PDA

View Full Version : Any word on the Mossie or Tempest?



Airmail109
09-29-2005, 04:30 AM
Any word on the Mossie or Tempest?

Also is the MKXIV still being worked on?

Im really looking forward to strike missions in the mossie? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Airmail109
09-29-2005, 04:30 AM
Any word on the Mossie or Tempest?

Also is the MKXIV still being worked on?

Im really looking forward to strike missions in the mossie? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

WOLFMondo
09-29-2005, 05:07 AM
Oleg mentioned both in his'future of this sim' thread.

No word on the XIV though. It was never mentioned by Oleg, all we saw where some WiP shots from the builder. I don't think it will ever feature in FB/PF. Shame but I'd rather have seen the Typhoon.

blairgowrie
09-29-2005, 05:34 AM
I can't figure out why Oleg doesn't seem to want to make extra money. I think most of us (well me anyway) would gladly pay for additional aircraft. There is such a glaring hole in the game without some of late war allied aircraft.

Having said that, I am most grateful we have what we do.

WOLFMondo
09-29-2005, 05:38 AM
Late war? Mossie and Tiffy are both early war designs, implemented mid war, improved and competative in the late war.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

danjama
09-29-2005, 05:40 AM
Airmail fishing? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Just kidding. i would love to see a MkXIV Spit. Tempest and mossie, i dont see what all the hype is about. Well, maybe mossie, thats nice! And if Tempest, then why not the typhoon too.

MEGILE
09-29-2005, 05:45 AM
Oleg could make a patch with bug fixes and new skins, and people would still pay $30 for it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WTE_Ibis
09-29-2005, 06:51 AM
I would pay $30 for some bloody news on the patch.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif and $50 for a clutch of late war british planes.
Having spent thousands on a rig whats a few more duckets? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

.

MEGILE
09-29-2005, 06:53 AM
Ibis, transfer the cash into my account, and I will make something up for you.

WTE_Ibis
09-29-2005, 06:57 AM
Rgr m8 10,000 duckets transfering as we speak.
I expect plane package ASAP.

WTE_Ibis
09-29-2005, 07:00 AM
You know you can only buy buckets with duckets http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

MEGILE
09-29-2005, 07:11 AM
Good deal.
I have a few leaks

Old_Canuck
09-29-2005, 12:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by blairgowrie:
I can't figure out why Oleg doesn't seem to want to make extra money. I think most of us (well me anyway) would gladly pay for additional aircraft. There is such a glaring hole in the game without some of late war allied aircraft.

Having said that, I am most grateful we have what we do. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He's probably decided to get more of his resources working towards the new BoB engine which makes sense. But even in its unfinished state (in terms of Pacific Theatre) the IL2 series is an awesome simulator and I agree with you blairgowrie -- I'm grateful for what we have.

Ankanor
09-29-2005, 01:07 PM
I believe the word you are looking for is "fortnight" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

GoToAway
09-29-2005, 02:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by blairgowrie:
I can't figure out why Oleg doesn't seem to want to make extra money. I think most of us (well me anyway) would gladly pay for additional aircraft. There is such a glaring hole in the game without some of late war allied aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>It isn't Oleg's call. I'm sure that if it were up to Oleg, he'd put one or two guys on new aircraft full time and maybe release an aircraft expansion every year or so. It'd be a good way to keep the fans happy and revenue coming in.

The problem is that Ubi owns the distribution rights for the Il-2 series outside of Russia, and according to what has been said, they refuse to even publish the Il-10/Pe-2/etc. expansions.

Oleg can't release anything outside of Russia if Ubi refuses to publish it or refuses to allow an alternative method of publishing.

Aaron_GT
09-29-2005, 03:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No word on the XIV though. It was never mentioned by Oleg, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Someone mentioned that the model was left unfinished or something. Not sure if it was Oleg that mentioned this or someone else.

snafu73
09-29-2005, 04:02 PM
If I remember correctly Oleg said that the XIV project fizzled out, with the model missing the 3rd party submition date. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Real shame, we could have had the XIV splatting stuff up high and the Tempest chewing stuff up down low.

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

Maybe, just maybe if it's a case of modifying the VIII model and 3rd party stuff is still being accepted somebody else could take it on?

VW-IceFire
09-29-2005, 04:44 PM
To my knowledge...the Spitfire XIV external model was submitted to Oleg on time, before the due date, with approval. The model itself was a modification of the Mark VIII model (also by the same modeler) which was both the logical move in terms of 3D design as well as historically (the first XIVs were Mark VIII modifications).

I was able to, thanks to another Spitfire modeler, dig up details on the GGS Mark IIC gyroscopic gunsight. This is the gunsight that the U.S. copied for the K-14 which we have in the P-51D-20 and YP-80. Identical in operation but slightly different in visual appearance.

Unfortunately several things happened. Firstly, communication broke down and people stopped responding to my e-mails. Second, the cockpit modeler (in part with number 1) didn't get back to us until very late in the process that the cockpit could not be finished. This unfortunate turn of events saw the external modeler start on the cockpit.

I don't know if it was ever finished and I can't find out because nobody ever returned any more e-mails. Maybe I got too annoying...I don't know. Was a shame. My Closterman campaign will certainly miss not having the No.41 Squadron Spitfire XIV's flying about nearby...

Fortunately, I think its a pretty good bet that we'll see the Tempest V in 4.03 or whatever they call it (not the one thats due soon). The Mosqutio I hope as well.

Grey_Mouser67
09-29-2005, 04:56 PM
Were there any Mk XIV's produced with standard Mk VIII gunsights?

As far as the date is concerned...there are teams of people working on stuff for the game for well into the future...in fact, all the hub bub about the new Burma map is begging for a Mk XIV. I daresay that the Mk XIV is the second most sought after fighter that had a chance to make it right behind the Tempest...Oleg would be missing the point if he decided not to include it because of a date...its not like all the work has ceased on the game!

What will it take to reorganize a cockpit modelling effort? If we could accomplish that, maybe Oleg would be willing to accept one exception...especially for such a popular aircraft and one that would level the late war playing field considerably.

VW-IceFire
09-29-2005, 08:34 PM
I'm not sure on the gunsight issue. Its my understanding that the vast majority were fitted with the gyro gunsights (a significant number of Mark IXs and VIIIs were also).

There was a small number of things to be changed on the cockpit. But basically the vast majority of work is done already with the VIII. I didn't see all of the cockpit changes...I just know they were mostly guages moved a bit and an extra thing here and there. Mostly the same structure.

WOLFMondo
09-30-2005, 12:37 AM
I think the only major change to the XIV cockpit was the placement of the throttle. They moved it back some.

Airmail109
09-30-2005, 09:53 AM
Danjama the tempest will be the answer to my nightmares (190ds)....the tempest was the fastest allied fighter on the deck/low alt....she should be as fast if not faster than the MKIII (correct me if im wrong) down low....she'll have a bubble canopy so she'll have better visibilty than the MKIII and she'll have 4 20mms....which will sure as hell be better than 4 .50s!

And the mossie....well thatlly be the ultimate vulching machine methinks! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

wayno7777
09-30-2005, 09:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
Good deal.
I have a few leaks </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Understatment of the year! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Just funnin' http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Airmail109
09-30-2005, 10:02 AM
Oh Danjama....the Typhoon was considerably different from the Tempest. They may look similar but the airframes different, the canopys diferent and the wings are totally different! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

wayno7777
09-30-2005, 10:06 AM
The Tempest was stable and forgiving compared to the Typhoon....

MEGILE
09-30-2005, 10:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
she should be as fast if not faster than the MKIII (correct me if im wrong) down low... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're wrong. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
At sea level nothing will come close to the ingame Mustang III with the performance it currently has. No Tempest or D9 late.
The estimates for the Tempest V are nice, but actual data shows them to struggle against the Mustang III, with only a slight lead at certain altitudes.

At around 5,000FT a Tempest could be faster if it is modelled with a high boost.

blairgowrie
09-30-2005, 10:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GoToAway:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by blairgowrie:
I can't figure out why Oleg doesn't seem to want to make extra money. I think most of us (well me anyway) would gladly pay for additional aircraft. There is such a glaring hole in the game without some of late war allied aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>It isn't Oleg's call. I'm sure that if it were up to Oleg, he'd put one or two guys on new aircraft full time and maybe release an aircraft expansion every year or so. It'd be a good way to keep the fans happy and revenue coming in.

The problem is that Ubi owns the distribution rights for the Il-2 series outside of Russia, and according to what has been said, they refuse to even publish the Il-10/Pe-2/etc. expansions.

Oleg can't release anything outside of Russia if Ubi refuses to publish it or refuses to allow an alternative method of publishing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I should have remembered that. It explains why the new aircraft have been slow in coming into the game. I was just day dreaming I guess. Thanks for the clarification.

Tooz_69GIAP
09-30-2005, 10:13 AM
Just finished reading the Big Show, and I'm pretty fired up about flying a Tempest now!! Roll on 4.03!!

WOLFMondo
09-30-2005, 10:13 AM
Really depends on the series and the engine. A IIC powered version will probably be faster all the way to 20,000+. If its a IIA or IIB powered version it will probably be very marginally slower on the deck, faster between 3000-6000ft and again around 17-18,000ft. Theres a chart kicking about somewhere, can't remember the specifics but its a series I, the model is a series II.

Not sure what the Mustang MKIII's weight is but the Tempest is 9,000lbs empty, 14,000lbs fully loaded with drop tanks. Pretty similar to the P51D but the Sabre IIA even in the series 1 is pumping out over 400HP more.

Only Oleg really knows but there is one bug with the Tempest. It only has 1 flap setting, the one in FB has 3.

MEGILE
09-30-2005, 10:18 AM
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14+25lbs.jpg

The spitfire performance is an estimate, as is also the Tempest.

The figures are interesting though.
Hawker, using a Tempest V IIa Series 2 @ +12 boost only got 394MPH at sea level.
RAE using a Tempest V IIa Series 1 @ +10.5 boost got 393 MPH at sea level, further estimating 398 MPH at +11 boost and then 404 MPH with a fresh coat of paint. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

skabbe
09-30-2005, 11:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
she should be as fast if not faster than the MKIII (correct me if im wrong) down low... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're wrong. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
At sea level nothing will come close to the ingame Mustang III with the performance it currently has. No Tempest or D9 late.
The estimates for the Tempest V are nice, but actual data shows them to struggle against the Mustang III, with only a slight lead at certain altitudes.

At around 5,000FT a Tempest could be faster if it is modelled with a high boost. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Kill me if im wrong but the P51 got smaller propeller then The Tempest? this means that it will have a higher topspeed but a slower acceleration, this i know. Its like fat tires on a car, faster acceleration but lower topspeed. So what do you want 4 mph extra topspeed or to get there in a lifetime? The planes are so diffirent but the Tempest should have a faster acceleration, and thats all i want...

Aaron_GT
09-30-2005, 03:01 PM
Megile - WOLFMondo is correct. The Sabre IIC was a rather more powerful engine, putting out an extra 220 hp at +11 boost (the hp ratings are a bit confusing as some list the IIC at a lower rating that 2420, but that represents running at a lower boost than +11 AFAIK), but also capable of being tweaked to run at higher rpms than 3700. Closterman reports it being run at 4000 for fairly long periods. It improved the performance over the 'standard' +25 Mustang III. Preened and polished Mustang IIIs could still beat the Tempest, though.

In the game,though, I think we have a VERY conservative +9 boost modelled, I hope this gets changed to +11 when we get the cockpit. Ideally an upgrade to the Sabre IIC versions would be even nicer. We need to lose the rockets off it though. It was cleared for them but they were not used operationally.

Aaron_GT
09-30-2005, 03:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The planes are so diffirent but the Tempest should have a faster acceleration, and thats all i want... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It should certainly accelerate well in a dive, outstripping the P51 and P47 according to RAF tests at least, although apparently the Meteor beat all comers in RAF service.

MEGILE
09-30-2005, 03:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Megile - WOLFMondo is correct. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never said he wasn't http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif
I'm just saying that the version with the IIa running at +9 boost will be significantly slower than the Mustang III on the deck.. and as far as I'm aware, the +9 boost version is the one we have in game.
Or atleast the speed of the Tempest would seem to be running at +9 boost... Oleg hasn't included the Tempest in the object viewer so as of yet we have no idea what engine and what boost oleg is planning to model.

If the flyable version stays as it is, then the Tempest is really going to be mediocre in terms of top speed. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif
A IIb engine running at +11 lbs @ 3,850 would be nice.. or even +13 boost... but I don't have any references for what exact boosts were the most commonly used.

Aaron_GT
09-30-2005, 05:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'm just saying that the version with the IIa running at +9 boost will be significantly slower than the Mustang III on the deck.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very true. Even the IIA was capable of +11, so why we only have +9 in the game at present I don't know. It's a bit unrepresentative of typical Tempest V boosts. Oleg's been emailed about it, so I have my fingers crossed for +11 when we get the cockpit.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> or even +13 boost... but I don't have any references for what exact boosts were the most commonly used. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

AFAIK officially it was +11. Eric Brown certainly had problems with early tests with +13 due to the additives, but managed to get over 400mph at sea level with it. I don't know if you could get the Closterman-level 4000 rpm without being at more than +11 boost.

MEGILE
09-30-2005, 05:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Even the IIA was capable of +11, so why we only have +9 in the game at present I don't know. It's a bit unrepresentative of typical Tempest V boosts. Oleg's been emailed about it, so I have my fingers crossed for +11 when we get the cockpit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed. Well, aslong as all the relevant information has been sent to Oleg that is what counts... we will have to wait patiently to see what he deicides. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I hope he makes the right choice http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

WOLFMondo
09-30-2005, 07:53 PM
AFAIK the Tempest, even the series I always ran at 11lbs boost with 150 grade fuel. Just watch the Tempest DVD released by the RAF for evidence. An engine fitter from 1944 refers to and said he ran them at that.

A Series 1, of which 100 where built is representative of the version chasing V1's. The series II with the IIB and IIC where the versions which saw action in late 44 and 1945 (even the paint job on the model is questionable given its a series II which disposed of most of the invasion markings bar 1 or 4 stripes on the tail unit). This is also the model we have. They just didn't run at 9lbs. Those engines where pushed to there absolute limits. Theres also the aerodynamic advantage over the series I, with its clean leading edge wings.

Aaron_GT, Closterman refers to overboosting, 11lbs boost was just plain old combat rating so which is probably around 2400HP as said. Breaking the metal thread sent it to overboost which he claims on a IIC was 2995HP. The IIB which was the most common engine was only marginally weaker in HP than that at standard maximum power by 80HP. The overboosting is the information that is hard to come by.

A trip to RAF Hendon is needed me thinks I understand they keep many RAF records there. A 9lbs boosted Tempest would be criminal and not representative of any Tempest V that ever saw combat period.

Megile, judging by what we have now, as the AI, isn't even 9lbs boost. It appear to be some 0.1ltr lawn mower engine, not a 2000lbs 36ltr 24 cylinder (at a minimum) 2180HP Sabra IIa pulling a 9000lb plane along. Hell, they even got the flap settings wrong! The Tempest has 2 settings only! Up or Downm (according to Hawkers own take off prepration film and hydraulics film). External undercarrage indicators also don't work (in reference to there Tempest landing reference film).

I fear we will get some castrated lump of a plane based on some dodgy russian data, not that the USSR even got to evaluate any Tempest V.

I'm starting to sound pessamistic.

RiesenSchnauzer
09-30-2005, 11:30 PM
I am almost positive that in Oleg's last update thread he said the mkXIV will not be in the sim.

Aaron_GT
10-01-2005, 01:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Aaron_GT, Closterman refers to overboosting, 11lbs boost was just plain old combat rating so which is probably around 2400HP as said. Breaking the metal thread sent it to overboost which he claims on a IIC was 2995HP. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I haven't seen any other verification on that, though. Saying this Napier was capable of producing some extremely powerful engines, over 5000hp. Pingu might have the information in his book. Eric Brown had problems with +13 boost, which is why I wonder how much power could be wrung out of the IIC with more rpm and whether it was as high as 3000hp. It might be absolutely true, though, in which case it would be a monster engine in a monster plane with monster performance to go with it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">A trip to RAF Hendon is needed me thinks I understand they keep many RAF records there. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sounds like a good plan. Is Napier still a going concern?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">A 9lbs boosted Tempest would be criminal and not representative of any Tempest V that ever saw combat period. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

With +9 boost and rockets we'd have more of a 1943 era Typhoon than anything else.

MEGILE
10-01-2005, 02:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
It appear to be some 0.1ltr lawn mower engine,

I'm starting to sound pessamistic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

skabbe
10-01-2005, 05:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
AFAIK the Tempest, even the series I always ran at 11lbs boost with 150 grade fuel. Just watch the Tempest DVD released by the RAF for evidence. An engine fitter from 1944 refers to and said he ran them at that.

A Series 1, of which 100 where built is representative of the version chasing V1's. The series II with the IIB and IIC where the versions which saw action in late 44 and 1945 (even the paint job on the model is questionable given its a series II which disposed of most of the invasion markings bar 1 or 4 stripes on the tail unit). This is also the model we have. They just didn't run at 9lbs. Those engines where pushed to there absolute limits. Theres also the aerodynamic advantage over the series I, with its clean leading edge wings.

Aaron_GT, Closterman refers to overboosting, 11lbs boost was just plain old combat rating so which is probably around 2400HP as said. Breaking the metal thread sent it to overboost which he claims on a IIC was 2995HP. The IIB which was the most common engine was only marginally weaker in HP than that at standard maximum power by 80HP. The overboosting is the information that is hard to come by.

A trip to RAF Hendon is needed me thinks I understand they keep many RAF records there. A 9lbs boosted Tempest would be criminal and not representative of any Tempest V that ever saw combat period.

Megile, judging by what we have now, as the AI, isn't even 9lbs boost. It appear to be some 0.1ltr lawn mower engine, not a 2000lbs 36ltr 24 cylinder (at a minimum) 2180HP Sabra IIa pulling a 9000lb plane along. Hell, they even got the flap settings wrong! The Tempest has 2 settings only! Up or Downm (according to Hawkers own take off prepration film and hydraulics film). External undercarrage indicators also don't work (in reference to there Tempest landing reference film).

I fear we will get some castrated lump of a plane based on some dodgy russian data, not that the USSR even got to evaluate any Tempest V.

I'm starting to sound pessamistic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

thanks, that was some really good info http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

stathem
10-01-2005, 11:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:

Sounds like a good plan. Is Napier still a going concern?

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm pretty sure they're not, but Ricardo (started by Henry? Ricardo) who were heavily involved with the invention of the sleeve valve and Napier, are a major player in the automotive sector, behind the scenes as component design/consultants. (bit like Delphi)

stathem
10-01-2005, 12:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
AFAIK the Tempest, even the series I always ran at 11lbs boost with 150 grade fuel. Just watch the Tempest DVD released by the RAF for evidence. An engine fitter from 1944 refers to and said he ran them at that.

A Series 1, of which 100 where built is representative of the version chasing V1's. The series II with the IIB and IIC where the versions which saw action in late 44 and 1945 (even the paint job on the model is questionable given its a series II which disposed of most of the invasion markings bar 1 or 4 stripes on the tail unit). This is also the model we have. They just didn't run at 9lbs. Those engines where pushed to there absolute limits. Theres also the aerodynamic advantage over the series I, with its clean leading edge wings.

Aaron_GT, Closterman refers to overboosting, 11lbs boost was just plain old combat rating so which is probably around 2400HP as said. Breaking the metal thread sent it to overboost which he claims on a IIC was 2995HP. The IIB which was the most common engine was only marginally weaker in HP than that at standard maximum power by 80HP. The overboosting is the information that is hard to come by.

A trip to RAF Hendon is needed me thinks I understand they keep many RAF records there. A 9lbs boosted Tempest would be criminal and not representative of any Tempest V that ever saw combat period.

Megile, judging by what we have now, as the AI, isn't even 9lbs boost. It appear to be some 0.1ltr lawn mower engine, not a 2000lbs 36ltr 24 cylinder (at a minimum) 2180HP Sabra IIa pulling a 9000lb plane along. Hell, they even got the flap settings wrong! The Tempest has 2 settings only! Up or Downm (according to Hawkers own take off prepration film and hydraulics film). External undercarrage indicators also don't work (in reference to there Tempest landing reference film).

I fear we will get some castrated lump of a plane based on some dodgy russian data, not that the USSR even got to evaluate any Tempest V.

I'm starting to sound pessamistic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's because currently it's just an onanistic fantasy for the offline heros of teh Luftwaffe.

Seriously though, how does Oleg solve the gun issue? He said "there is no time to do new weapons", but the Series II needs them (diff. MV and RoF). If he models it as a series I, then the Hispanos will be correct but it won't match the 3D model.

I think we'd all prefer to have Series II performance and 'put up' with Mk2 Hispanos (so long as they had 200rpg. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I wonder what he'll choose. Maybe it's not so hard to do Mk5 guns.