PDA

View Full Version : I-185 has a HUGE disadvantage



Kartveli
08-30-2004, 12:06 PM
hehe had to edit this one...

I was just looking at the data for the I-185/M-71...after the many entries for "aircraft strengths", was the only entry for "aircraft weaknesses"..."uncomfortable throttle lever"

I just dont know what to say about this...

But I'm glad the Russian designes finally stopped using broken glass for texture on the throttle levers....

All in all, kinda speaks volumes about the I-185, don't it?

"uncomfortable throttle lever" indeed!

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif

[This message was edited by Kartveli on Mon August 30 2004 at 11:14 AM.]

Kartveli
08-30-2004, 12:06 PM
hehe had to edit this one...

I was just looking at the data for the I-185/M-71...after the many entries for "aircraft strengths", was the only entry for "aircraft weaknesses"..."uncomfortable throttle lever"

I just dont know what to say about this...

But I'm glad the Russian designes finally stopped using broken glass for texture on the throttle levers....

All in all, kinda speaks volumes about the I-185, don't it?

"uncomfortable throttle lever" indeed!

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif

[This message was edited by Kartveli on Mon August 30 2004 at 11:14 AM.]

LStarosta
08-30-2004, 12:08 PM
I-185 having a HUGE advantage? Tell me something I don't know...

http://home.comcast.net/~l.starosta/sig2.jpg
Spacer nad Berlinem!

StellarRat
08-30-2004, 12:41 PM
Well, one wing hit on the 71 model totally screws up the the flight characterisics. And they can't loop well either, so there are two real problems you can try to take advantage of.

Chuck_Older
08-30-2004, 01:11 PM
In real life, the Spit has an uncomfortable method of raising the undercarriage. P-40 has an odd method too, if I recall, that isn't very ergonomic- pulling a little ring on the control column.

Not a sim problem but pilot fatigue could kill you in real life, due to an 'uncomfortable' control

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/BBB3.jpg
Killers in America work seven days a week~
Clash

Ugly_Kid
08-30-2004, 01:40 PM
Sounds about right...a plane that seems to beat the living sh!te out of Ta-152 at 9km altitude never went to production because of "uncomfortable throttle lever"

http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/oksennus_1.jpg

LittleEgo
08-30-2004, 02:01 PM
Quote Sounds about right...a plane that seems to beat the living sh!te out of Ta-152 at 9km altitude never went to production because of "uncomfortable throttle lever



haha lol

Vladimir_No2
08-30-2004, 02:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
In real life, the Spit has an uncomfortable method of raising the undercarriage. P-40 has an odd method too, if I recall, that isn't very ergonomic- pulling a little ring on the control column.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I seem to remember that a certain russian monoplane had an uncomfortable method of raising the gear also...something about having to turn a crank 40 times...I seem to remember a few of those being made...

-Vlad
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v255/vladimir_no2/pzlsig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2004, 02:55 PM
The biggest disadvantage the I-185 has is that most people know it's a bullsh**, "hardly flew" plane, and so they leave it out of their servers.

Huckebein_UK
08-30-2004, 04:42 PM
I'd never heard of the thing before it appeared in the dev. updates. Certainly never really wanted to fly it - like the Bf 109Z. I far prefer to use real wartime machines than to bugger about in some make-believe 'Uber Rata'. Who are you gonna impress beating three shades of $hite out of the best pilots in a make-believe machine?

--------------
Huckebein_UK

"I saw the men; I just couldn't do it!" -- Franz Stiegler after escorting Charles Brown's crippled B-17 across the North Sea.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v451/Huck/Sigs/14471.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=display&skinid=13937)
Click pic for this skin and more besides. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Tooz_69GIAP
08-30-2004, 05:04 PM
The I-185 wasn't fantasy, it flew. Ok, it never reached production, but it still flew. The only reason it's in is coz one of the guys who helped with the production of IL-2/FB, his grandfather was the test pilot for the aircraft in WWII. Seems fairly much the same reason why the BI-1 is in, because Oleg wanted to show some bits of history and show that Russia also had rocket/jet aircraft in it's design's during WWII.

whit ye looking at, ya big jessie?!?!

http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/69giap/fileadmin/Image_Archive/badges/69giap_badge_tooz.jpg (http://giap.webhop.info)
Executive Officer, 69th GIAP
Za Rodinu!
Petition to stop the M3 motorway through the Tara-Skryne Valley in Co. Meath, Ireland (http://www.petitiononline.com/hilltara/petition.html)

WTE_Galway
08-30-2004, 05:28 PM
the more planes the merrier

you do not have to include non serial-production planes when you create a server if you disapprove of them

DuxCorvan
08-30-2004, 05:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
Sounds about right...a plane that seems to beat the living sh!te out of Ta-152 at 9km altitude never went to production because of "uncomfortable throttle lever"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The true reason we all know is... that Stalin felt uncomfortable everything Polikarpov was doing... and made USSR uncomfortable for him... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

And I-185 managed to fly, even operationally, but in so few numbers that shouldn't be in historical scenarios. Nothing against it in what-if campaigns or free dogfight servers, tho. It was a promising project, and its performance in FB is rather viable and does not make it an UFO, as some seem to insist.

I'm not in the 'hard dictatorial line' of some hyper-purists around here... as if this wasn't a game, and they were real WW2 aces. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif

Soon they'll ask public honors and so...

My advice for hosts is: do whatever you want with your server. It's your server. After all, to be realistic, we should try to survive those combats -even to avoid them at disadvantage- but all we see are 'Terminator' attitudes of people that fight against all odds till virtual death.

The less realistic feature of this game -muzzle flashes apart- is not the drawboard projects, or the 'Wonder woman view'. It's the behavior of both AI and human pilots, too agressive to be true, too expert and self-confident to be real, too relaxed and well fed to be in a war. That's why it is a sim: as in the movies, it's not a reliving of life, but an imitation, a recreation. And if Braveheart can die soon after being captured -instead of being a prisoner for several years- and Emperor Commodo die in the arena -instead of being murdered long years after his coronation- I-185 can very likely fly in this recreation of WW2 air war. These licenses are justified in the search for fun and a wider public -the public that pays to make sims still a viable tho struggling inversion for game industry.

Purism just leads to never-satisfied frustration. So, let's ask whatever we want -I also prefer real common machines, even the less spectacular- but, are we really entitled to impose what others want to produce and/ or play?

I want an 'integral' WW2 sim, not an 'integrist' one... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

- Dux Corvan -
http://www.uploadit.org/DuxCorvan/Altamira2.jpg
Ten thousand years of Cantabrian skinning.

TgD Thunderbolt56
08-30-2004, 05:57 PM
Well said Dux. I would have to agree.


Our FB server info: http://www.greatergreen.com/il2

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2004, 11:32 PM
What some fail to mention is that safety and reliability issues are what damned the I-185. It did fly operationally, to test its combat effectiveness, and it did well.

But, since this was outstripped by the danger it posed to the pilots who flew it...you have to ask yourself...

If *Russians*, not known in the Stalinist era for sparing *anybody* in their service, would take a plane out of production for safety reasons... well, it had to be a flying timebomb.

For reasons like that, it's pretty self-serving, if not disingenous to include such a plane in a sim with absolutely NO controls over plane usage.

As for the Bi-1, I could give a **** about the nascent russian rocket program. They didn't do anything significant with jets in combat until they developed the excellent (for its time) MiG-15. There is absolutely no excuse for having this boondoggle in the sim.

LEXX_Luthor
08-31-2004, 12:18 AM
Real wartime Aces bent over forward for the rare chance to fly experimental combat planes, friendly or captured enemy. I love these threads cos they seperate the runny snot internet dogfighter gamers (and their "impressive" brownie point score) from military aviation enthusiasts.

Huckebein_UK:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I far prefer to use real wartime machines than to bugger about in some make-believe 'Uber Rata'.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack ( AEP )

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

WUAF_Badsight
08-31-2004, 12:24 AM
LEXX is biased . . . . http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

falco_cz
08-31-2004, 02:05 AM
I have NOTHING againts I185 or whatever plane modeled in FB IF it's modelled in technically/historically correct way. So the I185 really has only ONE little problem: awkwar throttle handle? Or rather the M71 was the main culprit of not eing allowed for serial production? I have ZERO problems with M71 in FB, was ti the same way in RL, I wonder...

Rab03
08-31-2004, 02:56 AM
Those info you read is just informative-it doesn't mean they've said this is an ultimate fighter you can't fight against. Also for the Bf-109G series. They had many shortcomings, but in the hands of the experte were unbeatable.

La-5 series had big drawback for inexperienced pilots-bomb release lever was so low, that pilot had to bend so much that he would lose sight of his target! Although awkward, this wasn't problem for exeperienced pilots that learned how to cope with this. Also, in La-5FN they had to engage full throttle each 10 minutes (guess) and to run on it for minute or two in order to burn the grease off the spark plugs! During landing La-5FN tended to bounce quite a bit. Unlike Spitfires (in real life) Lavochins had a nasty habbit of going over nose if you would add some power to counter this. Russian instructors were saying to new pilots (accustomed to Spitfire) "Let it go, don't pay attention, it'll come to rest".
Also, landing on a muddy airfield in Lavochka was an adventure.
Don't want to start a post-reply-war, but late war Soviet fighters could match everything in the sky-even Me262 in dogfight!

Like WTE-Galway said-the more the merrier. Each and every new plane is most welcome.

See my skins at
http://server6.uploadit.org/files/JohnnyRab-SIG.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authoridfilter=Rab&ts=1069857387&comefrom=credits)

WOLFMondo
08-31-2004, 03:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
What some fail to mention is that safety and reliability issues are what damned the I-185. It did fly operationally, to test its combat effectiveness, and it did well.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought it was more political reasons it was not produced, I never realised it was a danger to fly. What was wrong with it?

I can't say I've flown it more than a few times. I think some people overate it though, it ain't that great.

http://bill.nickdafish.com/sig/mondo.jpg
Wolfgaming.net. Where the Gameplay is teamplay (http://www.wolfgaming.net)
Home of WGNDedicated

DuxCorvan
08-31-2004, 05:04 AM
Yeah, among all data I've been able to gather, I've never seen that thing about I-185 being so dangerous. What I've seen -and that's easy to track- is that Polikarpov was in disgrace before Stalin, his bureau being closed and all his projects cancelled or taken over. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

ElAurens
08-31-2004, 05:25 AM
M-71 engine development issues aside, the given reason for not producing the I 185 was too high a landing speed.

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

BlitzPig_EL

LEXX_Luthor
08-31-2004, 10:43 AM
mmm, that could make some sense. For frontline tactical use on dirt strips a long high speed landing would not be desirable--we don't see these types of airfields in FB, to see it you must set aircraft to take off from open fields.

MiG~3 proves Soviets could accept for production very dangerous aircraft that required lots of pilot skill.

Don't want to get started on Me~210.

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack ( AEP )

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Kartveli
08-31-2004, 11:40 AM
Rab, one should never, ever dogfight in a 262 in the first place...almost anything can beat the Schalbe in a dogfight...I'd like to see what beloved Russian WWII type could best a 262 with a competent pilot in that air-sucker...

Stiglr...Yes, tha tMig-15 was excellent...once they got that Nene, hehehe

Damn good thing for the late-war Japanese and early-war Russian types quality doesn't play a factor in FB....early Lagg-3s were produced with as much as a third of an inch gaps in vital areas of wood and glue construction...and allowed to fly, as the need WAS rather dire

My point was, among other things, that it goes t show about the "uberishness" of the I-185 when the only "weakness" that can be said for it in FB is the throttle lever...

Does it lack in climb? no does it lack in top speed? no does it lack it manuverability? no does it lack in firepower? no does it lack in credibility? YES

Of course, if I'm in a server with ppl flying types like the I-185, Ki84C (not the A or B) La7 (especially the 3xB-20) or the Yak 3P (which was actually in service 1946, shouldn't be in FB) that is their choice...and how I view those same ppl is also my choice...

Just be a lot less waste of time to have, instead of these types, the fighter from the movie "the last starfighter", where the guy hits a button, the ship spins about a 360 sphere, cutting loose with everything, and killing a small armada of enemies surrounding him....

Ok, so we get the Russian BS types B1, I-185 ( iwont include the La73xB-20 or Yak 3P here), the German BS types, the 109Z and the Go-229 ( I love the goth, but I have to admit, it has a fake FM as the 109Z), and the Japanese BS type, in the Ki84C (again, not the A or B model)

Aside from the obvious silly answers of "the 51 already is" or "the spit already is", where's the Allied BS types?...why can't the allies have their BS type?...the Northrop "flying ram" jet? (luv those square intakes!) or better yet, the ultimately sexy twin, the hugues XP-67 Moonbat?...P58 Swordfish, anyone? at least it's slight improvment over the P38 in performance should give us something a lil more like the real P38...

robban75
08-31-2004, 12:26 PM
The I-185 was built deliberatly with a high wingloading. It was built for speed and climb. According to Russian data the I-185 had the same sustained turnability as the Fw 190.

In FB/AEP it can turn with the La-7. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

Oberleutnant Oskar-Walter Romm thoughts on his aircraft.

"I found the Fw 190D-9 to be greatly superior to those of my opponents. During dogfights at altitudes of between about 10,000 and 24,000ft, usual when meeting the Russians, I found that I could pull the D-9 into a tight turn and still retain my speed advantage. In the descent the Dora-9 picked up speed much more rapidly than the A type; in the dive it could leave the Russian Yak-3 and Yak-9 fighters standing."