PDA

View Full Version : Spit +25 boost vs La-7 climb



robban75
02-10-2006, 05:24 PM
Some might find this comparison interesting! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/robban75/chart11.jpg

robban75
02-10-2006, 05:24 PM
Some might find this comparison interesting! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/robban75/chart11.jpg

OldMan____
02-10-2006, 05:29 PM
I don´t know if you saw my post about acceleration tests Robban. It just cofims that.


New Spit is new king of excess power. It will outrun anyting but a jet or K4C3 until 500 kph.

carguy_
02-10-2006, 05:32 PM
Wow.K4`44 has like 15m/s @6000m

robban75
02-10-2006, 05:34 PM
Oldman

Yes, I did an acceleration comparison myself, and the new Spit had no problems walking away from a Dora up to 500km/h. It's a beast. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Also, perhaps we should say that the La-7 as an high alitude fighter? The only planes I have tested so far that's superior to it at high alt is the Spitfire and Ta 152H, by as you can see a very small margin. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

OldMan____
02-10-2006, 05:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by robban75:
Oldman

Yes, I did an acceleration comparison myself, and the new Spit had no problems walking away from a Dora up to 500km/h. It's a beast. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Also, perhaps we should say that the La-7 as an high alitude fighter? The only planes I have tested so far that's superior to it at high alt is the Spitfire and Ta 152H, by as you can see a very small margin. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

this leaves a question.. is there ANYTHING that plane cannot do? It looks like a Borg plane. Itadapts and supercedes any capabilities of any enemy.

Badsight.
02-10-2006, 05:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by robban75:
perhaps we should say that the La-7 as an high alitude fighter? The only planes I have tested so far that's superior to it at high alt is the Spitfire and Ta 152H, by as you can see a very small margin. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>wow

just plain wow

i bet the I-185 with its 3-stage supercharger is also close Robban

robban75
02-10-2006, 05:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight.:
just plain wow

i bet the I-185 with its 3-stage supercharger is also close Robban </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I wouldn't bet against it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

carguy_
02-10-2006, 07:09 PM
I wish somebody did high altitude tests to make ppl see why isn`t the Ta152 able to stand against La7/SpitIX at alts above 6500m.

Funny how easily ppl forgot that the Spitfire is too good high up.

Brain32
02-10-2006, 07:27 PM
Can you believe that one guy(I don't know where anymore http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif) even stated that he is not happy with the new Spit and that he thinks they really need MkXIV!!! I mean WTF? Can some people ever be happy?!?

Kuna_
02-10-2006, 07:31 PM
Mustang MK.4 & Spitfire MK.14 be sure. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
Just kidding @ B http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif.

I'm more than satisfied as it is now. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VW-IceFire
02-10-2006, 07:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Can you believe that one guy(I don't know where anymore http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif) even stated that he is not happy with the new Spit and that he thinks they really need MkXIV!!! I mean WTF? Can some people ever be happy?!? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No....and you'd all REALLY fear the Spitfire XIV...its even better. The British knew what they were doing with that thing...it was tempermental in handling but its speed and climb were insane. I think the USAAF would have had something very similar if they had actually produced that P-47 variant that was stripped of extra weight and given a even more powerful engine. Also the F8F Bearcat was in the same sort of category.

The-Pizza-Man
02-10-2006, 07:40 PM
Those climb rates compare almost exactly with www.spitfireperformance.com, (http://www.spitfireperformance.com,) even at 25,000'.

The first time I kicked the +25 lb boost on the new IX it was like somebody had strapped rockets boosters to it. Bloody awesome.

SlickStick
02-10-2006, 08:59 PM
Interesting. I always seem to remember fearing going over 3000m back when I used to fly the La-7. The performance died off significantly compared to the LW birds at the time. I think it was around AEP as the last time I flew La-7 regularly. Spitfires came and my inner Englishman took over. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

robban, can you add the RL numbers onto the chart? I'd love to see the comaprison.

VFS-22_SPaRX
02-10-2006, 09:22 PM
Robbin,

Might i suggest you do your test comparing the K4-C3 and the Spit25lbs. If the K4 comes even close to this

http://www.war-clouds.com/screenshots/k4roc.JPG

Then I really neglect to see how you can worry about that Spits ROC.

VFS-22_SPaRX
02-10-2006, 09:25 PM
Robbin,

Also, could you please post the Tracks of your tests? If you do not have a hosting solution to do so, then contact me and I will set up hosting for you (Pro Bono of course).

contact info: email sparx -at- war-clouds.com

p1ngu666
02-10-2006, 10:00 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif @ LA7

Grey_Mouser67
02-10-2006, 10:58 PM
Cool...thanks Robban!

It is so hard for us to test climb rates...speed is easy and the Spit is much improved but still the slowest of the late war planes.

The climb is much better than it originally felt like...tonight I had a chance to fight with it online and I popped an A-9 and a D-9 quite handily...no more will D-9's be outclimbing it!

And yes, the MkXIV is everything the +25 spit is in climb plus it is faster and it has the e wing...I'm wondering why Oleg chose the C wing but I have to assume, at this point, that was the example that was sent to him.

great work...the real Spit Mk IX +25 was a climb rate champion in real life and it should be in this game...climb is a poor man's substitute for speed....I'll take it!

anarchy52
02-11-2006, 03:14 AM
Here's the real La-7 climb chart and I took the liberty of superimposing it on robban's chart. Note that forsazh (overboost) could be used up to 3k.
http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/testing/La-7/Aircraft-evaluation-20.jpg
http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/testing/La-7/real_chart.gif

OldMan____
02-11-2006, 03:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
Cool...thanks Robban!

It is so hard for us to test climb rates...speed is easy and the Spit is much improved but still the slowest of the late war planes.

The climb is much better than it originally felt like...tonight I had a chance to fight with it online and I popped an A-9 and a D-9 quite handily...no more will D-9's be outclimbing it!

And yes, the MkXIV is everything the +25 spit is in climb plus it is faster and it has the e wing...I'm wondering why Oleg chose the C wing but I have to assume, at this point, that was the example that was sent to him.

great work...the real Spit Mk IX +25 was a climb rate champion in real life and it should be in this game...climb is a poor man's substitute for speed....I'll take it! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

but contrary to the gain from Spit 9 at 16lb to 25ls... the Spit 14 IS quite heavier. It will feel and handle differently. It isa weight differenc bigger than from FW190A4 to A8.

It would probably be a plane between Tempest way of life and traditional Spit way of life.

OldMan____
02-11-2006, 03:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Can you believe that one guy(I don't know where anymore http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif) even stated that he is not happy with the new Spit and that he thinks they really need MkXIV!!! I mean WTF? Can some people ever be happy?!? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No....and you'd all REALLY fear the Spitfire XIV...its even better. The British knew what they were doing with that thing...it was tempermental in handling but its speed and climb were insane. I think the USAAF would have had something very similar if they had actually produced that P-47 variant that was stripped of extra weight and given a even more powerful engine. Also the F8F Bearcat was in the same sort of category. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If this plane ever cam to this game. Be sure there will be a hard problems to setup online games. Since no blue would find it fund to fly in a server where ALL reds are Spit 14 that can completely outclass it.

How many here think is fun the Idea of playing in a server where you have only G-10 and A8 againt everyone in LA7 ?


And don ´t start with ( realsim is all that matters). All are here to have fun, also in real life there were not only uber spits flying on one side. There were 15 Allied planes for each LW one.. and flying on europe was an exercise of luck of not being hit bi thousands of flak positions.

blindpugh
02-11-2006, 03:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Can you believe that one guy(I don't know where anymore http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif) even stated that he is not happy with the new Spit and that he thinks they really need MkXIV!!! I mean WTF? Can some people ever be happy?!? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>yup your right some ppl never give up whining-why dont they shut up and fight at the altitude their aircraft is best at-like they did in the real world.BAH-HUMBUG-All luftwhiners are nancy boys anyway-hehe

robban75
02-11-2006, 03:54 AM
Here's the K-4. It's a,,, rocket? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/robban75/chart14.jpg

carguy_
02-11-2006, 03:59 AM
On paper it is.In missions only climb until 5000m is useful.We got La and Spit matching that.

JG52Karaya-X
02-11-2006, 05:37 AM
Robban could you please test the K4C3, K4 and G10 and compare them with each other - I think there is something wrong with the G10s ROC.

Kwiatos
02-11-2006, 11:02 AM
Oleg M. wrote at ORR that La series was corrected in climb rate. Interesting...

p1ngu666
02-11-2006, 11:33 AM
k4 roc looks really odd http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

on onwhine servers ull often get ppl flying the uber planes

its basicaly endgames 45 planes mostly

AustinPowers_
02-11-2006, 11:51 AM
Courtesy of Rolls Royce.

Don't shoot the messenger.

http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/8025/realchart2cm.gif

TheGozr
02-11-2006, 11:58 AM
La7 was not a good climber at all compare it with the real good climber the yak9U serie 2.

Alas this is with the 402 yak9U( see my signature )

http://www.gozr.net/iocl/images/screen/climbrategame.jpg

Kwiatos
02-11-2006, 01:21 PM
Just LA is still uber in climb and will be ever probably

OldMan____
02-11-2006, 01:51 PM
How in hell can Spitfire climb so much as these (RL)data? Holy $@!*$!($!. It is more than 80 km/h in vertical!!!

ploughman
02-11-2006, 02:00 PM
Spits are pretty small really, next to beasts like P-47s and Corsairs they look almost pathetically small. Big engine, small plane, lots of lift=Saturn V RoC.

pourshot
02-11-2006, 02:01 PM
That "real" spit climb curve cant be from a flight test as it should rise and fall between supercharger speed changes, like it does in game.

anarchy52
02-11-2006, 02:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by pourshot:
That "real" spit climb curve cant be from a flight test as it should rise and fall between supercharger speed changes, like it does in game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

a) fabrication
b) misinterpreted data

Sintubin
02-11-2006, 03:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
Here's the real La-7 climb chart and I took the liberty of superimposing it on robban's chart. Note that forsazh (overboost) could be used up to 3k.
http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/testing/La-7/Aircraft-evaluation-20.jpg
http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/testing/La-7/real_chart.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


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

HellToupee
02-11-2006, 04:22 PM
over about 20,000 ft the spit 25 should be at the same performance as the 18lbs boost model, the XIV on the other hand would be significantly better. The 25lbs boost model low level is about same as 18boost spit XIV, 21 boost XIV tho would be...

Richardsen
02-11-2006, 04:48 PM
Spit 25lbs is problably the best low alt climber of the war. Better climber than Spit xiv at low alt.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/jl165rr.html

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/jf319.html

AustinPowers_
02-11-2006, 05:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by pourshot:
That "real" spit climb curve cant be from a flight test as it should rise and fall between supercharger speed changes, like it does in game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

a) fabrication
b) misinterpreted data </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

*snore

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/jl165rrclimb.jpg

Kurfurst__
02-12-2006, 03:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AustinPowers_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by pourshot:
That "real" spit climb curve cant be from a flight test as it should rise and fall between supercharger speed changes, like it does in game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

a) fabrication
b) misinterpreted data </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

*snore

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/jl165rrclimb.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


It seems to be point b, Misinterpreted data.

Read the rlife +25 spit9 chart.

"All up weight 7234lbs". The test was done at this weight.

However, the takeoff weight of the Spitfire IX was some 200 lbs more, 7450 lbs.

It appears our new +25 lbs Spitfire IX is modelled after a test in which the plane was lightened by 200 lbs. Howeve the in-game +25Spit9 can match this at FULL weight...

Should be tested and reported.

OldMan____
02-12-2006, 03:32 AM
Come on. 100kg is not that much difference. Quite irrelevant I would say. This type of problems only deserve time and attention when there is nothing more problematic to solve.

It will change climb but not by THAT much.

ImpStarDuece
02-12-2006, 06:28 AM
7,450 - 7,234 = 216 lbs

216/7,450 = 0.029

100 x 0.0290 = 2.9%

So, if weight is DIRECTLY proportional to climb performance, (which it isn't becuase drag and thrust both have their say in the equation), then the ingame Spit IX +25 should be doing 97.1% of the climb performance in the above test.

At peak climb rate of 5,780 fpm, this would subtract around 155 fpm.

And if you read the report this particular Spitfires air intake was only operating at 94% of efficiency.

As the +25 lbs Spitfire's climb appears to actually be below tested performance then perhaps it indeed should be tested and reported.

AustinPowers_
02-12-2006, 11:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Rolls Royce - A check of the air intake efficiency was taken during the tests, a minimum figure of 94% in level flight being shown at + 25 lbs. sq.inch boost pressure. It would seem therefore that the full throttle height of this engine is low. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not surprising, seeing as the airframe was 9 months old.

luftluuver
02-12-2006, 12:29 PM
It should be noted that the test stated a different prop should be used to better cope with the increase in power 25lb gave. Another test of JL165, with a different prop and a t/o weight of 7400lb, gave a better roc than what was in the test Kurfurst so selectively posted.

Unknown-Pilot
02-12-2006, 02:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
It should be noted that the test stated a different prop should be used to better cope with the increase in power 25lb gave. Another test of JL165, with a different prop and a t/o weight of 7400lb, gave a better roc than what was in the test Kurfurst so selectively posted. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why do you accuse others of bias while so blatantly showing your own? (not to mention ignorance, when one considers your sig)

It's just a red-whiner thing I guess. Certainly is common among you at any rate.

luftluuver
02-12-2006, 02:57 PM
U-P, don't like the Spifire chasing down the poor little Messer? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

It was selective posting because he picked the worst of the 2 reports, with no mention of the 2cd report. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

CD_kp84yb
02-12-2006, 03:02 PM
U mean that report on page 2 in this treat???? I thought i was brought in by austin powers and not the other guy

Kocur_
02-12-2006, 03:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
Here's the real La-7 climb chart and I took the liberty of superimposing it on robban's chart. Note that forsazh (overboost) could be used up to 3k.
http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/testing/La-7/Aircraft-evaluation-20.jpg
http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/testing/La-7/real_chart.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox

Climb was decreased to realistic values (as well as decreased for the La- series even more)
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m...671031014#1671031014 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/9051001014/r/1671031014#1671031014)

B(e) S(ure)!

robban75
02-12-2006, 03:58 PM
I have to say that those climb rates are from the 4.02 patch. But he said the "Climb was decreased to realistic values (as well as decreased for the La- series even more)"
And it's true, the La-7 used to have a higher climb rate. I'll see if there's been a major change in this patch.

Kocur_
02-12-2006, 04:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by robban75:
I have to say that those climb rates are from the 4.02 patch. But he said the "Climb was decreased to realistic values (as well as decreased for the La- series even more)"
And it's true, the La-7 used to have a higher climb rate. I'll see if there's been a major change in this patch. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You mean you made graph comparison showing 25lbs Spit and 4.02 La-7?

robban75
02-13-2006, 12:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by robban75:
I have to say that those climb rates are from the 4.02 patch. But he said the "Climb was decreased to realistic values (as well as decreased for the La- series even more)"
And it's true, the La-7 used to have a higher climb rate. I'll see if there's been a major change in this patch. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You mean you made graph comparison showing 25lbs Spit and 4.02 La-7? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, my bad. I figured since the La-7 hasn't been changed much in the last 3 years, except being improved, it would stay the same. Odds were much too small that it would be changed for this patch. I'll make a new climb test.

Kurfurst__
02-13-2006, 12:26 AM
From Ivan: Kurf, you can just go around and accuse people like this without prove. Check your PM.

robban75
02-13-2006, 01:00 AM
Here's the results. No change. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/robban75/chart15.jpg

AustinPowers_
02-13-2006, 01:01 AM
No change? hmmm, and Oleg says it was reduced in this patch? Maybe he is mistaken.

luftluuver
02-13-2006, 04:11 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif
Ivan forgot to mention that he edited this post because I quoted the lie filled, vile, venomous, slanderous post by Kurfurst which Ivan deleted.

stathem
02-13-2006, 04:36 AM
As regards the real life data for JL165, the thing is, that's actual test data from an independent body, not 'estimated' or 'calculated' data.

If you look through the report carefully you'll also note that both Vickers (who tested a Mk VIII,JG204) and Rolls-Royce (also JL165) got even higher figures for RoC and speed with Spitfires running at +25lbs boost. Of course we should, quite happily, go with the A&AEE data, rather than rely on manufacturer data.

AustinPowers_
02-13-2006, 04:43 AM
The graph I posted is from the Rolls Royce test, not A&EE.
However the data from the A&EE is available.

Note the RR data is with Radiators closed, while the A&EE tested with radiators Closed and Open.
Also for the RR data the air intake wasn't working fully, and the propellor was identified as reducing the potential climb rate.

RR expected higher than 5,700 FPM at sea level, in the area of 6,000+ FPM with the fixing of said problems.

stathem
02-13-2006, 05:00 AM
Austin, you cherry-pickin Barsteward!

still, my main point remains, at least the British actually tested - and in triplicate.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
02-13-2006, 05:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by CD_kp84yb:
U mean that report on page 2 in this treat???? I thought i was brought in by austin powers and not the other guy </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Edit: Censored by Carguy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Which makes you a Spitfire-loving, Anglophile, Mossie fanboi (sic) who accepts that the 109 was left lacking by 1944, I suppose...

carguy_
02-13-2006, 07:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by robban75:
Here's the results. No change. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL


And Low Flyer please delete this fat smiley.It sux.

edit:thank you for your cooperation.

Willey
02-13-2006, 07:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kwiatos:
Oleg M. wrote at ORR that La series was corrected in climb rate. Interesting... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've read that, too. But I can't find a tiny bit of difference in the La-7. Haven't tried the 5s though. The LaGG-3s climb a lot worse because of the added 300kg weight.

Kocur_
02-13-2006, 09:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by robban75:
Here's the results. No change. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hm! And I hoped I would have to withdraw my above "(B)e (S)ure"...
I wonder... Do they still employ in 1C the same guy who previoulsy lied and made Oleg say that all MG-151/20, including those in gunpods had the same ammo? Geez, the guy is a monster! Several cocpits, MG-151/20, "1942 MiG-3U", and so on, and now this...

AustinPowers_
02-13-2006, 11:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
Austin, you cherry-pickin Barsteward!

still, my main point remains, at least the British actually tested - and in triplicate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

The conclusion is, the Spitfire IX 25 boost is performing close to real life climb data, if not on the pessimistic side.

Unknown-Pilot
02-13-2006, 11:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
U-P, don't like the Spifire chasing down the poor little Messer? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

It was selective posting because he picked the worst of the 2 reports, with no mention of the 2cd report. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's unabashedly biased propagandist bull$|t. Just like most of your posts.

Those cars were made because it was all the post war German people could afford, nothing more. It implies technical capability while nothing could be further from the truth.

BTW - who owns Mini? Um, that would be BMW. Who owned Rover and MG recently (not sure if they still do)? That too would be BMW. Where did the engine and suspension for the Rolls Royce Phantom (possibly the best modern Rolls ever) come from? That would be Germany.

The Wiessman is a better 'British Roadster' than real British Roadsters. And lets not forget that Audi owns Lamborghini and finally added some quality to that brand.

And then of course there is the Maybach. Bently's and Rolls' have nothing on that.


I'm an American car fan. I'll take an American car over everything, and am only so-so on German cars (and would actually rather have an DB9 or Vanquish or TVR, than a BMW or Porsche....well, 'cept maybe the Carrera GT) I'm just sick of the biased cr4p around here. Particularly from people who use axis based names thinking it'll add credibility to their BS.

Lucius_Esox
02-13-2006, 12:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It's unabashedly biased propagandist bull$|t. Just like most of your posts.

Those cars were made because it was all the post war German people could afford, nothing more. It implies technical capability while nothing could be further from the truth.

BTW - who owns Mini? Um, that would be BMW. Who owned Rover and MG recently (not sure if they still do)? That too would be BMW. Where did the engine and suspension for the Rolls Royce Phantom (possibly the best modern Rolls ever) come from? That would be Germany.

The Wiessman is a better 'British Roadster' than real British Roadsters. And lets not forget that Audi owns Lamborghini and finally added some quality to that brand.

And then of course there is the Maybach. Bently's and Rolls' have nothing on that.


I'm an American car fan. I'll take an American car over everything, and am only so-so on German cars (and would actually rather have an DB9 or Vanquish or TVR, than a BMW or Porsche....well, 'cept maybe the Carrera GT) I'm just sick of the biased cr4p around here. Particularly from people who use axis based names thinking it'll add credibility to their BS. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Little OT maybe old chap... Froth froth!!

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

OldMan____
02-13-2006, 12:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
U-P, don't like the Spifire chasing down the poor little Messer? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

It was selective posting because he picked the worst of the 2 reports, with no mention of the 2cd report. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's unabashedly biased propagandist bull$|t. Just like most of your posts.

Those cars were made because it was all the post war German people could afford, nothing more. It implies technical capability while nothing could be further from the truth.

BTW - who owns Mini? Um, that would be BMW. Who owned Rover and MG recently (not sure if they still do)? That too would be BMW. Where did the engine and suspension for the Rolls Royce Phantom (possibly the best modern Rolls ever) come from? That would be Germany.

The Wiessman is a better 'British Roadster' than real British Roadsters. And lets not forget that Audi owns Lamborghini and finally added some quality to that brand.

And then of course there is the Maybach. Bently's and Rolls' have nothing on that.


I'm an American car fan. I'll take an American car over everything, and am only so-so on German cars (and would actually rather have an DB9 or Vanquish or TVR, than a BMW or Porsche....well, 'cept maybe the Carrera GT) I'm just sick of the biased cr4p around here. Particularly from people who use axis based names thinking it'll add credibility to their BS. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

don´t forget japanese car insdurstru is smashing all others currently... so at end blue wins!!

AustinPowers_
02-13-2006, 02:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Willey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kwiatos:
Oleg M. wrote at ORR that La series was corrected in climb rate. Interesting... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've read that, too. But I can't find a tiny bit of difference in the La-7. Haven't tried the 5s though. The LaGG-3s climb a lot worse because of the added 300kg weight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does Oleg test the Flight models himself, or rely on beta testers only?

luftluuver
02-13-2006, 03:08 PM
Unknown-Pilot,

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

Pardon me while I go put on a slicker and find a boat.

Unknown-Pilot
02-13-2006, 03:44 PM
Wow, not only an a$$, but also too stupid to understand what he reads. What a combination going there. Must be real fun at parties.

luftluuver
02-14-2006, 03:01 AM
I understand very well that your favourite flavour is WW2 German field grey and hob-nailed jack boots. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif JFYI, I think British cars are cr@p. Had one of those Spits(GT6+) and it was in the junk yard in 2 years.

So you can shove your accusations of bias you know where.

Kurfurst__
02-14-2006, 09:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AustinPowers_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
Austin, you cherry-pickin Barsteward!

still, my main point remains, at least the British actually tested - and in triplicate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

The conclusion is, the Spitfire IX 25 boost is performing close to real life climb data, if not on the pessimistic side. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Hardly they are pessimistic, as said the rl from RR data was some done on some 200+lbs lighter plan, probably missing ammunition and stuff, using fully closed raditors whereas British standard was 100% weight and OPEN radiators.

luftluuver
02-14-2006, 09:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Hardly they are pessimistic, as said the rl from RR data was some done on some 200+lbs lighter plan, probably missing ammunition and stuff, using fully closed raditors whereas British standard was 100% weight and OPEN radiators. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Since you are so high on Rechlin testing, read what the A&AEE testing with open rads at 7400lb of a later test of JL165. It should be noted the test Kurfurst is so high is a 'prelinary report'.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/jl165.html Table III

Btw, the F IX's t/o weight is 7295lb and max permisable weight is 7500lb. For the IXe, it is 7181lb and 7500lb. use of a wood prop would decrease the weight by ~60lb.

crazyivan1970
02-15-2006, 10:07 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif This will be locked pretty soon if you guys dont settle down. And Kurfurst and luft will be issued Restraining order. Be sure http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

AustinPowers_
02-15-2006, 10:40 AM
Don't kill the thread Ivan. The graphs to compare are very useful. Simply delete the offending posts.

crazyivan1970
02-15-2006, 11:00 AM
Ok... Austin... or whoever you are http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

AustinPowers_
02-15-2006, 11:20 AM
you nice?

luftluuver
02-15-2006, 11:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif This will be locked pretty soon if you guys dont settle down. And Kurfurst and luft will be issued Restraining order. Be sure http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>It is not me posting the vile, venomous and slanderous lies, so why is my name mentioned?

Thanks for deleting the post. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Was a rather mild chastising considering the content of the post.