PDA

View Full Version : P-80 ShootingStar - The new online topfighter- Together with Go-229 maybe?



Pages : [1] 2

Tipo_Man
12-12-2006, 03:31 AM
Looks like with the new patch US will finally get a revenge http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Don't have the game yet, but compared some of the top jet fighters in IL-2 Compare.

P-80 is fast, and very maneuverable compared to it's counterparts.
The planes that can outturn it are 100km slower than it. Those which are faster are much more sluggish...

Here are the comparison charts:

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b128/TipoMan/p80-Ta183.jpg

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b128/TipoMan/p80-Mig9.jpg

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b128/TipoMan/p80-La7R.jpg

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b128/TipoMan/p80-He162.jpg

Most dangerous oponent seems to be MiG-9, which is 50km/h faster, but lacks in climb rate and very much in turning, so important for dogfights.

La-7R can be dangerous only if you slow down below 400km/h

Ta-183 is like a pig...

So... let the fun begin

Tipo_Man
12-12-2006, 03:31 AM
Looks like with the new patch US will finally get a revenge http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Don't have the game yet, but compared some of the top jet fighters in IL-2 Compare.

P-80 is fast, and very maneuverable compared to it's counterparts.
The planes that can outturn it are 100km slower than it. Those which are faster are much more sluggish...

Here are the comparison charts:

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b128/TipoMan/p80-Ta183.jpg

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b128/TipoMan/p80-Mig9.jpg

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b128/TipoMan/p80-La7R.jpg

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b128/TipoMan/p80-He162.jpg

Most dangerous oponent seems to be MiG-9, which is 50km/h faster, but lacks in climb rate and very much in turning, so important for dogfights.

La-7R can be dangerous only if you slow down below 400km/h

Ta-183 is like a pig...

So... let the fun begin

ploughman
12-12-2006, 03:34 AM
When did we get a P-80A?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">


Dum spiro, spero

Tipo_Man
12-12-2006, 04:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
When did we get a P-80A? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We have the YP-80 (prototype), without engine or airframe failiures modelled, which is pretty much a P-80.

ploughman
12-12-2006, 04:18 AM
Fair enough. Thought maybe I missed something. How's it rate against the new 262?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">


Dum spiro, spero

mynameisroland
12-12-2006, 05:01 AM
Tipo Man please can you go through step by step how you got that version of IL2 compare? I have V3.0.0 and I cant get V4.07 to work!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/boemherTempII2.jpg

Scorpion.233
12-12-2006, 05:37 AM
I was flying an HE162 in an alternative history campaign, and 4 YPs attacked me. They could both outrun and outturn me. I had no chance.

Kurfurst__
12-12-2006, 05:55 AM
Dunno, I really never considered the P-80 FM anything but a joke. It turns like any prop fighter at low speeds, flies on rails and is near impossible to even stall. Why ? I don't see that it would have any better thrust to weight to any prop fighter at turn speeds, nor does it have any special wingloading, I don't see any speciality in the design. Low drag and laminar flow wings would contribute to top speed, but not to turn, yet it, despite being an early generation, relatively underpowered jet fighter like the others jets of WW2 it feels like a rocket fighter with infinitive thrust.

Besides, looking at the speed curves is also curious, the historical plane's max speed is usually given as aroun 900 km/h at SL, it's critical altitude. This should mean the speed is less or equal at any other altitude, yet the Il-2 speed curve peaks out exactly like the other jets at altitude etc.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42333000/jpg/_42333631_puskasbudapest_ap203b.jpg
In memoriam Puskás Ferenc,2 April 1927 - 17 November 2006.
Nyugodjon Békében - May he rest in Peace.

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/
Kurfürst - Your Resource for Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance!

"The Me 109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be the Messer! Speedy, maneuverable (especially in the vertical) and extremely dynamic."
- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter pilot of the VVS

Ignored Posters : AKA_Tagert, Wurkeri, Gibbage, LStarosta, Sergio_101.

luftluuver
12-12-2006, 06:42 AM
One can see the croc tear flood whine from you know who since one of his uber German war machine has been bested by an Allied war machine. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

BBB_Hyperion
12-12-2006, 06:49 AM
Was funny as i faked these charts some years ago and let them post by different people and some GD Readers really believed it cause they were not that absurd. The good old times http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

-------------------
High Ground is not only more agreeable and salubrious, but more convenient from a military point of view; low ground is not only damp and unhealthy, but also disadvantageous for fighting.

Sun Tzu : The Art of War

Regards,
Hyperion

Copperhead310th
12-12-2006, 06:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
One can see the croc tear flood whine from you know who since one of his uber German war machine has been bested by an Allied war machine. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ain't that the truth.

I'll be looking for you kurfie on HL.
So keep an eye on yer 6 there bub.
S!~<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://home.cogeco.ca/~jkinley/ubisig.jpg
Former CO of 310thVFS, (Retired) now part time
190 jock & full time target drone for JG27
http://premium1.uploadit.org/bsamania//2006-02-23_012924_pilot11.gif Flying on line as JG27_Copperhead

|^^^^^^^^^^^^|
| JG27_Copperhead | '|""";.., ___.
|_..._...______===|= _|__|..., ] |
"(@ )'(@ )""""*|(@ )(@ )*****(@
"Keep on Truck'n!"

bienenbaer
12-12-2006, 06:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tipo_Man:
Looks like with the new patch US will finally get a revenge http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Don't have the game yet, but compared some of the top jet fighters in IL-2 Compare.

P-80 is fast, and very maneuverable compared to it's counterparts.
The planes that can outturn it are 100km slower than it. Those which are faster are much more sluggish...
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Dunno, I really never considered the P-80 FM anything but a joke. It turns like any prop fighter at low speeds, flies on rails and is near impossible to even stall. Why ? I don't see that it would have any better thrust to weight to any prop fighter at turn speeds, nor does it have any special wingloading, I don't see any speciality in the design. Low drag and laminar flow wings would contribute to top speed, but not to turn, yet it, despite being an early generation, relatively underpowered jet fighter like the others jets of WW2 it feels like a rocket fighter with infinitive thrust.

Besides, looking at the speed curves is also curious, the historical plane's max speed is usually given as aroun 900 km/h at SL, it's critical altitude. This should mean the speed is less or equal at any other altitude, yet the Il-2 speed curve peaks out exactly like the other jets at altitude etc.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
One can see the croc tear flood whine from you know who since one of his uber German war machine has been bested by an Allied war machine.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wait!

Did the performance of the prop planes and the pre-46 jets actually change (including YP-80)? I would think it did not.

So did we have a wrong we never noticed before or is it an impertinence now which was not a concern before?

Tipo_Man
12-12-2006, 07:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bienenbaer:
So did we have a wrong we never noticed before or is it an impertinence now which was not a concern before? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, unfortunately there are no FM changes in the addon. At least according to IL Compare.

Kurfurst__
12-12-2006, 07:14 AM
The P-80 has been the same ever since it has been released afaik, not a thing changed and the funny FM was noticed long ago- just there's no such crybaby attitude and noisemaking as never ending campaigns about 'fixing' the .50s, 'fixng' the P-51 etc. Shows how much 'concern' is there about it..

If it's a joke, it's a joke, couldn't care less, I don't fly it myself so why would I care?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42333000/jpg/_42333631_puskasbudapest_ap203b.jpg
In memoriam Puskás Ferenc,2 April 1927 - 17 November 2006.
Nyugodjon Békében - May he rest in Peace.

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/
Kurfürst - Your Resource for Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance!

"The Me 109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be the Messer! Speedy, maneuverable (especially in the vertical) and extremely dynamic."
- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter pilot of the VVS

Ignored Posters : AKA_Tagert, Wurkeri, Gibbage, LStarosta, Sergio_101.

AKA_TAGERT
12-12-2006, 07:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
One can see the croc tear flood whine from you know who since one of his uber German war machine has been bested by an Allied war machine. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>ROTFL

What is really making me grin is the self proclaimed expert that refers to it as a joke but provides no proof to support any of his whining! Even though he will nag others to death that don't provide proof when talking negative about one of his fav planes. Typical Hypocrite Loony Luftie Tatics!

He should just be happy that the current YP-80 does not have it's .50s de-synced! That will give Jerry's planes an edge. But between now and the 4.08 addon I will be floading Oleg with requests to get them de-synced.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

TheBandit_76
12-12-2006, 08:15 AM
As it should be. Very advanced for its time and what a looker.

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

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2d/P80.600pix.jpg/300px-P80.600pix.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://members.cox.net/sparksco/PacificFighters/BudSig.jpg

For the good old American lifestyle: For the money, for the glory, and for the fun... mostly for the money.

JG7_Rall
12-12-2006, 09:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheBandit_76:
As it should be. Very advanced for its time and what a looker.

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

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2d/P80.600pix.jpg/300px-P80.600pix.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Plus, it's American<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_______________________________

http://badge.facebook.com/badge/9130947.277.2121856952.png (http://umass.facebook.com/profile.php?id=9130947)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Thank you for contributing to this forum. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

BaronUnderpants
12-12-2006, 10:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG7_Rall:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheBandit_76:
As it should be. Very advanced for its time and what a looker.

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

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2d/P80.600pix.jpg/300px-P80.600pix.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Plus, it's American </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Thats why its as should be....if u get my drift. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

Anywho...if all the fantesy jets are avalible on a server, the Lerche will proppably be to...so give me a Lerche and YP-80 is nemo problemo. Or a Go..or a He 163..or the new 262. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif



If i dont fly it myselfe that is. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

HuninMunin
12-12-2006, 11:39 AM
Doesn't the P-80 lack something like 4 tons of weight?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

------------------------------------------------------------
....I understand that you understand almost nothing in computer technology(regarding how to get all features working well in one great code and how to get it fully optimized for all aspects of the game and where developers must go for compromisses), because you are speaking bla-bla-bla about things that you don't know. Sorry I don't like to offend you. But it looks like it looks. - Oleg Maddox
------------------------------------------------------------

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/633/sigvp0.jpg

Simon "Hunin" Phoenix
Servant of Wotan and Tyr
True knight of the Endlich-Thread

JG53Frankyboy
12-12-2006, 11:42 AM
make an early cold war to hot warYP-80 vs Yak-15 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BillyTheKid_22
12-12-2006, 11:43 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TheBandit_76:
As it should be. Very advanced for its time and what a looker.

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



http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif Howdy!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Willey
12-12-2006, 11:49 AM
Where can I get 3.01? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Antoninus
12-12-2006, 11:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Willey:
Where can I get 3.01? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/130...271058215#2271058215 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/1301076984?r=2271058215#2271058215)<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________________
http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/3734/il2sig26hf.jpg

Actually everybody talks about aerial combat. I maintain that hitting ground targets, and especially ships is more dangerous than aerial combat. - Joe Foss

Brain32
12-12-2006, 11:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Doesn't the P-80 lack something like 4 tons of weight? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Shhhh you can't say that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif
BTW it's not 4tons but 4400kg(as il2 compare says) is ridiculous...<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

This is my sig http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

HuninMunin
12-12-2006, 11:59 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif
OK.
So we'll pretend that it's fine because we want whining free forums, got it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

------------------------------------------------------------
....I understand that you understand almost nothing in computer technology(regarding how to get all features working well in one great code and how to get it fully optimized for all aspects of the game and where developers must go for compromisses), because you are speaking bla-bla-bla about things that you don't know. Sorry I don't like to offend you. But it looks like it looks. - Oleg Maddox
------------------------------------------------------------

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/633/sigvp0.jpg

Simon "Hunin" Phoenix
Servant of Wotan and Tyr
True knight of the Endlich-Thread

Brain32
12-12-2006, 12:20 PM
Yes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif After all it's not like it's about German plane or something.
Besides if it was about German plane Oleg would make an insta-patch personally working non-stop without sleep and personally deliver the CD to every single member of community just like Santa... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

This is my sig http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

AKA_TAGERT
12-12-2006, 12:27 PM
Bartender.. Ill have what theyre ah drinkin<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

HuninMunin
12-12-2006, 12:40 PM
I had two glasses of "Klarer".<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

------------------------------------------------------------
....I understand that you understand almost nothing in computer technology(regarding how to get all features working well in one great code and how to get it fully optimized for all aspects of the game and where developers must go for compromisses), because you are speaking bla-bla-bla about things that you don't know. Sorry I don't like to offend you. But it looks like it looks. - Oleg Maddox
------------------------------------------------------------

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/633/sigvp0.jpg

Simon "Hunin" Phoenix
Servant of Wotan and Tyr
True knight of the Endlich-Thread

Willey
12-12-2006, 01:47 PM
Thx for the link http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Gibbage1
12-12-2006, 02:23 PM
The P-80 was always good vs other jets. Its the way it should be! The P-80 was designed as a fighter, vs the Me-262 that has a bad personality disorder, and the He-162 that was a pure desperation aircraft.

What does it say the weight of the YP-80 is in IL2?

Also, some of you may find this rather interesting.

http://www.1stfighter.org/photos/P80inItaly.html<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v461/gibbage/xb35.jpg

Vo101_Isegrim AkA Kurfurst__ "though the Northrop fantasy (B-35)
bomber you want to add to Il-2 never even got to the
prototype stage, while the Gotha did."

WWSensei
12-12-2006, 02:53 PM
I've flown the trainer T-33 version for about 6 hours total. The YP-80 is my offline guilty pleasure in QMB. Also, despite being totally outclassed by the Korean War guess which jet was the first to shoot down a MiG-15?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------
"A lady came up to me on the street, pointed to my leather flight jacket and said, "Don't you know a cow was murdered for that jacket?" I replied menacingly, "I didn't know I left witnesses. Now, I'll have to kill you too."

vladward3050
12-12-2006, 03:13 PM
I find the YP-80 and the He-162A-2 quite evenly matched. In QMB I have no trouble getting kills in either during a dogfight between the two. Gibbage, you are right, the YP-80 is a fighter, the 262 an excellent interceptor. I don't see how the new He-162C or the supposedly more maneuverable D model will have any trouble with the YP-80. Not saying the YP-80 won't be able to still hold its own. But I've yet to find out.

BigganD
12-12-2006, 04:41 PM
Man.. I hate jets, bought il2 1946 only for the new Ki's and some other planes (No JETS)
I'll play with jets only if... P-80 vs Mig9 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

"Thunderbolt, FW190 the WW2 butchers"

Copperhead310th
12-12-2006, 07:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
The P-80 has been the same ever since it has been released afaik, not a thing changed and the funny FM was noticed long ago- just there's no such crybaby attitude and noisemaking as never ending campaigns about 'fixing' the .50s, 'fixng' the P-51 etc. Shows how much 'concern' is there about it..

If it's a joke, it's a joke, couldn't care less, I don't fly it myself so why would I care? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

lol here's why you care Kurfie.
cause yer @ss gets OwNeD every time you face a p-80 in one of yer little German uber war machines. lol
Ya ever stop to think (doubtful knowing you, objective thought is a little bit of a stretch from what I've seen) that the reason the P-80 is so good in this sim is that Oleg may have just gotten it right? that's right I didn't think you would. Far to blinded by you revtionist ways to see the light. fact is that from a purely performance stand point, the P-80 would out class anything the Germans had the day it hit the WTO. The fact being, that despite Ilya's & Ian's creativity in the '46 back story, had the war actually gone another year in Europe, thing would have gone Much Much worse for the LW. And even their best jets would have been out classed in the west by the Allies. That's a fact so just deal with it.
And even IF they could have managed to come up with a match for the P-80 or the Meteor, their bast pilots they could find to fly them , much like your self, wouldn't have even hit puberty yet. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Now how's that for a joke Kurfie. lol
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Waldo.Pepper
12-12-2006, 08:15 PM
I have run down, then blown to smitherines, a YP-80 in an He-162b online. I prefer the 162b over the YP-80.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/sig/p61rev.jpg

anarchy52
12-12-2006, 08:25 PM
If the quoted weight of 4400kg in game is correct the P-80A (YP was pre-series, not prototype) we have in the game is missing about 900kg.

"Quest for Performance: The Evolution of Modern Aircraft", available online http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-468/app-a3.htm
gives the following data:

Empty: 3592 kg
Gross: 5307 kg
Max: 6350 kg

There are other sources which quote different numbers (higher), probably different P-80 variants.

Greatest advantage of P-80 over the Me-262 was the Power/weight ratio. Advantage of Me-262 was that it was available and operational.

Soviets were lagging far behind both the western allies and Germans. If it weren't for captured technology, Soviets wouldn't have a jet fighter till at least mid/late 1947.
The first soviet jet powered aircraft I-300 (prototype MiG-9) took off at 24 April 1946 powered by BMW-003 engines.
MiG-9 entered service in winter 1946/1947 powered by Kolesov RD-20 engines (copies of BMW-003).
Aircraft suffered from a number of serious problems but was accepted in service mainly for political reasons. Quite unlike MiG-9 we got in the game.

Ta-183 in game is completely fictional. It's performance does not bare any resemblance to projected design performance.
For example:
Projected performance(in-game performance)
Max speed: 955km/h(770 km/h)
Max climb: 20.4m/s (16 m/s)

VW-IceFire
12-12-2006, 08:40 PM
Not that I know...but the Ta-183 had some issues as a wind tunnel test plane and we all know that projected design performance rarely seems to match that of actual in practice performance. The P-39 was touted by Bell as having a projected top speed of over 400mph but yet when it flew at actual combat weight, with paint, and all of the equipment it was down to 350mph.

So the Ta-183, being completely fictional anyways, its harder to argue. That said, Ian Boys had said that some thought was being put into checking it out and possibly improving the FM. Its possible it was buggy out of the gate like the Ki-61's were in PF 3.0.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/icefire-tempestv.jpg
Find my missions at Flying Legends (http://www.flying-legends.net/php/downloads/downloads.php?cat_id=19) and Mission4Today.com (http://www.mission4today.com).

Philipscdrw
12-12-2006, 08:49 PM
Me262 was bomber interceptor. He162 was desperate "What can we build with the bits and pieces we've got left here" design. P-80 was designed as a fighter - no wonder it can outperform the Luftwaffe aircraft, it was designed to do that! Not to carry heavy arnament and smash bombers...

The Ta183 is almost the same as the Lerche if you compare the amount of WW2 design to 1C design, IMO.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

------------------------------------------------------------
PhilipsCDRw

PF_Tini's Simple Guide to Switching 4.04m, 4.05m, and 4.07m. (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/7351046415)
Flying on Hyperlobby as EAF_T_Dozer

Gibbage1
12-12-2006, 08:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:

Ta-183 in game is completely fictional. It's performance does not bare any resemblance to projected design performance.
For example:
Projected performance(in-game performance)
Max speed: 955km/h(770 km/h)
Max climb: 20.4m/s (16 m/s) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The projected performance for the Mig-9 was 1000Km/h. Do you REALLY REALLY want Oleg to go off of projected numbers?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v461/gibbage/xb35.jpg

Vo101_Isegrim AkA Kurfurst__ "though the Northrop fantasy (B-35)
bomber you want to add to Il-2 never even got to the
prototype stage, while the Gotha did."

Badsight-
12-12-2006, 09:41 PM
if you can be honest with yourself . . . . . even if you dont admit it here . . . . .

you have to agree that the P-80 in FB is extremely optimistically moddeled in its TnB ability<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/1741/shindendrawflight66os.jpg

AKA_TAGERT
12-12-2006, 09:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Philipscdrw:
Me262 was bomber interceptor. He162 was desperate "What can we build with the bits and pieces we've got left here" design. P-80 was designed as a fighter - no wonder it can outperform the Luftwaffe aircraft, it was designed to do that! Not to carry heavy arnament and smash bombers...

The Ta183 is almost the same as the Lerche if you compare the amount of WW2 design to 1C design, IMO. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

AKA_TAGERT
12-12-2006, 09:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight-:
if you can be honest with yourself . . . . . even if you dont admit it here . . . . .

you have to agree that the P-80 in FB is extremely optimistically moddeled in its TnB ability </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Based on... what?

Looks? Enh.. P80 looks sexy to me.
Paint Job? Emmm Ok, Jerry does have the best paint jobs.. hats.. and pants.. Best dressed looozers in history.
Feelings? Naaa even fish have those.

So if none of thee above.. just what data and testing are you basing that statment on?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

Badsight-
12-12-2006, 09:46 PM
not looks , not feelings , not opinion

look up the planes stats . there nothing to show why it should be running rings around the He-162 or Me-262 as well as it does

because in a TnB fight its no contest , it owns . you got 180 degrees to compete before your getting gained on big time flying the schwalb

either its overmoddeled , or the Lockheed wing designers were genius among their peers

its a highly loaded laminar wing that has a low area footprint . either your happy to look the other way for certian planes or your an honest plane fan , either way i dont really care how much you like it the way it is because it flys like a bit of a joke how it has done in FB<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/1741/shindendrawflight66os.jpg

AKA_TAGERT
12-12-2006, 09:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight-:
not looks , not feelings , not opinion </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Mkay

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight-:
look up the planes stats . there nothing to show why it should be running rings around the He-162 or Me-262 as well as it does </div></BLOCKQUOTE>First off.. what stats? There are a few! Some of the YP with the Britt engine, some of the later P80 and some from after the war. As for running circles.. 90% of the time it says more about the pilot than the plane!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight-:
either its overmoddeled , or the Lockheed wing designers were genius among their peers </div></BLOCKQUOTE>That is easy to say.. But do you have any proof? Any data sheet? Any track file that shows it doing better than said data sheet? Anything? Anything more than this "feeling" you have to go by?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight-:
either your happy to look the other way for certian planes or your an honest plane fan, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not true.. all I am saying is you have presented NADA to support your feelings!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight-:
either way i dont really care how much you like it the way it is because it flys like a bit of a joke how it has done in FB </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
There is that 'joke' statment again... Is that Jerry double talk for I GOT NUTTIN?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

Badsight-
12-12-2006, 10:10 PM
you dont actually play FB do you

AKA_TAGERT
12-12-2006, 10:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight-:
you don't actually play FB do you </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah.. don't tell me.. Let me guess.. This is your way of saying

"I'm sorry Tagert, your correct, I don't have anything to support my claim"

No problem bud.. We all get a little excited sometimes!

But if your trying to be serious.. You should demand a refund from your "Double Standards 101" class taught buy Izzy in that it ain't working for yah. Nice try though.. Big gold star for effort!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

Gibbage1
12-12-2006, 10:30 PM
So far I have had a few comments from T-33 pilots and they dont say its over modeled. If you dont mind, I would rather defer to there openion then yours. That is unless you have flown ione in real life also.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v461/gibbage/xb35.jpg

Vo101_Isegrim AkA Kurfurst__ "though the Northrop fantasy (B-35)
bomber you want to add to Il-2 never even got to the
prototype stage, while the Gotha did."

Badsight-
12-12-2006, 11:48 PM
no AKA_TAGERT , your not correct

take my suggestion in my first post on this page onboard

darkhorizon11
12-13-2006, 12:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Philipscdrw:
Me262 was bomber interceptor. He162 was desperate "What can we build with the bits and pieces we've got left here" design. P-80 was designed as a fighter - no wonder it can outperform the Luftwaffe aircraft, it was designed to do that! Not to carry heavy arnament and smash bombers...

The Ta183 is almost the same as the Lerche if you compare the amount of WW2 design to 1C design, IMO. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100% </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree also, all the ultra mega realism guys gotta let the 46 addon slip into the surreal... since it is... I don't have it yet but from reading the addon Steve posted theres all kinds of tweaks including boosting the thrust of the Mig's and Lerche's engines just to get them competitive and in the Lerche's case, flying. The Ta-183 and He-162D could fly due to critical airframe problems... honestly, people would whine and bellyache but I'd rather have seen the Pulqui II's tail on the Ta-183 airframe since thats what it morphed into anyways...

And thats just a few.


As for the YP-80, overmodeled? probably a bit... but whatever theres bigger things that need fixing...

ColoradoBBQ
12-13-2006, 12:11 AM
The reason why nobody complains about the FM because of that "WHOOOOOOOOoooooooooooo.." noise that happens at high AOA and then you bail.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://ourworld.cs.com/Gebaupointy/Backup1.JPG

DustyBarrels77
12-13-2006, 01:45 AM
Im new here but can someone ban kurfurst for being so disrepectful to others here?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:M98REgPM-RPbEM:http://www.me-air-company.de/crash_gross/005.jpg

Rudeljaeger
12-13-2006, 02:18 AM
Im not sure if I get the first post with the statistics right, but the YP-80 better than the MiG-9? WTF?

anarchy52
12-13-2006, 03:27 AM
YP-80 is overmodelled, no doubt about it - for starters it's weight is too low by roughly 1000 kg (!).
It was a well built aircraft, despite being overall conservative design. Curiously, I remember the comment of a P-80 pilot on this very forum speaking contrary to what Copperhead wrote. Can't find it any more though (was posted around the time YP-80 got introduced in game).

As for Ta-183 performance and comparison with Pulqui:
Ta-183 is porked, no doubt about it. Ta should accelerate much better and be able to fly much faster. It should outperform the Me-262 because of lower weight, lower drag and better thrust/weight. In game - it's pure **** to put it in simple terms.

Pulqui was a different aircraft with different weight (heavier), different engine (more power) and different aerodynamics (high mounted wing) and was faster then projected Ta-183. Comparing these two aircraft is not correct. Pulqui "superstall" was a phenomena that occured under very specific flight conditions and it does not imply in any way that Ta-183 would exhibit the same characteristics.
I've never seen any wind tunnel test data regarding Ta-183.

Oleg should go by projected performance data just as he did with most soviet aircraft performance based on factory trials of specially prepared prototypes, or like he did with Go-229 (which never completed the ). Interestingly, Oleg did make Lerche (just a concept) to perform as projected, despite the fact that with technology available it would never take off. MiG-9 was tweaked to make it usable in game, in reality I-300, and MiG-9 were dangerous aircraft - dangerous for their pilots more then the enemy. Curiously, the engine flameout problem on MiG-9 does not exist, despite being powered by german engines, or direct copies of german engines http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Compare the projected performance from german data (for example the 109) and actual performance, you will see that the differences are usually below 5%.

Bewolf
12-13-2006, 04:10 AM
shhh anarchy! You put at risk the absolute superiority of everything american. Everybody knows everything german was either desperate, flawed and most often both.
You live a dangerous life, my friend.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Bewolf

Never discuss with stupid people.
They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

anarchy52
12-13-2006, 05:53 AM
It's not about american, german or russian chest beating and flag waving, although there's plenty of that in this place.
It's about FM:
Plane A is incorrectly modelled (slight mistake of 1000kg less), plane B is incorrectly modelled as it performs far below expectations (we do not know the cause, because we do not have access to FM parameters).

It's about modelling:
Plane A is modelled according to projected performance, plane B is moddeled after...what exactly? In this case - Ta-183 is modelled completely arbitrary, no connection to Ta-183 project except for visual model.

stathem
12-13-2006, 07:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
Curiously, the engine flameout problem on MiG-9 does not exist, despite being powered by german engines, or direct copies of german engines http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's explained in the Read-me; better intake design reduced the problem.


Personally, I find the rest of your post to be absolute one-eyed nonsense but lacking time, I'll let someone else pull it to bits. I'm sure there will be no shortage of posters ready to do that.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/griffnav/Gallery/MossiePRsig.jpg

AKA_TAGERT
12-13-2006, 07:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight-:
no AKA_TAGERT , your not correct

take my suggestion in my first post on this page onboard </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Roger, I get it.. Not man enough to admit you were wrong.. No problem.. I'm use to that around here.

But humor me.. Anything.. Anything at all! Forget about supporting data.. How about an example of how your mind perceives this.. joke? For example.. Let's say that you "feel" like the roll rate is too good.. Ok, what test did you do to come to that conclusion.. *AND* what value of roll rate did you "feel" like you obtained?

500?/sec?
400?/sec?
300?/sec?
200?/sec?
100?/sec?

Just what is your tummy telling you?

Like I said.. Anything.. Anything at all would be 1000 times more than you have given us thus far.

SAVVY?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

Brain32
12-13-2006, 07:26 AM
Just a message to my friend:
Postanje na ovom forumu je ko pi?anje uz vjetar http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Centar za samopomo? war winner-a, hrabri telefon http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

This is my sig http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

AKA_TAGERT
12-13-2006, 07:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
YP-80 is overmodelled, no doubt about it - for starters it's weight is too low by roughly 1000 kg (!).
It was a well built aircraft, despite being overall conservative design. Curiously, I remember the comment of a P-80 pilot on this very forum speaking contrary to what Copperhead wrote. Can't find it any more though (was posted around the time YP-80 got introduced in game). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>So.. let me see if I understand what your saying.. Your saying that Oleg is not smart enough to get the weight right? Is that the jist of it? Or could it be that some net nub is looking at the weight values of a 1955 P80 with dive breaks, wing tanks, extra armor, rack mounts, etc and trying to compare it to the stripped down smaller development YP-80 version of late 1945? My guess is the later.. but your mileage may vary.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

AKA_TAGERT
12-13-2006, 07:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Just a message to my friend:
Postanje na ovom forumu je ko pi?anje uz vjetar http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Centar za samopomo? war winner-a, hrabri telefon http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Is that Jerry talk for "I GOT NUTTIN EITHER!"<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

Brain32
12-13-2006, 07:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Just a message to my friend:
Postanje na ovom forumu je ko pi?anje uz vjetar http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Centar za samopomo? war winner-a, hrabri telefon http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Is that Jerry talk for "I GOT NUTTIN EITHER!" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Guess again, Eskimohttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

This is my sig http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

TheBandit_76
12-13-2006, 07:35 AM
Wow, a bunch of crying about the P-80, yet the highly questionable109G2 flies on and on and on..........

Hmm, I think it's too light.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://members.cox.net/sparksco/PacificFighters/BudSig.jpg

For the good old American lifestyle: For the money, for the glory, and for the fun... mostly for the money.

Brain32
12-13-2006, 07:37 AM
Only thing highly questionable is why are the rest of the 109's such an utter cr@p.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

This is my sig http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

AKA_TAGERT
12-13-2006, 07:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Just a message to my friend:
Postanje na ovom forumu je ko pi?anje uz vjetar http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Centar za samopomo? war winner-a, hrabri telefon http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Is that Jerry talk for "I GOT NUTTIN EITHER!" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Guess again, Eskimohttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah.. did have that wale blubber look to it! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

AKA_TAGERT
12-13-2006, 07:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Only thing highly questionable is why are the rest of the 109's such an utter cr@p. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Becaue Oleg got those right by taking into consideration what Galland and Carson said about the 109<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

Brain32
12-13-2006, 07:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Only thing highly questionable is why are the rest of the 109's such an utter cr@p. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Becaue Oleg got those right by taking into consideration what Galland and Carson said about the 109 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Which one? Or are they all the same too you? Besides, since when is Oleg taking pilot accounts into consideration when it comes to modelling planes in the game? I know of a few nice ones too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Also, please share with me, what did Galland said about the 109, and which model was it.
I know Carson hanged only to British testing of captured Emil and G6, he never flew one ofcourse.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

This is my sig http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

HuninMunin
12-13-2006, 08:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheBandit_76:
Wow, a bunch of crying about the P-80, yet the highly questionable109G2 flies on and on and on..........

Hmm, I think it's too light. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why do the majority of Luftwaffe jocks admit that the G-2 is a way to good climber in comparsion to the others but you don't see anything but childish defense of the obviously overmodelled YP-80 from USAAF jocks?

Hats off to those folks bothering to argue with the texan bunch.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

------------------------------------------------------------
....I understand that you understand almost nothing in computer technology(regarding how to get all features working well in one great code and how to get it fully optimized for all aspects of the game and where developers must go for compromisses), because you are speaking bla-bla-bla about things that you don't know. Sorry I don't like to offend you. But it looks like it looks. - Oleg Maddox
------------------------------------------------------------

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/633/sigvp0.jpg

Simon "Hunin" Phoenix
Servant of Wotan and Tyr
True knight of the Endlich-Thread

anarchy52
12-13-2006, 08:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
So.. let me see if I understand what your saying.. Your saying that Oleg is not smart enough to get the weight right? Is that the jist of it? Or could it be that some net nub is looking at the weight values of a 1955 P80 with dive breaks, wing tanks, extra armor, rack mounts, etc and trying to compare it to the stripped down smaller development YP-80 version of late 1945? My guess is the later.. but your mileage may vary. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do not confuse YP-80 and XP-80.
Could you provide some reference on differences between P-80A and YP-80? Or you are here just for "Go USA, get a brain morans" and "Agree/Disagree 100%"?

AKA_TAGERT
12-13-2006, 09:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Only thing highly questionable is why are the rest of the 109's such an utter cr@p. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Becaue Oleg got those right by taking into consideration what Galland and Carson said about the 109 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Which one? Or are they all the same too you? Besides, since when is Oleg taking pilot accounts into consideration when it comes to modelling planes in the game? I know of a few nice ones too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Also, please share with me, what did Galland said about the 109, and which model was it.
I know Carson hanged only to British testing of captured Emil and G6, he never flew one ofcourse. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Oh.. my bad! When you made that "utter cr@p" statment I thought you were joking! Thus I figured you were in a joking mood and I thought I would join in.. but Now I can see you were actully serious? Really?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

AKA_TAGERT
12-13-2006, 09:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
Why do the majority of Luftwaffe jocks admit that the G-2 is a way to good climber in comparsion to the others but you don't see anything but childish defense of the obviously overmodelled YP-80 from USAAF jocks?

Hats off to those folks bothering to argue with the texan bunch. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Obviously Over modeled?

WOW!

I did not realize we had so many real life P80 pilots here! My bad!

Say, what with you being a real P80 pilot could you give us one example of how the in-game P80 is over modeled with regards to a real P80?

Just one example!

Pretty Please!

You know.. something simple like top speed @ altitude, or a climb rate, or a roll rate.. Anything! Just one! No need to point out every error? Unless you ?feel? like it! But to make my day.. Just one!

In that it should be a very Very VERY simple thing to do.. ?IF? the in-game P80 is OBVIOUSLY Over modeled.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

AKA_TAGERT
12-13-2006, 09:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
Do not confuse YP-80 and XP-80.
Could you provide some reference on differences between P-80A and YP-80? Or you are here just for "Go USA, </div></BLOCKQUOTE> No chance of me confusing it in that I was the one that pointed out to you there are different versions of the P80! As for me providing you data to support your claim of it being over modeled.. Sorry, it does not work that way! The burden is on you.. Unless your sole purpose here is to just whine

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
get a brain morans" and "Agree/Disagree 100%"? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Now now.. play nice nice! I know your upset in that I caught you in a situation that you can not justify.. But that is no excuse to be nasty<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

CaptJodan
12-13-2006, 09:16 AM
Like so many threads, this one once again demonstrates the flaws in how much of this board behaves in the way it attempts to debate a certain issue (hence why I don't shop just watch here much). This entire board, American, British, German, Russian, et al could use a refresher on logical arguments if you ask me. If just to have civil debates that don't fly off into Strawmen, Ad Hominem attacks, Appeal to Emotion, Appeal to Authority, on and on and on.

Tagert is right in that the burden of proof is on those making the accusation that it is overmodeled. And he's asking for proof. That's completely fair. If you provide proof, then he has to be able to defend it, or risk being flat wrong. It's really SHOULD BE that simple.

Of course, it never is around here. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ploughman
12-13-2006, 09:22 AM
There are some photos of the YP-80s sent to Lesina Airfield in Italy here. (http://www.1stfighter.org/photos/P80inItaly.html)

http://www.1stfighter.org/photos/WW2_Aircraft/YP80jet-1945_Bertoglio1_md.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">


Dum spiro, spero

AKA_TAGERT
12-13-2006, 09:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CaptJodan:
If you provide proof, then he has to be able to defend it, or risk being flat wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Actully what I would do first is TEST it.

If my testing shows they are right, I would agree with them!

If my testig shows that they are wrong, than my test results would be used to defend it.

Most here never test anything.. They just jump on the band wagon. Clearly Krusty, Badsight, Brain32, and anarchy52 are of this class in that they have presented nothing to support thier claims. The funny part is if you say anything negaitive about their fav plane they will DEMAND ten forms of aircraft data along with the menu of what the pilot had for lunch that day and how many cups of coffie he drank. Otherwise they will disregard it all.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

CaptJodan
12-13-2006, 09:34 AM
The funny part is if you say anything negaitive about their fav plane they will DEMAND ten forms of aircraft data but what the pilot had for lunch that day.


Oh come on. We all know what they had for lunch makes a HUGE difference on the flight model. I say a vegan aircraft pilot would have a far better rate of climb than someone who just chugged down two high grade german beers and some Schnitzel (and dies happier). http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Rudeljaeger
12-13-2006, 09:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CaptJodan:

I say a vegan aircraft pilot would have a far better rate of climb </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You know you need strength to control a flight stick...A one of these starving vegans will surely
not be able to climb inside a cockpit. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Manu-6S
12-13-2006, 09:52 AM
OMG!

A jet turns like a prop plane and you keep saying it's correct, but sure all the other US fighters are porked...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://www.diavolirossi.net/manu/banner.gif (http://www.diavolirossi.net)

AKA_TAGERT
12-13-2006, 09:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Manu-6S:
OMG!

A jet turns like a prop plane and you keep saying it's correct, but sure all the other US fighters are porked...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL!

Turns like a prop?

Just what does that mean in your world? Do all props turn the same in your world and only jets turn different?

Please..

Does anyone.. ANYONE have one example that is not based on a "feeling"?

Just one example of the in-game P80 beating some real world P80 data! Top Speed, Climb Rate, Roll Rate..

Anything!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

HuninMunin
12-13-2006, 10:34 AM
Just to give you a clue how ridiculous your attempts to prove the YP-80 beeing "fine" are:

Fact:
It outturns the 109 K on any speed higher then 300
km/h.

You shure know how the T/W and W/W ratios for both planes look like http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

------------------------------------------------------------
....I understand that you understand almost nothing in computer technology(regarding how to get all features working well in one great code and how to get it fully optimized for all aspects of the game and where developers must go for compromisses), because you are speaking bla-bla-bla about things that you don't know. Sorry I don't like to offend you. But it looks like it looks. - Oleg Maddox
------------------------------------------------------------

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/633/sigvp0.jpg

Simon "Hunin" Phoenix
Servant of Wotan and Tyr
True knight of the Endlich-Thread

MEGILE
12-13-2006, 10:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
Just to give you a clue how ridiculous your attempts to prove the YP-80 beeing "fine" are:

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tagert never tried to prove anything

you are the guys making the claims, not him<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/7683/starostauc4.jpg
If you see this man.... it's probably too late
Oleg - I was dreaming to make Meteor, but third party didn't make it finally (left unfinished)

PraetorHonoris
12-13-2006, 11:10 AM
The Shooting Star in game has 4,4tons weight as listed in Il2compare.
The P-80A in real life had a gross weight of 5,3tons according to http://www.aviation-history.com/lockheed/p80.html

The differences between YP-80 and P-80A as listed by Joe Baugher were:
The P-80A was much the same as the YP-80A which preceded it, differing only in minor details. The P-80A introduced under-fuselage dive brakes which opened forward at the wing join, and had a landing light installed behind a transparent fairing in the upper nose. The intake lip was moved slightly further aft, and the tailplane incidence was raised by 1.5 degrees.
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p80.html (http://home.att.net/%7Ejbaugher1/p80.html)

For some reasons, I have difficulties imagine how these changes could result in almost one ton difference. Even more difficult is to imagine, how the called upon P-80 pilots did not notice the plane ingame being significantly lighter with much better thrust/weight-ratio, or where they all YP-80 jocks?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/6061/untitled1copymd8.jpg

"Misconceptions about the Luftwaffe [...] are, in large part, simply caused by a lack of basic skills of many, who write about the Luftwaffe. For some inexplicable reason, many historians - especially Americans - believe they can write books about the German army or the German air force without knowing German"
Dr. J.S.Corum, LTC USAF, Strategic Studies Institute

Antoninus
12-13-2006, 11:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
Ta-183 is porked, no doubt about it. Ta should accelerate much better and be able to fly much faster. It should outperform the Me-262 because of lower weight, lower drag and better thrust/weight. In game - it's pure **** to put it in simple terms.

Pulqui was a different aircraft with different weight (heavier), different engine (more power) and different aerodynamics (high mounted wing) and was faster then projected Ta-183. Comparing these two aircraft is not correct. Pulqui "superstall" was a phenomena that occured under very specific flight conditions and it does not imply in any way that Ta-183 would exhibit the same characteristics.
I've never seen any wind tunnel test data regarding Ta-183.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How do you want to know? As much as I'd like to have a high end Luftwaffe fighter in game facts seem to speak against the Ta-183. The Ta 183 develoment was far from finsihed, it did never fly and aerodynamical knowledge and tools (computers) have heavily improved since the mid forties. I have more trust in modern calculations regarding the Ta 183 performance than from 1945. And the TsAGI windtunnel test after the war did show some flaws of the design as the problem with flutter effects on the T-Tail structure that is mentioned in readme and a bow wave problem.

Propably this design of the Ta 183 would never have been gone into serial production.

Me-262-A is heavier but also has more thrust available. In game the thrust to weight ratio for Me 262 is better (0.26 compared to 0.3), with take off weight from il2 compare (4885.79 Kg for Ta-183 and 5894.89 Kg for Me 262-A) and thrust values from the objet viewer, (12.7 KN /1300Kg Ta 183, 2 x 900 Kg, 2x 8,83 KN for Me.262A with Jumo engines).<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________________
http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/3734/il2sig26hf.jpg

Actually everybody talks about aerial combat. I maintain that hitting ground targets, and especially ships is more dangerous than aerial combat. - Joe Foss

PraetorHonoris
12-13-2006, 11:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Antoninus:

And the TsAGI windtunnel test after the war did show some flaws of the design as the problem with flutter effects on the T-Tail structure that is mentioned in readme and a bow wave problem.

Propably this design of the Ta 183 would never have been gone into serial production.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly! The design we have in game was rejected by K.Tank in favour of another design (designation numbers vary in the literature). The final design was projected with a completely different tail-unit and nose, thereby addressing the major flaws correctly noted at TsAGI, the flutter and bow-wave.
(cf. Nowarra: Luftrüstung, Vol.2, 1993, p.115f.)
I think it would have been a better choice for the game, even though it does not look as "cool". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/6061/untitled1copymd8.jpg

"Misconceptions about the Luftwaffe [...] are, in large part, simply caused by a lack of basic skills of many, who write about the Luftwaffe. For some inexplicable reason, many historians - especially Americans - believe they can write books about the German army or the German air force without knowing German"
Dr. J.S.Corum, LTC USAF, Strategic Studies Institute

fordfan25
12-13-2006, 12:24 PM
would this be a good time to bring up the overmoddled DM on the FW190D http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Bah-weep-Graaaaagnah wheep ni ni bong.

-----------------------------
http://www.magnum-pc.com/
"your order will ship in under 2 weeks, be sure"

HuninMunin
12-13-2006, 12:38 PM
Or "The BAR" (tm) ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

------------------------------------------------------------
....I understand that you understand almost nothing in computer technology(regarding how to get all features working well in one great code and how to get it fully optimized for all aspects of the game and where developers must go for compromisses), because you are speaking bla-bla-bla about things that you don't know. Sorry I don't like to offend you. But it looks like it looks. - Oleg Maddox
------------------------------------------------------------

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/633/sigvp0.jpg

Simon "Hunin" Phoenix
Servant of Wotan and Tyr
True knight of the Endlich-Thread

Viper2005_
12-13-2006, 12:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
would this be a good time to bring up the overmoddled DM on the FW190D http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure, if you've got some data to support such claims... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

stathem
12-13-2006, 12:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Manu-6S:
OMG!

A jet turns like a prop plane and you keep saying it's correct, but sure all the other US fighters are porked...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cor, that's awful...whatever next, A DH Vampire outturning a Spitfire?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/griffnav/Gallery/MossiePRsig.jpg

mazexx
12-13-2006, 12:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Antoninus:

And the TsAGI windtunnel test after the war did show some flaws of the design as the problem with flutter effects on the T-Tail structure that is mentioned in readme and a bow wave problem.

Propably this design of the Ta 183 would never have been gone into serial production.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly! The design we have in game was rejected by K.Tank in favour of another design (designation numbers vary in the literature). The final design was projected with a completely different tail-unit and nose, thereby addressing the major flaws correctly noted at TsAGI, the flutter and bow-wave.
(cf. Nowarra: Luftrüstung, Vol.2, 1993, p.115f.)
I think it would have been a better choice for the game, even though it does not look as "cool". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you talking about this baby?

http://www.luft46.com/fw/3bft183j.jpg

Full description at: http://www.luft46.com/fw/ta183-ii.html

If we wanted a cool looking plane the Heinkel P1079A would fit nicely, It has some 1965 looks instead of the early 50:ies look of the Ta183 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.luft46.com/heinkel/3bh1079a.jpg

Full description at: http://www.luft46.com/heinkel/hep1079a.html

/Mazex

CaptJodan
12-13-2006, 01:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
The Shooting Star in game has 4,4tons weight as listed in Il2compare.
The P-80A in real life had a gross weight of 5,3tons according to http://www.aviation-history.com/lockheed/p80.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, question. Does the gross weight include the wing fuel tanks?

AKA_TAGERT
12-13-2006, 01:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
Just to give you a clue how ridiculous your attempts to prove the YP-80 beeing "fine" are: </div></BLOCKQUOTE>No.. what is ridiculous is how blinded you are in your bias.. In that I have never said the P-80 is "fine" or "not fine" all I have said is that nobody has yet to post anything to prove that it is over modled.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
Fact:
It outturns the 109 K on any speed higher then 300 km/h. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Clearly you are confused about what the word "FACT" means.. You should really not use words you don't know the meaning of. In that just calling something a FACT does not make it so! You have to be able to prove it. But I digress..

Let's take a look at what you said..

First problem with your statement is you have not provided anything that says the P80 could not out turn a 109K..

PAY CLOSE ATT HERE!

I am not saying a P80 could out turn a 109K, I am simply pointing out that you have not provided anything (data, pilot accounts, etc) that says it could NOT out turn a 109K! This is most likely associated with you not understanding what the word FACT means and how just saying it does not make it so!

Second problem with your statement, lets assume there is some data that shows the real life turn rates of the 109K and P80, you have not provided any in-game data that shows the in-game P80 does in fact out turn a 109K. Let alone the test procedure you used during such a test, let alone a track file showing you doing the test.

Any of this starting to sink in yet? I hope so!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
You shure know how the T/W and W/W ratios for both planes look like http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Only thing I am sure about is you have not provided anything to support your claim. SAVVY?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

PraetorHonoris
12-13-2006, 01:13 PM
Yes, could be true, CaptJodan, because the fuel in the wing tip tanks weights around 870Kg.


@ Mazex, yes that is what I had in mind.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/6061/untitled1copymd8.jpg

"Misconceptions about the Luftwaffe [...] are, in large part, simply caused by a lack of basic skills of many, who write about the Luftwaffe. For some inexplicable reason, many historians - especially Americans - believe they can write books about the German army or the German air force without knowing German"
Dr. J.S.Corum, LTC USAF, Strategic Studies Institute

AKA_TAGERT
12-13-2006, 01:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
The Shooting Star in game has 4,4tons weight as listed in Il2compare. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ill have to take your word for it, I am at work and can not check it out. Do you know if that is the weight listed in the aircraft viewer in IL2 the game? Reason I ask is this would not be the first time Oleg had a type-o or that IL2 compare had a type-o. Also, what the viewers say is moot really, in that what is listed in the viewer and what the FM uses could be two different things! The real question.. the one all the nay sayers are trying to avoid is does the in-game YP80 out perform the real YP80 in any area? Is it faster? Does it turn better? Does it climb better? Does it do anything better than the real thing? We don?t know because nobody has provided anything specific.. Unless you consider someone saying it turns better than a 109K specific! Talk about joke! But I digress! Back to the weight.. Lets assume that 4.4 tons is what it is..

4.4 ton [short, US] = 8 800 lb, lbs

Looking at the link someone provided.. i.e.

http://www.aviation-history.com/lockheed/p80.html

It says that a P80 (not YP80) that has dive breaks and some minor changes dry weight (i.e. no fuel or oil) is..

7,920 lb

And

7 920 lb, lbs = 3.96 ton [short, US]

So, assuming the IL2 compare number is a dry weight, than the in-game YP80 with no dive break weights more than the real P80! MORE NOT LESS! When in real life the YP80 should have been LESS NOT MORE!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
The P-80A in real life had a gross weight of 5,3tons according to http://www.aviation-history.com/lockheed/p80.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
5.3 tons? That sounds like the GROSS weight, not the DRY weight. From the link someone provided I get these three numbers

7 920 lb, lbs = 3.96 ton [short, US] DRY
11 700 lb, lbs = 5.85 ton [short, US] GROSS
14 000 lb, lbs = 7 ton [short, US] MAX

Note, not saying the numbers above are correct either! Just using the numbers from the link you provided

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
The differences between YP-80 and P-80A as listed by Joe Baugher were:
The P-80A was much the same as the YP-80A which preceded it, differing only in minor details. The P-80A introduced under-fuselage dive brakes which opened forward at the wing join, and had a landing light installed behind a transparent fairing in the upper nose. The intake lip was moved slightly further aft, and the tail plane incidence was raised by 1.5 degrees.
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p80.html (http://home.att.net/%7Ejbaugher1/p80.html)

For some reasons, I have difficulties imagine how these changes could result in almost one ton difference. Even more difficult is to imagine, how the called upon P-80 pilots did not notice the plane in game being significantly lighter with much better thrust/weight-ratio, or where they all YP-80 jocks? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Welcome to the internet! There are plenty of conflicting sources out there! My guess is Oleg did not use any of them and used one that he could verify! But I am sure most will disagree with that and call Oleg a boob! Again, the weight is a moot issue anyways, be it wrong or right it does not prove that the in-game YP80 is performing better than the real life YP80! In that if you want to belive Oleg is that dumb, than you have to also believe that he could have also made a mistake with the thrust and set it too low too!

Long story short, if you want adults to belie the in game YP80 is over modeled you will have to provide some real world performance data and than a track file showing the in game YP80 doing better than that. Anything else is just a whine IMHO. But, it is understandable what with the Ta183 not turning out to be all that some hoped it would be! Thus time to try and bring down the competition a notch in the hopes of giving the Ta183 and edge.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

PraetorHonoris
12-13-2006, 02:04 PM
I did not say overmodelled, I merely asked a simple question.

I'll keep it short. The question was answered. 4,4tons or to be more exact 4401,16Kg are the take-off weight as stated in Il2-compare. The reason why many sources give much higher gross weights for 80A is probably simply the fuel tanks on the wing tips. They weight more than 870Kg. Them together with the changes noted above brings the 80A quickly up to 5,3tons, I suppose.
Could be wrong, though.

Btw, as a personal note, your persistend personal slant in your tonque is insulting as are your nationalist slants, frankly, but then I guess that's exactly what it's meant to be. Shows your true colours, from my point of view. Which is sad, if I am right.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/6061/untitled1copymd8.jpg

"Misconceptions about the Luftwaffe [...] are, in large part, simply caused by a lack of basic skills of many, who write about the Luftwaffe. For some inexplicable reason, many historians - especially Americans - believe they can write books about the German army or the German air force without knowing German"
Dr. J.S.Corum, LTC USAF, Strategic Studies Institute

HuninMunin
12-13-2006, 02:17 PM
Dear Tagert.
First of all, as long as your german isn't half as good as my english I would like you to let me decide wich words I use.

As I can tell by your reaction you were not able
to see the connection between the two parts of my post.

The first part is there to give you a hint at how strange the YP-80 behaves in terms of manouvreability (see why I concider it strange in the second part).
I did not test anything but used the performence
data given by Maddox.
You could try to find this data on this forums
(&lt;hint&gt; its on the 1st page in general discussion).
Dont pretend that a truth is a lie just because you dont understand it.

The second part gives you a clue why it is "strange" that the 80 outturns the 109 above 300
km/h.
The ratios are easy to calculate (its basic mathematics), but dont expect me to lay it out before you nor to explain the comparsion.

If you really are interested in the topic you can add 1 to 1, if not, keep on truckin'.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

------------------------------------------------------------
....I understand that you understand almost nothing in computer technology(regarding how to get all features working well in one great code and how to get it fully optimized for all aspects of the game and where developers must go for compromisses), because you are speaking bla-bla-bla about things that you don't know. Sorry I don't like to offend you. But it looks like it looks. - Oleg Maddox
------------------------------------------------------------

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/633/sigvp0.jpg

Simon "Hunin" Phoenix
Servant of Wotan and Tyr
True knight of the Endlich-Thread

AKA_TAGERT
12-13-2006, 02:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
I did not say overmodelled, I merely asked a simple question. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I did not say 'you' said overmodelled

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
I'll keep it short. The question was answered. 4,4tons or to be more exact 4401,16Kg are the take-off weight as stated in Il2-compare. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Again, Ill have to take your word or it I don't have IL2 compare. I also noticed that you failed to answer my question if that matches what the ingame aircraft viewer lists it at. I also noticed that you failed to consider that this number in IL2 compare could be a type-o. I also noticed that you faile to consider that if you belive Oleg is dumb enought to get the weight wrong, and not fix it in the many patches sence the release of the YP80 that he could also be dumb enough to get the thrust, drag, lift, etc wrong too. Which means what really maters is what can the in-game YP80 do performance wise.. Not what is listed in the viewer. SAVVY?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
The reason why many sources give much higher gross weights for 80A is probably simply the fuel tanks on the wing tips. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Maybe.. maybe not! The internet is a great place, but I would never bet my life on the data listed out there. That and I feel confidant that Oleg gave it more thought than a google search.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
They weight more than 870Kg. Them together with the changes noted above brings the 80A quickly up to 5,3tons, I suppose. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Seems reasonalbe to me too.. but I am sure some of the nay sayers will not agree or ignore that completly as a posable expaltion and rather go with the Oleg is a boob who can not count theory.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
Could be wrong, though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
Btw, as a personal note, your persistend personal slant in your tonque is insulting as are your nationalist slants, frankly, but then I guess that's exactly what it's meant to be. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>DING!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
Shows your true colours, from my point of view. Which is sad, if I am right. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh.. Im sorry, where you operating under the false impression that I give a rip about what you think of me?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

HuninMunin
12-13-2006, 02:21 PM
You seem to care alot about our opinion, why would you bother to troll otherwise?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

------------------------------------------------------------
....I understand that you understand almost nothing in computer technology(regarding how to get all features working well in one great code and how to get it fully optimized for all aspects of the game and where developers must go for compromisses), because you are speaking bla-bla-bla about things that you don't know. Sorry I don't like to offend you. But it looks like it looks. - Oleg Maddox
------------------------------------------------------------

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/633/sigvp0.jpg

Simon "Hunin" Phoenix
Servant of Wotan and Tyr
True knight of the Endlich-Thread

AKA_TAGERT
12-13-2006, 02:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
Dear Tagert. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Dear? Sorry Hunin.. but I don?t swing that way!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
First of all, as long as your german isn't half as good as my english I would like you to let me decide wich words I use. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Ok shoot

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
As I can tell by your reaction you were not able to see the connection between the two parts of my post.

The first part is there to give you a hint at how strange the YP-80 behaves in terms of manouvreability (see why I concider it strange in the second part). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Roger, both parts are just a ?feeling? you have, got it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
I did not test anything but used the performance data given by Maddox. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Wrong, IL2COMPARE is NOT by Maddox.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
You could try to find this data on this forums (&lt;hint&gt; its on the 1st page in general discussion). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So what part of you NOT providing any data stating the YP80 could NOT out turn a 109K did you not understand?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
Dont pretend that a truth is a lie just because you dont understand it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Only truth here is you have not provided anything to support your claim

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
The second part gives you a clue why it is "strange" that the 80 outturns the 109 above 300 km/h. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah, good, glad to see you can learn from me.. In that now you call it "strange" and not "FACT"! This is a good sign.. there may be hope for you yet?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
The ratios are easy to calculate (its basic mathematics), but dont expect me to lay it out before you nor to explain the comparsion.

If you really are interested in the topic you can add 1 to 1, if not, keep on truckin'. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Still don?t understand or want to understand that you have NOT provided anything to support your claim? What is so hard about that simple concep?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

Bremspropeller
12-13-2006, 02:27 PM
Don't argue with Tagert. He's a freedom-hater.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/2369/toryusig4me.jpg

AKA_TAGERT
12-13-2006, 02:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
You seem to care alot about our opinion, why would you bother to troll otherwise? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You poor thing.. You seem upset? Ok, Ill go easy on yah.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

AKA_TAGERT
12-13-2006, 02:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Don't argue with Tagert. He's a freedom-hater. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Not true! I ware boxers!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

AKA_TAGERT
12-13-2006, 02:34 PM
PS still waiting on one example!

Just one of the in-game YP80 doing something a real YP80 could not do! (aka OVERMODLED)

Does anyone have anything?

Anything at all!

A climb rate..
A roll rate..
A turn rate..

Anything REAL and not just a FEELING!

Some real YP80 data that we could than test the ingame YP80 to see if it does exceed the REAL values..

Anything!

Anyone?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

Gibbage1
12-13-2006, 06:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:

<span class="ev_code_RED">That leaves us with 141 kg for fuel, hydraulics, lubricants, oxygen and anything else we might need...</span>
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is assuming that the 4400kg weight in IL2C is correct. I for one never put much faith in a program that gave turn numbers on the Plz.11 with combat flaps.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v461/gibbage/xb35.jpg

Vo101_Isegrim AkA Kurfurst__ "though the Northrop fantasy (B-35)
bomber you want to add to Il-2 never even got to the
prototype stage, while the Gotha did."

AKA_TAGERT
12-13-2006, 06:31 PM
Gezzzz what a bunch of smacktards!

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/STFU/INGAME_STATS_YP80.JPG

5,311 kilogram = 5.854 ton [short, US]
5,311 kilogram = 11,708.75 lb<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

JSG72
12-13-2006, 06:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
One can see the croc tear flood whine from you know who since one of his uber German war machine has been bested by an Allied war machine. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>ROTFL

What is really making me grin is the self proclaimed expert that refers to it as a joke but provides no proof to support any of his whining! Even though he will nag others to death that don't provide proof when talking negative about one of his fav planes. Typical Hypocrite Loony Luftie Tatics!

He should just be happy that the current YP-80 does not have it's .50s de-synced! That will give Jerry's planes an edge. But between now and the 4.08 addon I will be floading Oleg with requests to get them de-synced. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As this was your first post on this thread.

Why is it? that you apear to be the persicuted soul that has allowed this Load of nonsence to go on for 7/8/9? pages?

There are no definative answers to your questions.At least Not in existance/Available to You and I. As well you should know.

Read MY POSTs and realise .<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Is it just me? or can, anyone sook the truth.

BillyTheKid_22
12-13-2006, 06:37 PM
P-80 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/p-80-1_300.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://members.cox.net/bkid/pacificfighters/p39.jpg

.................................................. ..............

"All I got was a bellyful of English Channel."

BfHeFwMe
12-13-2006, 06:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
I have told you that I will not do a 1+1 step for you.
I will not even start to explain why; you seem to be intelligent enough to see how action and reaction work in terms of personal behaviour.

But I will help you to get me right:
In Lock On the F-14 outturns the F-16.
Wrong eh?
Someone tells you that this is incorrect.
This someone goes on and tells you that there are very simple reasons why the F-14 should not outturn the F-16 (weight, aerodynamics, thrust).
Is it fair of this person to claim that the F-14 is represented wrong?

And I didn't say that Il-2 Compare is released by Maddox officially.
But you shure know how the programm came to be and in what way it mirrors the performence of the planes ingame.
Numbers are Facts http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ehummm, the F-14D did in fact out turn the F-16 in the horizontal, in sustained turns. You got that one wrong too. Greater thrust to weight ratio and swing wings Baby.

No one mentioned the weight increase caused by adding an ejection seat and canopy system. Quite a substantial increase there also, early seats were pretty heavy. YP-80 had a simple fixed seat. In fact there's many things added to the production P-80 that aren't covered here, like radar ranging sensors in the nose for the gunsight, fire detection systems, and fixed weapons pylons for starters.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Valencia, returning in his shot-up but airworthy Hellcat after his harrowing February 1944 mission over Truk, summed up the thoughts of many pilots about Hellcats: ?If they could cook, I?d marry one.?

AKA_TAGERT
12-13-2006, 06:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Ehummm, the F-14D did in fact out turn the F-16 in the horizontal, in sustained turns. You got that one wrong too. Greater thrust to weight ratio and swing wings Baby. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
What? You mean his "FEELINGS" where wrong? ROTFL!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

CaptJodan
12-13-2006, 06:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Gezzzz what a bunch of smacktards!

5,311 kilogram = 5.854 ton [short, US]
5,311 kilogram = 11,708.75 lb </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow. Yeah that kind of covers that weight thing, doesn't it (which was, by itself, a Red Herring to begin with.)?

I actually wanted to look some stuff up when this started but my IL-2 is on the fritz with Boonty screwing it up and am waiting for 46 to fix it. But good catch there.

JSG72
12-13-2006, 06:59 PM
Ignore the "RIGHT BOY"(LA LA LA LA LAH! We Won the War. So we must be good)

PALS on NOW?

Time wasting s**t

We've hooked a big fish now.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Is it just me? or can, anyone sook the truth.

JSG72
12-13-2006, 07:18 PM
Fish, breaks line.

Swims off and lives to Die another day.

I'm glad to be this fish. I must be the Best in the World.

No-one can swim/manouvre better than me.
Philosophy. Good In the head(Bad in reality)<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Is it just me? or can, anyone sook the truth.

AKA_TAGERT
12-13-2006, 07:20 PM
I FEEL YOUR PAIN TOO!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

JSG72
12-13-2006, 07:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
I FEEL YOUR PAIN TOO! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
Yes! You don't know what to say. So you quote from Star Trek or some nothing or other.

Say my name! Least you be banned.

You Lose!

New Topic!

Last post

Thank F**K<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Is it just me? or can, anyone sook the truth.

AKA_TAGERT
12-13-2006, 07:39 PM
Poooooooooor Nancy<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

JSG72
12-13-2006, 07:49 PM
Yuh! Forgot the "n" Dill!

Say my Name! Look at me!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Is it just me? or can, anyone sook the truth.

AKA_TAGERT
12-13-2006, 07:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CaptJodan:
Wow. Yeah that kind of covers that weight thing, doesn't it </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
One would think so.. but wait and see.. Im sure there will be some interesting arguments that try to say a 3rd party piece of software knows Olegs code better than Oleg himself.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CaptJodan:
(which was, by itself, a Red Herring to begin with.)? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Exactally!

The real question is how does it fly in the game? In that if someone says Oleg is capable of not getting the weight right, than he is also capable of not getting other things right too! For example, there could be a case of two wrongs make a right! What if Oleg go the weight and the drag wrong? Or weight drag and thrust? Thus none of those individual numbers really mater.. What maters is how the ingame YP80 prefromes relitive to a real YP80.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CaptJodan:
I actually wanted to look some stuff up when this started but my IL-2 is on the fritz with Boonty screwing it up and am waiting for 46 to fix it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, I had to wait till I got home to look that up.. Imagine my suprise.. Well not really, I kind of figured that would be the case!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CaptJodan:
But good catch there. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thanks!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

JSG72
12-13-2006, 08:11 PM
See You've changed your atitude perfectly

Now! remain that way.

And no more S***e about "FACTS".

Nice when there's someone familiar around?

Could be said from the cockpit of the YP-80<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Is it just me? or can, anyone sook the truth.

AKA_TAGERT
12-13-2006, 08:12 PM
Full moon tonight?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

9th_Spitin
12-13-2006, 08:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JSG72:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 9th_Spitin:
Well, I thought the p-80 was modeled somewhat close until I got to fly in a t-33 (2 seater based on the p-80). 1st off, the engine did not catch fire when giving throttle too soon after start up, 2nd it climbs better and faster than in IL2. As far as the controls, it did turn like on rails, very little wash out from the large wings. Very responsive to the stick. Just like allot of the planes in the game, they have some of the flight characteristics of the actual plane, but some will be too good and some not good enough. 5 yrs of listening to the same thing, over and over and over again. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And so You flew this plane in 1944? IE when yp-80 was made?
No? Well I am sure you will get many(U.S.)Who will hang on to your every word about the T-33/ErmmYP-80s flight envelope. As compared to any Late war german effort.(You have flown them as well? Haven't you?).
Only asking because then perhaps you have the last post on this Thread!

Sorry No you won't(Unless you answer this?) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can say that I have flown the T-33, no not a p-80, but very comparable, wich is most likely more than you can say. No I have not flown any German WW2 jets, but never said anything about them. So in saying that, contact me after you have the opportunity to take the stick of any early jet or other early era plane. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://www.9thflyingknights.com/

Gibbage1
12-13-2006, 08:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 9th_Spitin:
I can say that I have flown the T-33, no not a p-80, but very comparable, wich is most likely more than you can say. No I have not flown any German WW2 jets, but never said anything about them. So in saying that, contact me after you have the opportunity to take the stick of any early jet or other early era plane. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So. Whats your educated openion on the P-80 in IL2?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v461/gibbage/xb35.jpg

Vo101_Isegrim AkA Kurfurst__ "though the Northrop fantasy (B-35)
bomber you want to add to Il-2 never even got to the
prototype stage, while the Gotha did."

9th_Spitin
12-13-2006, 08:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 9th_Spitin:
I can say that I have flown the T-33, no not a p-80, but very comparable, wich is most likely more than you can say. No I have not flown any German WW2 jets, but never said anything about them. So in saying that, contact me after you have the opportunity to take the stick of any early jet or other early era plane. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So. Whats your educated openion on the P-80 in IL2? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like I said, the engine does not really catch fire so easy on start up. And it climbs out allot faster than in game. NOt sure about the roll rate but it is a hell of a nice stable plane to fly.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://www.9thflyingknights.com/

ElAurens
12-13-2006, 08:54 PM
And do remember that the T-33 is approx. 3ft. longer and more than a bit heavier than the YP-80.

Two ejection seats.

Dual controls.

Radar.

More avionics.

Not to mention the tip tanks and the plumbing for them.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________

http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/554/elskiubikb4.jpg

"To explain the lure of speed you would have to explain human nature" - T.E. Lawrence

Badsight-
12-15-2006, 01:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
Since it's introduction into the sim the YP 80 has been pretty much an ignored aircraft, flown on a whim then rolled back into the virtual hangar and forgotten. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>you have to be kidding right ?

ive flowen the Jets in FB near weekly . how good the YP-80 is compared is not some "new" thing . maybe if your a jet newbie this discussion might be something you havent gotten into before , but dont go thinking that other people havent gone thru this previously

Badsight-
12-15-2006, 01:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Well it would take a big man to admit he made a mistake.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>& seeing as how i didnt make a mistake , except reply to someone who is twisting sentences because he cant be honest with himself ?

you tell me if im wrong here . i see some people totally happy with the way the YP-80 is in FB , well LOL!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/1741/shindendrawflight66os.jpg

stathem
12-15-2006, 01:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
One hting about the P80 on the few occasions I have flown it, my engine seems to go out at completely random times.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are experiencing a compressor stall. At certain angles of attack the airflow into the engine intakes can become turbulent or separate entirely from the surface of the aircraft. No air = no running engine. This typically happens during hard, high G maneuvering. I think the effect is a bit too pronounced in game, but it is a real phenomenon. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry to go back to this late in the day, but does Il2 model this now?

After reading a line from Galland about the 262 suffering badly from this, I had a big bee in my bonnet about this about the time of patch 4.01... I tried hard to get a Me-262 to do it, doing tailslides, hammerheads and spins, really high AOA turns at high altitude and low speeds, and so long as I didn't touch the throttle, it wouldn't do a compressor stall. Even recorded some tracks but they are long gone.

I wondered if this had been implemented with 4.07, now jets are flavour of the month, it seems an important part of the jet envelope. Originally read about it in an article about the F-86.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/griffnav/Gallery/MossiePRsig.jpg

AKA_TAGERT
12-15-2006, 09:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
So? If he has a modified version of IL2 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>First, what was said by anyone that would give you the impression that Youss has a modified version of IL2?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
that runs AI only by orders </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Second, what was said by anyone that would give you the impression that Youss has a modified version that accepts special AI commands?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
and has devicelink then how fast can it run without needing to display graphics, as in toggled OFF? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Third, what was said by anyone that would give you the impression that Youss has a modified version that allows him to toggle off the graphics?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
So it can run faster than RT, many times with no other AI or objects and blank map. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Fourth, what was said by anyone that would give you the impression that Youss has a modified version that allows him to run it faster than RT with a blank map?

A very vivid imagination you have MAX! Not saying this could NOT be done, it is very doable! I just find it very Very VERY hard to believe Oleg would spend this much effort in making a special version of IL2 for ONE person. Espically when all of it can be done with the version we all have. More time yes, but doable! I think if Oleg had that kind of time he would have spent it on improving the game for all instead of making a special peace of software for ONE person.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
But no matter because even at real time 1:1 you can just set it up and walk away and leave it testing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Disagree 100%! With regards to the notion that all the data points in the IL2COMPARE are directly from DeviceLink data. In that as I pointed out it would be on the order of 2000 turns. That would mean 2000 individual MISSIONS or one very Very VERY complex MISSION file where the AI pilot?s route would be switching back and forth 2000 time and increasing it speed after every trun. Again, doable, but not likely. My *guess* is he does some testing and uses those data points from DeviceLink as an input to his "calculations" that in turn generate the txt files used by the IL2COMPARE graphing util.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
It won't take days and you have your dataset safe to publish. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Really? Than prove me wrong and DO IT! Come up with a MISSION file and get back to me in less than a day or two. Than and only than will your statement have any weight with me. SAVVY?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Calculations? Is there a direct devicelink output for every measure for every value graphed? Cause if there ain't then that would use, ummmmmm, calculations. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Sometimes I wonder if you have trouble reading or just read a little and make up your mind and start replying? I think you would be well served to be more like me and include more of he QUOTE your in your replies, it would keep you more on track and you would not end up repeating what has already been said.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
And then there's where he wrote about not every graph being shown at best scale ... Youss! Let users modify scale on graphs and save last change always then it is all there in time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not a big deal really, in that as I pointed out (see you should read) in my TIME vs SPEED example of IL2COMPARE that he includes a full DEFAULT scale, but only collects data for a portion of it. The purpose for that I believe is so each aircraft plot overlay is the same (apples to apples). But for some planes that full range may make he data hard to note any changes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
If they can send back settings saved then you have work done. It is messy but would fit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Not really, IL2COMPARE does not appear to do any calculations other than graphing the data in the txt files. All the calculating appears to be done in the making of the txt files. IL2COMPARE is basically a graphing program that might have some scaling abilities, but that is about all it seems to do. Again, had you read all of what I said or at least understood half of what I said you would have known that already.

The point you missed is my guessing at how Youss does it is secondary an does not mater! What maters is the realisation that IL2COMPARE is not perfect! Youss himself, the MODS and many others have said it is a tool that gives you an idea of how the plane in IL2 MIGHT FLY! It is not a DATA DUMP of how it DOES FLY! SAVVY?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

AKA_TAGERT
12-15-2006, 09:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight-:
seeing as how i didnt make a mistake , except reply to someone who is twisting sentences because he cant be honest with himself ?

you tell me if im wrong here . i see some people totally happy with the way the YP-80 is in FB , well LOL! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Not a big enough man it is than! Good to know! Thanks for the update!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

DIRTY-MAC
12-15-2006, 10:16 AM
Have anyone done some real testing?
Robban were are you!?!?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Otto may have been a weirdo, but he was a dam good fighterpilot.
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c15/HOOTCHIE-MAMA/ohhbabyfinal.jpg
aka HOOTCHIE MAMA online

Whirlin_merlin
12-15-2006, 10:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Not a big enough man it is than! Good to know! Thanks for the update! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sure if I bothered to read this thread properly that might make some sense. Since I can't I shall just raise my eyebrow at your search for a big enough man.

ElAurens
12-15-2006, 11:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
I wondered if this had been implemented with 4.07, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The YP80 has done this all along.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________

http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/554/elskiubikb4.jpg

"To explain the lure of speed you would have to explain human nature" - T.E. Lawrence

fordfan25
12-15-2006, 11:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Not a big enough man it is than! Good to know! Thanks for the update! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sure if I bothered to read this thread properly that might make some sense. Since I can't I shall just raise my eyebrow at your search for a big enough man. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Bah-weep-Graaaaagnah wheep ni ni bong.

-----------------------------
http://www.magnum-pc.com/
"your order will ship in under 2 weeks, be sure"

Xiolablu3
12-15-2006, 11:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Not a big enough man it is than! Good to know! Thanks for the update! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sure if I bothered to read this thread properly that might make some sense. Since I can't I shall just raise my eyebrow at your search for a big enough man. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

Gibbage1
12-15-2006, 12:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
Have anyone done some real testing?
Robban were are you!?!? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lol. Your in the WRONG forum if you want REAL testing. People here just cherry pick whatever data agree's with there side of the arguement. People here are not out to find a problem, only to create one.

Kurfurst can post self-made graphs all day long. Everyone knows that IL2C is not the end all source. Only thing that will prove that a P-80 can out-turn a K-4 is to do it in-game, and record a track.. Im sure people tried, and failed, and thats why they only post graphs. I remember trying to dogfight in the P-80 vs props in arcade servers when it was out! Its got GREAT initial turn, but once you bleed off that energy after the 1st 180 degrees, its dead meat.

Besides, anyone who is T&Bing a jet vs a fighter needs to be shot anyways. Its a stupid and foolish way to get a kill, and will only get you killed. So weather it can or cant is a moot point. Besides, who said it shoult not? Whats the wing loading on the K4?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v461/gibbage/xb35.jpg

Vo101_Isegrim AkA Kurfurst__ "though the Northrop fantasy (B-35)
bomber you want to add to Il-2 never even got to the
prototype stage, while the Gotha did."

Vike
12-15-2006, 12:45 PM
I've just done many tests,with the new German stuff against the almighty P-80,with plenty ace bots.

Indeed,the Ta183,Me262,He162s(A,C&D) have some problems against it,concerning climb,turns...

But,the He-Lerche is vastly better than the P-80 at all points.(turns,climb,accel & weaponry)
The Me163 is also better than the P-80.(turns,climb,accel & weaponry too)

The Lerche is really excellent against it,very easy to catch'n crush the P-80s! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I also try it against eight Spit25 and La73xB20,and LOL.Easy,fast and dreadful.

I already have a nickname for the Lerche: OverUber! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j32/Vike01/OverUber.jpg

@+<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://vike01.free.fr/images/avatars/signIL2.jpg
- AthlonXP 2400Mhz + 1024MB DDR CL 2.0
- Radeon 9800XT 460/790Mhz
- Saitek X-52 + Track IR 4 Pro
- Aka JV69_Vike http://vike01.free.fr/images/avatars/jv69.jpg

RCAF_Irish_403
12-15-2006, 01:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Besides, anyone who is T&Bing a jet vs a fighter needs to be shot anyways. Its a stupid and foolish way to get a kill, and will only get you killed. So weather it can or cant is a moot point. Besides, who said it shoult not? Whats the wing loading on the K4? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


another thing, turning like that in a jet (sans G suit) will cause the mother of all blackouts http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Originally posted by marc_hawkins:
Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. A 108:0 kill ratio is insignificant next to the power of the Force

http://www.fas.org/main/home.jsp

AKA_TAGERT
12-15-2006, 03:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
I'm sure if I bothered to read this thread properly that might make some sense. Since I can't I shall just raise my eyebrow at your search for a big enough man. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I guess I can understand how someone like yourself with those tendencies might raise an eyebrow in excitment? In that someone with those tendencies probably thinks everyone is like that. Where it wouldn't even cross the mind of someone like myself without those tendencies.

Not that there is anything wrong with that!

You do what you need to do!

But if you have not officially come out yet, and want to keep your tendencies a secret, than you might want to consider taking the time to read what was said before commenting, so as to not expose your tendencies.

PS check your desktop before you post a picture of it on the internet, someone with those same tendencies of yours got real embarrassed a few weeks back. He had a.. shall we say embarrassing folder on his desktop, and took a screen capture of his desktop to show something else forgetting he had that embarrassing folder on there.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

faustnik
12-15-2006, 03:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Vike:

But,the He-Lerche is vastly better than the P-80 at all points </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uhhgg, the Lerche. I plan on getting a posse together to hunt down those vermin online.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/Lerche_Posse.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustJumboSig.jpg
VFS (http://www.virtualfightersquadrons.com/)
Focke-Wulf 190 Consortium (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=8)
The Lockheed Syndicate (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=18)
Hawker Haven (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=19)
CWOS FB Forum More cheese, less whine (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=7)
Magnum PCSupport our support guys! (http://www.magnum-pc.com/)

VFA-195 Snacky
12-15-2006, 06:41 PM
I don't know how the YP80 stacked up against the 262 and other LW jets, but I do know in Korea it was no mach for the Mig15. It wasn't until the F86 arrived that the US had a competitor for the Russian Migs.

The P80 was used more as a attack aircraft if I recall.

I would really like to see Oleg release some pay addons for the 1950s era. I think the IL2 engine would be perfect for some F86/Mig15 action.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight-:
if you can be honest with yourself . . . . . even if you dont admit it here . . . . .

you have to agree that the P-80 in FB is extremely optimistically moddeled in its TnB ability </div></BLOCKQUOTE><div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://us.st11.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/airplanepictures_1918_16003860

AKA_TAGERT
12-15-2006, 09:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VFA-195 Snacky:
I don't know how the YP80 stacked up against the 262 and other LW jets, but I do know in Korea it was no mach for the Mig15. It wasn't until the F86 arrived that the US had a competitor for the Russian Migs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>No match?

Someone should have told that P-80 pilot before he shot down a MiG15 for the first ever jet on jet kill.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

VW-IceFire
12-15-2006, 11:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VFA-195 Snacky:
I don't know how the YP80 stacked up against the 262 and other LW jets, but I do know in Korea it was no mach for the Mig15. It wasn't until the F86 arrived that the US had a competitor for the Russian Migs.

The P80 was used more as a attack aircraft if I recall.

I would really like to see Oleg release some pay addons for the 1950s era. I think the IL2 engine would be perfect for some F86/Mig15 action.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight-:
if you can be honest with yourself . . . . . even if you dont admit it here . . . . .

you have to agree that the P-80 in FB is extremely optimistically moddeled in its TnB ability </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually...the P-80C's gave a good account of themselves despite being frequently bounced and tasked with ground support operations and then suddenly being fallen upon by Mig-15s.

IL-2 engine is dead but apparently RRG is now working on a Storm of War project that is probably Korean based.

I'd love to see some folks actually produce a track file of them out turning a turn fighter in a YP-80. Although the YP-80 has a great initial turn...very similar in feel to the Mustang...that initial turn dies off rapidly. Any turn fighter...even some non-turn fighters...will win in a sustained turn fight. The YP-80 doesn't have the acceleration or the lift to do it.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/icefire-tempestv.jpg
Find my missions at Flying Legends (http://www.flying-legends.net/php/downloads/downloads.php?cat_id=19) and Mission4Today.com (http://www.mission4today.com).

Aaron_GT
12-16-2006, 01:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No match?

Someone should have told that P-80 pilot before he shot down a MiG15 for the first ever jet on jet kill. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Many times in war a plane has been shot down by one that outclassed it. In Korea even a Sea Fury shot down a Mig 15. You have to look at the overall stats and it suggests that the F-86 was needed to get parity. The P-80 should have rough parity with all the real jets (ones actually built, not ones from napkin designs) in IL2, though. The only real design which should outpace it in some areas in the Me-163, but that was such a short range point-defence weapon I am not sure how relevant that is.

Akronnick
12-16-2006, 02:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No match?

Someone should have told that P-80 pilot before he shot down a MiG15 for the first ever jet on jet kill. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Many times in war a plane has been shot down by one that outclassed it. In Korea even a Sea Fury shot down a Mig 15. You have to look at the overall stats and it suggests that the F-86 was needed to get parity. The P-80 should have rough parity with all the real jets (ones actually built, not ones from napkin designs) in IL2, though. The only real design which should outpace it in some areas in the Me-163, but that was such a short range point-defence weapon I am not sure how relevant that is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You call a 14:1 kill ratio "parity"?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

---Loose nut removed from cockpit, ship OK

Aaron_GT
12-16-2006, 02:26 AM
I am talking about performance parity in a WW2 time frame between the P-80 and Me-262. The P-80 didn't have any kills then.

My point was the F-86 was required to get PERFORMANCE partity with the Mig-15.

In any case the P/F-80's kill ratio over the Mig was not 14:1, more like 2:1. If it had remained the sole air superiority fighter the ratio would have been much lower than this.

Akronnick
12-16-2006, 03:01 AM
You got to remember, that Korea started five years after WWII ended, the fact that the P-80 was still in combat service that much later says a lot about the quality of the design. A P-80 shooting down a MiG-15 in 1950 would be like a Gladiator shooting down a Bf-109 in 1940, not impossible to be sure, but a hell of an acheivement. Now it seems that people are surprised that the YP-80, which DID fly, and DID go into production as the P/F-80/T-33 series
is not a complete dog compared to fantasy Luftwaffe planes that never even saw the light of day, much less combat.

Don't hate the YP-80, she's all us Yanks have to throw at the UberLuftys. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

---Loose nut removed from cockpit, ship OK

ICDP
12-16-2006, 03:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VFA-195 Snacky:
I don't know how the YP80 stacked up against the 262 and other LW jets, but I do know in Korea it was no mach for the Mig15. It wasn't until the F86 arrived that the US had a competitor for the Russian Migs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>No match?

Someone should have told that P-80 pilot before he shot down a MiG15 for the first ever jet on jet kill. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is open to debate Tagart. There is evidence to dispute that claim and show that the first jet v jet kill was scored by the Mig-15 (on 1st of November 1950). Official sources show the first confirmed Mig15 to be shot down was on 9th of November by an F9F Panther flown by Lt. Cdr. William T. Amen (see this link to confirmed USN/USMC shoot downs http://www.history.navy.mil/avh-1910/APP33.PDF ). Soviets claim no Mig-15's were shot down on the day the US P80 pilot claimed the first jet v jet kill (8th November). If true then the F-80C of 1st Lt. Russell Brown could not have shot down a MIg-15 on the 8th of november. It is in fact a possibility that the first jet v jet kill was on the 9th of November by the USN F9F of Lt. Cdr. William T. Amen. Soviet sources claimed the shoot down of a P80C on the 1st of November 1950 by a Mig-15 flown by Starshij Lejtenant Khominich. See the following table of claimed soviet air to air victories. So if this claim is accurate the first jet v jet kill occured on the 1st of November when a Mig-15 shot down a F-80C.

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_313.shtml

Here is a short description of the claims for 1s jet v jet victory.

On the first day of November 1950 two F-51 pilots reported that several unknown jet aircraft, which appeared from beyond the Chinese border, had performed a shy firing pass and as fast as they appeared they returned to China. However, the great speed of the jet aircraft caused considerable surprise among the FEAF high commanders who realized that something never seen before had appeared over the Korean skies. That day five MiG-15s of the 72nd GvIAP, 151st IAD found a formation of ten F-80s above them at 4.500m Starshij Lejtenant Khominich performed a left climbing turn and fired against one of the F-80Cs shooting it down with that claiming the first jet-versus-jet air victory in history. The remaining F-80 formation was scattered by similar attacks by the Soviet flight leader Major Bordun and his wingman Starshij Lejtenant Sukhov. As far as the confirmation of the first jet-versus-jet kill goes the USAF admits the loss of one F-80C of 16th FIS with the pilot F. Van Sickle missing in action on that day but credits this loss to the North Korean flak, which according to the American version shot down the jet during a raid against Sinuiju airfield. The Sinuiju airfield raid was planned after a reconnaissance mission by an RF-80 revealled NKAP Yaks present at this location. The resulting strike mission with F-80Cs took off around noon (eleven o?clock Soviet time). The first of the Soviet claims is marked with the kill time of 14.20 (13.20 Soviet time) and in that light the F-80C mission against the Sinuiju is very unlikely to had come in contact with the Soviet MiGs.

The following days saw inconclusive encounters between US fighters and Soviet MiGs; on November 7 two F-51 pilots claimed to have shot down a MiG each and so did the F-80C pilot 1st Lt. Russell Brown of the 16th FIS on 8th November. This claim had been considered the first jet-versus-jet kill for more than forty years. But none of those shot downs really happened as no Soviet MiGs were lost during those days. On that day 1st Lt. Brown bounced a MiG-15 of the 72nd GvIAP piloted by Starshij Lejtenant Kharitonov who still had the external fuel tanks on. Kharitonov entered a steep dive and punched off the fuel tanks trying to avoid Russell?s bullets, who interpreted the dive as an uncontrolled fall and the explosion of the fuel tanks on the ground was misidentified as a MiG crashing. The first MiG kill only happened the next day when several F9F Panthers of VF-111 were escorting AD-4s and F4U Corsairs, which were attacking the Yalu bridges. Lt. Cdr. William T. Amen surprised a MiG when those were trying to get the Skyraiders and Corsairs shooting it down with 20 mm fire.

So the claim for 1st jet v jet victory is open to debate and stating in a matter of fact manner that the F-80C got the first jet v jet kill is inacurate.

anarchy52
12-16-2006, 03:27 AM
I've tested P-80 offline, I managed to do roughly 22sec sustained at 380km/h at sea level, 100% fuel + ammo. Il-2 compare data is correct.

P-80 turns too good. By how much? Probably by the difference in weight (~1000kg).

Aaron_GT
12-16-2006, 05:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">A P-80 shooting down a MiG-15 in 1950 would be like a Gladiator shooting down a Bf-109 in 1940, not impossible to be sure, but a hell of an acheivement. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed, and similar things did happen.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Now it seems that people are surprised that the YP-80, which DID fly, and DID go into production as the P/F-80/T-33 series </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not at all, it was the best Allied jet in WW2 that was somewhat ready to see service (it depends on how ready you consider the YP80, as compared to how ready the Vampire was - their performance was pretty similar) and had a long lifetime.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You got to remember, that Korea started five years after WWII ended, the fact that the P-80 was still in combat service that much later says a lot about the quality of the design. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Using that as evidence, though, would put you on a bit of a sticky wicket. The Meteor, even in the F.4 version (a cleaned up version of which held in the world speed record) was still in combat service in Korea in a similar role and the Meteor was a fairly mediocre aircraft. It's better sticking to the stats of the aircraft as those speak the strongest.

Max speeds:
P80A - 558 mph, Me 262 - 540mph
F80C - 594mph, Meteor F4 - 580, Meteor F8 - 600 mph Vampire FB5 - 530
Mig-15bis - 680mph, F86 - 679mph

So the P80/F80 was competitive with the best of WW2 jets and upgraded WW2 jets in Korea but was well behind the second generation, the post war jets (but they in turn were competitive with each other)

Akronnick
12-16-2006, 06:30 AM
And exactly how many of the Fantasy uberplanes saw service of anykind in Korea?

Yeah, that's what I thought.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

---Loose nut removed from cockpit, ship OK

AKA_TAGERT
12-16-2006, 06:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Many times in war a plane has been shot down by one that outclassed it. In Korea even a Sea Fury shot down a Mig 15. You have to look at the overall stats and it suggests that the F-86 was needed to get parity. The P-80 should have rough parity with all the real jets (ones actually built, not ones from napkin designs) in IL2, though. The only real design which should outpace it in some areas in the Me-163, but that was such a short range point-defence weapon I am not sure how relevant that is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The point you miss is when someone says NO MATCH it implys no situation, no amout of luck, no amout of pilot skill will allow you to overcome the limitations of your aircraft. Clearly the P-80 was a match in some senarios. SAVVY?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

AKA_TAGERT
12-16-2006, 06:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Akronnick:
You got to remember, that Korea started five years after WWII ended, the fact that the P-80 was still in combat service that much later says a lot about the quality of the design. A P-80 shooting down a MiG-15 in 1950 would be like a Gladiator shooting down a Bf-109 in 1940, not impossible to be sure, but a hell of an acheivement. Now it seems that people are surprised that the YP-80, which DID fly, and DID go into production as the P/F-80/T-33 series
is not a complete dog compared to fantasy Luftwaffe planes that never even saw the light of day, much less combat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Well said<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

AKA_TAGERT
12-16-2006, 06:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
I've tested P-80 offline, I managed to do roughly 22sec sustained at 380km/h at sea level, 100% fuel + ammo. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Got Track?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
Il-2 compare data is correct. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Maybe.. maybe not. Just try and remember.. IL2COMPARE is NOT a DATA DUMP of the IL2 Engine or Data files.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
P-80 turns too good. By how much? Probably by the difference in weight (~1000kg). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is a neet "FEELING" to have, what real world data is it based on? Could you post link to your source?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

AKA_TAGERT
12-16-2006, 06:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Akronnick:
And exactly how many of the Fantasy uberplanes saw service of anykind in Korea?

Yeah, that's what I thought. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Well if you consider using a NAPKIN to wipe the sweet off your forhead.. 'service'. Than I think you could claim that the Lw Fantasy plane saw 'service' in that it sounds like the German aero engineers were under the gun to produce a new design each week to keep from being shot.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

Akronnick
12-16-2006, 07:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Akronnick:
And exactly how many of the Fantasy uberplanes saw service of anykind in Korea?

Yeah, that's what I thought. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Well if you consider using a NAPKIN to wipe the sweet off of the forhead of the aero engineers that were under the gun to come up with a new design each week 'service' than yes many a Lw Fantasy plane saw 'service' </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not in Korea!!!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

---Loose nut removed from cockpit, ship OK

ICDP
12-16-2006, 07:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Akronnick:
And exactly how many of the Fantasy uberplanes saw service of anykind in Korea?

Yeah, that's what I thought. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Well if you consider using a NAPKIN to wipe the sweet off your forhead.. 'service'. Than I think you could claim that the Lw Fantasy plane saw 'service' in that it sounds like the German aero engineers were under the gun to produce a new design each week to keep from being shot. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

AKA_TAGERT
12-16-2006, 07:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Akronnick:
Not in Korea!!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>True!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

AKA_TAGERT
12-16-2006, 07:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ICDP:
That is open to debate Tagart. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Interesting.. and correct me if I am wrong, but performance wise the Panther was even worse than the P80? I guess some folks are going to have to take a 2nd look at the use of the phrase NO MATCH?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

anarchy52
12-16-2006, 07:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
I've tested P-80 offline, I managed to do roughly 22sec sustained at 380km/h at sea level, 100% fuel + ammo. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Got Track?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
Il-2 compare data is correct. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
IL2COMPARE is NOT a DATA DUMP of the IL2 Engine or Data files.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Close. While testing off line I was convinced that I could have managed to shave of a second or so if I was able to perform a more coordinated turn, getting closer to the edge of the envelope. AI can fly to the limits.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
P-80 turns too good. By how much? Probably by the difference in weight (~1000kg). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is a neet "FEELING" to have, what real world data is it based on? Could you post link to your source? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I did. Several times.

In order for an aircraft with high wingloading (260kg/m^2) and "laminar" profile to perform such tight turns at low-mid range speed, beating aircraft with lower wingloading (and lower lift loading) and better thrust to weight ratio would require a lot more lift and a lot more thrust.

True, I did not find any concrete kinematic data on P-80, but compared to other aircraft - there is clearly something wrong with it.

I do not have any data on ...let's say Do-335, but how would you react if it could complete a full circle in 19 secs? Would you defend the FM and argument it with "there is no evidence Do-335 couldn't outturn a Spit"?

P.S. On the (wind tunel?) testing of Ta-183 by soviets - it's pure rubbish. No prototype was ever built, and the research facility was captured by the British - not Soviets although soviets did capture at least a part of the research documents.

Akronnick
12-16-2006, 07:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ICDP:
That is open to debate Tagart. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Interesting.. and correct me if I am wrong, but performance wise the Panther was even worse than the P80? I guess some folks are going to have to take a 2nd look at the use of the phrase NO MATCH? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tagert, do you get the feeling that certain members who have posted in this thread are comparing the YP-80 to Korean era Fighters and finding it a Dog, then Comparing it to the Napkin planes and expecting it to be a Dog, and then whining because the dog has some teeth?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

---Loose nut removed from cockpit, ship OK

AKA_TAGERT
12-16-2006, 07:38 AM
<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 AKA_TAGERT:
Got Track? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Cool! e-mail it to naca_testing@yahoo.com and I will plot the data so all of us can see what you say you saw.

<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 AKA_TAGERT:
IL2COMPARE is NOT a DATA DUMP of the IL2 Engine or Data files. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Close. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Maybe.. maybe not. In that nobody has posted a track file showing the ingame YP80 doing anything close to those values. Let alone any real data. But lets look at the bright side here.. The silver lining! At least I have been able to help you realize that IL2COMPARE is NOT a DATA DUMP of the IL2 engine or data files! No thanks is necessary, your advancement is thanks enough!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
While testing off line I was convinced that I could have managed to shave of a second or so if I was able to perform a more coordinated turn, getting closer to the edge of the envelope. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is a neat feeling to have.. I use to get that false since of security after a few drinks too.. Thought my Ford F100 was a sports car once and rolled it into a ditch.. Good times. Feelings.. they can be fun, but are not much use in a discussion like this IMHO.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
AI can fly to the limits. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Got Track?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
I did. Several times. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You doing it in a game is not what most would consider real world data.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
In order for an aircraft with high wingloading (260kg/m^2) and "laminar" profile to perform such tight turns at low-mid range speed, beating aircraft with lower wingloading (and lower lift loading) and better thrust to weight ratio would require a lot more lift and a lot more thrust. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Careful.. HuninMunin went down this path a few pages back and found out his "FEELINGS" didn't mean jack! So, with that said.. Do you have any real world data that shows the turn rate of a real P80? If not, than I think we should rest assured that Oleg does. But if that is not good enough for you, than I encourage you to contact him and tell him that you "FEEL" it is wrong. Who knows, maybe he will be in a good mood and actually not delete an e-mail that does not provide any real world data to support the claim being made? Oh, but what ever you do, DO NOT use IL2COMPARE as your source! In that IL2COMPARE is NOT a DATA DUMP of the IL2 Engine or Data files.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
True, I did not find any concrete kinematic data on P-80, but compared to other aircraft - there is clearly something wrong with it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Clearly you don't know what the word clearly means.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
I do not have any data on ...let's say Do-335, but how would you react if it could complete a full circle in 19 secs? Would you defend the FM and argument it with "there is no evidence Do-335 couldn't outturn a Spit"? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I would look for some data on it, or at least do the math on it and send it to Oleg. One thing I would not do is come here and whine about it.. Unless I was just trying to be funny! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
P.S. On the (wind tunnel?) testing of Ta-183 by soviets - it's pure rubbish. No prototype was ever built, and the research facility was captured by the British - not Soviets although soviets did capture at least a part of the research documents. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
If you say so.. but correct me if I am wrong, the wind tunnel testing was not on a full scale Ta183 let alone a prototype, it was on a 1/10th scale wood model?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

AKA_TAGERT
12-16-2006, 07:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Akronnick:
Tagert, do you get the feeling that certain members who have posted in this thread are comparing the YP-80 to Korean era Fighters and finding it a Dog, then Comparing it to the Napkin planes and expecting it to be a Dog, and then whining because the dog has some teeth? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Some Yes!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

Aaron_GT
12-16-2006, 08:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The point you miss is when someone says NO MATCH it implys no situation, no amout of luck, no amout of pilot skill will allow you to overcome the limitations of your aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is your interpretation but it doesn't mean that everyone interprets it that way. To me the phrase 'no match' implies a degree of likelihood of the outcome, but does not preclude an unexpected outcome. 'No chance' or 'impossible' would cover situations in which there is no hope. The word match, though, means equivalent or similar to. So something can be no match (not equivalent or similar to) but still beat the thing that it is not a match for.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">SAVVY? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So eloquent.

Aaron_GT
12-16-2006, 08:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Comparing it to the Napkin planes and expecting it to be a Dog, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well it is entirely possible it will be found wanting compared to napkin planes on the basis that these are to a large extent fantasy planes, quite possibly with fantasy FMs. When reality goes against fantasy then reality can quite easily be the loser.

However comparing the P-80 against real world data for the P-80 (reality checked with reality) should be far easier. Looking at wingloading and so on might be a way to look at it in terms of a n approximation pending any figures for turn rates actually pertaining to the P-80, or perhaps comparative statements (like the AFDU tests) comparing the P-80 to other planes in the sim, such as the P-51 and P-47 (I'd guess those comparasions are the ones that are most likely to turn up, unless there is a postwar test versus an Me 262 lurking somewhere).

AKA_TAGERT
12-16-2006, 08:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
That is your interpretation but it doesn't mean that everyone interprets it that way. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>True, allways excpetions to the rule! But in my experance I have found that my interpretaion is of the average.. Your milage may vary.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
To me the phrase 'no match' implies a degree of likelihood of the outcome, but does not preclude an unexpected outcome.
'No chance' or 'impossible' would cover situations in which there is no hope. The word match, though, means equivalent or similar to. So something can be no match (not equivalent or similar to) but still beat the thing that it is not a match for. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Roger, your an exception!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
So eloquent. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agreed 100%<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

ICDP
12-16-2006, 08:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Akronnick:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ICDP:
That is open to debate Tagart. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Interesting.. and correct me if I am wrong, but performance wise the Panther was even worse than the P80? I guess some folks are going to have to take a 2nd look at the use of the phrase NO MATCH? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tagert, do you get the feeling that certain members who have posted in this thread are comparing the YP-80 to Korean era Fighters and finding it a Dog, then Comparing it to the Napkin planes and expecting it to be a Dog, and then whining because the dog has some teeth? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am assuming you are getting ay my post Akronnick, please accept my apologies in advance if I am wrong.

My post was merely to point out that there was the distinct possibility given recent research that the first jet v jet kill was recorded by the Mig-15 or even the F9F Panther. I only posted it because I felt it was worth pointing out to Tagert considering he mentioned the P80 in this context.

AKA_TAGERT
12-16-2006, 08:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ICDP:
The new Japanese aircraft are of far more interest to me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>It is a sad note that the 2nd half of this addon is getting so little att! When you think about it, we are getting a late late what if addon and a early early real addon!

So much hype that we got some nubbs in the forum saying they are not going to buy this addon becaues of the jets.. I wonder if they realise that the early war stuff is in this addon?

I only wish we had an early P-38 so we could do some early pacific stuff.. but these new Japanese aircraft are going to make for some real interesting early war missions!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

ICDP
12-16-2006, 08:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ICDP:
The new Japanese aircraft are of far more interest to me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>It is a sad note that the 2nd half of this addon is getting so little att! When you think about it, we are getting a late late what if addon and a early early real addon!

So much hype that we got some nubbs in the forum saying they are not going to buy this addon becaues of the jets.. I wonder if they realise that the early war stuff is in this addon?

I only wish we had an early P-38 so we could do some early pacific stuff.. but these new Japanese aircraft are going to make for some real interesting early war missions! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly Tagert, the 1946 addon seems to be getting confused as being a "what if" addon only. So many nice additions that saw action are being ignored. We now have the opportunity to take part in a Flying Tigers campaign in its historical setting (thanks Ian). I would have loved to have seen the early P38F, Ki-44 and F4U-4 released for PF. Unfortunately the devs felt it was better financially to do a fantasy 1946 element to the addon. Frankly without the Manchuria content I personally would have given 1946 a miss.

ElAurens
12-16-2006, 09:12 AM
I agree 100% with ICDP and TAGERT here. The real gem of this add on is Manchuria and it's plane set. Finally proper aircraft for the AVG to fly against, and to populate Chuck_Older's upcoming White Sun, Blue Sky campaign for the AVG. Also the Geroge is a very solid addition for those of us who fly for the Emperor in the dread late war period.

"Jets are for kids."

Props rule.

Be sure.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________

http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/554/elskiubikb4.jpg

"To explain the lure of speed you would have to explain human nature" - T.E. Lawrence

luftluuver
12-16-2006, 09:34 AM
Yes the early a/c are the gems of the new release. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Wunder when Stiglr is going to show up to whine that the Burma map is useless for an AVG campaign. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

AKA_TAGERT
12-16-2006, 09:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Wunder when Stiglr is going to show up to whine that the Burma map is useless for an AVG campaign. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>ROTFL<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

Antoninus
12-16-2006, 11:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
P.S. On the (wind tunel?) testing of Ta-183 by soviets - it's pure rubbish. No prototype was ever built, and the research facility was captured by the British - not Soviets although soviets did capture at least a part of the research documents. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The FW engineers did also find the flutter problem of the T-Tail in their wind tunnel testings (with model) and perhaps more importantly suspected that some of it's features will negatively affect manoueverebility in combat and thus the T-Tail design was already concidered as to risky by them. (Die deutschen Flugzeuge 1933 - 1945 : Deutschlands Luftfahrt-Entwicklungen bis zum Ende des Zweiten Weltkrieges / Heinz J. Nowarra ; Karlheinz Kens 5th edition 1977)<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________________
http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/3734/il2sig26hf.jpg

Actually everybody talks about aerial combat. I maintain that hitting ground targets, and especially ships is more dangerous than aerial combat. - Joe Foss

Aaron_GT
12-16-2006, 11:18 AM
I suppose technically 4.06 is Manchuria, 4.07 is 1946, they are just on the same DVD. I am personally looking forward to the A20C the most.

Badsight-
12-16-2006, 01:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Akronnick:
You call a 14:1 kill ratio "parity"? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>fantasy kill ratio

anyone who looked at the korean loss claims dont say anything near that

for the Saber on Mig it was closer to 4.5:1 , all nations

as for the P-180 shooting at that Mig-15 - russians didnt lose a Mig that day , all RTB<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/1741/shindendrawflight66os.jpg

Badsight-
12-16-2006, 01:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
P.S. On the (wind tunel?) testing of Ta-183 by soviets - it's pure rubbish. No prototype was ever built, and the research facility was captured by the British - not Soviets although soviets did capture at least a part of the research documents. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>american captured model :

http://tinyurl.com/ybme7d

russian wind tunnel :

http://tinyurl.com/yjdodu

anarchy52
12-16-2006, 03:35 PM
Exactly!

RCAF_Irish_403
12-16-2006, 03:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Wunder when Stiglr is going to show up to whine that the Burma map is useless for an AVG campaign. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>ROTFL </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


that was a few weeks ago over at Sim HQ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/typing.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Originally posted by marc_hawkins:
Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. A 108:0 kill ratio is insignificant next to the power of the Force

http://www.fas.org/main/home.jsp

AKA_TAGERT
12-16-2006, 03:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
Exactly! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Your Welcome!

PS still waiting on that track file..<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

zugfuhrer
12-16-2006, 04:45 PM
Off course it is. It is made by USAF and they are the leading producer of fighters in the world.

Have they ever lost? Mustang, P38, P48, Shooting Star, F86 Sabre, Phantom, F15, F16, F22. They where and are outstanding. I have watched Discovery Channels program about the worlds best fighter aircrafts and they tells the truth. USAF scores 4 out of 5 top aircrafts, props and jets. RAF sometimes got one of the five best fighter aircrafts of all time.

AKA_TAGERT
12-16-2006, 05:01 PM
Looks like someone is running out of hard data and needs to try and take the topic in a different direction?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

Akronnick
12-16-2006, 06:02 PM
Has anyone come up with any published stat on the real YP-80 and then demonstrated how the in game YP-80 differs?

Anyone?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

---Loose nut removed from cockpit, ship OK

Akronnick
12-16-2006, 06:24 PM
Anyone?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

---Loose nut removed from cockpit, ship OK

AKA_TAGERT
12-16-2006, 06:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Akronnick:
Has anyone come up with any published stat on the real YP-80 and then demonstrated how the in game YP-80 differs?

Anyone? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I gave up on the hopes of the LLL gang providing any proof a few pages back..

At this point I would be happy if they just provided a track file showing the ingame P80 doing those things listed in IL2COMPARE..

In that it is the 'thought' of the ingame P80 getting those numbers that has thier panties in a wad.. I think if they actully tried to obtain those numbers they would realies the ingame P80 is no where near those numbers and thus allow them to sleep at night

anarchy52 claims to have done it.. even said he has a track file of him doing it.. but he has yet to provide it.

My guess is he thought he did it, went back and took a 2nd look and realised he was wrong, thus now wants to avoid the topic so as not to have to admit he made a mistake<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

Akronnick
12-16-2006, 06:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Akronnick:
Has anyone come up with any published stat on the real YP-80 and then demonstrated how the in game YP-80 differs?

Anyone? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I gave up on the hopes of the LLL gang providing any proof a few pages back..

At this point I would be happy if they just provided a track file showing the ingame P80 doing those things listed in IL2COMPARE..

In that it is the 'thought' of the ingame P80 getting those numbers that has thier panties in a wad.. I think if they actully tried to obtain those numbers they would realies the ingame P80 is no where near those numbers and thus allow them to sleep at night

anarchy52 claims to have done it.. even said he has a track file of him doing it.. but he has yet to provide it. My guess is he realised that he go no where near those numbers and wants to avoid the topic so as to not look foolish </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, but the YP-80 FEELS wrong to them so It's our responsibility to prove thwm wrong.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

---Loose nut removed from cockpit, ship OK

AKA_TAGERT
12-16-2006, 06:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Akronnick:
Yeah, but the YP-80 FEELS wrong to them so It's our responsibility to prove them wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Funny how that works aint it.. A real one way street for the LLL gang<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

woofiedog
12-17-2006, 04:37 AM
For the Jet's we have in the game... YP-80 is a Killer. The only bird... not including the new addon's [I don't have 46 yet] that even comes close is the He-162A.
Handles Great and has a Mint Ammo Load.
Just can't rev those turbines up to quickly when in a Hot Spot.
Out fly's the Me-262 no Problem! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Just my 2 cents<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v438/woofiedog/WOOFIEDOG.jpg

Hunter 82's PC component shop
http://www.magnum-pc.com/
https://usm.channelonline.com/magnumpc/storesite/Search/External/

Heliopause
12-17-2006, 04:58 AM
Maybe someone should talk to Ken Holt...

"Following the mission on the continent, Ken returned to the States aboard the H.M.S. Reaper with the others. He then was placed in charge of the flight test program for the Me 262 and other advanced aircraft. In this capacity, Ken went on to log more hours (approximately 200) in the 262 than any other pilot in the world. While this remains a little known and vastly under-appreciated achievement, Ken is truly the subject matter expert when it comes to flying the Messerschmitt 262."
Some info (http://www.stormbirds.com/squadron/pilots/holt.htm)<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b334/PauseHelio/fokker_now.jpg
"Once (I think it was 31st aug. 1940), I was in a fight with four Hurricanes over Dover.
I was back over the channel when I saw another Hurricane coming from Calais, trailing white smoke, obviously in a bad way.
I flew up alongside him and escorted him all the way to England and waved goodbye.
A few weeks later the same thing happened to me.
That would never have happened in Russia - never". (Erich Rudorffer - 109 pilot)

woofiedog
12-17-2006, 06:00 AM
Heliopause... That's a Great site... I have in my book collection, by Walt Boyne, Messerschmitt 262/ Arrow To The Future. Smithsonian and it has some Excellent information on the Me-262 and also shows the step by step rebuilding of the Smithsonian's Me-262.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v438/woofiedog/WOOFIEDOG.jpg

Hunter 82's PC component shop
http://www.magnum-pc.com/
https://usm.channelonline.com/magnumpc/storesite/Search/External/

luftluuver
12-17-2006, 06:08 AM
Good book woofie, be sure.

They put one out on the P-80 as well (don't have). Their books on the Albatros D.Va and Fw190 are good as well.

woofiedog
12-17-2006, 07:26 AM
luftluuver... I'll have to check that P-80 book out... Thank's<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v438/woofiedog/WOOFIEDOG.jpg

Hunter 82's PC component shop
http://www.magnum-pc.com/
https://usm.channelonline.com/magnumpc/storesite/Search/External/

anarchy52
12-17-2006, 09:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
anarchy52 claims to have done it.. even said he has a track file of him doing it.. but he has yet to provide it.

My guess is he thought he did it, went back and took a 2nd look and realised he was wrong, thus now wants to avoid the topic so as not to have to admit he made a mistake </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong (as usual). I did just one track, no need for 2nd. I guess if I had the spent more time I could have shaved of maybe a second or so of the turn time, or provide data on turn times on various speed and alt, but this one will do just nicely as it matches il-2 compare data nicely (~22sec sustained turn @370-380 km/h, sea level). At 370km/h P-80 matches the sustained turn rate of the "questionable" Bf-109G2. LMAO

Track: http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/quick0012.ntrk (http://marvin.kset.org/%7Eriddler/quick0012.ntrk)

AKA_TAGERT
12-17-2006, 07:28 PM
Ah.. Gooooood you fell for my bait.. I was starting to loose hope!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
Wrong (as usual). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
As usual? Hardly! Sometimes? Sure, sometimes! This time? Nope!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
I did just one track, no need for 2nd. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Sure.. sure.. sure you did.. Which is why the track file you provided just happens to be version 12, i.e. quick0012.ntrk and not quick0000.ntrk. Yes.. yes.. I know I know, those others where just left in there from some other testing, and it took you 3 days to post it because you were busy dating a super model.. Sure.. sure.. sure.. Eitherway I am just glad that after 13 tries you got one that you thought was good enough to post!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
I guess if I had the spent more time I could have shaved of maybe a second or so of the turn time, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, you and the rest of the LLL gang got the whole ?GUESS? thing down pat.. Too bad GUESSING does not cut it with Oleg!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
or provide data on turn times on various speed and alt, but this one will do just nicely as it matches il-2 compare data nicely </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nicely? Hardly! The IL2COMPARE turn testing is done at 3281ft (~1000m) and you did your test at sea level.. You know down low where the air is nice a thick.. Did you think no one would notice that little variation in the method?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
(~22sec sustained turn @370-380 km/h, sea level). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ah.. I think I see where the LLL gang is getting their panties in a wad? It looks like your confusing the time it takes to do a 360? turn (a circle) with the turn rate!

The time it takes to do a complete circle (360?) is something you will typically find in the test data, the turn rate is derived from that data. Don?t confuse let alone try compare the two! Apples and Oranges!

With that said, you were no where near a 22?/sec turn rate! But you were close to a complete circle in 22sec, Which is what I think you were saying? Just wanted to make clear you and yours are not confusing it with turn rate! Which in your case is equal to an average turn rate of 16?/sec, i.e.

16?/sec = 360?/22sec

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/TURN_RATE/405/YP80/ANARRCHY52_00/405_TR_YP80_ANARCHY52_TR_VS_AZIMUTH.JPG

Also note that IL2COMPARE does not display turn rate, it displays the time it takes to do a complete circle at 1,000m at different speeds.

Also note that most of the time you were flying at around at 362 to 281km/h NOT 380 to 370km/h and you were at sea level, not 1,000m!

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/TURN_RATE/405/YP80/ANARRCHY52_00/405_TR_YP80_ANARCHY52_TR_VS_IAS.JPG

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
At 370km/h P-80 matches the sustained turn rate of the "questionable" Bf-109G2. LMAO </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Maybe, maybe not? One thing for sure your track file of the P80 does not support that statement in that you spent very little time at 370kp/h and you have yet to provide a Bf-109G2 track file.

Also note that no one has provided any real world data to say that the P80 could or could not turn better than a 109 as speed increases! Note not saying it could, just pointing out the fact!

So, all we know for sure now is that the in-game P80 takes about the same amount of time to do a complete circle at SEA LEVEL as the IL2COMPARE data says it will take a P80 to do a complete circle at 1,000m. Which was about 22sec with a turn rate of about 16?/sec.

Now it would be nice to see some real world data to see how close this number actually is. It would also be nice to see this test re-done at 1,000m to see what affect it has on the time it takes to do a complete circle. My guess is it takes much longer in that the tester knew all to well that the test was done at 1,000m but could not get close to 22sec thus did the test at SEA LEVEL.

Anyway here is the summary of the test
SUMMARY.pdf (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/TURN_RATE/405/YP80/ANARRCHY52_00/405_TR_YP80_ANARCHY52_00_SUMMARY.pdf)

PS the pics are clearer in the pdf, also remember when you take the difference (aka dx/dt) of a signal it gets nosiy! Which is why the Diff of Azmuth looks so bad, which is also why I provided a polynomial fit of the data (blue line). Think of it as the average of the signal at any given moement.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

Akronnick
12-17-2006, 07:49 PM
cricket, cricket.....<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

---Loose nut removed from cockpit, ship OK

Akronnick
12-17-2006, 10:06 PM
Come on guys we've established what the YP-80's turn rate at sea level, now we'd like to see a historical document that refutes this.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

---Loose nut removed from cockpit, ship OK

Badsight-
12-17-2006, 10:40 PM
it just confirms the suspicion , how about you take my susgestion - read up on the P-80's stats & see whats there that shows why it should be so much better than the 262

at least the FB players that are not worried about the P-80 getting nurfed can be honest with themselves . . . . .

Akronnick
12-17-2006, 10:51 PM
No, the balls still in blue's court, we asked for a track that shows the YP-80 exceeding documented historical performance. We have the track, we need the documents that shows it's wrong.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

---Loose nut removed from cockpit, ship OK

Aaron_GT
12-18-2006, 02:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">With that said, you were no where near a 22?/sec turn rate! But you were close to a complete circle in 22sec, Which is what I think you were saying? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Er.. Tagert, 22 seconds is what he said from the beginning. Why are you being so unecessarily patronising? You have just confirmed that indeed the sustained turn time is 22 seconds, just as anarchy said. I don't see why this requires such a level of patronisation.

Some official figures on P-80 turn would be good, but in the absence of these it would be interesting to compare it to other aircraft too, to see if the turn rate of the P-80 looks plausible or if it is a big outlier in the data based on wing loading, power to weight ratio, and so on.

Akronnick
12-18-2006, 02:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">With that said, you were no where near a 22?/sec turn rate! But you were close to a complete circle in 22sec, Which is what I think you were saying? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Er.. Tagert, 22 seconds is what he said from the beginning. Why are you being so unecessarily patronising? You have just confirmed that indeed the sustained turn time is 22 seconds, just as anarchy said. I don't see why this requires the offensive level of patronisation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

22 seconds is a length of time, not a turn rate, which is expressed in degrees/second.

There is a big difference in 22 degrees/second and 360 degrees/22 seconds, which is slightly more than 16 degrees/second.


Does anyone have a document that can call that figure into question, or are you just going to demonstate your ignorance by complaining that we insist that you use the correct units of measure?

We're waiting.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

---Loose nut removed from cockpit, ship OK

anarchy52
12-18-2006, 03:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Ah.. Gooooood you fell for my bait.. I was starting to loose hope!

...it took you 3 days to post it because you were busy dating a super model.. Sure.. sure.. sure..

Eitherway I am just glad that after 13 tries you got one that you thought was good enough to post!

Well, you and the rest of the LLL gang got the whole ?GUESS? thing down pat..

Ah.. I think I see where the LLL gang is getting their panties in a wad?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh my, TAGERT got upset...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Nicely? Hardly! The IL2COMPARE turn testing is done at 3281ft (~1000m) and you did your test at sea level.. You know down low where the air is nice a thick.. Did you think no one would notice that little variation in the method?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Testing was done low so I could use the visual cues (aligning horizon and gun sight) to maintain alt. Difference between turn @sea level and 1000m is not that big.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
(~22sec sustained turn @370-380 km/h, sea level). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Ah.. I think I see where the LLL gang is getting their panties in a wad? It looks like your confusing the time it takes to do a 360? turn (a circle) with the turn rate!
The time it takes to do a complete circle (360?) is something you will typically find in the test data, the turn rate is derived from that data. Don?t confuse let alone try compare the two! Apples and Oranges!
With that said, you were no where near a 22?/sec turn rate! But you were close to a complete circle in 22sec, Which is what I think you were saying? Just wanted to make clear you and yours are not confusing it with turn rate! Which in your case is equal to an average turn rate of 16?/sec, i.e.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I said 22sec, not 22deg/sec. Turn rate in il2c is expressed in seconds. Which part of 22sec did you fail to understand?
I know, Tagert is trying to discredit me, so many words for mounting a poor attempt at Chewbacca defense http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
16?/sec = 360?/22sec
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm deeply impressed.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Also note that most of the time you were flying at around at 362 to 281km/h NOT 380 to 370km/h and you were at sea level, not 1,000m!
One thing for sure your track file of the P80 does not support that statement in that you spent very little time at 370kp/h and you have yet to provide a Bf-109G2 track file.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
My goal was to complete one full circle with constant speed. I have spent at least one full circle at 370km/h. That's enough. I didn't edit the track to crop out just that one turn, I povided the complete track which.
No, I will not provide any G2 tracks, It's your turn now (no pun intended).
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Also note that no one has provided any real world data to say that the P80 could or could not turn better than a 109 as speed increases! Note not saying it could, just pointing out the fact!
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
It is possible that P-80 could out-turn the 109 in the high speed range, however nothing in the P-80 specs would suggest such fantastic turn rates at low/medium speeds.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Now it would be nice to see some real world data to see how close this number actually is. It would also be nice to see this test re-done at 1,000m to see what affect it has on the time it takes to do a complete circle. My guess is it takes much longer in that the tester knew all to well that the test was done at 1,000m but could not get close to 22sec thus did the test at SEA LEVEL.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, at 1000m it's hard to maintain constant alt due to lack of visual reference. You're welcome to provide a track.

anarchy52
12-18-2006, 03:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Akronnick:
No, the balls still in blue's court, we asked for a track that shows the YP-80 exceeding documented historical performance. We have the track, we need the documents that shows it's wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We have the data showing that in-game P-80 is much lighter then the real thing. We have anomalous turn rates, far too good compared to basic specs - high wingloading, low T/W (as with all first generation jets), laminar wing profile...etc.

No need for fine tuning, just add the missing weight and IL-2 FM engine will take care of it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

Akronnick
12-18-2006, 04:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
We have anomalous turn rates
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And do you have a document that supports the claim that 16 degrees/sec is an "anomalous" turn rate?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

---Loose nut removed from cockpit, ship OK

Akronnick
12-18-2006, 04:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
No, at 1000m it's hard to maintain constant alt due to lack of visual reference. You're welcome to provide a track. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm pretty sure the YP-80 is equiped with both an altimeter and a vertical speed indicator, Lack of visual reference should not be a problem for a decent pilot.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

---Loose nut removed from cockpit, ship OK

Aaron_GT
12-18-2006, 04:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">22 seconds is a length of time, not a turn rate, which is expressed in degrees/second. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course, and it was quite clear to everyone that anarchy was talking about turn times.

Akronnick
12-18-2006, 06:00 AM
Let's analyze anarchy32's so-called "proof"

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">anarchy52 Posted Sat December 16 2006 05:27
I've tested P-80 offline, I managed to do roughly 22sec sustained at 380km/h at sea level, 100% fuel + ammo. Il-2 compare data is correct.

P-80 turns too good. By how much? Probably by the difference in weight (~1000kg). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is the complete post where anarchy32 claims to have made a track of a sustained 22 sec {360 degree/ed} at 380 km/h

What does such claim mean?

sustained turn means you start the turn and end the turn with the same airspeed and altitude

now look at the graph:
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/TURN_RATE/405/YP80/ANARRCHY52_00/405_TR_YP80_ANARCHY52_TR_VS_IAS.JPG

you will notice, that he starts the turn not at 380km/h like he claimed, but at about 360km/h, only breifly reaching 380km/h. Now notice that the airspeed drops at a fairly consistant rate until at the end of the graph, the airspeed is about 180km/h.

that is not a sustained turn.

but even if it were, noone has produced a document that shows, says, graphs, or implies what the historical sustained turn rate should be, so we are left with a statement that boils down to "I feel that the turn rate of 360 degrees/22 sec for the YP-80 is unrealistic"

which brings us back to:
Do you have historical documents to support this hypothesis?

If you do please show them to us.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

---Loose nut removed from cockpit, ship OK

anarchy52
12-18-2006, 06:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
Everything that has been dabated over the years concerning wingloading, power to weight ratio, laminar wings and so on tells atleast me that something aint right..but hey, maby YP-80 is the exeption to the rule, either way, no need to act high and mighty. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As far as I'm concernet, there is no need for me to provide any more proof:

To the best of our knowledge in-game P-80 is too light (based on IL-2 compare). Find me a reference of P-80 having takeoff weight of 4400kg or sustained turn of 22 sec and prove me wrong.

Anomalous sustained turn rate ("the-number-of-seconds-needed-to-do-a-full-circle-wile-keeping-the-speed-constant") is a strong indication of the former claim.

Akronnick
12-18-2006, 06:19 AM
<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 BaronUnderpants:
Everything that has been dabated over the years concerning wingloading, power to weight ratio, laminar wings and so on tells atleast me that something aint right..but hey, maby YP-80 is the exeption to the rule, either way, no need to act high and mighty. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As far as I'm concernet, there is no need for me to provide any more proof:

To the best of our knowledge in-game P-80 is too light (based on IL-2 compare). Find me a reference of P-80 having takeoff weight of 4400kg or sustained turn of 22 sec and prove me wrong.

Anomalous sustained turn rate ("the-number-of-seconds-needed-to-do-a-full-circle-wile-keeping-the-speed-constant") is a strong indication of the former claim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, if you want a change made to Il-2, your going to have to provide it, because so far you haven't.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

---Loose nut removed from cockpit, ship OK

Aaron_GT
12-18-2006, 06:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">so we are left with a statement that boils down to "I feel that the turn rate of 360 degrees/22 sec for the YP-80 is unrealistic" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Do you feel the current performance is realistic?

Aaron_GT
12-18-2006, 06:22 AM
anarchy - perhaps you need to redo your test with more constant speed.

Akronnick
12-18-2006, 06:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">so we are left with a statement that boils down to "I feel that the turn rate of 360 degrees/22 sec for the YP-80 is unrealistic" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Do you feel the current performance is realistic? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know, I've never flown a YP-80, nor have I seen historical documentation indicating what the sustained turn should be. I am, however, willing to give Oleg and crew the benefit of the doubt, considering all the time and effort they have spent to make the Sim. Without evidence to the contrary, I don't think it is productive to assume that the FM that we have in the game is wrong. It's a matter of burden of proof. In the scientific method, the burden falls on the party making an assertion to provide evidence that said assertion is true, not on those who have not.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

---Loose nut removed from cockpit, ship OK

anarchy52
12-18-2006, 07:20 AM
It's simple:

4400kg take-off weight is too low. It needs to be increased. Let the engine handle the performance adjustments. Turning debate was just a sideshow.

And for the track, the entire track wasn't flown with constant speed. I never claimed that. I claimed that several turns were made with constant speed.


If you could read the graph, you would notice 3 distinct maneuvers with fairly constant speed.

1) between 0.5 and 0.85 min (~1 circle)
2) between ~1 and 1.6 min (~1.5 circles)
3) between ~2.3 and 3 min (slightly less then 2 full circles)

Can you do it better? Please do by all means.
I dare you to beat my result and prove you are a better pilot http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. Out-turn me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I have no special interest in further turn rate testing. I might give it a try just to see how much I can improve on my result (I think I will have to adjust the stick response curves to have more precise control - the graph, as I suspected shows a lot of jitter).

AKA_TAGERT
12-18-2006, 07:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
We have the data showing that in-game P-80 is much lighter then the real thing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not true! IL2COMPAE is NOT a DATA DUMP of the IL2 Engine or Data files.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
We have anomalous turn rates, far too good compared to basic specs - high wingloading, low T/W (as with all first generation jets), laminar wing profile...etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is a neat FEELING to have, but there is no data to suport that FEELING

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
No need for fine tuning, just add the missing weight and IL-2 FM engine will take care of it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
What missing weight? Based on what?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

AKA_TAGERT
12-18-2006, 07:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Akronnick:
I don't know, I've never flown a YP-80, nor have I seen historical documentation indicating what the sustained turn should be. I am, however, willing to give Oleg and crew the benefit of the doubt, considering all the time and effort they have spent to make the Sim. Without evidence to the contrary, I don't think it is productive to assume that the FM that we have in the game is wrong. It's a matter of burden of proof. In the scientific method, the burden falls on the party making an assertion to provide evidence that said assertion is true, not on those who have not. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>EXACTALLY!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

Brain32
12-18-2006, 07:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Had the shoe been on the other foot and this was a axis aircraft you can rest assured that the LLL gang would demand several tests data references, pilots manuals, and what the pilots had for breakfast. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I can't imagine the shoe being on the other foot as Luft planes generally lack up to several seconds on turn time comparing to easly obtainable historical data from TsAGI. BAsically they can't even match the turn times of captured examples in unknown condition. For example the in-game FW190A4 can't even match RL crash landed A4 with ju87 propeller http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

This is my sig http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

AKA_TAGERT
12-18-2006, 08:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
Oh my, TAGERT got upset... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Upset? Hardly! I am just use to the LLL gang guessing at things based on their FEELINGS and not hard data, that and claiming to do something, than 13 tries later proving they could NOT do what they said. The analogy here being you said IL2COMPARE data was correct. Problem is the IL2COMPARE data is at 1,000m and at a constant speed. That is not what your test contained and you know it!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
Testing was done low so I could use the visual cues (aligning horizon and gun sight) to maintain alt. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is a weak excuse IMHO. If you can not do it, than you should not have claimed that you did it! Than later try to pass off some sea level test as the test you claimed to do at 1,000m

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
Difference between turn @sea level and 1000m is not that big. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not that big? How would you know? Unless you did it? Now if you did it, why didn?t you provide that track instead of the one at sea level? Let me guess, the first 12 tracks you did were at 1,000m and after realizing you couldn?t do a turn in less than 22sec you decided to do one at sea level. Or is this just another cause of you claiming to do something that you have not done?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
I said 22sec, not 22deg/sec. Turn rate in il2c is expressed in seconds. Which part of 22sec did you fail to understand? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
What part of me asking/saying..

?Which is what I think you were saying??

Did you not understand?

Reason I pointed out the difference is I seem to recall some 109 turn ?rate? values floating around this forum awhile back of around 21?/sec, and I just wanted to make sure none of he LLL gang was comparing the P80 turn ?time? to the 109s turn ?rate?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
I know, Tagert is trying to discredit me, so many words for mounting a poor attempt at Chewbacca defense http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No need in that your doing a fine job of it yourself! First you claim to have done what IL2COMPAE shows and when pressed on it you present a test done at sea level. Now in this thread you claim to have done it at 1,000m and that it is NOT that different. Even though in your last post you said you only did it once! So, how did you do both when you only did one test? See how your credibility problem is of your own doing and not mine? In that all I had to do to discredit you is to repost what you said.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
I'm deeply impressed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Simple math impresses you? Hmmm on second thought, not surprised.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
My goal was to complete one full circle with constant speed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That may be your goal, but that is not what you said. You said you have done what IL2COMPAE shows, but after 12 tries you realized you had to do it at sea level.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
I have spent at least one full circle at 370km/h. That's enough. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, you did that while loosing a lot of altitude! Take a look at the pdf and you will see that at the time you were near 370km/h you went from about 425ft down to 50ft and were loosing speed the whole time. Not what I would call a sustain turn by any stretch of the imagination.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
I didn't edit the track to crop out just that one turn, I provided the complete track which. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That much is true, but it was all done at sea level and he speeds varied greatly the whole time. Where as the IL2COMPAE data is at 1,000m with constant speeds during the whole turn.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
No, I will not provide any G2 tracks, It's your turn now (no pun intended). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Still wrong, it is your claim that the G2 is not Turing correctly, thus the burden is still on you.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
It is possible that P-80 could out-turn the 109 in the high speed range, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Maybe.. Maybe not? We don?t know in that we don?t have any real data to suggest either.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
however nothing in the P-80 specs would suggest such fantastic turn rates at low/medium speeds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The only NOTHING here is the real data to support that claim

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
No, at 1000m it's hard to maintain constant alt due to lack of visual reference. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yet that did not stop you from initially claiming to have done it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
You're welcome to provide a track. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Burden is still on you, but if I have time in the next few days Ill give it a try.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

AKA_TAGERT
12-18-2006, 08:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
I can't imagine the shoe being on the other foot as Luft planes generally lack up to several seconds on turn time comparing to easly obtainable historical data from TsAGI. BAsically they can't even match the turn times of captured examples in unknown condition. For example the in-game FW190A4 can't even match RL crash landed A4 with ju87 propeller http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is a neat FEELING to have..

Got anythig besides that?

A real world test method, data and an ingame trak file that attempts to recreate both?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

AKA_TAGERT
12-18-2006, 09:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Er.. Tagert, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Drr.. Aaron

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
22 seconds is what he said from the beginning. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So tell me.. what part of me saying, and I quote ?Which is what I think you were saying?? did you not understand? You even quoted it, so I know you saw it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Why are you being so unecessarily patronising? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Your kidding right? In the face of the LLL gang that is accusing the P80 of turning too good based on NOTHING! Yes that is right, NOTHING and you think I am being unnecessarily patronizing? Not one shred of evidence presented! Heck when asked how they came to that conclusion they could not explain it and then did a 180? (pun intended) and expect us to provide them the proof to dispute their FEELINGS! Had the shoe been on the other foot and this was a axis aircraft you can rest assured that the LLL gang would demand several tests data references, pilots manuals, and what the pilots had for breakfast. Yet you feel I am being unnecessarily patronizing? Please! I brought up the difference in the ?turn time? and ?turn rate? because in the past I have seen folks talking about the 109s turn ?rate? and I wanted to make sure they were not comparing the turn ?time? of the P80 with the turn ?rate? of another plane.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
You have just confirmed that indeed the sustained turn time is 22 seconds, just as anarchy said. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Wrong! Anarchy52 was referring to the turn time presented in IL2COMPARE! The IL2COMPARE turn time is at 1,000m not 0m. I have not tried it yet, but Ill bet it makes a difference.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
I don't see why this requires such a level of patronisation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
What are you new?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Some official figures on P-80 turn would be good, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not just good, REQUIRED if your going to say there is something wrong about the P80s turn rate.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
but in the absence of these it would be interesting to compare it to other aircraft too, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Interesting yes, but that is all.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
to see if the turn rate of the P-80 looks plausible </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No can do without real world data!

Let me rephrase that..

You would be correct if we focus on the exceptions to the rule.. For if the P80 was turning a hundred times better than any other plan in the game, than yes it would be an indicator. Or better than a bi-plane at 75mph, than yes it wold be an indicator.

But for like aircraft it is too close to call (i.e. the rule not the exceptions to the rule)!

Now I know the LLL gang can not imagine anything turning better than a 109. But that is just one side of the guessing coin. Where that side of the coin thinks no early jet can out turn a prop. But there is another side of that coin! So allow me to play the part of devils advocate and do what the LLL gang does with regards to the other side of the guessing game coin!

<span class="ev_code_yellow">I ?FEEL? that it would be expected that a 1945 fighter design would turn better at higher speeds than a 1935 design that has been heavily modified from a fighter vs. fighter to a bomber chaser. Especially in light of the fact that WWII quickly evolved from a TnB style war to a high alt BnZ type of war. The early war designs focused on turning, the later war designs focused on speed. The P80 was a fighter designed to attack existing prop and new enemy jet fighters. Thus it does not surprise me one bit that it turns better at higher speeds.</span>

See? That guessing game knife can cut both ways!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
or if it is a big outlier in the data based on wing loading, power to weight ratio, and so on. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That would be better than the LLL gangs FEELINGS problem with that is you still need some real world data to make that work! Thus back to square one!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

Brain32
12-18-2006, 09:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
I can't imagine the shoe being on the other foot as Luft planes generally lack up to several seconds on turn time comparing to easly obtainable historical data from TsAGI. BAsically they can't even match the turn times of captured examples in unknown condition. For example the in-game FW190A4 can't even match RL crash landed A4 with ju87 propeller http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is a neat FEELING to have..

Got anythig besides that?

A real world test method, data and an ingame trak file that attempts to recreate both? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No feelings, more like facts, I posted it many times, if you werent interested then...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Besides if I or anybody else decide to show those to somebody it will be to 1C team http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Although I doubt something will change, accurate RL performance of Axis planes and weekend war winners are two very separate and contradicting terms and I'm sure Oleg does not want a bunch of angry people with torches in front of his office...<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

This is my sig http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Aaron_GT
12-18-2006, 09:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So tell me.. what part of me saying, and I quote ?Which is what I think you were saying?? did you not understand? You even quoted it, so I know you saw it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I understand perfectly. But you ARE being patronising to the nth degree and it is totally unecessary. Calm down for goodness sake and things would be a lot more civil.

AKA_TAGERT
12-18-2006, 10:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
I understand perfectly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Disagree 100%

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
But you ARE being patronising to the nth degree and it is totally unecessary. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Disagree 100%

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Calm down for goodness sake and things would be a lot more civil. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No need in that I am not upset! I didn't say I did something and than presented something else! The members of the LLL gang did.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

AKA_TAGERT
12-18-2006, 10:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
No feelings, more like facts, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is a neat FEELING to have..

Got anythig besides that?

A real world test method, data and an ingame trak file that attempts to recreate both?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
I posted it many times, if you werent interested then...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Bring it.. Ill bet it has as many if not more errors than anarchy52 test(s).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Besides if I or anybody else decide to show those to somebody it will be to 1C team http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Roger, another case of the LLL gang claiming something but for some reason not showing it.. Seems to be a trend?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Although I doubt something will change, accurate RL performance of Axis planes </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is a neat FEELING to have..

Got anythig besides that?

A real world test method, data and an ingame trak file that attempts to recreate both?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
and weekend war winners are two very separate and contradicting terms and I'm sure Oleg does not want a bunch of angry people with torches in front of his office... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes the members of the LLL gang can be anoying and they do resemble that torch and pitchfork thang, good analogy!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

Aaron_GT
12-18-2006, 10:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Disagree 100% </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Think whatever you like. I am getting past caring.

Aaron_GT
12-18-2006, 10:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Got anythig besides that? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well he did post the TsAGI test data a while back, which is more than anyone (including you) have to back up anything about the P-80...

But anyway, I am giving up on trying to inject any sense of proportion into this as you just want to argue rather than actually investigate the game and see if there is something to fix on this point, which is a shame as you've done some good testing in the past, but you seem to have decided to be stubborn and patronising for some odd reason which doesn't help anyone.

AKA_TAGERT
12-18-2006, 11:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Think whatever you like. I am getting past caring. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
diddo

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Well he did post the TsAGI test data a while back, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm sorry, where you operating under the false impression that I read every thread let alone save the data from every thread?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
which is more than anyone (including you) have to back up anything about the P-80... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Which might matter if I was saying something was wrong or right about the P80.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
But anyway, I am giving up </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Promise? Why do I find that hard to belive? What with you hanging on my every word.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
on trying to inject any sense of proportion into this </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That would be the day

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
as you just want to argue </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agrue? Asking for someone to provide the info to support thier claim is arguing?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
rather than actually investigate the game </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Pfffffffffft! Now that is comic in light of the FACT that I investigated the track file, which ment writing some code to process the data, than posted the results for all to see.. Which is more than anyone (including you) has done in this thread.. heck most threads!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
and see if there is something to fix on this point, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Without real world data no one can say one way or another.. How many more times do I have to say that for it to sink in?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
which is a shame as you've done some good testing in the past, but you seem to have decided to be stubborn </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes when it comes to supporting data I am stubborn.. Just like Oleg

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
and patronising for some odd reason which doesn't help anyone. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
It's a two way street son.. and well within the forum rules and guidelines, if you can not handle it, I sugest you run along. SAVVY?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

Klemm.co
12-18-2006, 01:21 PM
Could somebody who has it please repost the TsAGI data of the FW 190 A4 with the Ju-87 propeller just for the fun that TAGERT can refute those tests for one reason or another? At least the point of the too low turn times of some German planes would be clarified a bit then, i hope.

AKA_TAGERT
12-18-2006, 01:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Klemm.co:
Could somebody who has it please repost the TsAGI data of the FW 190 A4 with the Ju-87 propeller just for the fun that TAGERT can refute those tests for one reason or another? At least the point of the too low turn times of some German planes would be clarified a bit then, i hope. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Just to be clear, I don't refute or confirm anything!

The test results do all the talking!

All I do is plot the results of the data!

That is to say..

I AM SIMPLY THE MESSANGER!

Granted, I just don't drop the message off on your desk and walk away quitly, I will pin it to your forhead with a nail gun if that is what I think it takes for you to take notice!

As for the report, it will not do me much good unless someone provides an in game track file where they have the same configuration as the report and followed the same test procedure.

For example, anarky52s said he had in game data that matched the IL2COMPAE data. As it turns out he did not in that his test was preformed at sea level not 1,000m.

Little things like that show up when processing a track file! And with that said, I have found that most of the things that people complain about around here have more to do with them doing the in game test wrong than the FM being wrong.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

Akronnick
12-18-2006, 02:41 PM
Has anybody found a historical document of any kind that suggests that 22sec turn time, be it at 1000m, sea level or anywhere, is wrong?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

---Loose nut removed from cockpit, ship OK

Gibbage1
12-18-2006, 03:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Akronnick:
Has anybody found a historical document of any kind that suggests that 22sec turn time, be it at 1000m, sea level or anywhere, is wrong? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You seem to forget something. For Luftwhiners accusing a US aircraft, its "Guilty untill proven innocent".

In reality, how it works is "Innocent untill PROVEN guilty" and so far nobody has done anything what-so-ever to prove the P-80 is guilty of being anything other then a good aircraft.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v461/gibbage/xb35.jpg

Vo101_Isegrim AkA Kurfurst__ "though the Northrop fantasy (B-35)
bomber you want to add to Il-2 never even got to the
prototype stage, while the Gotha did."

Akronnick
12-18-2006, 03:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Akronnick:
Has anybody found a historical document of any kind that suggests that 22sec turn time, be it at 1000m, sea level or anywhere, is wrong? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You seem to forget something. For Luftwhiners accusing a US aircraft, its "Guilty untill proven innocent".

In reality, how it works is "Innocent untill PROVEN guilty" and so far nobody has done anything what-so-ever to prove the P-80 is guilty of being anything other then a good aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not forgeting anything, I intend to make sure nobaody else does, at least until my copy of '46 arrives, then you won't be seeing my *** around here, be sure! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

---Loose nut removed from cockpit, ship OK

BaronUnderpants
12-18-2006, 04:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Akronnick:
Has anybody found a historical document of any kind that suggests that 22sec turn time, be it at 1000m, sea level or anywhere, is wrong? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Doesnt seem like it. Same goes for historical documents suggesting that a turn time of 22 sec is RIGHT as far as i can tell?

Wich in my book puts the YP-80 in the same category as Bf 109Z, Ta183...and dare i say Lerche.

All i know is that IL2 compare v4.07 lists a P80A ( same as YP80, i have no idea? ) with a takeoff weight of 4402.61 kg and a turntime of 22.44 sec.

Now, in game ( v4.05 ) the YP80 is listed with a wight of 5311 kg, wich is a differance of roughly 1000 kg, pretty much in other words.

Based on thoose numbers alone, assuming YP80 and P80A has the same engine, the ingame YP80 weighing 1000 kg more should not have the turnspeed of the IL2 Compare P80A, wich it does and beyond.


In game i made some runs just for fun to see what kind of numbers i would get ( im neither pro or con YP80 ). In one run i managed to get a 360 turntime of 22 sec with a initiall speed of 730 km/h, not 360 as listed as the best turnspeed. Now i might be wrong but shouldnt turnspeed increase the faster u go? ( The reason it wasnt faster than 22 sec btw is because i would have blackout if i pulled harder )

From a initiall speed of 360 km/h ( best turnspeed according to IL2 Compare ) i consistantlly pulled 360 turns in 18 - 19 sec.

Something missing? Ill leave that for others to find out.

Akronnick
12-18-2006, 04:13 PM
Historical documents? anyone?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

---Loose nut removed from cockpit, ship OK

AKA_TAGERT
12-18-2006, 04:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
Doesnt seem like it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
True

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
Same goes for historical documents suggesting that a turn time of 22 sec is RIGHT as far as i can tell? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Big difference here is none of the non LLL gang is saying it is correct or incorrect! We are simply saying there is no data to say one way or another! That simply notion seems to be totally missed or misunderstood by the LLL gang. They do have the attitude that guilty till proven innocent! At lest with regards to non axis planes.

So what next? Well when faced with such a scenario we have two choices..

1) Trust that Oleg knows what he is doing
2) If #1 is not good enough find some data or do the math.

I have seen a few try to do the math or try to imply there is math to support the claim, but just saying it exists does not make it so. Perfect example is anarky52s track file.. He said he had ingame test data that proves IL2COMPARE is correct, but as it turns out he did not.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
Wich in my book puts the YP-80 in the same category as Bf 109Z, Ta183...and dare i say Lerche. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hardly in that I am sure Oleg has data we can only dream about, and where he does not he has a true aeronautical background to do the math. This does not mean he can not make errors, anyone can! But to show there was an error they need to provide the data or do the math to show him.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
All i know is that IL2 compare v4.07 lists a P80A ( same as YP80, i have no idea? ) with a takeoff weight of 4402.61 kg and a turn time of 22.44 sec. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No we know more than that, we know that IL2COMPARE is a 3rd party piece of software that is not supported by 1C and in the past has had errors in it so bad that Oleg asked the making of it to stop in that he was getting so many complaints of bug that did not exist in teh game, but did in IL2COMPRE. In short, Oleg was getting blamed for bugs that did not exist in the game.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
Now, in game ( v4.05 ) the YP80 is listed with a wight of 5311 kg, which is a difference of roughly 1000 kg, pretty much in other words. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The text in the aircraft viewer is more than likly not the text used in the code of the FM.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
Based on thoose numbers alone, the ingame YP80 weighing 1000 kg more should not have the turn speed of the IL2 Compare P80A, which it does and beyond. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
We don?t know if either of those numbers are the numbers used in the calculations in either program. Changing the value in IL2COMPARE does nothing to the graphs, which means it too could just be a type-o

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
In game i made some runs just for fun to see what kind of numbers i would get ( im neither pro or con YP80 ). In one run i managed to get a 360 turn time of 22 sec with a initial speed of 730 kh/h, not 360 as listed as the best turn speed. Now i might be wrong but shouldn?t turn speed increase the faster u go? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
But at what alt?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
From a initiall speed of 360 km/h ( best turnspeed according to IL2 Compare ) i consistently pulled 360 turns in 18 - 19 sec. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Remember, IL2COMPARE is NOT a data dump of the IL2 Engine or data files.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
Something missing? Ill leave that for others to find out. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, real world data on the turn time or turn rate of the YP80<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

BaronUnderpants
12-18-2006, 04:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:

Yes, real world data on the turn time or turn rate of the YP80 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Thats why i personally think YP80 is as valid as the much hated Bf109Z for example, lack of RL data.

That being said, i personally have no problems what so ever taking the Bf109Z for a spin whenever its avalible online.

As long as paperplanes is called paperplanes, and "fact", "as it should be", "it really DID outclass everything" is left at the door, there shouldnt be any problems really

My opinion, nothing more.

P.S. All the unsientific tests where made at 1000 m eccept the 730 km/h - 22 sec - 360 turn, wich was at sealevel.

On the "feeling" side of things, i got the distinct impression that YP80 would turn tighter the higher the initial speed was. Below 320 - 330 u would likely stall before completing a 360 turn, atleast the turn in lower speed wouldnt be a pretty and optimal one. Like i said, the 730 km/h turn wasnt faster than 22 sec due to blacking out if pulling harder.

AKA_TAGERT
12-18-2006, 06:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
Thats why i personally think YP80 is as valid as the much hated Bf109Z for example, lack of RL data. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is where you draw the line?

Fine!

Than get you pen out in that you can not stop there with the P80! Most of the planes in IL2 don't have real data aval to all who seek it! Some have alot, some have some, and some have none.

There is alot of data out there on the P80, just the turn rate stuff is hard to come by. Thus the P80 is no where near in the same catagory as the Lertch, Ta183 and the rest that never made it off the napkin it was scribbled on let alone into the air!

Real world data is not easy to come by! Some people/companies spend lots of time sifting through arcives to find data. That is alot of work! It can give them an edge over another sim makers, so it is easy to understand why they are not real hot on giving it out to anyone that asks for it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
That being said, i personally have no problems what so ever taking the Bf109Z for a spin whenever its avalible online.

As long as paperplanes is called paperplanes, and "fact", "as it should be", "it really DID outclass everything" is left at the door, there shouldnt be any problems really </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Try and convice the LLL gang of that!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
My opinion, nothing more. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Join the club!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
P.S. All the unsientific tests where made at 1000 m eccept the 730 km/h - 22 sec - 360 turn, wich was at sealevel. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
email them to naca_testing@yahoo.com and I will process them

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
On the "feeling" side of things, i got the distinct impression that YP80 would turn tighter the higher the initial speed was. Below 320 - 330 u would likely stall before completing a 360 turn, atleast the turn in lower speed wouldnt be a pretty and optimal one. Like i said, the 730 km/h turn wasnt faster than 22 sec due to blacking out if pulling harder. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ok<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

Akronnick
12-19-2006, 01:06 AM
Still waiting for that document...<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

---Loose nut removed from cockpit, ship OK

Aaron_GT
12-19-2006, 01:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">From a initiall speed of 360 km/h ( best turnspeed according to IL2 Compare ) i consistantlly pulled 360 turns in 18 - 19 sec. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

18 to 19 seconds would put the P80 (according to the TsAGI documents) in the region of the Yaks at the same initial speed, and only a shade worse than the Spitfire. TsAGI gives a turn time for the 190 of 24 seconds, but then that was a clapped out plane with a dubious prop. I reference the 190, though, as its wing loading is very similar to that of the P80 although with worse power loading, although that shouldn't make a vast difference for one turn at 760 initial. Of course this isn't proof - a document is better, but it is at least cause for suspicion.

Aaron_GT
12-19-2006, 01:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Still waiting for that document... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you looking for one that shows 22 seconds is correct?

I don't care much either way in one sense as my first interest is the RAF planes, but I would prefer all aircraft to be correct on an absolute level.

Akronnick
12-19-2006, 03:18 AM
I'd like to see one that say's anything regarding the sustained turn rate of the YP-80.

A challenge has been issued stating that the in-game turn rate is too high. Theoreticly this is because Oleg allowed the YP-80 to be programed lacking between 900kg and 1300kg of weight, based on the listing from Il2compare, however, the object viewer lists the correct weight for the YP-80. Since neither source directly relates to the value of the coded weight, all we can do is use the aircraft's performance to judge the flight modeling. A track has been posted and analyzed that allledgedly* shows a turn rate of 360 degrees/22 sec, and some members claim that rate is too high, but no historical documentation has been provided to compare to the track data. In the absence of said document, all we have to indicate that the flight modeling of the YP-80 is incorrect are the impressions and expectations of forum members who have never flown a real-life YP-80.

Let me state that more briefly:
Have track, need paper.

Without both, we do not have both sides of the comparison. On one side we have verifiable data, i.e., the track, on the other side, we have... nothing, except feelings, expectations, impressions and accusations.

I want to see data, a report, a chart, something that shows what the YP-80's actual turn rate was. Something that can be re-created and compared to the in-game performance so that the difference can me measured. Why is that so hard to understand?

Without a track and a document that shows that the in-game YP-80 doing something in excess of historical statistic, we have... whining.

*note: For the record I do not concede that the track in question establishes the sustained turnrate of the YP-80 to be 360 degrees/22 seconds. Because the airspeed is reduced significantly during the turn , I feel that the number is not accurate.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

---Loose nut removed from cockpit, ship OK

Aaron_GT
12-19-2006, 05:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Without a track and a document that shows that the in-game YP-80 doing something in excess of historical statistic, we have... whining. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


So if the boot was on the other foot and the turn time was, say, 30 seconds, then it would be ok for the lufties to say 'show us the documentation before asking for it to be changed to less than 30 seconds'?

Documentation would be great, but now the suggestion is at 360km/h the turn time might be as low as 18 seconds. That's a claim that would need track analysis with Tagert's tools though. If it does turn at that rate then even without documentation then something would look seriously off as the Spitfire V's turn rate is only a shade less than this at about half the wingloading.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">note: For the record I do not concede that the track in question establishes the sustained turnrate of the YP-80 to be 360 degrees/22 seconds. Because the airspeed is reduced significantly during the turn , I feel that the number is not accurate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is true, but there are other claims now which need to be checked.

Ratsack
12-19-2006, 05:14 AM
This would have to be the most debased argument I've read in this place for, oh I don't know, half an hour.

Keep up the good work, boys. I say 'boys' with deliberate precision, too. Some of you need to grow up.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Ratsack<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

JG14_Josf: 'Gravity, among may other things, is not known...' http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

AKA_TAGERT
12-19-2006, 08:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
18 to 19 seconds would put the P80 (according to the TsAGI documents) in the region of the Yaks at the same initial speed, and only a shade worse than the Spitfire. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>If, but I have not seen anything that sugests the ingame P80 has turn times of 18 to 19 seconds.

On that note, if anarky52 claims to have done 18sec turn time at 360km/h that is wrong! Take a look at the charts I posted. Pay close att to the begining of the chart.. At the begining anarky52 was near the 410km/h value, but it quickly faded down to about 360km/h (middle) to about 280km/h near the end.

At the begging, while near that speed of 410km/h the turn rate is only ~11?/sec which is less than the average of ~16?Â*/sec.

Note the poly fit is only order 1, thus just and average. For the poly fit to capture that curve at the begging I would have to increase the order. Not hard to do, did it but I thought the average would be more useful.

So, with that said a turn rate of..

~11?/sec gives you a turn time of ~33sec @410kh/h
~16?/sec gives you a turn time of ~22sec @360kh/h

I don't know about you, but..

18 vs. 33 at 410km/h I would pick the 18!
18 vs. 22 at 360km/h I would pick the 18!

So, your relitive comparsion is off to a bad start.. Your using the wrong P80 turn time values and you did not say what alt that TsAGI test was done at. Don't make the same mistake anarky52 made by comparing turn times at sea level to turn times at 1,000m!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
TsAGI gives a turn time for the 190 of 24 seconds, but then that was a clapped out plane with a dubious prop. I reference the 190, though, as its wing loading is very similar to that of the P80 although with worse power loading, although that shouldn't make a vast difference for one turn at 760 initial. Of course this isn't proof - a document is better, but it is at least cause for suspicion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>There are four forces at play, thrust, lift, drag, and weight. You have only scratched the serface of one.. Lift.

So back to square one! Find the data or do the math, relitive comparsions are neat and all but there are two many varialbes at play to say for sure one way or another, they are only good for identify an area that may require a closer look. So far I have not seen anyone that is capable of doing the math to do that closer look.. But that does not stop them from trying to imply that Oleg did something wrong.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

Aaron_GT
12-19-2006, 09:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">On that note, if anarky52 claims to have done 18sec turn time at 360km/h that is wrong! Take a look at the charts I posted. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Look up a few posts - it wasn't him making the claim.

AKA_TAGERT
12-19-2006, 09:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Look up a few posts - it wasn't him making the claim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>No Need!

In that prior to ASKING "IF" it was anarky52, I SAID

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
If, but I have not seen anything that sugests the ingame P80 has turn times of 18 to 19 seconds </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Followed by

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
On that note, if anarky52 claims to have done 18sec </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Note the "IF" part

Thus my statment holds for anyone claiming 18sec

SAVVY?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

Akronnick
12-19-2006, 12:04 PM
Anybody have documents of any kind regarding the performance of the YP-80?

Chart from a book, photograph, pilot account, anything?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

---Loose nut removed from cockpit, ship OK

BaronUnderpants
12-19-2006, 12:28 PM
Never claimed anything, just said what numbers i came up with. Wright or wrong...thats what YP80 is capeble of in my version of the game. Also made some comparison tests ( 4 for each ac ) with He162A-2 and Yak3 and my ride of choise online the FW-190D-9 Late.

All "tests" are made at 1000 - 1100 meters alt. and with the best initial turnspeed for each ac as stated in IL2 Compare. No flaps where used.





Alt. ------------ Initial speed.-------- Time.


YP80
____


1010 m 360 km/h 20 sec

1040 m 360 km/h 19 sec

1020 m 360 km/h 20 sec

1100 m 360 km/h 19 sec



He162A-2
________


1080 m 400 km/h 25 sec

1070 m 400 km/h 25 sec

1060 m 400 km/h 24 sec

1090 m 400 km/h 25 sec



Yak-3
_____


1030 m 320 km/h 18 sec

1020 m 320 km/h 17 sec

1030 m 320 km/h 18 sec

990 m 320 km/h 18 sec



FW-190D-9 Late
______________


1050 m 400 km/h 22 sec

1050 m 400 km/h 22 sec

1050 m 400 km/h 22 sec

1060 m 400 km/h 21 sec



Now, what this says, isnt my problem, i did it for fun and im not claiming anything, and if i did anything sientificly wrong, it was made with all the ac so the comparison between the ac are as fair and as close as can be. Either way, atleast all of u have something to compare instead of debating numbers that as far as i understand doesnt exist.What u all do with it is completly up to each one of u. Belive it..great, dont belive it...great.


Have fun either way. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

AKA_TAGERT
12-19-2006, 12:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
Never claimed anything, just said what numbers i came up with. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
And the difference is?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
Wright or wrong...thats what YP80 is capeble of in my version of the game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
My guess is wrong.. In that most people can not visually get a good number, too much error. That and there is typically focusing on one varialbe, while missing all the others that are changing. The nice thing about a track file is it will show that!

Perfect recent example, anarcky52 whet from 450ft to 50ft when he hit the 360km/h mark. He was watching his speed well, but didnt realise his altitude losss. Long story short, that much alt loss does not qualify as a sustained turn!

So, with that said, Ill bet there are errors in yours too that you don't even realise.. Or maybe you do? In that you have not emailed me your track file yet.

That or your confusing inital turn with sustained. I have to give credit where credit is due, anarcky52 did severl turns in his track file. The variations were not the killer of his test, the killers was he did them at sea level instead of 1,000m. The speed delta and alt delta was actully pretty good.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
Also made some comparison tests ( 4 for each ac ) with He162A-2 and Yak3

and my ride of choise online the FW-190D-9 Late.

All "tests" are made at 1000 - 1100 meters alt. and with the best initial turnspeed

for each ac as stated in IL2 Compare. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Got Tracks? Oh.. wait.. you never sent the last one where you claim to be getting 18sec turns.. Why would you send these?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
Now, what this says, isnt my problem, i did it for fun and im not claiming anything. Either way, at least some of u have something to compare to instead of debating numbers that as far as i understand doesnt exist. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Too what end?

Without real world data or suporting math these tests don't really tell us much except that a late war fighter has a good turn rate at higher speeds.. Geee Who would have guess that? Funny, if someone said that about the Ta183 everyone in the LLL gang would not give it a second thought.. Where as this being an allied plane there must be something wrong with the code!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
What u all do with it is completly up to each one of u. Belive it.. great, dont belive it... great. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ill have to side with don't, glad to see you wont take it personally!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
Have fun either way. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Been<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

BaronUnderpants
12-19-2006, 01:02 PM
Like i said, if there where misstakes in the "tests" it was the same misstakes made with all the ac. Like the Alt loss/gain of arround 40-70 m. completing a full 360.

If u are looking for a 360 turn made with no alt. loss/gain and no speed loss.....sry to burst your bubble, they dont exist...unless u have a hovering rail or its wire guided and flown by a robot.

As for 18 sec....i said 18-19 sec. As everyone proppably knows the timer avalible in recorded tracks isnt an exact stopwach, thats why i rounded all the times UP.

As for tracks, i said from the beginning, i did it for fun and dont need to prove anything by providing tracks since i really don care one way or the other......eccept that arguing for no aparent reason what so ever tires me.

Now atleast i actually DID something trying to shed some light on the subject.

Now if u wanna compare theese figures to thoos in IL2 Compare ( the only ones we have ) u might come to a conclusion...maby even the same conclusion as i did.

If u dont wanna compare the figures to IL2 compare because IL2 cant be trusted we are back to YP-80 beeing as valid as Bf109Z, I-185 and so on...and im just fine with that.

AKA_TAGERT
12-19-2006, 01:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
Like i said, if there where misstakes in the "tests" it was the same misstakes made with all the ac. Like the Alt loss of arround 50-100 m. completing a full 360. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So your hoping two wrongs make a right?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
If u are looking for a 360 turn made with no alt. loss/gain and no speed loss..... sry to burst your bubble, they dont exist...unless u have a hovering rail or its wire guided and flown by a robot. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Not true!

Variations, sure, but starting high/fast and ending up low/slow is wrong and not a sustained turn!

Hence the word sustained in the title/description!

It means a constant alt and speed can/must be maintained while turnning!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
As for 18 sec....i said 18-19 sec. As everyone proppably knows the timer avalible in recorded tracks isn?t an exact stopwach, thats why i rounded all the times UP. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
But the timer in Device Link has much more resolution that the one displayed during track playback.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
As for tracks, i said from the beginning, i did it for fun and dont need to prove anything by providing tracks since i really don care one way or the other...... eccept that arguing for no aparent reason what so ever tires me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ah good than you wont be upset if I totally blow off your results and attribute them to human error in that you just did it for fun!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
Now atleast i actually DID something trying to shed some light on the subject. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I can say I did something too.. but without a track file it does not mean much.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
Now if u wanna compare theese figures to thoos in IL2 Compare u might come to a conclusion... maby even the same conclusion as i did. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not going to waste my time with visually collected data, just too much human error. That and in light of the fact that you don't believe a sustained turn can be done I am sure your method has a bunch of problems with it too.

The offer still stands.. email me your track files at naca_tesing@yahoo.com and we can talk, otherwise I will take you up on your previous offer of

"Belive it.. great, dont belive it... great"

Where I will side with don?t believe till I see your track files<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

BaronUnderpants
12-19-2006, 02:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
Now if u wanna compare theese figures to thoos in IL2 Compare u might come to a conclusion... maby even the same conclusion as i did. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not going to waste my time with visually collected data, just too much human error. That and in light of the fact that you don't believe a sustained turn can be done I am sure your method has a bunch of problems with it too.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


If u can do a 360 turn with an initial speed of 360 km/h..and still maintain 360 km/h when exiting the turn....u must be flying according to a differant set of rules than i do....or playing a differant game all togheter...or flying a Spit.

But hey, its a free world, well a free internet anyways. U can think what ever your hart desires.

Like i said, iv come to my own conclusions based up on what this game can do/what IL2 Compare states..and therefore see myselfe as one peice of info richer.

And u still dont know wether those numbers confirmes the accuracy of YP80 or not.

Now, as far as im concerned im of to a thread thats actuall going somewhere, any thread.

AKA_TAGERT
12-19-2006, 02:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
If u can do a 360 turn with an initial speed of 360 km/h..and still maintain 360 km/h when exiting the turn....u must be flying according to a differant set of rules than i do.... or playing a differant game all togheter... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agreed 100%!

That or your having trouble with the difference between variations in speed vs. loosing speed.

Just so you know, no one is going to hold the speed to 10 decimal places or even within the tenths.. That is to say you speed may vary UP and DOWN by say 5% and that would be OK IMHO, but if you start the circle at one speed and loose speed all during the turn and finish the circle at a speed that is 25% less than what you started at, that is not what I would call a SUSTAINED turn! Same goes for altitude!

It takes energy to maintain the speed and altitude at the same time.. If your not, than your using that energy somewhere else.. That is to say your trading it for something else.. In this case your trading speed or alt or both for turn rate. If you use that energy to maintain alt and speed than your turn rate is going to suffer

Do you now understand why they refer to this testing as a SUSTAINE TURN and not just TURN?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
or flying a Spit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Or a 109K

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
But hey, its a free world, well a free internet anyways. U can think what ever your hart disires. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Already have.. and what I am thinking is if you have this much trouble with the word SUSTAINED and thus the concept of a SUSTAINED TURN, Ill just bet your method is not worth the time it would take to run the track file let alone do the analysis on it's results. So by all means, don't send me your track files, in that I am sure they are waste of my time.. Even though it only takes me a min to do it, playing back the track file takes loger than the analysis! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
Now, as far as im concerned im of to a thread thats actuall going somewhere, any thread. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
By!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

anarchy52
12-19-2006, 02:56 PM
I repeated the test using a different technique and alt 1000m. My turn time was 4% worse then Il-2 compare (~23.5 compared to 22.5 piloted by AI). The difference is due to me not being able to perform the ideal coordinated turn that AI can pull off.

Track:
http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/quick360235.ntrk (http://marvin.kset.org/%7Eriddler/quick360235.ntrk)

Notice that it took me three hundered and sixty thousand two hundred and thirty five attempts to get it right.

So, it's safe to say that IL-2 compare data is correct. Now that we got that out of the way:

What makes an aircraft with wingloading of 240-260kg/m^2, T/W ~0.33-0.37 and laminar wing profile turn so well?

High lift devices? I don't see any leading edge slats or flaps on P-80.
Multiple lift surfaces? Nope, no canards.
High lift profile? Nope, laminar profiles were built for speed.
Thrust vectoring? Nope.
Fly-by wire? Nope. (AI is only ~4% better)
Low drag? Nope, not at such low speed.

One answer does comes to mind:
Since Il-2 compare data is correct regarding turn time, and it's most probably correct on the weight as well. Therefore - mystery is solved, YP-80 is missing ~900kg of weight.

Gibbage1
12-19-2006, 04:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
One answer does comes to mind:
Since Il-2 compare data is correct regarding turn time, and it's most probably correct on the weight as well. Therefore - mystery is solved, YP-80 is missing ~900kg of weight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats a very BIG assumption based on VERY little data.

When IL2 Compair first came out, it listed turn times for the PZ.11 with combat flaps. After that, I question anything out of that program. Oleg also said it cant be used as proof of anything.

I will look in the P-80 pilots manual and see if there is a weight listing for the YP-80. The number everyone is quoting is based off of a P-80A and there is a great deal of differance.

#1. Wing tip fuel tanks were standard. Thats around 80-100lb per tank, plus the 150 or so gal's of fuel in each.

#2. Air brakes. Not only the air brakes, but the structure to mount them, hydrolics, and systems. 150-200lb

#3. Ejection seat and its systems. 200-300lb.

#4. Some P-80A's had bigger engines. Most P-90A-1-LO's were retrofitted with the bigger engine. Maybe a few hundred more pounds?

This all adds up.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v461/gibbage/xb35.jpg

Vo101_Isegrim AkA Kurfurst__ "though the Northrop fantasy (B-35)
bomber you want to add to Il-2 never even got to the
prototype stage, while the Gotha did."

Kurfurst__
12-19-2006, 04:25 PM
The problem is still, as anarach52 listed, there's simply no reasonable explanation why is such ENORMOUS difference between the turn time and radious of the P-80, and the other jets in the sim.

Any possible advantage is probably enough to make the plane 1-2 secs better, but by 50% and 10-15 seconds better...? NONE of the similiar piston engine tech aircraft show anywhere near that sort of huge disperancy..

The difference between the friggin ZERO and the P-47 is 16 vs 26 seconds. Please don't tell us the YP-80 is as much different from the other jets as the Zero from the Thunderbolt.

Differences in thrust, drag, wingloading are the main things what are making planes turn better or worser, and there is big sort of difference between the P-80 and contemporary jets in this regard.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42333000/jpg/_42333631_puskasbudapest_ap203b.jpg
In memoriam Puskás Ferenc,2 April 1927 - 17 November 2006.
Nyugodjon Békében - May he rest in Peace.

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/
Kurfürst - Your Resource for Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance!

"The Me 109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be the Messer! Speedy, maneuverable (especially in the vertical) and extremely dynamic."
- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter pilot of the VVS

Ignored Posters : AKA_Tagert, Wurkeri, Gibbage, LStarosta, Sergio_101.

AKA_TAGERT
12-19-2006, 04:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
I repeated the test using a different technique and alt 1000m. My turn time was 4% worse then Il-2 compare (~23.5 compared to 22.5 piloted by AI). The difference is due to me not being able to perform the ideal coordinated turn that AI can pull off. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Maybe.. maybe not, Ill check out your trak file tonight.. unless my copy of 46 is waiting for me when I get home.. than I will have to put it off for a few days. Problem is I got some buddies coming in Thursday and we are going on vacation for a week or so.. So I might not be able to get to this few a week or so. As for you vs. AI, you didn?t do that bad of a job in your first test, except that you did it at the wrong altitude.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
Notice that it took me three hundered and sixty thousand two hundred and thirty five attempts to get it right. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Renaming files can be so much fun!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
So, it's safe to say that IL-2 compare data is correct. Now that we got that out of the way: </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Maybe, maybe not.. Ill hold my comment on that till I process the track file.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
What makes an aircraft with wingloading of 240-260kg/m^2, T/W ~0.33-0.37 and laminar wing profile turn so well? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is the question we (non LLL gang) have been asking for since the start of all this.. Some real world data or some math to explain it. Wing loading factors into just one of the four basic forces at play here.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
High lift devices? I don't see any leading edge slats or flaps on P-80. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Slats only come into play at slow/stall speeds, the 370km/h is hardly what I would call slow/stall speeds.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
Multiple lift surfaces? Nope, no canards. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Really? What was your first clue?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
High lift profile? Nope, laminar profiles were built for speed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
But not totally inept at turing, espically at mid to high speeds. And if you look at the IL2COMPARE it shows the 109 out turning the P80 at LOW to MID speeds, it is only on the transition between MID to HIGH speeds that he P80 starts to turn better. Which is as you said, is the range the laminar works best in. Thus no surprise there.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
Thrust vectoring? Nope. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Again, what was you first clue?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
Fly-by wire? Nope. (AI is only ~4% better) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
AI control is not equal to fly-by-wire.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
Low drag? Nope, not at such low speed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Disagree 100%! The P80 was very sleek with regards to the lumps and bumps of a 109, that and it is in the MID to HIGH speed range, not LOW.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
One answer does comes to mind:
Since Il-2 compare data is correct regarding turn time, and it's most probably correct on the weight as well. Therefore - mystery is solved, YP-80 is missing ~900kg of weight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh Please.. PLEASE send that to Oleg and and CC me on it! And be sure to mention that your basing this FEELING on data you got from IL2COMPARE! And that you determined it must be a bug based on.. on.. well nothing but a FEELING you have and what IL2COMPARE says! That should be a real hoot for him! I know it will for me if he does a reply to all!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **