very slowly at such altitudes or you can "Flame Out".

A common phenomena with the JU 004b.

Once you get to speed. Dont back off That is the advantage. Do not attempt to dogfight.
In/Shoot/out. Is the way with the bigger '46 jets. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

jadger
05-04-2008, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by Wildnoob:
and with the ME-262 ?

it's speed advantage is notable at low and medium altitude, but at high altitude it's like it dissapear.

I can't get speed at high altitude, a P-51 can outrun me in a ME-262 at high altitude.

I'm probably using it on the wrong way, but wish to discovery how.

ME 262's could evade P51s in a dive. there are reports that the first time the sound barrier was broken was in a ME262 in a dive escaping a 'stang. and the schwalbe is not a turn and burn fighter.

julian265
05-04-2008, 06:13 PM
IL2 jets in general:
Be sure to stay LEVEL a bit after take off to build up speed. Yes they're slow to accelerate, so be patient. Once you get them moving, they're fine, if you don't throw them around too much. Once you have 500+ km/h, you'll be able to use full power without overheating as well.

I haven't flown a 262 right up high (I've heard it's undermodelled up there too), but bear in mind that offline AI fighters get a speed boost. Try fighting an A6M in a F4U offline...

M_Gunz
05-04-2008, 09:17 PM
I haven't spent much time with the IL2 jets, do mixture controls work on them and will
that make any difference? Seems like it should.

M_Gunz
05-04-2008, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by julian265:
but bear in mind that offline AI fighters get a speed boost.

They fly cleaner than we can and they manage the engines exactly but otherwise they have the
same FM code and models we do.

Treetop64
05-04-2008, 09:53 PM
Agreed.

Still too many of us try to "arcade fly" these planes, then complain when the AI outperforms us.

The AI does not have a "Speed Boost" offline. It's that they fly better than most of us, quite frankly.

Check your flying tactics and, particularly, your energy management, even in a TnB machine.

Patriot_Act
05-04-2008, 11:53 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I haven't spent much time with the IL2 jets, do mixture controls work on them and will
that make any difference? Seems like it should.

Mixture control on a Jet?
Man you really don't know poop!
Late Jets have a variety of ways to controll them
such as fuel controls, variable outlets, variable compressor stators
and such.

Jets run in a similar manner to a diesel in the respect that they are allways
on full airflow.
No throttles.

What is controlled is fuel flow and where in the burner can the fuel is injected.

Back then it was only fuel flow for power setting.

In a sense you could say a jet always runs lean...

There is always more air flow than the fuel required.
That's why afterburner can work (Brits call it re-heat).

P.A.

julian265
05-05-2008, 12:22 AM
You don't have mixture controls in the jets.

Manage engines exactly? You mean they can't overheat whilst running at 110% (and boost if applicable) almost full time.

That's a boost. But I still believe they get more advantage than that.

I notice a large difference online vs offline. Take the F4U vs A6M example. After an attack, I like to create a safe distance between me and the A6M before I turn around. It takes much longer offline, whilst my technique does not change.

As for flying cleaner, well, it doesn't take much to get the most speed out something. Rads closed (if possible), full pitch, I use only 100% power in the F4U due to the overheating tendency, and finally, the bit that some pilots never realise: trim for no slip, and hold the stick as still as possible whilst straight and level (if you're going for level speed...). Being at the optimum altitude for speed difference helps too (as I usually am, having looked at IL2 compare before flight). There's not much more to it, that's how I build speed both online and off, and I do notice a difference when flying against the same aircraft. I can't believe that the people I've run away from in the F4U have all been erratic and non-thinking pilots.

I don't "arcade fly", and haven't for some time.

Anyway, those are my observations. I can't be bothered flying for 10 minutes to create a large enough gap between aircraft that should have a max speed difference of around 75km/h at the right altitudes.

julian265
05-05-2008, 01:58 AM
Well, I stand corrected!

I don't like arguing a point without factual backing, so I did a test.

F4UD vs A6M5a, both 100% fuel, default armament. I kept the flight on the deck to avoid the need for speed correction. Icons and externals turned on. I flew straight and level for a while, waiting for the A6M to turn onto me and build up to a steady state speed. I then increased throttle and pitch to 100%, keeping rads closed, and managed 530 km/h. When the A6M was 3 km behind me (as judged from external view, looking backwards) I started timing, and stopped timing when he was 4 km behind, looking from the same perspective (icon range is measured from the current perspective). The time for separation to increase by 1 km was 53 seconds, meaning a speed difference of 68 km/h. This placed the A6M exactly on the 110% speed line as shown in IL2 compare, meaning that there is no level speed advantage given to the AI (other than no overheat). (for this plane at least, but I'm now willing to bet the rest are OK as well).

Any difference between offline and online "extending time" must then be, as Gunz and Treetop have said, due to the piloting of the pursuing plane.

OMK_Hand
05-05-2008, 03:09 AM
Hi.

Taken from 'Pilot's notes on Me 262, By Flug Kapitan Wendel'

Always climb at the optimum speed, never more slowly.

0m altitude speed 475 kph (true)
2,000m 500
4,000m 525
6,000m 550
8,000m 600
10,000m 650

Note: The Me 262 has an altitude compensated ASI and, therefore, the indicated speed is equivalent to the true speed above 400 kph.

From Pilot's operating instructions:

Highest permissible revs are 8,700 rpm, permissible for 15 minutes. They may only be exceeded in climb, combat and at great height.

Maximum continuous cruising at 8,400 rpm.
Economical cruising: 8,000 rpm.

Hope this is relevant.


These jets had comparatively (to prop) high climbing speeds.

The Gothaer Waggonfabrik Ho IX V1 and Ho IX V2 were prototypes. V1 was a glider. V2 had Jumo 004B engines, and flew successfully achieving around 500 mph before one of the engines caught fire (after 2 hours) and the aircraft was destroyed.

What we have here is the production model - Go229 A-1 (or A-0?), who's engines were to be Jumo 004C, giving greater thrust than the 004A and 004B engines in the Me 262's that we have. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

M_Gunz
05-05-2008, 05:14 AM
Originally posted by Patriot_Act:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I haven't spent much time with the IL2 jets, do mixture controls work on them and will
that make any difference? Seems like it should.

Mixture control on a Jet?
Man you really don't know poop! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not true, even about the IL2 jets. I know enough to get them up to speed for instance.
But I WAS on and off busy with friends last night and thinking about what I and they were
doing and saying so what I really missed was:

The difference between IAS and TAS at high alts, DOH!

Beyond that let me REPEAT what you quoted from my post:
<span class="ev_code_RED">I haven't spent much time with the IL2 jets</span>
I claim to be no expert with those.


Late Jets have a variety of ways to controll them
such as fuel controls, variable outlets, variable compressor stators
and such.

Jets run in a similar manner to a diesel in the respect that they are allways
on full airflow.
No throttles.

What is controlled is fuel flow and where in the burner can the fuel is injected.

Back then it was only fuel flow for power setting.

In a sense you could say a jet always runs lean...

There is always more air flow than the fuel required.
That's why afterburner can work (Brits call it re-heat).

P.A.

That's interesting. No throttles you say? Yet <span class="ev_code_GREEN">it was only fuel flow for power setting.</span>
How about the throttles do not control restrictor plates the same as piston engines, instead?

Because we certainly do have throttles modeled with these jets.
Would you like me to make comments on your total knowledge about those?

Funny how with IL2 you push too much fuel in for the state the engine is running and you get
a flameout. The axial flow German jets we have modeled are very tetchy about fuel flow.

I made a guess to try and help someone out. That's all.

DKoor
05-05-2008, 05:28 AM
Originally posted by julian265:
I haven't flown a 262 right up high (I've heard it's undermodelled up there too), but bear in mind that offline AI fighters get a speed boost. Try fighting an A6M in a F4U offline... I have noticed that Ai was able to catch me in a slower plane like - never.

But problem is that they are not affected by an kind of CEM (complex engine management) and have different DM (damage models) than humans.
They can fly:
-at totally wrong prop pitch (for instance when Ai flown, Bf-109 prop can probably achieve speed of light at 100% pp)
-at totally wrong fuel mixture
-at extreme speeds (over 100km/h over plane break-up speed)
...
; and never ruin their engines while doing so.

Another words... Ai flown airplane and human flown airplane only externally look the same otherwise they are two totally different things.

M_Gunz
05-05-2008, 05:40 AM
Originally posted by julian265:
You don't have mixture controls in the jets.

Thank you. I did ask.


Manage engines exactly? You mean they can't overheat whilst running at 110% (and boost if applicable) almost full time.

If you try running your F4U at full power but reduced rpm at high speed, it won't overheat.
You won't get the same speed but you'll go faster than reduced power at full rpms.


I notice a large difference online vs offline. Take the F4U vs A6M example. After an attack, I like to create a safe distance between me and the A6M before I turn around. It takes much longer offline, whilst my technique does not change.

How is the technique of the online players you fly against?


As for flying cleaner, well, it doesn't take much to get the most speed out something. Rads closed (if possible), full pitch, I use only 100% power in the F4U due to the overheating tendency, and finally, the bit that some pilots never realise: trim for no slip, and hold the stick as still as possible whilst straight and level (if you're going for level speed...). Being at the optimum altitude for speed difference helps too (as I usually am, having looked at IL2 compare before flight). There's not much more to it, that's how I build speed both online and off, and I do notice a difference when flying against the same aircraft. I can't believe that the people I've run away from in the F4U have all been erratic and non-thinking pilots.

I have flown with players who always had an edge without cheating. They are just that good
and back then had gear I just did not so they trimmed better not using keys and while I could
eventually get nearly the same speed (unless they throttled back) they were still far ahead
by getting to speed quicker.
Have you ever tried to keep up with WWSandman or WWWringer, just to name two? They don't cheat
unless skill and gear is cheating.

Around late 2002-maybe 2003 I tried a little trick and posted about it then wished to H I hadn't.
I mapped trim to my Logitech throttle and was amazed at how fast I could get up to speed.
My climbs were just amazing. That's the difference between key trim and large-throw slider trim.

After that it was RBJ and the the witch hunters in pursuit. I wish I hadn't posted about that
experiment because maybe the quick and dirty fix would not have been forced.

But I did get a very valuable lesson in how very control-touchy IL2 is.


I don't "arcade fly", and haven't for some time.

Huh?


Anyway, those are my observations. I can't be bothered flying for 10 minutes to create a large enough gap between aircraft that should have a max speed difference of around 75km/h at the right altitudes.

Something like that should come right out in a shallow dive depending on comparative start
speeds. Are you also jinking while doing this?

Still all in all I think it is a bad point that the AI's don't fly as poorly as their level.

julian265
05-05-2008, 07:04 AM
DKoor - I didn't say that they'd catch me. Please read my previous post...

Gunz - Please also read my last post.

BTW I use knobs for rudder and elevator trim, with 1024 increments.

"arcade fly" was a response to Treetop.

I've not flown on the same server as the WW's mentioned.

If I'm extending, I'm definitely not jinking!

My opinion earlier was that the AI's speed was boosted, leading to longer times needed to extend, whilst in a faster fighter. In my previous post I concluded that you must be right, the difference I've noticed must have been due to the pursuing online pilots (and the fact that they've got to maneuver to check the blind spots).

DKoor
05-05-2008, 07:10 AM
Julian I saw you have corrected some of your views about Ai...

However, I never ever saw something that would lead me to conclude that Ai has a speed boost of any kind.

Speed boost in a way that their planes are actually faster than they would be when human flown. They have some other neat "features".
My post was merely an intention to bring up some facts about Ai and how Ai really 'exploits' some things that are unavailable to humans and thus making an illusion how they are actually faster.

That's all regarding that...

DKoor
05-05-2008, 07:11 AM
BTW Objektskaya check out teh Daiichidoku or Doghouse when at Hyperlobby those guys can really drive that Go-229.

Pirschjaeger
05-05-2008, 01:55 PM
To the OP, follow what Gunz said. I'm guessing the jets work a bit like ramjets at higher speeds. Once you get the Go-229 moving, it's really fast and fun to fly. It also turns on a dime so watch you don't black out.

Fritz

M_Gunz
05-05-2008, 02:30 PM
Originally posted by julian265:
Gunz - Please also read my last post.

Sorry, I missed that while replying to another then your one before last.
Honestly, while Olegish is not easy to fully understand I do not believe he ever lies to us
thus same code as he says means same code!


BTW I use knobs for rudder and elevator trim, with 1024 increments.

While AI trims with high precision floating point!


I've not flown on the same server as the WW's mentioned.

Those guys can be scary.


If I'm extending, I'm definitely not jinking!

Just checking. It's not good to fly fully straight and level even 1.5km from cannon though.


My opinion earlier was that the AI's speed was boosted, leading to longer times needed to extend, whilst in a faster fighter. In my previous post I concluded that you must be right, the difference I've noticed must have been due to the pursuing online pilots (and the fact that they've got to maneuver to check the blind spots).

I think that an AI that rounded all flight controls to different decimal places by AI level
for example would be better than all always flying exactly right. So the rookie would be
less accurate than the veteran and never fly to the edge of maneuver or sometimes fly a bit
past the edge and bleed speed or even spin out just due to exact control position being rounded
up or down, a pretty simple operation. Of course that would also affect gunnery even of
flexible gunners to be spot-on + or - rounding of some place decimals according to AI level.

M_Gunz
05-05-2008, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
To the OP, follow what Gunz said. I'm guessing the jets work a bit like ramjets at higher speeds. Once you get the Go-229 moving, it's really fast and fun to fly. It also turns on a dime so watch you don't black out.

Fritz

All jets I know of have a power curve that increases with speed to some point before falling.
Compare to props that have most power at low speed and decrease power with more speed.

The simplified prop power curve is a line that goes from high at zero speed to zero at some
speed. Then they add drag and we get the excess power curves often shown. With a jet that
curve has a very different shape than a prop though both have zero excess at full speed.

It's the induced drag that kills these jets so badly at low speed. A shallow dive can eliminate
most or all of that.

With jets the best climb speed is very high simply because the jet develops more excess power
closer to top speed, the opposite of props.

ADD: IIRC it's more a matter of jet rpms, even modern at least non-military jets don't begin
to develop real power until after 90% rpms measured by pressure ratio front of engine to back.
That's a rough statement though and of course there's situations where it's not totally accurate.
Anyone don't like it they can sue me.

Daiichidoku
05-05-2008, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
ADD: IIRC it's more a matter of jet rpms, even modern at least non-military jets don't begin
to develop real power until after 90% rpms measured by pressure ratio front of engine to back.
That's a rough statement though and of course there's situations where it's not totally accurate.
Anyone don't like it they can sue me.

not disagreeing, or going to litigation, but of note is Steinhoff saying most 262 pilots (in JV44)who knew better would friction lock throttles to 80% for flight's duration

Treetop64
05-05-2008, 04:16 PM
@ Julian:

I definitely had the same fustrations about the AI for several years, and it was almost enough for me to decide to not play the game anymore. But I stuck with it.

Eventually I've gotten good enough flying - for example, the Bf-109 series - that in the eastern front campaigns I still maintain the initiative in dogfights against the AI, even with engine overheat set to "on". It simply took time to discover the aircraft's performance "sweet spots". Especially in the Bf109-G10 I can outrun anything, and despite the 109's reluctance to handle at very high speeds I can still pick the fight when I'm ready, and leave when when the tide turns against me.

ElAurens
05-05-2008, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by jadger:
there are reports that the first time the sound barrier was broken was in a ME262 in a dive

Not this nonsense again.

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

No Me262 ever broke the sound barrier, period.

As to flying jets in our little sim, the key is to get above 500kph, and stay above 500kph.

VW-IceFire
05-05-2008, 05:44 PM
Its just slow acceleration. Once you get a jet up to speed its quite alright and will stay fast without loosing the speed...the Go-229 is probably the worst of the bunch for that...but its really quite capable once at speed and is actually fairly agile.

I think the mistake with the jets is to take off and start climbing immediately. I'd do a very shallow climb, level off, build some speed, and then start your climb. That should help a bit but make sure you gain some speed first.

As for the sudden pitch up...never happened to me. Do you have a track file?

Also I have to agree with ElAurens about the Me-262 supersonic myth. Its a common one that has been thoroughly debunked.

coolinoz
05-05-2008, 06:32 PM
It turns like a dog with a no - scratch collar.

Patriot_Act
05-05-2008, 06:51 PM
Ok Max Gunz.
I'll be nice.
Variable inlets, stator blades and outlets were the stuff of the future in 1944.
That's the closest thing to a throttle a jet has/had.

Diesels rarely have a throttle on the intake side.
Some have an exhaust brake for better stopping distance
when down shifting.
Some also have an emergency shutoff that shuts off air
to stop a run away engine, usualy used on boats.

Diesels and jets are largely controled by fuel flow alone.

Some later jet/gas turbine engine designs have multiple injector locations
in the combustion cans.
And...some have re-heat (after burner).

The reason for sudden fuel control (throttle) movement
flaming out an engine is the air flow and RPM and
different air speeds.
To much fuel to slow and the fire goes out, kind
of like a rich bog in a gasoline piston engine.
Suddenly backing off at high engine speeds is similar to a lean out.
same effect, lights out.

Even a modern jet engine/gas turbine
has a "scheduled throttle movement" to avoid flameout.
Computer controlls have eliminated this in some newer aircraft.

It takes around 12 seconds for a J-79 in a F-4 Phantom
to be advanced to full afterburner from ground idle.

Somw early post war engines used a clock work to delay
the fuel control.

I giggle when I think of a gas turbine/jet with a huge throttle plate......


P.A.

vanir
05-05-2008, 07:46 PM
Just to reiterate for the original poster, the early turbojets took a bit of time to accelerate to speed, this is historical. Due to the low power of early turbojets often multiple engines were fitted, and these should be regarded as heavy fighters requiring energy tactics be used.

The distinct advantage prop driven aircraft have is slow speed handling and acceleration. So a jet can't dogfight them. Fast manoeuvres must always be used, relying upon high speed acceleration to escape extended close combat and dwindling airspeeds.

When combating jets prop fighters will use fast dives to get up to speed and try to goad you into a turning fight. The trick is in keeping your contact speed high enough in the first place to outclimb them, then you'll command the combat. Jets take boom and zooming to a new level.

M_Gunz
05-05-2008, 08:01 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
ADD: IIRC it's more a matter of jet rpms, even modern at least non-military jets don't begin
to develop real power until after 90% rpms measured by pressure ratio front of engine to back.
That's a rough statement though and of course there's situations where it's not totally accurate.
Anyone don't like it they can sue me.

not disagreeing, or going to litigation, but of note is Steinhoff saying most 262 pilots (in JV44)who knew better would friction lock throttles to 80% for flight's duration </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 90+% I speak of is more modern jets by far, notably corporate jets of the 80's.
Also note that in those the rpm can be run up to 110%. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
100% is a relative value.

90/110 = 81.818181....

Those were also high-bypass engines, more air goes around the burn cans than through before
mixing with the hot and expanding hugely.

M_Gunz
05-05-2008, 08:14 PM
Originally posted by Patriot_Act:
I giggle when I think of a gas turbine/jet with a huge throttle plate......

You giggle without me, I never envisioned a throttle plate on these jets.

I did figure that the throttle is linked to fuel flow but not knowing what kind of black box,
ala kommandogerat, they had and not even trying to look I did ask a possibility.

They don't have a mixture control or if there is, it is the throttle levers and control system.

I also got to learn in this thread that the 262 ASI gives calculated TAS but dunno if the
Horton also has that. If not then the original poster may be reading true IAS which at 10km
alt is going to be a small number regardless of him being in a Horton or a P-51.

But the P-51 faster? Uhhhhhhhhhhhh?

You have me on jets there, I haven't had my head inside of jets since about 1989 when I was
writing systems training aps as a Flight Safety vendor. I've got a G-III manual somewhere
here, my Lear 35 and Cessna Citation books got 'borrowed' permanently.

M_Gunz
05-05-2008, 08:27 PM
Originally posted by vanir:
Just to reiterate for the original poster, the early turbojets took a bit of time to accelerate to speed, this is historical. Due to the low power of early turbojets often multiple engines were fitted, and these should be regarded as heavy fighters requiring energy tactics be used.

The distinct advantage prop driven aircraft have is slow speed handling and acceleration. So a jet can't dogfight them. Fast manoeuvres must always be used, relying upon high speed acceleration to escape extended close combat and dwindling airspeeds.

When combating jets prop fighters will use fast dives to get up to speed and try to goad you into a turning fight. The trick is in keeping your contact speed high enough in the first place to outclimb them, then you'll command the combat. Jets take boom and zooming to a new level.

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

Add to that that these jets have higher stall speed than most all of the props, they can't
turn as hard at the same speed.
EDIT: I am partly wrong. At more than corner speed both will turn the same at same G's.

From reading on the aerodynamics of swept wings is more. Sweep in the wing does increase
the critical mach but at a cost in L/D. The swept wing at same loading will stall at higher
speed and bleed more as well. That's bad news when trying to turn with straight wing plane.

It probably explains much of the P-80 turn as well.

How prop best beats jet. Prop loiters in vicinity of jet landing strip and attacks the jet
on landing approach. Jet is not able to crank on the speed anywhere fast enough to escape
and can't maneuver hardly better than the Space Shuttle. How many 262's were lost that way?

OMK_Hand
05-06-2008, 01:26 PM
It's interesting to note that the throttle/fire thing only happens with rapid throttle movements when the engine is running at below 6000 rpm. Above 6000 rpm, you can be as rough as you like.

The Ta 183, Lagg3 RD, Mig 9, and Yak 15 are (I think) all fine with rough handling at low rpm, whilst the YP 80 is ultra sensitive at all times.
That one will flame out at the slightest hint of excitement...

Phil_K
05-06-2008, 01:56 PM
Go-229 is fine as long as you set your joystick curves with a maximum of 10 on each axis.

Basically any useful manoeuvre whatsoever will bleed off speed so as to render it practically useless. I think it's pretty much unusable against AI as they always know you're coming.

It's probably quite good against human players who fly in dead straight lines and never look behind them. Oh, and heavy bombers...

Daiichidoku
05-06-2008, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by Phil_K:
Go-229 is fine as long as you set your joystick curves with a maximum of 10 on each axis.

Basically any useful manoeuvre whatsoever will bleed off speed so as to render it practically useless. I think it's pretty much unusable against AI as they always know you're coming.

It's probably quite good against human players who fly in dead straight lines and never look behind them. Oh, and heavy bombers...


dont bother with stick settings, proper trim keeps Goth right, one trim for under 600, one for over....

Goth can turn tighter than ANY monoplane, excluding oscar/zero/nate/claude, it even outtuns and outpaces the Me 163

Just gotta know when and where to use it's atonishing manuverability, or keep the coal on

ultra-thin profile makes a hard tgt, and neg G manuvers are VERY difficult to follow, let alone track, given Goth's thin profile and symetrical planform...does a sweet outside loop too!

anyone vs a Goth should be THANKFUL Oleg nerfed its airbrake so many many patches ago http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

oh, and that it didnt get it intended 4x mk 103 loadout http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif



total rip-off that for '46 we werent given an extra variant of the Goth, at least, with the upgraded jet engines from '46

Aaron_GT
05-06-2008, 06:14 PM
I'm guessing the jets work a bit like ramjets at higher speeds.

Ramjets rely purely on ram to get the operating pressure. Non ramjets rely on the compressor, but the ram effect can mean less work for the compressor to do.

What is critical for both is to get the speed of the air down enough to be able to burn the fuel before it's out the back of the engine. Intakes narrow the flow to do this. There may then be a widening to then bring the pressure back down again - a bottleneck.

Ramjets have a long heritage, proposed for the Spitfire in 1940 then tested in the radiator housing of a Mustang I a few years later.

There are a whole range of jet engine variations, e.g. pcb, etc.

Aaron_GT
05-06-2008, 06:23 PM
It's interesting to note that the throttle/fire thing only happens with rapid throttle movements when the engine is running at below 6000 rpm. Above 6000 rpm, you can be as rough as you like.

Reading about Whittles early experiences his early engines seemed very touchy in the 8000 rpm range (runaways, big shhets of flame, flameouts, so it might be something endemic to early jet engines, compression ratios, burner designs etc.

VW-IceFire
05-06-2008, 06:33 PM
Originally posted by OMK_Hand:
It's interesting to note that the throttle/fire thing only happens with rapid throttle movements when the engine is running at below 6000 rpm. Above 6000 rpm, you can be as rough as you like.

The Ta 183, Lagg3 RD, Mig 9, and Yak 15 are (I think) all fine with rough handling at low rpm, whilst the YP 80 is ultra sensitive at all times.
That one will flame out at the slightest hint of excitement...
The nice thing about the YP-80 is that most of the time throttle mishandling just ends with the engine stalling and the pilot hoping for enough altitude/airspeed to get the thing restarted (I've managed to restart 3 times in a single flight - more than that I'm not sure if it will do) rather than the Me-262s instant fireball engines when you mishandle it. Tradeoffs I guess http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Don't get me wrong, you can still flame a YP-80 out...its just a bit harder and a little more forgiving.

mortoma
05-06-2008, 07:09 PM
Part of the problem is the poor high altitude modeling in IL2. It's bad for prop planes too but it really kills the jets above 4 or 5 thousand meters.

OMK_Hand
05-06-2008, 07:11 PM
"The nice thing about the YP-80 is that most of the time throttle mishandling just ends with the engine stalling and the pilot hoping for enough altitude/airspeed to get the thing restarted (I've managed to restart 3 times in a single flight - more than that I'm not sure if it will do) rather than the Me-262s instant fireball engines when you mishandle it. Tradeoffs I guess http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Don't get me wrong, you can still flame a YP-80 out...its just a bit harder and a little more forgiving."

Yes, I meant 'flame-out' as in 'stop' as oppose to 'burst into flames'.
It's all rather confusing...

3 times in one flight?
Let's see... first time is happenstance, second time is coincidence, third is... Enemy action!
They're not just using bullets, they're trying to confuse us to death...