PDA

View Full Version : Re High alltitude fighters



Cooter_777
02-18-2005, 09:38 PM
Besides the P-51,47,Ta-152,Fw-190D what other fighters were considered extreme high altitude fighters?

I took the F4U up to 30 thousand & she did quiet well in my opinion.

Also, can anyone point me to a web site were I might find info on WWII fighters & there best operating altitudes?

Cooter_777
02-18-2005, 09:38 PM
Besides the P-51,47,Ta-152,Fw-190D what other fighters were considered extreme high altitude fighters?

I took the F4U up to 30 thousand & she did quiet well in my opinion.

Also, can anyone point me to a web site were I might find info on WWII fighters & there best operating altitudes?

p1ngu666
02-18-2005, 09:48 PM
spitfire IX, 109 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
p38
mossie...

grab il2compair, has graphs from ingame performance http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

LEXX_Luthor
02-19-2005, 12:38 AM
The original World War 2 high altitude high speed fighter entered service in early 1941.

World's largest, and only, MiG~3 website~~> http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/mig3.html


MiG~3 pilot interview ~> http://www.sovietwarplanes.com/Rybalko.htm

Rybalko:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It was gallant at altitude. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Now we see why MiG~3 cockpit is the best cockpit made for FB/PF. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Also for high altitude, Bf~109E/7Z was given GM~1 boost for use above 6500m (fries engine at lower altitude in game). Helps some, at least at 110% throttle. We are missing Bf~109F with GM~1 though. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

stansdds
02-19-2005, 05:13 AM
Although the P-38 could perform well at high altitude, it seems to me that the extremely cold air high over Europe caused engine problems for the P-38 and it was forced to operate at lower altitudes. This was not a problem in the Pacific and the Lightening served well.

3.JG51_BigBear
02-19-2005, 08:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stansdds:
Although the P-38 could perform well at high altitude, it seems to me that the extremely cold air high over Europe caused engine problems for the P-38 and it was forced to operate at lower altitudes. This was not a problem in the Pacific and the Lightening served well. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah the P-38 could fly a good 2000ft higher than the P-51 even. I've heard stories of the P-38 having problems in England but I always thought it was on the ground I didn't realize it was an altitude thing.

3.JG51_BigBear
02-19-2005, 08:23 AM
And the jets operated fairly well at high altitude too.

mortoma
02-19-2005, 09:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 3.JG51_BigBear:
And the jets operated fairly well at high altitude too. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I real life yes but in the sim they stink. Ever tried to take the 262 up even close to it's real life ceiling??? It's pretty bad up there in the sim.

3.JG51_BigBear
02-19-2005, 10:36 AM
Not recently, I don't fly them that often.

Cajun76
02-19-2005, 10:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stansdds:
Although the P-38 could perform well at high altitude, it seems to me that the extremely cold air high over Europe caused engine problems for the P-38 and it was forced to operate at lower altitudes. This was not a problem in the Pacific and the Lightening served well. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Poor cockpit heat was a biggie.

The engines would have been fine, but the P-38 was designed to run wide open, not putt along escorting bombers. In this way, the engines were over-cooled and had problems.

Background: I fly the P-47 a lot, and it has a nice, natural high-speed nose up climb, all the way up to fairly high alt. I sometimes add a click or two of nose-up trim around 9000m if I've got a good speed advantage, otherwise, it's good.

I recently took a P-38 up there, and what a disappointment. Around 4-5000m I had to start adding nose-up trim, 3-5 clicks at a time to get her to climb, every 1000m or so. And once I got up to 9000m-10,000m, it felt a lot more sluggish than my trusty forty-seven. IRL it was supposed to be real good up high, but she seems to be quite a bit off here.

I'm usually the first to sing the praises of Oleg, but I have a sinking feeling that the 109Z handles just fine up there..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

jagdmailer
02-19-2005, 11:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
The original World War 2 high altitude high speed fighter entered service in early 1941.

World's largest, and only, MiG~3 website~~&gt; http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/mig3.html


MiG~3 pilot interview ~&gt; http://www.sovietwarplanes.com/Rybalko.htm

Rybalko:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It was gallant at altitude. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Now we see why MiG~3 cockpit is the best cockpit made for FB/PF. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Also for high altitude, Bf~109E/7Z was given GM~1 boost for use above 6500m (fries engine at lower altitude in game). Helps some, at least at 110% throttle. We are missing Bf~109F with GM~1 though. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bf 109G-5/AS/Z (with GM-1)

Jagd

Blackdog5555
02-19-2005, 11:10 AM
In the ETO the P38s oil controlled turbocharger regulaters would gel up and pilots would also complain of extreme cold. Plug fowling was also a problem. Also compalining of mechanical problems was a good way to get out of the days mission! High altitude performance isnt done well in the game. im sure its complicated to do right.

horseback
02-19-2005, 12:26 PM
US Naval fighters (F4F, F6F, and F4U) were all optimized for a lower peak altitude performance than the AAF fighters. Also, when considering the P-38's performance in the 8th AF in late '43-early '44, you have to factor in the fact that the 20th and 55th FGs were not recipients of twin engine fighter training, as the groups that operated the type in N. Africa & the Med were. P-38 was far and away the most complicated (and pretty dang poor from an ergonomic standpoint) frontline fighter in the Allied inventory, and the USAAF failed to appreciate the need for extra work-up for pilots in the type.

cheers

horseback