PDA

View Full Version : the sair is too slow



Voidable
11-20-2004, 06:30 PM
has no armor. other then that i like it so oleg please fix this http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.what do you think people?

sapre
11-20-2004, 06:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Voidable:
has no armor. other then that i like it so oleg please fix this http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.what do you think people? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Your "i think the FM is porked" talk is not important at all when discussing FM.
Bring some reliable data to prove your theory

VF-29_Sandman
11-20-2004, 06:57 PM
corsair is alot heavier in weight than a hell/wildcat or any of the japanese planes. but still, with a 2000hp engine, it should have a bit more pep down low. corsair was designed as a high altitude fighter; to go where the zero had trouble competing with our fighters. why do u insist staying under 10,000 feet where the zero has its best altitude?

Voidable
11-21-2004, 05:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VF-29_Sandman:
corsair is alot heavier in weight than a hell/wildcat or any of the japanese planes. but still, with a 2000hp engine, it should have a bit more pep down low. corsair was designed as a high altitude fighter; to go where the zero had trouble competing with our fighters. why do u insist staying under 10,000 feet where the zero has its best altitude? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

dude shut up! im not asking for
tips on dogfighting your not telling me nothing i don't know............ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/353.gif

Voidable
11-21-2004, 07:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sapre:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Voidable:
has no armor. other then that i like it so oleg please fix this http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.what do you think people? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Your "i think the FM is porked" talk is not important at all when discussing FM.
Bring some reliable data to prove your theory <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

fine what do you want ? i have it .if not ill find it...... Now ! about the Survivability:

There was no other single engine fighter flown during the war that could absorb greater battle damage than the Corsair and still get home. Even the USAAF admitted that the F4U was a more rugged airframe than the tank-like P-47 Thunderbolt. That is a remarkable admission. The big Pratt & Whitney radial engine would continue to run and make power despite have one or more cylinders shot off.

The Corsair was exceptionally strong and carried respectable armor protection.

the armor on the sair on PF suxs now with the patch you had it about right before the patch i think!

Now about the speed?

Manufacture Nakajima
Model Ki-84-Ia Hayate
Type Fighter/Fighter-bomber
Power Plant One 1,900hp Nakajima Ha-45, Army Type 4
Performance

Maximum speed :: 20,080ft :: 6,120.38 m 392mph :: 630.86 km/hr
Maximum speed at sea level 325mph :: 523.04 km/hr
Cruising speed 277mph :: 445.79 km/hr
Maximum range 1,347 miles :: 2,167.79 km
Initial rate of climb 3,790ft per min :: 1,155.19 m/min
Time to 16,400ft :: 4,998.72 m 5min 54sec
Service ceiling 36,090ft :: 11,000.23 m
Weights

Empty 5,864 lb :: 2,659.87 kg
Loaded 8,576 lb :: 3,890.01 kg
Dimensions

Wing span 36ft 10.5in :: 11.24 m
Length 32ft 6.5in :: 9.92 m
Height 11ft 1.25in :: 3.38 m
Wing area 226.04sq ft :: 21.00 sq m

Manufacture Vought
Model F4U-1D
Type Fighter
Power Plant Pratt & Whitney 18 cylinder, twin row air cooled radial, R-2800-8 - - 2,000 HP
Performance

Maximum speed :: 417 mph :: 671.10 km/hr
Maximum speed at sea level
Cruising speed 182 mph :: 292.90 km/hr
Maximum range 1,015 :: 1,633.48 km
Initial rate of climb 3, 250 ft/min :: 990.60 m/min
Time to
Service ceiling 37,000 ft :: 11,277.60 m
Weights

Empty 8,982 lbs :: 4,074.17 kg
Loaded 10,500 lbs :: 4,762.72 kg
Dimensions

Wing span 41 ft (12.7 m) :: 12.50 m
Length 33 ft 4.5 in (10.16 m) :: 10.17 m
Height 15 ft 1 in (4.60 m) :: 4.60 m
Wing area :: 0.00 sq m
Armament

Six .50-caliber machine guns, 2,000 lb (907 kg) of bombs, Up to eight HVAR Rockets on wing racks
Max bomb load
Crew 1
Production

F4U-1D 1,685
Total production (Variants)
Countries in Service
United States
Remarks
Propeller: Hamilton Standard Hydromatic 3-bladed, 13' 4" diameter

now you show me how the KI 84 should have caught me????
now thay say this and that about the KI (well the japs did not figure the so called "wep" therefor the speed thay showed was inaccurat) and (well the fule they used in test was a low octan) is that heresay? well you could say the same with any other plane ..right? anyhow im not whining or maybe i am thats how im here now because people whining how else can i get my plane right? I'v said it before i like the new FM for the sair just needs a little tweaking. the Survivability, and i think the speed. or tone down that KI dont think it should be catching the sair...

VF-29_Sandman
11-21-2004, 08:01 PM
sounds like another noob tryin to make a plane do what it couldnt. a 30mm cannon is gonna carve it up like a turkey. live with it.

Korolov
11-21-2004, 08:22 PM
F4U-1D Maximum attainable speed @ 6,000m, 100% fuel, supercharger stage 3, and WEP + Water Injection: 665kmh TAS

So, that's only off by about 5kmh.

Voidable
11-21-2004, 09:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VF-29_Sandman:
sounds like another noob tryin to make a plane do what it couldnt. a 30mm cannon is gonna carve it up like a turkey. live with it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif you think? your not getting the point!
all i want it it put back the Survivability... you got it now?

WUAF_Badsight
11-21-2004, 09:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Voidable:
has no armor. other then that i like it so oleg please fix this <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
whats to fix

its a flying tank just like the Jug is

WUAF_Badsight
11-21-2004, 09:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Voidable:
There was no other single engine fighter flown during the war that could absorb greater battle damage than the Corsair and still get home. Even the USAAF admitted that the F4U was a more rugged airframe than the tank-like P-47 Thunderbolt. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
lies

the plane with the BEST RTB ratio is the Thunderbolt

Voidable
11-21-2004, 09:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Voidable:
has no armor. other then that i like it so oleg please fix this <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
whats to fix

its a flying tank just like the Jug is <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


negative sir it was better in the 3.00 version

WUAF_Badsight
11-21-2004, 09:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Voidable:
anyhow im not whining ... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
oh yea you are

you realise that basing your opinion on DF server performance means nothing dont you ?

as in NOTHING

what was your E situation ?

what was the bandits (Ki-84) ?

unless you did a controlled test your just crying

i can catch Ki's with the Sair

i can catch Sairs with the Ki

i can be caught in both if i dont manage my E

btw , theres no way in hell a Hayate can match the Sairs speed over 8K

WUAF_Badsight
11-21-2004, 09:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Voidable:
negative sir it was better in the 3.00 version <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
so what are you trying to say ?

that its paper machaie now ?

that it shouldnt ever be shot down at all ?

come on dude , get real

Voidable
11-21-2004, 10:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Voidable:
There was no other single engine fighter flown during the war that could absorb greater battle damage than the Corsair and still get home. Even the USAAF admitted that the F4U was a more rugged airframe than the tank-like P-47 Thunderbolt. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
lies....

the plane with the _BEST_ RTB ratio is the Thunderbolt <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its great power, speed and rate of climb, its capacity to roll very rapidly, combined with a powerful armament - and large ammunition supply - <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">and a quite exceptional resistance to battle damage</span>, meant that in early 1943 ( in the Solomons) it quickly demonstrated its great superiority over the enemy fighters. By the end of hostilities in the Pacific War it had established an 11:1 "kill" ratio against Japanese aircraft.

Voidable
11-21-2004, 10:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Voidable:
negative sir it was better in the 3.00 version <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
so what are you trying to say ?

that its paper machaie now ?

that it shouldnt ever be shot down at all ?

come on dude , get real[/QUOTE

LOL ....lets see, it goes down to ez ...so what im saying is it goes down to ez. not just from the ki 30mm cannons any thing will go down from them .so versoin 3.00 you know before the patch? i thought it was more accurate then after . whats so hard to understand?

Foo.bar
11-21-2004, 10:17 PM
hmmm... voidable can google http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WUAF_Badsight
11-21-2004, 10:38 PM
Voidbable , the Corsair is a T_A_N_K like the P-47 is

if you would look it up you will find that the WW2 fighter with the best RTB ratio . . .

the plane that got more of its pilots back home than any other . . . was none other than the P-47 Thunderbolt , but they still got shot down in A2A combat

you really dont believe that the Corsair couldnt get hurt now do you ?

OldMan____
11-22-2004, 02:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Voidable:

There was no other single engine fighter flown during the war that could absorb greater battle damage than the Corsair and still get home. Even the USAAF admitted that the F4U was a more rugged airframe than the tank-like P-47 Thunderbolt. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Il2 Stumobrick-- I say Sturmovik (forgeting that radiator weak spot... it is much stronger tha any other plane)

Do not look only to return to base ratio to measure armor. Lots of things besides armor impact on this ratio. Mosquitos also returned to base with a very high ratio.. but did not needed armor for that. Same with B-29.

x__CRASH__x
11-22-2004, 02:42 AM
"How to win friends and influence people"
A novel by I.M.A.Voidable

Coming to a store near you!

123-Wulf-JG123
11-22-2004, 10:19 AM
What the hell is a "Sair" (sic), is it some sort of new aircraft I've missed??
Surely, he's not talking about the CORsair is he??
If he is, maybe someone should teach him how to spell C-O-R-S-A-I-R and while they're at it sort out his other spelling and grammar mistakes, his post is hardly readable/understandable, due to bad spelling and grammar, if English is not his first language I apologise in advance.
If he wants to be taken SERIOUSLY he should use proper spelling and grammar, otherwise, if he can't be bothered to spell and write correctly, why should anyone take him seriously.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

gates123
11-22-2004, 10:33 AM
meant that in early 1943 ( in the Solomons) it quickly demonstrated its great superiority over the enemy fighters.



There werent any Ki-84's around in 1943. The Corsair and KI-84 and a close enough match-up where its gonna come down to the pilot not the plane

S.taibanzai
11-22-2004, 11:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Voidable:
has no armor. other then that i like it so oleg please fix this http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.what do you think people? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Voidable
11-22-2004, 01:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 123-Wulf-JG123:
What the hell is a "Sair" (sic), is it some sort of new aircraft I've missed??
Surely, he's not talking about the CORsair is he??
If he is, maybe someone should teach him how to spell C-O-R-S-A-I-R and while they're at it sort out his other spelling and grammar mistakes, his post is hardly readable/understandable, due to bad spelling and grammar, if English is not his first language I apologise in advance.
If he wants to be taken SERIOUSLY he should use proper spelling and grammar, otherwise, if he can't be bothered to spell and write correctly, why should anyone take him seriously.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you really that dumb? im not here to make any friends or to have people grade my grammar
you get the point im not wrighting a novel nor a bussines letter http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Voidable
11-22-2004, 01:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by S.taibanzai:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Voidable:
has no armor. other then that i like it so oleg please fix this http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.what do you think people? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Voidable
11-22-2004, 01:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
Voidbable , the Corsair is a T_A_N_K like the P-47 is

if you would look it up you will find that the WW2 fighter with the best RTB ratio . . .

the plane that got more of its pilots back home than any other . . . was none other than the P-47 Thunderbolt , but they still got shot down in A2A combat

you really dont believe that the Corsair couldnt get hurt now do you ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

fine the p-47 had a better RTB ....

TWISTER353rd
11-22-2004, 02:03 PM
Why make the Corsair virtually unlaunchable from a carrier now?The F4U WAS a Carrier based fighter was it not?
Dumbing down the acceleration of a 2000 Horsepower plane was not only wrong it was obviously pandering to some pathetic whiners who again called the plane *uber*

Taking off with ordnance from the big carriers is almost impossible unless right near the back,and using a minimal bombload,taking off with ordnance from the escort carriers is impossible.I haven't bothered trying the Hellcats from the Escort carriers yet but I will.

The Corsair served on Escort carriers as well as the big brothers so what's the deal? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

AlmightyTallest
11-22-2004, 04:07 PM
I have to agree with some of you guys, like Twister353rd, I noticed with the new patch I'm having difficulty taking off in the Corsair off a Carrier with quite a few of the bomb loads.

If the Essex class carriers would have been modeled with catapults, perhaps this would solve the problem of launching with a heavy load in a Corsair. The other issue I have is of course the lack of any U.S. 1945 aircraft, hence my crusade requesting an F4U-4 to be added to PF.

At any rate, I haven't done any scientific tests to compare with the official data of the F4U-1's modelled in PF, but I am troubled by the posts saying it's basically been castrated. A shame really, I would hope that all the official data be looked at and sent in to Oleg and his team for review. There is so much info out there in books, government documents, etc, that show what a corsair can do at a certain altitude, how fast it can climb at what angle, and at what speed the climb was done in. Why couldn't all of this available information be modelled correctly in Pacific Fighters?

carguy_
11-22-2004, 04:24 PM
Is there a flyable American plane in this game that hasn`t been whined upon?

P39 - whine
P38-whine
p47-big whine
p51-still whining
Hellcat-whine
Crosair-whine
B17-whine
B25-whine
A20G-whine
p63-whine
SBD-oy yeah I didn`t see any whine yet

I mean no offense,but plz go all the way back and say it`s not whining.

Voidable
11-22-2004, 04:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by carguy_:
Is there a flyable American plane in this game that hasn`t been whined upon?

P39 - whine
P38-whine
p47-big whine
p51-still whining
Hellcat-whine
Crosair-whine
B17-whine
B25-whine
A20G-whine
p63-whine
SBD-oy yeah I didn`t see any whine yet

I mean no offense,but plz go all the way back and say it`s not whining. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

rgr that. you are right thats why im here now. but iv played this game sence it was just il2 sturmovik never whined nor posted just played and since then i been waiting for the corsair and i'v hated that porked ki84 never untell now have i complaned.
and still im happy with the new corsair but i think it needs tweaking.

ICDP
11-22-2004, 04:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TWISTER353rd:
Why make the Corsair virtually unlaunchable from a carrier now?The F4U WAS a Carrier based fighter was it not?
Dumbing down the acceleration of a 2000 Horsepower plane was not only wrong it was obviously pandering to some pathetic whiners who again called the plane *uber*

Taking off with ordnance from the big carriers is almost impossible unless right near the back,and using a minimal bombload,taking off with ordnance from the escort carriers is impossible.I haven't bothered trying the Hellcats from the Escort carriers yet but I will.

The Corsair served on Escort carriers as well as the big brothers so what's the deal? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Using emergency take-off rating, the F4U1D at a gross weight of 13265 LBS (full fuel and one 150 gal drop tank loaded) had a take off run in 25kt headwind of approx 362 feet. When adding bombs/rockets etc the take-off run was increased. It would not be possible to take off from an escort class carrier without the use of catapault in such a configuration.

Bear in mind that there is no wind modelled in PF so the carrier speed is important, in the standard carrier take off mission the escort carrier is only doing approx 10kts. The key here is to be realistic, don't expect to take-off from a carrier with 4000LB of bombs and full fuel. Just because the F4U1 was able to do so in PF v3.0 doesn't make it correct.

Have a look at the official USN F4U test data on this page to get a better idea of the F4U's performance.

http://web.cetlink.net/~howardds/id71.htm

Lets take the carrier take off mission 1 as a test. The carrier is a Casablanca(?) class escort class carrier, length around 512 feet. In this mission the F4U1D is placed around 1/5th ship length from the end of the carrier, this gives approx 400 feet of carrier to take off from. According to the charts on the site provided the F4U1D clean with full internal fuel should need around 400 feet to take off in a 15kts headwind. Given that the carrier is doing just over 10kts this should give us (hopefully) just enough room to take-off in the F4U1D. It just so happens that in this configuration I was repeatedly able to take off in the F4U1D with 100% fuel. Had I tried with any external load I would not have had enough room to take-off, this matches almost perfectly with the official USN F4U1D test charts.

AlmightyTallest
11-22-2004, 06:14 PM
If your info is correct ICDP, and I have no reason to doubt that it is, then this is very good news.

I'm more concerned about the perception that some have of the corsairs climb rate being unrealistic, or it's other attributes being clipped since the patch. Has anyone done any serious testing with the PF Corsairs to see how they match up to the charts and official papers?

ZG77_Nagual
11-22-2004, 06:40 PM
best I can make on the deck - full wep with 100% fuel and trimmed is 340 - for the f4u1d. Ki84 makes 350, p38 330 - I think 320 for the hellcat. All up till overheat - except the p38 - which doesnt seem to overheat for a long time.

p1ngu666
11-22-2004, 07:43 PM
corsair is still a tank, tbh
not so much, but u know some of it was skinned with canvas, like wing...

Voidable
11-22-2004, 08:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
corsair is still a tank, tbh
not so much, but u know some of it was skinned with canvas, like wing... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

well close...The F4U-1 was of basically conventional monocoque construction, made mostly of metal. The ailerons had wood frames and plywood skinning, while the rudder, elevators, and outer wings had metal frames and fabric skinning. The flaps were all metal. The tailfin was slightly offset from the centerline to help compensate for engine torque. There were trim tabs on the ailerons and the rudder.

chris455
11-22-2004, 08:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by carguy_:
Is there a flyable American plane in this game that hasn`t been whined upon?

P39 - whine
P38-whine
p47-big whine
p51-still whining
Hellcat-whine
Crosair-whine
B17-whine
B25-whine
A20G-whine
p63-whine
SBD-oy yeah I didn`t see any whine yet

I mean no offense,but plz go all the way back and say it`s not whining. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Carguy, don't forget the biggest whine of all- the Messerschmidt Wun- Oh- Whine

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Even the USAAF admitted that the F4U was a more rugged airframe than the tank-like P-47 Thunderbolt. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rubbish. Unalloyed rubbish.

Voidable
11-22-2004, 08:26 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even the USAAF admitted that the F4U was a more rugged airframe than the tank-like P-47 Thunderbolt.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Rubbish. Unalloyed rubbish.
quote:chris455
read it carefully ( more rugged airframe)
thats not saying it had the best RTB from what i heard your right about the P-47

Voidable
11-22-2004, 09:30 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif killing the corsair just got offline got out ran by a fw109 could not catch him in level flight at a low alt. look at the charts and tell me its fine. its not

:http://web.cetlink.net/~howardds/id91.htm
test it your self!

AlmightyTallest
11-22-2004, 09:43 PM
Voidable, try and save a track of that next time. Perhaps even get some friends to go online with you in different aircraft to compare their speeds side by side with your Corsair.

If you can save the track, as well as have your friends even submit the same track from their perspectives and prove that the corsair is running slower then what other documents state then you should submit that to Oleg and his team for review. As well others hopefully are willing to share more bits of info, some of which you guys posted in this thread already.

That's all we can really do. If there are enough facts that you guys can put together from the sim compared with multiple facts from official documents and such that prove different, then it becomes difficult to avoid that something is not being modelled as it should.

Also, I'm starting to wonder if some of the flight model complaints about some of these aircraft are comming from the fact that people don't have full realism on, or have stalls turned off and such.

ICDP
11-23-2004, 01:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Voidable:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif killing the corsair just got offline got out ran by a fw109 could not catch him in level flight at a low alt. look at the charts and tell me its fine. its not

:http://web.cetlink.net/~howardds/id91.htm
test it your self! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What version of 190 was it?

Was your engine fresh?

Did you have radiators open?

Did you have any damage?

How low is "low alt"? (at 5000 FT and upto around 25000 FT the Fw190A5 and F4U1 speeds are very close)

There have been times I was unable to outrun a Spit IX at low alt in a Fw190D9, I was barely able to hold 520kph. The reason was simple, my engine was not at optimum as I had overheated and cooled it down earlier. You realy have to learn to ask proper questions, not just jump to the conclusion that your F4U1 has been castrated in some anti USN conspiracy.

I am able to reach 581kph at sea level in the F4U1D (Crimea map), yet I accept that it can't reach that speed under all conditions.

JtD
11-23-2004, 02:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AlmightyTallest:
The other issue I have is of course the lack of any U.S. 1945 aircraft, hence my crusade requesting an F4U-4 to be added to PF. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The F4U-1C is a 45 aircraft.

The_Ant
11-23-2004, 03:03 AM
If you now compares the CORsair against a ki-84 voidable.I asume you were destroyed by one.If so did it happen to be a k-84C with the 2 30mm+2 20mm canons if so your CORsair dont stand much chance against that firepower,not even the p-47 thunderbolt will be much flyable after a hit.And about the slow part what were you doing? did you do a hard energy bleeding turn,by which way EVERY PLANE loses speed dramaticly and has some hard time catching up a other plane.If you were in a another situation it might be this the ki-84 weights less than the CORsair which will make it acelerate away much faster.

123-Wulf-JG123
11-23-2004, 10:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Voidable:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 123-Wulf-JG123:
What the hell is a "Sair" (sic), is it some sort of new aircraft I've missed??
Surely, he's not talking about the CORsair is he??
If he is, maybe someone should teach him how to spell C-O-R-S-A-I-R and while they're at it sort out his other spelling and grammar mistakes, his post is hardly readable/understandable, due to bad spelling and grammar, if English is not his first language I apologise in advance.
If he wants to be taken SERIOUSLY he should use proper spelling and grammar, otherwise, if he can't be bothered to spell and write correctly, why should anyone take him seriously.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you really that dumb? im not here to make any friends or to have people grade my grammar
you get the point im not wrighting a novel nor a bussines letter http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Voidable, I can assure you if English IS your first language, I simply would not take ANY notice of your posts, as they are hardly comprehensible, I simply wouldn't waste my time trying to understand half literate posts that simply don't make sense, especially when they are making dubious assertions about FMs. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

NorrisMcWhirter
11-23-2004, 10:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by carguy_:
Is there a flyable American plane in this game that hasn`t been whined upon?

P39 - whine
P38-whine
p47-big whine
p51-still whining
Hellcat-whine
Crosair-whine
B17-whine
B25-whine
A20G-whine
p63-whine
SBD-oy yeah I didn`t see any whine yet

I mean no offense,but plz go all the way back and say it`s not whining. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is correct but, for balance, show me a list of non-US planes that haven't been whined about.

At least none of the above have actually been whined off the menu completely in servers, unlike the Ki-84/Me262/La7/Yak3.

Cheers,
Norris

Chuck_Older
11-23-2004, 10:13 AM
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Voidable=TFC</span>

AlmightyTallest
11-23-2004, 12:42 PM
Actually, it's more like 1944 for the F4U-1C, which was really a 1943 F4U-1A Corsair that had 4 20mm cannon in place of the 6 .50 caliber machine guns. Though it was indeed in operation in 1945. Though to think of it, the same could be said for the early A6M's... They were in operation in 1945 as well you know.

200 F4u-1c's were built.

F4U-4B and F4U-4C - These are 1944/1945 aircraft that carry 4 M3 20mm Hispano Cannon, but have higher performance engines, among other improvements. There were 297 F4U-4B's and some sites claim the F4U-4C version was a retrofit of a regular F4U-4 to have 4 20mm cannon, and there are no clear numbers as to how many "C" were created. But at least we know 297 cannon F4U-4B's served in WW2. There are 1,900 F4U-4's that were in theater by the end of WW2. Some sites say a little different maybe more, maybe less, but I'd encourage you to look around for more info if interested.

There just seems to be a lack of a true 1945 U.S. aircraft in this sim as of yet. A P47N, F4U-4, well, just look at Tagert's thread "Why no F4U-4?" Bull_dog_ may be on to something with his list near the end of that thread.

See his list below:
----------------------------------
no Spitfire Mk XIV
no Corsair -4
no P-51H
no Tempest or Tempest II
no P-47N or M
no Bearcat
no Tigercat
no P-82
no Corncob Corsair
Pray for that Tempest and Spit Mk22!

yes to 109Z
yes to Ki-84-C
yes to A6M7
yes to I-185
yes to He-162
yes to Ta-152
yes to Horten flying wing
yes to Mig 3U
yes to Yak 3P
yes to Yak 9U
coming soon...Ki-100

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

And I would add the N1K1 to that list as well I told him. I only have PF as of right now, so if his post is true about the so called "uber" german planes being added, this is news to me, and surprising at that.

At any rate, I hope that things get cleared up, I would rather that all the aircraft be modelled as accurately as possible irrespective of what country it came from. I'm not worried about the numbers so much, and I'm glad that Oleg is putting in some rare aircraft that you can't find anywhere else.

I don't play online though either. I like the dynamic campaigns and would like to see the F4U-4 because it is a late war U.S. plane that can carry very heavy ordinance for strike missions, and has the capability to be a formidable fighter, both to fly, and fly against when I play the Japanese side. Also since catapults aren't modelled in PF yet, the F4U-4 would give us the chance to take off with the very heavy loads that we can't do presently with the F4U-1A,C, or D and the F4U-4 was better at being able to get off the deck to make attempts to intercept Kamikaze aircraft. This will become more important when Oleg puts out the new Betty with Ohka piloted missiles. The F4u-4's speed and climb rate would be better able to get at the Betty and other Kamikazi before they could launch their missiles, which were pretty much impossible to intercept from an aircraft once they were on their way.

p1ngu666
11-23-2004, 12:56 PM
the a6m7 isnt that good a fighter tbh, imo its a sideways step, the 5b is pretty much the best zero
later ones too heavy, slow accel http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

a6m7 is more a dive bomber too if i remmber correctly

Voidable
11-23-2004, 04:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ICDP:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Voidable:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif killing the corsair just got offline got out ran by a fw109 could not catch him in level flight at a low alt. look at the charts and tell me its fine. its not

:http://web.cetlink.net/~howardds/id91.htm
test it your self! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What version of 190 was it? A5

Was your engine fresh? yes just took off got up to speed he was about 2.something km away from me and he just keep pulling away from me ?

Did you have radiators open? neg

Did you have any damage? neg

How low is "low alt"? (at 5000 FT and upto around 25000 FT the Fw190A5 and F4U1 speeds are very close) below 5000 about 1000

There have been times I was unable to outrun a Spit IX at low alt in a Fw190D9, I was barely able to hold 520kph. The reason was simple, my engine was not at optimum as I had overheated and cooled it down earlier. You realy have to learn to ask proper questions, not just jump to the conclusion that your F4U1 has been castrated in some anti USN conspiracy.

I am able to reach 581kph at sea level in the F4U1D (Crimea map), yet I accept that it can't reach that speed under all conditions. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Voidable
11-23-2004, 04:24 PM
i posted the test of the corsair vs fw190 in speed its all there. turn the game on and race its that ez im not making **** up about FM look for your self..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif the FMs are slow thats that....

Voidable
11-23-2004, 04:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Voidable=TFC</span> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
are you trying to insult me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif
lol

ICDP
11-23-2004, 05:51 PM
I have tested both the F4U1 and the Fw190a5 at SL, 100% fuel and full power + WEP, Okinawa map.

F4U1A top speed SL: 578Kph (perfect)

Fw190A5 top speed SL: 580Kph (Should be 570kph according to aircraft viewer)

The top speeds of both aircraft are very close, this matches pretty well with listed performance for both aircraft. So to reiterate once again, the F4U1 in PF is hitting its performance figures absolutely perfectly.

The Fw190A5 is slightly too fast but it is not a massive discrepancy (given that the aircraft viewer figures are not totally reliable). I have seen charts showing the Fw190A8 reached 578Kph at SL (full power), the Fw190A5 should be fairly close to this figure.

Out of interest, what speeds are you getting with the F4U1, I find it odd that you consistantly claim the F4U1 is to slow. I find it to be perfectly modelled in top speeds.

SkyChimp
11-23-2004, 05:59 PM
Technically, the F4U-1C is a F4U-1D modification.

AlmightyTallest
11-23-2004, 06:51 PM
Thanks for the update SkyChimp, gotta watch some of these online sites lol, there's bad info everywhere out there http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Voidable
11-23-2004, 07:50 PM
skychip i have to ask... seem to me you have alot of info on the sair ...is it to slow?
the f4u1-c

SkyChimp
11-23-2004, 08:16 PM
I haven't tested it. All I've done is test climb.

Voidable
11-23-2004, 11:07 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif i need a good sorce
Manufacture Focke-Wulf
Model Fw 190D-9
Type Fighter/ Fighter bomber
Power Plant One 1,770 hp Junkers Jumo 213A-1
Performance

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Maximum speed :: 21,650ft :: 6,598.92 m 426mph :: 685.58 km/hr </span> Cruising speed
Maximum range 520 miles :: 836.86 km
Initial rate of climb
Time to 6,560ft :: 1,999.49 m 2min 6sec
Service ceiling
Weights

Empty 7,694lb :: 3,489.94 kg
Loaded 10,670lb :: 4,839.83 kg
Dimensions

Wing span 34ft 5.5in :: 10.50 m
Length 33ft 5.25in :: 10.19 m
Height 11ft .25in :: 3.36 m
Wing area 169.98 sq ft :: 15.79 sq m
Armament

Two 13mm MG 131 machine-guns in upper cowling, two 20mm MG 151 cannon in wings
Max bomb load 1,102lb :: 499.86 kg
Crew 1
Production

Total production (Variants) 19,500

Manufacture Nakajima
Model Ki-84-Ia Hayate
Type Fighter/Fighter-bomber
Power Plant One 1,900hp Nakajima Ha-45, Army Type 4
Performance

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Maximum speed :: 20,080ft :: 6,120.38 m 392mph :: 630.86 km/hr </span> Cruising speed 277mph :: 445.79 km/hr
Maximum range 1,347 miles :: 2,167.79 km
Initial rate of climb 3,790ft per min :: 1,155.19 m/min
Time to 16,400ft :: 4,998.72 m 5min 54sec
Service ceiling 36,090ft :: 11,000.23 m
Weights

Empty 5,864 lb :: 2,659.87 kg
Loaded 8,576 lb :: 3,890.01 kg
Dimensions

Wing span 36ft 10.5in :: 11.24 m
Length 32ft 6.5in :: 9.92 m
Height 11ft 1.25in :: 3.38 m
Wing area 226.04sq ft :: 21.00 sq m
Armament

Two 12.7mm Ho-103 machine-guns in upper cowling; two 20mm Ho-5 cannon in wings
Max bomb load 1,102 lb :: 499.86 kg
Crew 1
Production

Manufacture Vought
Model F4U-1D
Type Fighter
Power Plant Pratt & Whitney 18 cylinder, twin row air cooled radial, R-2800-8 - - 2,000 HP
Performance

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Maximum speed :: 417 mph :: 671.10 km/hr </span>
Cruising speed 182 mph :: 292.90 km/hr
Maximum range 1,015 :: 1,633.48 km
Initial rate of climb 3, 250 ft/min :: 990.60 m/min
Time to
Service ceiling 37,000 ft :: 11,277.60 m
Weights

Empty 8,982 lbs :: 4,074.17 kg
Loaded 10,500 lbs :: 4,762.72 kg
Dimensions

Wing span 41 ft (12.7 m) :: 12.50 m
Length 33 ft 4.5 in (10.16 m) :: 10.17 m
Height 15 ft 1 in (4.60 m) :: 4.60 m
Wing area :: 0.00 sq m
Armament

Six .50-caliber machine guns, 2,000 lb (907 kg) of bombs, Up to eight HVAR Rockets on wing racks
Max bomb load
Crew 1
Production

F4U-1D 1,685
Total production (Variants)
Countries in Service
United States
Remarks
Propeller: Hamilton Standard Hydromatic 3-bladed, 13' 4" diameter

Manufacture Lavochkin
Model La-5FN
Type Fighter/Fighter-bomber
Power Plant One 1,650hp ASh-82FN radial piston engine
Performance

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Maximum speed :: 16,405ft :: 5,000.24 m 402mph :: 646.96 km/hr </span>
Cruising speed
Maximum range
Initial rate of climb
Time to 16,405ft :: 5,000.24 m 5 min
Service ceiling 36,090ft :: 11,000.23 m
Weights

Empty 5,743lb :: 2,604.98 kg
Loaded 7,408lb :: 3,360.21 kg
Dimensions

Wing span 32ft 1.75in :: 9.80 m
Length 28ft 5.3in :: 8.67 m
Height 8ft 4in :: 2.54 m
Wing area 189.3sq ft :: 17.59 sq m
Armament

Two nose mounted 20mm ShVAK hub-firing cannons. Provision for four underwing 3.23in RS-82 rockets; or 331lbs of bombs
Max bomb load
Crew 1
Production

Total production (Variants) 21,975
Countries in Service

sorce:http://www.ww2aircraft.net/

JtD
11-23-2004, 11:42 PM
Originally posted by AlmightyTallest:
See his list below:
----------------------------------
no Spitfire Mk XIV
no Corsair -4
no P-51H -> How many in service in 08/1945?
no Tempest or Tempest II
no P-47N or M
no Bearcat -> How many in service in 08/1945?
no Tigercat -> How many in service in 08/1945?
no P-82 -> How many in service in 08/1945?
no Corncob Corsair
Pray for that Tempest and Spit Mk22!

yes to 109Z -> not a 1945 ac. fantasy.
yes to Ki-84-C
yes to A6M7
yes to I-185 -> not a 1945 ac.
yes to He-162 -> not a 1945 ac.
yes to Ta-152
yes to Horten flying wing -> not a 1945 ac. fantasy.
yes to Mig 3U -> not a 1945 ac.
yes to Yak 3P
yes to Yak 9U -> not a 1945 ac.
coming soon...Ki-100
----------------------------------

Also, there is an YP-80 in game already, so if u make/quote a list of unneccessary planes, don't make it this one sided.

Anyway, your statement was there is no US 1945 ac, but there is.

For me, late war Pacific planes have a very low priority considering there are no carrier based torpedo bombers at all.

The_Ant
11-24-2004, 01:03 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by AlmightyTallest:


See his list below:
----------------------------------
no Spitfire Mk XIV
no Corsair -4
no P-51H
no Tempest or Tempest II
no P-47N or M
no Bearcat
no Tigercat
no P-82
no Corncob Corsair
Pray for that Tempest and Spit Mk22!

yes to 109Z
yes to Ki-84-C
yes to A6M7
yes to I-185
yes to He-162
yes to Ta-152
yes to Horten flying wing
yes to Mig 3U
yes to Yak 3P
yes to Yak 9U
coming soon...Ki-100


well something in your list i would like too see something i dont.
This is what i whant to have and dont whant to have.


no Spitfire Mk XIV (yes historical correct aircraft)
no Corsair -4 (Yes historical correct)
no P-51H (?) (wasnt this produced after the war ?)(in the light weight program for the p-51)

no Tempest or Tempest II (yes historical correct )
no P-47N or M (yes historical correct)
no Bearcat (No) didnt fight in WW2
no Tigercat (no) same as bearcat
no P-82 (already have it in prototyp stage)
no Corncob Corsair (dont know what this is but if it flew and had kills,throw it in)

Pray for that Tempest and Spit Mk22! (yes in with Those)

yes to 109Z (should not been in il2 pure fantasy)
yes to Ki-84-C (yes historical correct plane several planes were produced and used against b-29)
yes to A6M7 (a dive bombing zero historical correct)
yes to I-185 (according to some it flew,in such case let it in)
yes to He-162 (historical correct,this plane got air kills in ww2)
yes to Ta-152 (yes used in WW2)
yes to Horten flying wing (no only a prototyp when captured)
yes to Mig 3U (only 3 or 6 produced no combat)
yes to Yak 3P (This was produced after the war and should not be in the game)
yes to Yak 9U (historical correct aircraft)
coming soon...Ki-100 (no problem with this,300-500 were produced and used in ww2)first combat flight in march 1945)

ICDP
11-24-2004, 01:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Voidable:
skychip i have to ask... seem to me you have alot of info on the sair ...is it to slow?
the f4u1-c <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Voidable, why ask Skychimp when you can check it for yourself. Frankly I have given enough info to show what the PF F4U1D should be reaching in speed. The data I have provided is from real USN performance tests, allowing for slight variations you should be able to get around 671kph at its rated altitude in the F4U1D.

Skychimp is a very VERY knolwedgable person regarding a lot of the aircraft in PF, I respect his word on these matters as he seems to be level headed and not biased in any way IMHO (though I have wrongly accused him of this before). Having said that you don't need to turn to him to confirm if the Corsair is too slow, it is very easily tested in QMB.

Again I ask what speed you are getting from the Corsair? It would be helpfull to know if we are getting different speeds. We can then determine from their if there is a problem as there is no reason why I should be hitting the USN figures perfectly, yet you are obviously not getting the correct speeds.

Regards http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

carguy_
11-24-2004, 03:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:

This is correct but, for balance, show me a list of non-US planes that haven't been whined about.

At least none of the above have actually been _whined off the menu_ completely in servers, unlike the Ki-84/Me262/La7/Yak3.

Cheers,
Norris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Kingcobrahttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Chuck_Older
11-24-2004, 04:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Voidable:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Voidable=TFC</span> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
are you trying to insult me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif
lol <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Trying to insult you?

You don't even know what I mean. Just keeping trolling, don't worry about little Chuck's input

Voidable
11-24-2004, 08:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ICDP:

Voidable, why ask Skychimp when you can check it for yourself. Frankly I have given enough info to show what the PF F4U1D should be reaching in speed. The data I have provided is from real USN performance tests, allowing for slight variations you should be able to get around 671kph at its rated altitude in the F4U1D.

Skychimp is a very VERY knolwedgable person regarding a lot of the aircraft in PF, I respect his word on these matters as he seems to be level headed and not biased in any way IMHO (though I have wrongly accused him of this before). Having said that you don't need to turn to him to confirm if the Corsair is too slow, it is very easily tested in QMB.

Again I ask what speed you are getting from the Corsair? It would be helpfull to know if we are getting different speeds. We can then determine from their if there is a problem as there is no reason why I should be hitting the USN figures perfectly, yet you are obviously not getting the correct speeds.

Regards http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
rgr that well sir like you said (I respect his word on these matters as he seems to be level headed and not biased in any way IMHO) as do i
anyways thanks for testing i will shut up now on this topic

Voidable
11-24-2004, 09:02 AM
Chuck your right i dont know what TFC is.

now i really want to know http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif chuck tell me

Aaron_GT
11-24-2004, 09:28 AM
"2000hp engine, it should have a bit more pep down low"

It gets just over 350mph with WEP at sea level (hard to tell exactly due to speed bar rounding), and should manage 359mph. That's pretty close.

I think it's a little slow at 20,000 feet (by about 15 mph or so as far as I remember from my tests) but it is fine at sea level.

Aaron_GT
11-24-2004, 09:30 AM
Korolov wrote:
"F4U-1D Maximum attainable speed @ 6,000m, 100% fuel, supercharger stage 3, and WEP + Water Injection: 665kmh TAS

So, that's only off by about 5kmh."

I think I got a bit less myself. Maybe I had the supercharger or mix not set for the ideal values. But I get within about 5 km/h of the quoted speed at SL. If it is within 5 km/h at 20,000 ft too then it is one of the most accurate planes with regard to speed figures in the game. So what are people complaining about?

NorrisMcWhirter
11-24-2004, 09:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by carguy_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:

This is correct but, for balance, show me a list of non-US planes that haven't been whined about.

At least none of the above have actually been _whined off the menu_ completely in servers, unlike the Ki-84/Me262/La7/Yak3.

Cheers,
Norris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Kingcobrahttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only the one? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I've seen this on servers but I can see why it had been removed - "Blake's 7" wings and "durable" engine; not cos of FM http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Cheers,
Norris

Vipez-
11-24-2004, 09:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AlmightyTallest:
The other issue I have is of course the lack of any U.S. 1945 aircraft, hence my crusade requesting an F4U-4 to be added to PF. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The F4U-1C is a 45 aircraft. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

P-63C-5 is a 1945 plane as well, right?