PDA

View Full Version : Please test the new P-38 before patch v4.01 release!



Schlum66
06-09-2005, 03:55 AM
I am one of those that tried the leaked v4.0 patch and hope that the official test team will test the new P-38 against late Bf109s and late Fw190s before you release the v4.01 patch.

The reaseon for making this post is because I dont think the test team have tried the new P-38 against these late german planes.

Schlum66
06-09-2005, 03:55 AM
I am one of those that tried the leaked v4.0 patch and hope that the official test team will test the new P-38 against late Bf109s and late Fw190s before you release the v4.01 patch.

The reaseon for making this post is because I dont think the test team have tried the new P-38 against these late german planes.

Vipez-
06-09-2005, 05:15 AM
P38 is great now. Esspecially P38/Late.. one of the best planes, and definately my favourite US ride from now on http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LLv34_Stafroty
06-09-2005, 05:19 AM
yea, its Elevator is like what almost should be on 109:s http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ElAurens
06-09-2005, 05:25 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

I can see that the new FMs are going to provide hours of entertainment...

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

F19_Orheim
06-09-2005, 06:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

I can see that the new FMs are going to provide hours of entertainment...

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

.... entertainment in form of whining in crazyland called UBI-forum http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

alert_1
06-09-2005, 12:29 PM
Yes, "late" P38L and boosted P51C are great. Now it's time for their "blue" counterparts -"late" Me109 with 2000 hp DB605 series....
Actually I HATE all those "late" beast, Gladiator or I153 are usually much more fun to fly and fight with.

F4UDash4
06-09-2005, 01:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by alert_1:
Yes, "late" P38L and boosted P51C are great. Now it's time for their "blue" counterparts -"late" Me109 with 2000 hp DB605 series....
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A 2000 hp DB605? How many of those were built?

Gibbage1
06-09-2005, 01:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F4UDash4:

A 2000 hp DB605? How many of those were built? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good question. Over 4000 "Late" P-38's with 1720HP engines were built before the war ended. I think the Mustang III ranged in the thousands also. How many 109Z's were built? Or Go-229's? How many Ta-152's flew combat? Lufties have enough uber aircraft. Us and Brits have none. This just helps things up a bit. If the Lufties get a 2000HP 109, then I was a P-51H http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

JG53Frankyboy
06-09-2005, 01:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by alert_1:
Yes, "late" P38L and boosted P51C are great. Now it's time for their "blue" counterparts -"late" Me109 with 2000 hp DB605 series....
Actually I HATE all those "late" beast, Gladiator or I153 are usually much more fun to fly and fight with. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

well, boosted P-38s and Mustangs were normal planes for mid to late 1944 . so whats your point ?
a DB605L 109 would be 1945 , and were far from a normal plane equiptment for a LW unit !

F4UDash4
06-09-2005, 01:34 PM
Those "2000 hp" (I think it was actually closer to 1800-1900 hp) DB's also required 100 octane to develope that HP, and I don't think Germany had a large quanity of 100 octane in late 44 - early 45.

BSS_CUDA
06-09-2005, 01:38 PM
the Late 38 is SCHATWEET trust me you'll like it immensely if you've flown the 38 at all, there is no 190 that can run from you now

F4UDash4
06-09-2005, 01:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
the Late 38 is SCHATWEET trust me you'll like it immensely if you've flown the 38 at all, there is no 190 that can run from you now </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As it should be.

Loki-PF
06-09-2005, 01:46 PM
hristo should be along any-time now to start whinging.....

Gibbage1
06-09-2005, 02:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
the Late 38 is SCHATWEET trust me you'll like it immensely if you've flown the 38 at all, there is no 190 that can run from you now </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The D9 will run just as fast, but I think the P-38 can run full throttle for longer.

BSS_CUDA
06-09-2005, 02:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Loki-PF:
hristo should be along any-time now to start whinging..... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Heh thats ok, I got blasted in the last thread for being at 1.6 K/D in my 38. since they reset WC I'm @ 4.0 12-3, hristo is @ 3.33 10-3 I OWN JOOO http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif



Heh just for fun Hristo, gotta rib my fav Lufty http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

snafu73
06-09-2005, 02:24 PM
To the rascals that have dl'd the leaked patch, does the P-38 still try to dock with the ground in a high speed dive? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

BSS_CUDA
06-09-2005, 02:31 PM
its sluggish but it doesnt totally lock up at speed,380 MPH. combat flaps and it comes right up

JG53Frankyboy
06-09-2005, 02:31 PM
use combat flaps in P-38J ore manouver/"dive" flaps in P-38L

Scen
06-09-2005, 02:52 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 F4UDash4:

A 2000 hp DB605? How many of those were built? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good question. Over 4000 "Late" P-38's with 1720HP engines were built before the war ended. I think the Mustang III ranged in the thousands also. How many 109Z's were built? Or Go-229's? How many Ta-152's flew combat? Lufties have enough uber aircraft. Us and Brits have none. This just helps things up a bit. If the Lufties get a 2000HP 109, then I was a P-51H http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excellent point... It's about time Allied get some high end planes... Now it might actually make sense to have those high end plane sets.

Scendore

Hunde_3.JG51
06-09-2005, 03:04 PM
From what I have seen, the late 1,720hp P-38L is a Pacific aircraft. I believe from mid '44 P-38's were used for ground attack in ETO, and I am not sure how many "L" models were even there. I requested info on this aircraft and have yet to see any mention of running at these settings in combat. Anyway, from what I understand it belongs in the Pacific, in late '44 or '45 and not fighting 190's. This is just a note for those looking for historical accuracy.

Thread where it was discussed:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/7611...361051623#5361051623 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/7611007523/r/5361051623#5361051623)

As for the Mustang III, it gives me nightmares with it's speed, should be interesting.

fordfan25
06-09-2005, 03:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by alert_1:
Yes, "late" P38L and boosted P51C are great. Now it's time for their "blue" counterparts -"late" Me109 with 2000 hp DB605 series....
Actually I HATE all those "late" beast, Gladiator or I153 are usually much more fun to fly and fight with. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

or there true conter parts the p-47n and M as well as the f4u-4. and wasnt the p-51D's over boosted for high alt in the later war? how about some G-suits while were at it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VMF-214_HaVoK
06-09-2005, 03:17 PM
P-38 flys closer to RL then it ever has and I thank Oleg for that. It took some time but atleast not as long as it took the P-47 to be close to RL specs. So whats the problem? Go play with your new Nuke laser 151s and have fun.

VMF-214_HaVoK
06-09-2005, 03:19 PM
Hmm whiner with 4 post. i wonder if thats the name he/she flys under or usually post under. Ivan you can remove this now or atleast move it to GD.

ICDP
06-09-2005, 04:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
P-38 flys closer to RL then it ever has and I thank Oleg for that. It took some time but atleast not as long as it took the P-47 to be close to RL specs. So whats the problem? Go play with your new Nuke laser 151s and have fun. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL you gotta love a guy who counters an invalid whine with another invalid whine.

I am delighted the P38 finally got the agility it had in real life. I fly it a lot and had great fun getting a 3:1 kill ratio against La7's and Bf109's on HL last night. The 109's, La's Yak's etc are still more agile overall but the lack of torque in the P38 is a big advantage.

So we agree on one thing but to claim that the Mg151/20's are now "Nuke laser 151s" is a total joke. It is about time they were fixed to realsitic levels, it has taken longer to fix these than it really should have.

Why don't you go and look up the word "objective". It is a word that will never be used to describe your opinion on all things PF http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Aaron_GT
06-09-2005, 04:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">. How many 109Z's were built? Or Go-229's? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gibbage, I find it ironic that you seem to be complaining about the inclusion of a plane you modelled unless I am misunderstanding what you meant!

hobnail
06-09-2005, 04:49 PM
Hehe yeh Aaron, I thought that was funny too especially considering Gibbage did the P-38 itself as well.

GR142_Astro
06-09-2005, 04:56 PM
Plus the head/gunshake has been toned down.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gifhttp://www.aerofiles.com/lock-p38f.jpg

Schlum66
06-09-2005, 05:08 PM
Thanks for all the constructive answers! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

As a n00b (with 4 posts btw) I did not know that the P-38L late was the best piston engined airplane of the war.

I allso understand from this tread that this plane has been tested against the current performance of the German planes and found just as it should be. Exellent work!

I allso seem to remember from some old books I have that Jg26 and Jg301/302 got really scared when P-38s where escorting B-17s and B-24s. Must have just slipped my mind, so i am truly sorry..

Nice that to see that we have sorted out this issue so fast!

And yes; Ivan you should move this thread to "General discussion" since it is offcaurse highly inapropriate to have a question to the testteam in "Olegs ready room".

Gibbage1
06-09-2005, 05:29 PM
<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">. How many 109Z's were built? Or Go-229's? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gibbage, I find it ironic that you seem to be complaining about the inclusion of a plane you modelled unless I am misunderstanding what you meant! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Im just saying people accepted the 109Z and Go-229 with little to no whining, but something like the P-80 or even the P-38L Late is meating all sorts of sceptisizm.

Do a little test. Go into IL2 and count how many Allied 1945 aircraft we have. 3 last time I counted. P-80 and 2 BC Yak's. Now count how many Axis 1945 aircraft we have. 9!!! Go online and you see 1945 D9's, Ta-152's and K4's going up against all 1944 stuff. Even the new stuff we got in this patch is 1944. We dont have the P-47N or M, or the F4U-4, P-51H or any crazy late-war allied aircraft. Only the Axis, and they not only have them, but get to fly them! So it chaps my hide just a LITTLE when people question the addition of the P-38 late.

VMF-214_HaVoK
06-09-2005, 06:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ICDP:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
P-38 flys closer to RL then it ever has and I thank Oleg for that. It took some time but atleast not as long as it took the P-47 to be close to RL specs. So whats the problem? Go play with your new Nuke laser 151s and have fun. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL you gotta love a guy who counters an invalid whine with another invalid whine.

I am delighted the P38 finally got the agility it had in real life. I fly it a lot and had great fun getting a 3:1 kill ratio against La7's and Bf109's on HL last night. The 109's, La's Yak's etc are still more agile overall but the lack of torque in the P38 is a big advantage.

So we agree on one thing but to claim that the Mg151/20's are now "Nuke laser 151s" is a total joke. It is about time they were fixed to realsitic levels, it has taken longer to fix these than it really should have.

Why don't you go and look up the word "objective". It is a word that will never be used to describe your opinion on all things PF http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its a forum ACE move I learned it years ago http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif They are lasers though be sure...enjoy.

VMF-214_HaVoK
06-09-2005, 06:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Schlum66:
Thanks for all the constructive answers! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

As a n00b (with 4 posts btw) I did not know that the P-38L late was the best piston engined airplane of the war.

I allso understand from this tread that this plane has been tested against the current performance of the German planes and found just as it should be. Exellent work!

I allso seem to remember from some old books I have that Jg26 and Jg301/302 got really scared when P-38s where escorting B-17s and B-24s. Must have just slipped my mind, so i am truly sorry..

Nice that to see that we have sorted out this issue so fast!

And yes; Ivan you should move this thread to "General discussion" since it is offcaurse highly inapropriate to have a question to the testteam in "Olegs ready room". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Im glad you seen the error of your ways. Welcome back. And btw what did you expect. Try starting a thread asking Oleg to look at the effectivness of the 151/20 and see if you dont get the same type of responses from both sides. You will find out quickly that this is a biased forum and always will be. And it had two piston engines and when flown like one it was a very deadly machine. If flown like a single engine fighter its more cannon fodder for blue. AKA Mark108 magnets or now in 4.0 and round fired from and LW plane http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Winter-Storm
06-09-2005, 08:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Im just saying people accepted the 109Z and Go-229 with little to no whining, but something like the P-80 or even the P-38L Late is meating all sorts of sceptisizm.

Do a little test. Go into IL2 and count how many Allied 1945 aircraft we have. 3 last time I counted. P-80 and 2 BC Yak's. Now count how many Axis 1945 aircraft we have. 9!!! Go online and you see 1945 D9's, Ta-152's and K4's going up against all 1944 stuff. Even the new stuff we got in this patch is 1944. We don€t have the P-47N or M, or the F4U-4, P-51H or any crazy late-war allied aircraft. Only the Axis, and they not only have them, but get to fly them! So it chaps my hide just a LITTLE when people question the addition of the P-38 late. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is true that there are more late war German planes then US and English but it is not like many servers (well those with settings I like, RL) even have the them. I hardly ever see the Go-229, He-162, Me-163, Me-109Z or Me-262 (all variants) in servers. Many think the ki-84c is too powerful and don't include it in missions. So in the end it is not like we get to use these űber planes unless we join one of those servers, that usually have low difficulty settings and every plane available to fly....


I'm not saying that the allies shouldn't get those planes you mentioned I'm just saying that I don't think that the allies are at a disadvantage because the game has some űber planes for the Germans, these planes generally are not used online (maybe I don€t go in the same servers as you).

JG53Frankyboy
06-09-2005, 09:14 PM
i realy think , even the most biased blue pilot, would not miss the Go229 , Bf109Z ore future Do335 !

i think the most people here are of the opinion that maddoxgames plane selection was, well, a little bit strange sometimes - wasnt it ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Hristo_
06-09-2005, 11:10 PM
P-38 Lame ?

Bring it on !! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WWMaxGunz
06-10-2005, 12:09 AM
Nice sarcasm but try better with your aim. Notes below.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Schlum66:
Thanks for all the constructive answers! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Less than full marks as some good info was presented but still your trolling got some fish.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As a n00b (with 4 posts btw) I did not know that the P-38L late was the best piston engined airplane of the war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

2 out of 10 --- throw in some kind of data or comparison you get more points.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I allso understand from this tread that this plane has been tested against the current performance of the German planes and found just as it should be. Exellent work! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I give that one a 7 for a nice balanced whine vs whine. But only points for style.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I allso seem to remember from some old books I have that Jg26 and Jg301/302 got really scared when P-38s where escorting B-17s and B-24s. Must have just slipped my mind, so i am truly sorry.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope, sorry but you score MINUS 6 on that.
It is far too obvious that the P-38's you refer to escorting the bombers were not L models
and your P-38 whine is built on the L models that you seem to know **** about.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Nice that to see that we have sorted out this issue so fast! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh dear, you really are new! Quitting already? Zero points.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And yes; Ivan you should move this thread to "General discussion" since it is offcaurse highly inapropriate to have a question to the testteam in "Olegs ready room". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

4 of 10 --- you ALMOST got that right but then you blew it! It should be in GD =maybe=
due to the amount of pollution it has accrued, but given the amazing lame first post that
is only to be expected.

Gee, really that's a poor start for Whiner of the Month, or even Day! The big guns haven't
even shown for such a small pickings sing-along! And you come with so much opinion for so
little information on a charged issue! Well just you wait, this thread hasn't even gotten
started rolling and there'll be plenty of opportunities to establish yourself as a voice.
Really, you do show potential demanding your rights at the end there after that start. But
you are far from being in a position to challenge "The Grates of Whine" on this forum.

JG53Hunter
06-10-2005, 12:29 AM
Its 'nice' to see how the blue fraction of our community gets bashed for having the most late war planes again and again.
Sure its funny to do some fantasy Luft46 missions in them but i never got to fly a Go229 or a 109Z on a big renown dogfight server or in an online war. And i remember only a few (maybee 5) times i got to fly the Me262 or the He162 in an official online coop based war the whole frekin TWO AND A HALF YEARS im around! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

So you better dont blame us for planes we have, but wich we dont get to fly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


And of the Americans having less late war (or generaly less versions) in this game:
Think of where this game came from, how it developed and about the somtimes strange decision of Maddox Games to implement or not implement a machine. Then you will get your answer why the American planes are treated a little bit stepmotherly (are they?) in this sim.

But dont blame the blue side of the community for that for christs sake!

Sometimes i think it would be a much better sim if Oleg had decided to stay on the eastfront and the maybe add the mediterane scenario. We would have all mayor types, some support type planes, more dense settled maps, and last but not least no stupid US whining.

WWMaxGunz
06-10-2005, 12:38 AM
Yes, completely wrong to have British and US versions from mid 1944 or later!
Not to mention, keep all used final stages models out! P40M, P-47M or N, P-51H
are just American whiner fantasies just like P-80! Blah-da-blah-da-yadda-ya!

Aaron_GT
06-10-2005, 01:04 AM
Gibbage, a lot of us complained about the Go
229 and the possible inclusion of other fantasy
or semi fantasy planes (109Z) or ones that
saw little service (Do335) as well as the P80
when we don't have bread-and-butter planes in
the game. I've been complaining about having
planes that didn't see service for yonks.

JG53Hunter
06-10-2005, 01:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Yes, completely wrong to have British and US versions from mid 1944 or later!
Not to mention, keep all used final stages models out! P40M, P-47M or N, P-51H
are just American whiner fantasies just like P-80! Blah-da-blah-da-yadda-ya! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What you wrote has nothing to do with what i wrote. Nothing against late war versions. But dont blame blue for not getting them. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Maybee you should have done as other did before and get you *** up, get a copy of 3dMax or whatever is needed and modell you plane of choice as many others did before. Dont depend on Maddox games to modell it.

I for myself am happy with whatever plane is included in the sim. So feel free and start workin (Maybe with BOB in your mind).

F4UDash4
06-10-2005, 06:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
From what I have seen, the late 1,720hp P-38L is a Pacific aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course the very latest P-38's were used primarily in the PTO, as the war in Europe was over 3 months sooner http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif But late J's and L's were used in the ETO, PTO and the MTO as well.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:I believe from mid '44 P-38's were used for ground attack in ETO, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As were P-47's and P-51's and most every other fighter, since the Luftwaffe had been all but defeated by D-Day.

F4UDash4
06-10-2005, 06:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Schlum66:
I allso seem to remember from some old books I have that Jg26 and Jg301/302 got really scared when P-38s where escorting B-17s and B-24s. Must have just slipped my mind, so i am truly sorry.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Har Har

You conviently forget that at the time (mid 1943) those would be early P-38F/G's flown by green pilots with in many case little to no multi-engine training which were also out numbered by German fighters 10-20 to one. Not to mention the fact that the British fuel being used was "sub-par". More of those early P-38's were lost to engine failures, weather and other non-combat failures than were shot down by German fighters.

lbhskier37
06-10-2005, 07:10 AM
Not sure where all the hostility came from in here towards LW flyers. No one really complained about having the P-38 late, one guy just posted the fact that the L is really only a PTO plane. This is the same guy who doesn't fly Ta-152s and 190 A9s either because they served in such limited numbers. Do you guys think that we are going to get your precious planes taken away? Do you fear that all the late war western front (airquake?) servers will not have the P38L because it wasn't really there in numbers? There is more paranoia here than car full of kids leaving Bonnaroo that got stopped by the cops.

WWMaxGunz
06-10-2005, 07:14 AM
I don't care who "blames" anyway.
WingWalkers fly blue ever since red side became more popular in online wars.

3DSMax is way too expensive for me. You buy?

Hunde_3.JG51
06-10-2005, 07:25 AM
Thanks, Ibhskier37, and well said. I see that you actually take the time to read posts before judging people.

F4UDash4
06-10-2005, 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 lbhskier37:
Not sure where all the hostility came from in here towards LW flyers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wouldn€t call it €œhostility€, but I won€t argue that point. Whatever you call it, it may be a result of the immediate calls to €œtest€ (that€s code for castrate) the P-38 before 4.01. The P-38 is finally represented fairly in IL2PF, and there are some who just can€t bear to see such a superior aircraft wearing American colors. Sorry, that€s just the way it was.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lbhskier37:
No one really complained about having the P-38 late, one guy just posted the fact that the L is really only a PTO plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Except that is NOT a fact. The P-38L WAS deployed in the ETO as well. And in greater numbers that a lot of the Luftwaffe experimental uber-planes we see modeled, I won€t bother to list them we all know what they are.

NorrisMcWhirter
06-10-2005, 08:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">...and there are some who just can€t bear to see such a superior aircraft wearing American colors. Sorry, that€s just the way it was... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe there are. But there are just as many who can't bear to see 'superior' aircraft wearing non-US colours, too.

For example, the lack of Ki-84s & Me262s on servers due to the almost fever pitch crying about them.

Then, of course, we have the 151/20 whining just because they're almost as good as the Hispano.

Be happy that you have some new late war UFOs to play with that WILL get an airing on servers just because they fit into someone's biased little world. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ta,
Norris

ZG77_Nagual
06-10-2005, 08:17 AM
The L was, in fact, the most numerous model. Most J models were also retrofitted with the boosted ailerons. The L saw action in significant numbers in the eto as well - it is not in the same class numerically as a/c like the ta152 - being MUCH more common in ALL theaters. The diff is in europe it was consigned primarily to ground pounding - the links below touch on why this happened - it does certainly belong on '44 servers. However even the earlier models were said to easily outturn 190s, and even 109s under the right circumstances. Here are a couple of interesting links detailing various aspects of the p38s performance and history. The variety of views on this a/c all point to one conclusion: It's effectiveness in air combat depended very much on the skill and experience of the pilot - it was ot the easiest of planes to fly but had tremendous potential.

yarchive p38 thread (http://www.yarchive.net/mil/p38.html)

Very thorough P38 Article (http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38.html)

FYI - before the p38 arrived I was primarily - and since it first appeared I might add - a 190 driver - my favs being the a5 and the dora.

All that said the 109 is certainly a match for just about anything. The tendancy to bring 'nationalism' into the fray allways freaks me out a little. Particularly american's *****ing about it. I mean have you flown a p39? P51? A corsair for cryin out loud? These planes are all great! As are the 190s and 109s - I still like the control harmony of the 190 better than anything - the 109 I only fly if I want to rack up kills without working to hard. Let us not even speak of the ki84.

I'm worried now that the p38 has some chops I'll have to start looking for something harder to fly - beaufighter maybe..

WOLFMondo
06-10-2005, 08:24 AM
Not sure what your refering to Norris, the 109's can do everything any allied 'UFO' can do. I don't see any allied 'UFO' additions. I see a fairly common RAF Mustang and a common Spitfire conversion. Still don't see a Tempest, not that I'd call if a UFO or rare like the TA152 for example which does get on DF servershttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif, or a Spitfire XIV.

Norris, I'd say the MG151's are much more pokey than the Hispano. There a bit too much. I played about with the 190D9 last night (the FM is fantasitc, such a nice plane to fly) and it blows stuff apart like its firing 120mm tank shells at planes. I was hoping for some improvement but its now stupid. The Hispano is regarded as probably the finest 20mm of WW2. In this new revision of history the Mg151/20 is now the best 20mm of WW2.

lbhskier37
06-10-2005, 08:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
The L was, in fact, the most numerous model. Most J models were also retrofitted with the boosted ailerons. The L saw action in significant numbers in the eto as well - it is not in the same class numerically as a/c like the ta152 - being MUCH more common in ALL theaters. The diff is in europe it was consigned primarily to ground pounding - the links below touch on why this happened - it does certainly belong on '44 servers. However even the earlier models were said to easily outturn 190s, and even 109s under the right circumstances. Here are a couple of interesting links detailing various aspects of the p38s performance and history. The variety of views on this a/c all point to one conclusion: It's effectiveness in air combat depended very much on the skill and experience of the pilot - it was ot the easiest of planes to fly but had tremendous potential.

yarchive p38 thread (http://www.yarchive.net/mil/p38.html)

Very thorough P38 Article (http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38.html)

FYI - before the p38 arrived I was primarily - and since it first appeared I might add - a 190 driver - my favs being the a5 and the dora. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was under the impression that the P38L only served in a few squadrons in the 9th airforce throughout the war, as most other squadrons were being re-equiped with other models. At least this is what I got out of the information that was dug up in that thread a week or so back. I'm just saying that for historical mission building and even to have a dogfight server with a good historical planeset, the P38L wouldn't really be there in the west accept maybe in a very few instances. But in these situations the Ta, K4, and A9 wouldn't be around too. IMHO the ideal late war ETO server should include something like 190 A8s, 109 G6s G14s and maybe G10s, versus P51B and C, P47s, and P38Js becuase that is what most often would have met in combat until very late in 44 when the LW became pretty much non-existant. But people don't like these scenerios because so many think they need the best plane available all the time. Me, I am happiest in 1942 and 43 servers. They seem to have the most variety and best matchups.

WWMaxGunz
06-10-2005, 08:33 AM
Nothing biased about Norris' world. Nope.

F4UDash4
06-10-2005, 08:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:

For example, the lack of Ki-84s & Me262s on servers due to the almost fever pitch crying about them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well it doesn't concern me what people allow or do not allow on their servers; that is up to the server owner. But the sentiment I see represented in the first post of this thread is that the poster doesn't want the P-38L as it is modeled by patch 4.00 to EXIST AT ALL.

F4UDash4
06-10-2005, 08:52 AM
I keep seeing comments on where the P-38L did or did not serve with respect to the European theater......

Well, IL2FB / PF is not just about the European theater. Is it???

I mean, look at the title of the main forum for this simulation series: "Pacific Fighters"

Again, the thread starter wasn't refering to wheather or not the P-38L belonged in the ETO, MTO or PTO. He was posting in reference to the state of the P-38L's flight model.... in whatever theater.

Two different topics in my opinion.

ZG77_Nagual
06-10-2005, 09:48 AM
lbhskier37 - you are probably right. Though in theory we should have a boosted J in there somewhere. I'd like to see some of the earlier ones for '42/43 scenarios. I'm with you on that era server - I like '43 the best because it does allow the p38J - which is what I spend the most time in.

Point is - as f4udash has pointed out - the L was a stellar performer by most accounts and is a blast to fly against Ki84s. I'd like to see more flyable japanese late-war birds.

Slickun
06-10-2005, 11:52 AM
bolillo_loco and Skychimp hashed out the L model question (did it serve in Northern Europe) and the answer was...well, was there a concensus? At most it appears there were only a very few, serving alongside the J model.

And, of course, the J was a very capable model in its own right.

F4UDash4
06-10-2005, 12:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Slickun:
And, of course, the J was a very capable model in its own right. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The P-38J-25-LO was "practically" a P-38L in all but designation. Performance wise there was little if any difference.

p1ngu666
06-10-2005, 01:01 PM
hm, so p38L late isnt a dog and got teh lufties up in arms http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

bet 109k4 can still outclimb it tho

Schlum66
06-10-2005, 01:12 PM
Calm dow all...

The reason for making this tread was because I d not know that the P-38L late was superior to the Fw190A9 in all respects, even rollrate, with the exception of high speed manouvering. Furthermore I was not aware of the fact that the P38 could outturn a Me109G6.

I would offcaurse welcome a new P38 in this game, since I know many who loves the plane. I simply did not know that the plane was such a good fighter, based upon what I have read about the plane in combat with German planes. But as someone pointed out, it might have been against earlyer models of the plane.

So I did not post this to take "your precious" away, I just wanted to know if the current performance modelling was correct. If it is, bring it on and enjoy it!

Hristo_
06-10-2005, 01:21 PM
Schlum, you are too polite for this board.

A message to P-38 Lame and its pilots: "Bring it on ! " http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

lbhskier37
06-10-2005, 01:21 PM
Well didn't someone report that the P-38L rolls too fast at lower speeds? That's the only thing I could see wrong with it. I love flying the thing now, two engines are better than one. I think about this ETO PTO thing, what they should do is rename the P-38L to a P-38J-25-LO, and rename the P-38L Late just P-38L, and give it the K-14 gunsight. But knowing that the normal L is basically the same as the P-38J-25-LO, I won't feel bad flying in ETO missions now.

ZG77_Nagual
06-10-2005, 04:33 PM
schlum - I appreciate the tone of all your posts. Some participants have been less than polite - but not you.

It's true the J25-lo was pretty close to the L - I'm not sure about the horsepower however.

There are abundant stories from the german side of P38s being easy targets - and also from the american side. There are abundant stories from boths sides of the p38 being a stellar dogfighter as well - with 190a, dora and 109 pilots all remarking on it's excellence - one famous german ace who's name escapes me even regarded it as the best american fighter of the war! American pilots who swore by it tend to be very experienced and capable individuals who really became expert in the type.

In short theres good reason to believe - based on a good study of the history and combat situations in which it found itself - that both perspectives are true. In the pacific american pilots made it work against the extraordinary early war japanese planes and pilots. In the eto it was badly outnumbered - pilots were inadequately trained and the climate brought out it's mechanical flaws. It's kind of like the P39 in these discussions as far as having really qualified opinions that cover the full range.

Eagle_493rdLN
06-10-2005, 04:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Not sure what your refering to Norris, the 109's can do everything any allied 'UFO' can do. I don't see any allied 'UFO' additions. I see a fairly common RAF Mustang and a common Spitfire conversion. Still don't see a Tempest, not that I'd call if a UFO or rare like the TA152 for example which does get on DF servershttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif, or a Spitfire XIV.

Norris, I'd say the MG151's are much more pokey than the Hispano. There a bit too much. I played about with the 190D9 last night (the FM is fantasitc, such a nice plane to fly) and it blows stuff apart like its firing 120mm tank shells at planes. I was hoping for some improvement but its now stupid. The Hispano is regarded as probably the finest 20mm of WW2. In this new revision of history the Mg151/20 is now the best 20mm of WW2. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mondo, Norris is one of those "Oleg hates blue players" theorists.
Certainly good for a laugh though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

WWMaxGunz
06-10-2005, 05:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Schlum66:
Calm dow all...

The reason for making this tread was because I was because I did not know that the P-38L late was superior to the Fw190A9 in all respects, even rollrate. Furthermore I was not aware of the fact that the P38 could outturn a Me109G6.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It didn't outroll the FW at normal combat speed according to the chart. Only at high speed.
Lower than almost 400 mph, the P-38L should roll like and old sore dog compared.

Turning compared to 109's.... similar, it depends on the conditions which is better.

Making blanket statements Plane X is better at characteristic Y than plane Z is often wrong.
Check altitudes and speeds at least first and don't trust short reports or sound bite type
comparisons in quotes. Lots of pilots got surprised to death while trusting "always"
statements. There are good "always" statements though, like "always check your six"!

Anyhow, I saw in your post then and still now some very loaded words not so innocent.
P-38L was not perfect, uber, whatever best plane of the war you would suggest. Is it all
that in 4.00m? Please, do tell?

ZG77_Nagual
06-10-2005, 06:26 PM
Boost also affects roll at moderate speeds. The L has some fm changes for sure - specifically there is now roll onset delay in evidence - and stall behavior is more moderate. It still has elevator problems at around 400 etc. I dont' know what the fuss is about - many other a/c are much more agile

meina222
06-10-2005, 06:37 PM
Hristo are you a fan of Stoichkov http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VW-IceFire
06-10-2005, 08:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
schlum - I appreciate the tone of all your posts. Some participants have been less than polite - but not you.

It's true the J25-lo was pretty close to the L - I'm not sure about the horsepower however.

There are abundant stories from the german side of P38s being easy targets - and also from the american side. There are abundant stories from boths sides of the p38 being a stellar dogfighter as well - with 190a, dora and 109 pilots all remarking on it's excellence - one famous german ace who's name escapes me even regarded it as the best american fighter of the war! American pilots who swore by it tend to be very experienced and capable individuals who really became expert in the type.

In short theres good reason to believe - based on a good study of the history and combat situations in which it found itself - that both perspectives are true. In the pacific american pilots made it work against the extraordinary early war japanese planes and pilots. In the eto it was badly outnumbered - pilots were inadequately trained and the climate brought out it's mechanical flaws. It's kind of like the P39 in these discussions as far as having really qualified opinions that cover the full range. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think those easy targets were the inexperience pilots flying them. While true of any plane, it took a real expert pilot on the P-38 to make it a potent fighter. When those guys were behind teh controls, it was a very potent and capable fighter with some unique abilities. When it was behind the controls of a new pilot, the sheer complexity meant they were sitting ducks during bounces.

I think, after reading alot, that this basically explains the reasons why the Lightning has so many varities of viewpoints on its abilities.

p1ngu666
06-10-2005, 08:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
Boost also affects roll at moderate speeds. The L has some fm changes for sure - specifically there is now roll onset delay in evidence - and stall behavior is more moderate. It still has elevator problems at around 400 etc. I dont' know what the fuss is about - many other a/c are much more agile </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

didnt the p38 roll good or atleast ok apart from intial roll?

LeadSpitter_
06-10-2005, 08:27 PM
if they change the p38 late there will be nothing allied accept russian ac that can even compete with outr uber ufo super dm mine throwing german ac, i have to admit the p38 late is the only thing that even seems like a slight challenge, unlike our super elevators at 900kmph the p38 still freezes up at 540 its the dive brakes making it turn with us similiar to the go229.

everything else allied except russian is like shooting slow airballoons that crumble into nothing at amazingly far distances from mg151.

Hristo_
06-10-2005, 11:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by meina222:
Hristo are you a fan of Stoichkov http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Definitely !

Gibbage1
06-11-2005, 12:44 AM
I heard from many sources that the P-38 will be toned down in 4.01. But its initial roll rate only. For a bird with engines on its wing, it starts a roll a bit too fast. Just as long as I can kick in the roll with rudder to help I will be fine.

Fehler
06-11-2005, 02:18 AM
Leadspitter, you are such a drama queen.

Just because your precious P-51 cant soak up 30 20mm rounds any longer does not mean the end of the world.

You should invest in a box of tampons..

JG52Karaya-X
06-11-2005, 02:52 AM
<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 Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">. How many 109Z's were built? Or Go-229's? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gibbage, I find it ironic that you seem to be complaining about the inclusion of a plane you modelled unless I am misunderstanding what you meant! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Im just saying people accepted the 109Z and Go-229 with little to no whining, but something like the P-80 or even the P-38L Late is meating all sorts of sceptisizm.

Do a little test. Go into IL2 and count how many Allied 1945 aircraft we have. 3 last time I counted. P-80 and 2 BC Yak's. Now count how many Axis 1945 aircraft we have. 9!!! Go online and you see 1945 D9's, Ta-152's and K4's going up against all 1944 stuff. Even the new stuff we got in this patch is 1944. We dont have the P-47N or M, or the F4U-4, P-51H or any crazy late-war allied aircraft. Only the Axis, and they not only have them, but get to fly them! So it chaps my hide just a LITTLE when people question the addition of the P-38 late. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess you're point of view is a l'il bit unrealistic.

We have F4U-1C, P63C-5, YP80, Yak3P, La7-3xB20, Yak9UT on the allied side for 1945

On the Axis side we have: Ta152, Go229, Bf109Z, He162, A6M7-62/63, FW190D9 '45, Ki-100, Me262A1a/U4

You won't see even half of the axis 45 birds on a FR server. Ever seen a Go229, Me262, He162 there? No? Guess why... A6M7 and Ki-100 hardly have enough perf. to compete with even 43 US birds. You're complaining about the FW190D9 '45 - but actually it has worse performance than the '44 so what's your point, just trolling I guess http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

On the other hand I can see all sorts of allied 45 stuff on a dialy basis on FR servers (with the exception of the YP80 which is banned like the Me262)

PS: Bf109K4 is '44 not '45 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

NorrisMcWhirter
06-11-2005, 04:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Not sure what your refering to Norris, the 109's can do everything any allied 'UFO' can do. I don't see any allied 'UFO' additions. I see a fairly common RAF Mustang and a common Spitfire conversion. Still don't see a Tempest, not that I'd call if a UFO or rare like the TA152 for example which does get on DF servershttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif, or a Spitfire XIV. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Turn of phrase. I regard pretty much any post-'43 aircraft as a 'late war UFO' 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">Norris, I'd say the MG151's are much more pokey than the Hispano. There a bit too much. I played about with the 190D9 last night (the FM is fantasitc, such a nice plane to fly) and it blows stuff apart like its firing 120mm tank shells at planes. I was hoping for some improvement but its now stupid. The Hispano is regarded as probably the finest 20mm of WW2. In this new revision of history the Mg151/20 is now the best 20mm of WW2. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd say that this depends what you are shooting at. From what I've tried so far, I'd say that the 151/20 is most effective against Spitfires and P39s (they seem to burst into flames quite readily especially if you hit them in the engine) and 'Hispano like' for the majority of the the remaining aircraft except against the 'comedic DMs' of Lagg3/La series. So, in general, the ineffectiveness against deltawoodenwonders with Olegium-based armour offsets any apparent overstrength while, for the most part, they are not revisionist at all.

In answer to the other claim, I do believe that marketing comes into play and affects play balance; after all, one idea of good marketing is to sell to perceptions as much as anything else http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

That said, I've always maintained that I never wanted things like the 151/20 to be overmodelled just for the sake of it. Just modelled correctly. With no bias.

As to the other comment, the original poster has already clarified what I thought he said. I never suggested that the allies shouldn't have a P38L. However, as I've maintained all along, I'd much prefer to see early to mid war planes being introduced so as to open up new theatres rather than 'late war' planes solely to please the allied whiners who want 'xyz' just because they think axis have them but which, contrary to some people's opinions, are not flyable because no one includes them. As I've said before, I actually think it was a *good thing* that certain companies blocked aircraft inclusions because it would only have ended up in a whine-fuelled escalation of boring late war aircraft for no other reason than to satisfy some peoples nationalistic tendancies. The effort would, IMO, be better spent on something constructive.

And we know that what gets said on these forums is taken into account in the game because we very often have foibles of aircraft removed just because people open up 50,000 threads on the subject. I wouldn't be surprised if the 151/20 was back to 3.04 levels by the time that 4.01 came out http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ta,
Norris

bolillo_loco
06-11-2005, 01:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I heard from many sources that the P-38 will be toned down in 4.01. But its initial roll rate only. For a bird with engines on its wing, it starts a roll a bit too fast. Just as long as I can kick in the roll with rudder to help I will be fine. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

thinks about giving everybody a copy of roaring glory warbirds "The P-38 lightning" so that they can see ethell make aileron inputs and the 38 responds instantly w/o a half second or full second delay in roll, but then realizes it will just be discounted because they read on the internet that it has a roll delay. :O

I've still got the fork in me I'm done.

p1ngu666
06-11-2005, 01:58 PM
maybe each side has a uber aircraft or two
germans have 109, go229 is nearly unbeatable but not on servers often

USN corsair

USAAF, p51?

USSR yak3 (9 series and others are average at best) lagg3 which i feel isnt that good anymore, la7

RAF spitfire

japanease, ki84. the late zeros are flying coffins.. ki43 is great but slow, ki61 is a slug, ki100 dunno yet..

kara teh d9 45 is better at some alts, worse at others, ingame, irl 44 was better i think.

axis have plenty of mid to late 44 planes

CUJO_1970
06-11-2005, 02:08 PM
There seems to be some confusion regarding the FW190A-9 as a "1945" aircraft, only serving in small numbers.

That's completely incorrect.

FW190A-9 deliveries began in the late spring/early summer of 1944.

By the fall of 1944 there were 373 FW190A-9s delivered to the Luftwaffe and by January 1945, 446.

Historian Rodekie puts 190A-9 deliveries at 910.

In June 1944 - the same time FW190A-9 deliveries were getting underway, the FW190A-8s went through an engine upgrade program to bring it up to A-9 standards.

AFAIK, most of them kept the FW190A-8 designation.

The 109K-4 is also a 1944 aircraft, not 1945 - deliveries beginning in the Autumn.

The only 1945 Luftwaffe fighter that is allowed online in so-called historical planeset servers is the FW190D-9/1945 and in the sim it is slower than the 1944 Dora.

carguy_
06-11-2005, 02:38 PM
Hmmm that late P38 should be deadly since all P38 soak up 5-8MK108shells without falling down http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

USAAF:P38,P47,P51,P40,P63,A20G,F4U,Corsair,Hellcat ,B25
USSR:IL2,La,LaGG,Hawk,Yak,Mig,I153,I16,I185,Tomaha wk,P39,Hurri,Spitfire
LW:IAR,He111,Ju87,Me109,FW190,Me110 and some jet planes that never fly online;no flyable Ju88,no early Me110 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif


Never understood why allies get so many flyables.The USSR planeset alone surpasses this of LW.Maybe some new engine Me109/FW190?Just tweak some specs and there ya have a new variant...?No new loadouts for ages... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Allies get just more toys to play with whereas essential Ju88 variants are missing,no Me110 essential for`41.

After TWO years we get correct MG151/20(KNOWCK ON WOOD!).

1C treats LW community like an unwanted child http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

p1ngu666
06-11-2005, 04:30 PM
ahem, RAF, italy? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

JG53Frankyboy
06-11-2005, 04:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
ahem, RAF, italy? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

remembering the old days of IL2 release when this game was called an eastern front simulation - not "all planes for all nations, if map ore not" one http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

F19_Olli72
06-11-2005, 04:52 PM
Wheres that waaambulance pic? Its very much needed in this thread http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Some ppl just wont rest until MG 151 is a nuke, the reargunners made blind/deaf/double arm amputees and have every aircraft ever made flyable.

***** sake, if its that much too hard just set difficulty to instant success, set the bombers loadout to empty, and finally model the plane you want and submit to Oleg.

BSS_CUDA
06-11-2005, 10:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I heard from many sources that the P-38 will be toned down in 4.01. But its initial roll rate only. For a bird with engines on its wing, it starts a roll a bit too fast. Just as long as I can kick in the roll with rudder to help I will be fine. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Lord I hope not, we finally get this thing near correct and now they want to castrate it again

bolillo_loco
06-11-2005, 11:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
There seems to be some confusion regarding the FW190A-9 as a "1945" aircraft, only serving in small numbers.

That's completely incorrect.

FW190A-9 deliveries began in the late spring/early summer of 1944.

By the fall of 1944 there were 373 FW190A-9s delivered to the Luftwaffe and by January 1945, 446.

Historian Rodekie puts 190A-9 deliveries at 910.

In June 1944 - the same time FW190A-9 deliveries were getting underway, the FW190A-8s went through an engine upgrade program to bring it up to A-9 standards.

AFAIK, most of them kept the FW190A-8 designation.

The 109K-4 is also a 1944 aircraft, not 1945 - deliveries beginning in the Autumn.

The only 1945 Luftwaffe fighter that is allowed online in so-called historical planeset servers is the FW190D-9/1945 and in the sim it is slower than the 1944 Dora. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

firstly since it seems everybody is beating the northern ETO only idea, of the above mentioned a/c how many went to the russian front and how many went to fight against allies flying up to germany from italy, it divides the numbers by three most likely which pretty much means the above mentioned figures are "only a few" or "only a few units in the ETO used them"

109K4s.......about 1400 produced???? that makes 1/2 of a percent of total bf 109 production. werent roughtly 50% of all bf 109s G series? specifically G6 series. K models began to reach operational units by mid October. the K4 did not replace G series by december of 44, most ETO german units were still operating G series bf 109s at the end of 1944.

A9s and D9s sure they began showing up in mid to mid late 44, but the bulk and majority of Fw190s were still A8 series, wasnt the A8 series the most produced sub variant of the Fw190 series?

The only 1944 ETO server I have played in has the K4, 190A9, ta 152, and 190D9 and most players you run into are in one of these four a/c. during no part of 1944 did any of these aircraft make up the vast majority of german front line fighters in the ETO.

9 fighter squadrons of the 9th airforce operated P-38s. 3 fighter squadrons ceased P-38 operations by mid Febuary 1945, 3 fighter squadrons ceased P-38 operations by late March 1945, and 3 finished the war with P-38s. of the 6 squadrons that transitioned into other a/c....by the time they transitioned the war was almost over....3 of the squadrons flew 38s till 1 month prior to the war ending. There is no point in discussing the 8th a/f because they never used L models.

Of the nine 9th A/F fighter squadrons that used the P-38 I have 4 books, 428th F/S, 474th F/G, 367th F/G, and the 370th F/G in WWII which covers all nine squadrons. I had no problem finding pictures and text about P-38J-25-LOs and P-38Ls being used by these three fighter groups. the reason I include the J-25s is because I remember a few people suggesting the regular J model w/o dive recovery flaps and boosted ailerons should used in historical missions. BTW, the old 3.04m P-38L (not the 38L late) can now be effectively substituted for the J-25

to exclude the 38L for the reasons mentioned by everybody would also exclude 190D9s, 109K4s, Ta152s, and 190A9s simply because they were only used in limited numbers or were only used very late in 1944.

the only real way to solve this problem is to make early 1944 prior to june 1944 missions/servers which exclude all of the above mentioned a/c and late missions/servers which include all of the above mentioned a/c.

TAGERT.
06-11-2005, 11:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
PS: Bf109K4 is '44 not '45 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Same is true of the F4U-1C. It was nothing more than a 43 plane with cannons. It was up and flying in 44, Dont know why Oleg changed it from 44 to 45.. It use to be listed as 44. I think it has to do with Oleg using first flight for Lw planes and first saw action for US planes.. In that it sometimes took months to get the planes from state side to the action.. Now had the Lw or IJN been attacking the S out of the states Im sure they would have seen action sooner.. But the Lw and IJN never got close to attacking the states with anything that could do any real damage.

Strange thing is.. why did Oleg choose the -1C over the -4 or -4C? They only made 200 -1C but made well over 2000 -4s by 1944.. Yet.. Oleg chose to do the -1C and not the -4 or -4C? I know the CURRENT EXCUSE to not add the -4 is to blaim northrop, even though CFS addons have come out with northrop planes.. and new pacific sims are about to come out with northrop planes.. But, what about befroe all that? Why pick the 200 production vs 2,000 production? Could it be that the -4 had twice the climb rate and was about 50mph faster? Only Oleg knows the anser to that one.

heywooood
06-12-2005, 12:33 AM
its all a big conspiracy...where's my copy of 'Catcher in the Rye' now?

bolillo_loco
06-12-2005, 01:21 AM
tagert correct me if I am wrong, but isnt the F4U-4 a 1945 plane? first combat missions beginning around may/june 1945.

F4U-4C being a post war a/c.

In our game, historical has lost all purpose so it is a bit strange how there isnt any P-47M or N, nor a -4 corsair......even a -4C corsair in light of some of the aircraft we have in this game.......even a 51H wouldnt be out of place considering some of the commonly accepted a/c I see in servers both dogfight, historical, arcade, and full real.

It is a big shocker that we got the L model with up rated engines and the Mk III mustang I wouldnt be at all supprised if they are nerfed in the official patch.

TAGERT.
06-12-2005, 02:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
tagert correct me if I am wrong, but isnt the F4U-4 a 1945 plane? first combat missions beginning around may/june 1945. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Combat missions.. not 100% sure.. But Im sure it saw more WWII combat than the 109Z, P80, Do335, He162 to name a few. As for production VOUGHT is under the impression that they made 2000+ in 1944

http://www.vought.com/heritage/products/html/f4uquant.html

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
F4U-4C being a post war a/c. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Nope, 4C's (and B's) were made during 1944 of WWII.. Not sure when they saw action.. the -5 was the POST war production

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
In our game, historical has lost all purpose so it is a bit strange how there isnt any P-47M or N, nor a -4 corsair......even a -4C corsair in light of some of the aircraft we have in this game.......even a 51H wouldnt be out of place considering some of the commonly accepted a/c I see in servers both dogfight, historical, arcade, and full real. </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 bolillo_loco:
It is a big shocker that we got the L model with up rated engines and the Mk III mustang I wouldnt be at all supprised if they are nerfed in the official patch. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>That is Oleg's SOP.. Wait months for a patch.. initall release has some hot US planes in it.. A fixxer patch comes out within whinnes.. I mean weeks and the hot US planes have been dunked in water. Almost a cheerleader flasher type of a tease.. Dont give you the real good planes -4, -G (Goodyear) F8F, F7F, and the ones he does provide start out hot.. and within weeks are cut off at the knees

PS there is some confusion as to the cannon equiped -4.. some say -4C and some say -4B, but both were build in 44

Hunde_3.JG51
06-12-2005, 02:54 AM
Something I found:

"The first F4U-4 was delivered to the US Navy on 31 October 1944. The F4U-4 was powered by C-series Double Wasp engine. The installed model was the R-2800-18W, later replaced by the R-2800-42W. It had a war emergency power of 2,760 hp (2058 kW). A four-bladed propeller replaced the three-bladed one of the F4U-1. A chin scoop was added to the underside of the engine cowling. The F4U-4 could reach a speed of 450 mph (726 km/h). During the F4U-4 production, the cockpit was redesigned again. It now incorporated a flat, bullet-proof windscreen, a revised canopy, an armoured seat, and an improved instrument panel.


Production included 2050 F4U-4s with six 12.7 mm (0.50 in) machine guns, 297 F4U-4Bs or F4U-4Cs with four 20 mm cannon, a single F4U-4N nightfighter conversion and nine F4U-4P reconnaissance modifications. The last one was delivered in August 1947. Plans to produce the F4U-4 by Goodyear as the FG-4 were abandoned.

The F4U-4 arrived late in WWII, and served only during the last four months of the conflict. The war of the F4U-4 was the Korean war. Here the type served mainly as a fighter-bomber, but nevertheless one pilot, Capt. J. Folmar of VMA-312, was credited with shooting down a MiG-15."

So at least it operated in the last 4 months of the war.

Link to site (a good one at that):

http://www.kotfsc.com/

Hunde_3.JG51
06-12-2005, 02:56 AM
From the same site:

"The F4U-1C: had four 20 mm cannon instead of the six 12.7 mm (0.50 in) machine guns. These guns were the British Hispano Mk II cannon, known in the USA as the Hispano M2. These weapons protuded far from the leading edge. Production of this version remained limited to 200. They entered combat in April 1945."

Btw, I love the Corsair. I ordered two 1/18 planes from Badcat aviation toys, the FW-190 and the Corsair. My favorite in Europe, and my favorite in the Pacific. Now if they would just make a B-25 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif.

bolillo_loco
06-12-2005, 03:29 AM
about the -4 corsair

America's Hundred Thousand ISBN 0-7643-0072-5

page 523:

"May '45-The first operational F4U-4s reach Okinawa and go into action."

"May 15'45-MAG14 is familiarizing pilots with the new F4U-4 model. The first flight of aircraft from VMF-212 arries at Kadena airfield on Okinawa June 8th by way of &gt;lark Field, PI."

"June 10'45-The F4U-4s of VMF-212 get their first victory."

I am pretty sure that the -4B was a post war aircraft, but can offer no proof



in defense of Oleg and why there isnt any P-47M, P-47N, P-51H, P-82,F4U-4, F8F, F7F, or any other late model american aircraft........it is quite possible that there isnt anybody with interest to work on the flight model, collect data, build a 3D model of it......they are probably all busy on what they want to do next. Perhaps if somebody knew how to do these things and submitted a working 3D model with flight model and data to back it up oleg would use it.....

at any rate we have effectively hi-jacked the P-38 thread

TAGERT.
06-12-2005, 11:58 AM
All good info.. And sadly shows a trend to provide the Lw and USSR with the best of thier best even if they didnt see any action and even if they were never produced, while US aircraft that were build in the 1000s and saw action dont get considered let alone added. The F4u-4 is a PERFECT example of where Oleg had the chance to include it, yet decided to go with the F4u-1 insetead and a BUNCH of other early versions of the F4u. Makes no since to me and only feeds the conspericy theorys.. Which is all we got in light of Oleg never giveing us a good reason for the WHY of it all. And keep in mind, Im talking about PRE NORTHROP EXCUSE! Im talking about the pre-development of PACIFIC FIGHTERS. Why was the -4 and other LATE war birds like the F7F and F8F not included let along a torpedo plane like the TBF? The questions has been asked before.. months and months ago.. yet nothing from Oleg on this topic excpet to re-spin it and pull out the NORTHROP EXCUSE.

TAGERT.
06-12-2005, 12:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
in defense of Oleg and why there isnt any P-47M, P-47N, P-51H, P-82,F4U-4, F8F, F7F, or any other late model american aircraft........it is quite possible that there isnt anybody with interest to work on the flight model, collect data, build a 3D model of it......they are probably all busy on what they want to do next. Perhaps if somebody knew how to do these things and submitted a working 3D model with flight model and data to back it up oleg would use it..... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I dont buy that at all.. He has turned down 3D artwork from 3rd partys before.. And the buld of he 3D art work TO BE developed is his choice, He COULD HAVE said to his team make *these* but he didnt. Even alot of the 3rd party stuff got paid for.. So he could have.. But didnt.. And never game us a good reason imho.

WWMaxGunz
06-12-2005, 12:15 PM
Uh oh. Somebody didn't get chocolate syrup on their ice cream again!

bolillo_loco
06-12-2005, 12:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Uh oh. Somebody didn't get chocolate syrup on their ice cream again! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

baby jesus loves you!

OldMan____
06-12-2005, 01:32 PM
You must keep in mind soemthing. In late 44 and early 45.. anything LW could put in air was important for them. USAAF coudl have won the air war even with only P38J P47D and P51C.... till very end of war by sheer number power. So, everything that flew combat in LW side is worth get in game since in the mess that Germany was at last moths, 100 planes were more significant fro them than 300 to US.

Not saying US should not receive their late planes. But you guys have 10 different planes for each LW model (in RL). So it is obvious that there will be more US planes missing than from any other country.

Why to put F4U-1 ? You may start to think that alot of people don't like extreme late war game. I don't like much even 44 planes... When available I choose FW190A8 before A9... (would love a server EARLY 44).

BTW.. ME262 flew a long time in 44, and was much more important for LW than F8F for example was to US.. but none of red players accept them in game... but ask for such a cat afff.

p1ngu666
06-12-2005, 02:54 PM
on the other hand, look at how all the corsairs ingame perform VERY closely, there is in effect two corsairs (the ones with cannon, for the cannon envy fliers)

p38Late, MKIII, yak3p, 9ut all took very little effort by 1c, heck the 3p and 9ut have the same fm and dm as the 3 and 9.

and the corsair in 3.04 would eat zeros even in slow speed turn fights it really was hugely better and a zero in ways and areas it shouldnt have been.

bolillo_loco
06-12-2005, 03:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
You must keep in mind soemthing. In late 44 and early 45.. anything LW could put in air was important for them. USAAF coudl have won the air war even with only P38J P47D and P51C.... till very end of war by sheer number power. So, everything that flew combat in LW side is worth get in game since in the mess that Germany was at last moths, 100 planes were more significant fro them than 300 to US.

Not saying US should not receive their late planes. But you guys have 10 different planes for each LW model (in RL). So it is obvious that there will be more US planes missing than from any other country.

Why to put F4U-1 ? You may start to think that alot of people don't like extreme late war game. I don't like much even 44 planes... When available I choose FW190A8 before A9... (would love a server EARLY 44).

BTW.. ME262 flew a long time in 44, and was much more important for LW than F8F for example was to US.. but none of red players accept them in game... but ask for such a cat afff. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

no matter how you dice it, I do not buy people who support exotic non significan luftwaffe types that played little or no role in the war, but do not accept american types that either did play a significan role or were atleast used as much as the exotic german types, and sometimes more. If everybody must use late war german aircraft and field them in such unit strengths that it seems like april 1945 (due to the lack of early to mid 1944 a/c fielded in large numbers by germany even in the last months of 1944) then you must all sit on the runway and let the allies strafe you because you haven't enough gasoline to even make your engines cough :O

If you going to split hairs about things lets do it across the board and not be biased.

since allied and axis flew mixed bags of the same aircraft in the same squadrons I think it would be great to limit the number of flyable sub variants so everybody isnt in the mostest, latest, greatest, uber, noober, kills bugs dead aircraft. Sometimes in certain servers I feel like I am playing against the "what if germany hadnt lost the war in may 1945" unfortunately there isnt any way to do this in a server only in coops.

TAGERT.
06-12-2005, 07:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Uh oh. Somebody didn't get chocolate syrup on their ice cream again! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Still upset I see? Ok, Im sorry.. Feel better?

TAGERT.
06-12-2005, 07:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
no matter how you dice it, I do not buy people who support exotic non significan luftwaffe types that played little or no role in the war, but do not accept american types that either did play a significan role or were atleast used as much as the exotic german types, and sometimes more. If everybody must use late war german aircraft and field them in such unit strengths that it seems like april 1945 (due to the lack of early to mid 1944 a/c fielded in large numbers by germany even in the last months of 1944) then you must all sit on the runway and let the allies strafe you because you haven't enough gasoline to even make your engines cough :O

If you going to split hairs about things lets do it across the board and not be biased.

since allied and axis flew mixed bags of the same aircraft in the same squadrons I think it would be great to limit the number of flyable sub variants so everybody isnt in the mostest, latest, greatest, uber, noober, kills bugs dead aircraft. Sometimes in certain servers I feel like I am playing against the "what if germany hadnt lost the war in may 1945" unfortunately there isnt any way to do this in a server only in coops. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%

JG53Frankyboy
06-12-2005, 07:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TAGERT.:
............. I think it has to do with Oleg using first flight for Lw planes and first saw action for US planes.. .... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

for what year the P-51B is rated in the english game installation ?

VF-29_Sandman
06-12-2005, 07:13 PM
p-51-b shows the year 1943 in the english version

JG53Frankyboy
06-12-2005, 07:23 PM
thx, because in the german version the P-51B is rated for 1942 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

bolillo_loco
06-12-2005, 07:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VF-29_Sandman:
p-51-b shows the year 1943 in the english version </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

unfortunately I no longer have data on the mustang's production figures. I lost my "mustang mania" and I burned all my P-51 books, Hristo helped me.

on a lighter note:

America's Hundred thousand by F. Dean

page 321:

P-51B/ mustang III 1988 units production began 1943

P-51B Of the 1988 P-51B aircraft 308 went to the RAF. Most of all were revised to use the Malcomb hood type of canopy for better visibility in that service, as were some retained in the USAAF.

The only further mention I could find of "Mustang IIIs" is on page 334 of the same book:

Feb'44 The British test the Malcomb hood on a Mustang III, and later retrofit all these to gain better cockpit visibility.

I am sure somebody else will know more or can find more.

308 Mustang IIIs......well that over qualifies it in light of many other aircraft in this game :O

tell them Hristo "Great Malcomb hoods, the better to see my 30 mm!"

http://free-kc.t-com.hr/nino/sig03.jpg

p1ngu666
06-12-2005, 07:36 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Hunde_3.JG51
06-12-2005, 07:38 PM
The P-51B/C used to be rated '42 in English version as well. A patch or so ago they changed it to '43. It really should be '44 IMO, as it (P-51B) achieved it's first kill just two weeks before the end of the year. I don't think the P-51C ever scored a kill in '43. They both probably saw 99.9% of its action in '44 and '45. I hate to see '44 Ta-152's as well. Others may feel different and I respect their opinion, its just my opinion and people are free to disagree. It's not that big of a deal as it doesn't upset things too much, its just that I hate to see a nice '43 server with some great potential P-38J and P-47D vs. 109G-6 and FW-190A-5/6 matchups ruined by swarms of P-51B/C's.

p1ngu666
06-12-2005, 08:49 PM
hunde, wasnt the p51B and p51C the same, just from different factories?

but ya i agree with ya the endless mid to late 44 stuff is annoying.

spitfires probably the best 43 fighter, 190 best jabo, tatical recon and bomber buster, potent fighter too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

however, id take a typhoon and mossie, if they was ingame http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

CUJO_1970
06-12-2005, 10:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
firstly since it seems everybody is beating the northern ETO only idea, of the above mentioned a/c how many went to the russian front and how many went to fight against allies flying up to germany from italy, it divides the numbers by three most likely which pretty much means the above mentioned figures are "only a few" or "only a few units in the ETO used them"

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Every single werk # for a FW190A-9 that I have ever seen was for a western front or Reich Defense unit.

FW190A-9s (as per werk #) operated with the following gruppes starting in 1944:

JG/1
JG/3
JG/11
JG/26
14./JG54
15./JG54
JG/300
JG/301

There were 373 FW190A-9 delivered to the Luftwaffe by the Autumn of 1944, and 446 by Jan. 1945.

Hunde_3.JG51
06-12-2005, 10:44 PM
P1ngu666, IIRC the P-51B and C were essentially the same except C's were built in Dallas and used a different prop. Again, if I recall correctly. What I was saying is that the Mustang that did get a kill in December of '43 was a P-51B, which means a C did not likely get a kill in '43. Also, the kill two weeks before the end of the year was a Bf-110, or a Bf-109 (I have conflicting reports, P-51 in Action says Bf-110 as well as Encyclopedia of Aircraft of WWII, some internet sites say Bf-109 so...). I would be interested to know if they got any more kills in the next two weeks, and if any were FW-190's. It's possible that a Mustang never shot down a FW-190 (or a 109) in '43.

"The first combat unit equipped with Merlin-powered Mustangs was the 354th Fighter Group, which reached England in October of 1943. The 354th FG consisted of the 353rd, 355th and 356th Fighter Squadrons, and was part of the 9th Air Force which had the responsibility of air-to-ground attacks in support of the upcoming invasion of Europe. However, they were immediately ordered to support the bomber operations of the 8th Air Force. The 354th flew their first cross-Channel sweep mission on December 1, 1943, and scored their first victory on a mission to Bremen on December 16. However, inexperienced pilots and ground crews and numerous technical problems limited operations with the P-51B/C until about eight weeks into 1944. From the early spring of 1944, the Merlin-powered Mustang became an important fighter in the ETO"

link:

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p51_8.html


And I couldn't agree more, I can count on my hands the times I have had the opportunity to fly me beloved FW-190A-4 into battle. Way too much late war stuff, been that way for a long time unfortunately. Also, Typhoon and Mosquito would be awesome, it would open up alot of great scenarios. I have footage of Mosquitos and Beaufighters attacking German shipping that is incredible, some of the best I have seen (is on Great Fighting Machines of WWII 6 DVD set). I would be thrilled to have the Tempest, but honestly I would much rather see a Typhoon as it would be more useful to me and my mates as we like to do historical stuff and the Typhoon played a much larger role.

WWMaxGunz
06-13-2005, 02:06 AM
Hunde, you might want to check that post for typos or is it true likely that no Mustang
got a FW-190 in 1944? Is that all of 1944 or did you mean 1943?

Hunde_3.JG51
06-13-2005, 02:10 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif, thanks for the heads up. Yes, I meant '43 and it is fixed.

ImpStarDuece
06-13-2005, 03:08 AM
There were a lot more than 308 Mustang IIIs supplied to the RAF

From Joe Baughers excellent aviation pages:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> "The RAF equivalent to the USAAF P-51B/C was known as the Mustang III. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">The RAF ultimately received 274 P-51Bs and 626 P-51Cs</span>.

*Editorial snip, the rest of the paragraph is all serial numbers .

The first RAF squadron to receive the Mustang III was No. 65 Squadron based at Gravesend, which received its planes in December 1943.

A total of 59 Mustang IIIs were diverted to the Royal Australian Air Force and to other Allied air arms." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

SNIP

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The first RAF base to receive Mustang IIIs was at Gravesend in Kent. The Mustang III initially equipped No. 65 Squadron in late December of 1943, followed by No. 19 Squadron in March of 1944. Later the Mk. III also equipped Nos 64, 65, 66, 93, 94, 112, 118, 122, 126, 129, 165, 234, 237, 241 249, 250, 260, 268, 306, 309, 315, 316, 345, 430, 441, 442, and 516 Squadrons and No. 541 Squadron of RAF Coastal Command. These units included four Polish squadrons (306, 309, 315, 316), three RCAF, and one Free French.

The new RAF Mustang IIIs began operations late in February 1944, escorting US heavy bombers as well as both US and RAF medium bombers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The RAf recieved 900 Mustangs. That's about equal to the total number of 190D9s delivered to the LW.

The Mustang III equiped around 30 squadrons and was really only active in any numbers in an operational sense from around March 1944. The overboosted Mustangs wouldn't of appeared unitl July 1944 at the absolute earliest and most proably August would of rolled around before there were many squadrons operating at 25 lbs.

bolillo_loco
06-13-2005, 04:28 AM
CUJO_1970, hey can I ask your source. If you have already stated it im sorry. Sounds like a book I might buy if it has that much information.

I have "the history of german aviation" kurt tank: focke wulf's sesigner and test pilot by wolfgang wagner, schiffer publishing.

I cannot find production numbers for 190A9s in this book. It only makes brief reference to the 190A9 series

page 140: in brief it states Production of the Fw 190A9 was to have begun in september/october 1944. Two versions were planned: an A-9/R11 with the TS engine for all weather combat and an A9/R8, also with the TS, as a strum-jager with thicker armor. It cannot be determined with certainty whether the A9 ever entered full scale production in any great numbers. further states RLM files covering actual production numbers make no mention of the A9. It is just as likely that production was dropped in favor of the F series, particularly since the anticipated bmw 801F never materialized and the bmw ts and tu engines were only delivered in small quantities.

can you shed any light on this?

OldMan____
06-13-2005, 06:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
You must keep in mind soemthing. In late 44 and early 45.. anything LW could put in air was important for them. USAAF coudl have won the air war even with only P38J P47D and P51C.... till very end of war by sheer number power. So, everything that flew combat in LW side is worth get in game since in the mess that Germany was at last moths, 100 planes were more significant fro them than 300 to US.

Not saying US should not receive their late planes. But you guys have 10 different planes for each LW model (in RL). So it is obvious that there will be more US planes missing than from any other country.

Why to put F4U-1 ? You may start to think that alot of people don't like extreme late war game. I don't like much even 44 planes... When available I choose FW190A8 before A9... (would love a server EARLY 44).

BTW.. ME262 flew a long time in 44, and was much more important for LW than F8F for example was to US.. but none of red players accept them in game... but ask for such a cat afff. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

no matter how you dice it, I do not buy people who support exotic non significan luftwaffe types that played little or no role in the war, but do not accept american types that either did play a significan role or were atleast used as much as the exotic german types, and sometimes more. If everybody must use late war german aircraft and field them in such unit strengths that it seems like april 1945 (due to the lack of early to mid 1944 a/c fielded in large numbers by germany even in the last months of 1944) then you must all sit on the runway and let the allies strafe you because you haven't enough gasoline to even make your engines cough :O

If you going to split hairs about things lets do it across the board and not be biased.

since allied and axis flew mixed bags of the same aircraft in the same squadrons I think it would be great to limit the number of flyable sub variants so everybody isnt in the mostest, latest, greatest, uber, noober, kills bugs dead aircraft. Sometimes in certain servers I feel like I am playing against the "what if germany hadnt lost the war in may 1945" unfortunately there isnt any way to do this in a server only in coops. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So don't play on these servers! Ever tryed Spitvs109 ?

Please do the math.

Usefull (and not banned) LW planes from 42 to 44 are
bf109G2
bf109G6 (no one uses this one)
bf109G6-late
bf109G10
bf109G14
bf109k4 (unfortunately last 3 are 99% equal in game.. if at least they had 20mm cannon on gustv)
FW190 A4
FW190 A5
FW190 A6
FW190 A8 (most produced but is not available in the most popular servers... not LW players or developers fault)
FW190 A9
FW190 D9
Ta152 (only very very few servers allow it)

bf109Z, Go229 etc. excuse is pathetic since I NEVER sa them online No one ever took them seriously. They are in same category as YP-80 and that russian rocket plane. And as Oleg said.. they were made for free from 3rd part, so they did not let any precious US plane out because of these planes.

Now.. American planes.

P51B
P51C
P51D
P51D with fancy gunsite
p38j
P38L
p38L-late
P47D
p47D
p47D (dont remember the numbers of 3 variants)
Mustang III(ok was a Raf one but I doubt any US flyer bothers with that since is a pony)
F4-U A
F4-U C
F4-U D
F6
F6-late
P63


In fact US have MORE planes that LW... is you put Blue against Red... Red outnumbers blue by lots!


It is not developers fault that US had so many different planes. It is harder to include a new cockpit and model than it is to just change engine power or weapons.


I would gladly receive different P47 (M for example) and or earlier p38, and would love to shot down some Spit 14 and Tempest. But we would also bennefit a lot from a FW190A6 late with 1.65 ATA. If Us received a P38L late.. why must be different for LW? Almost zero work to make a late P38L and same for FW190A6 late.

I dare you to show me where I said I do not accept new american types! Show me! I just saying things are not conspiratory as you put it. US has about same amount of planes as LW, so no conspiracy here.

If a plane flew in combat, it is valid as an inclusion in game. Don`t matter the number. If you want to take the production numbers as a rule.. we would have only IL2, Yak9 and maybe 1 or 2 US planes in this game.


I, on my opinion, don't want much more late war planes, but simple to do sub variants like the late p38, late A6, mustang III etc...

ImpStarDuece
06-13-2005, 06:39 AM
Well, if your talking European combat then you can really wipe off the F-4U and the F6F from that list. That means your down 5 aircraft.

Plus, despite the fact that you have specified 'useful' as a prerequisite you haven't included the 110G in this list. I find the 110 a highly useful bomber destroyer, groundpounder and B and Z plane. Additionally, you can add the 190D9 1945 to this list as well as the additional G-6/AS variant (which is actually a G-10, but don't tell anyone) which you appear to have left out.

Oh, and strangely enough I find quite a significant difference between the G-10, G-14 and K-4. This is in 3.04 mind you as I haven't downloaded the patch.
So by my recount, which will addmittedly be controversial, you get 16 LW planes and 12 US planes. This is assuming a late war (1945) scenario in North-Western Europe.

ZG77_Nagual
06-13-2005, 08:11 AM
Gotta admit I'm partial to '43 scenarios.

FYI - Baugher also says the vvs used the p39s as tank busters - goes to credibility if you ask me.

As regards roll onset in the P38 - I do think it's a bit quick now - even compared with earlier betas. If they tone that down a bit I think this would be correct.

OldMan____
06-13-2005, 08:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Well, if your talking European combat then you can really wipe off the F-4U and the F6F from that list. That means your down 5 aircraft.

Plus, despite the fact that you have specified 'useful' as a prerequisite you haven't included the 110G in this list. I find the 110 a highly useful bomber destroyer, groundpounder and B and Z plane. Additionally, you can add the 190D9 1945 to this list as well as the additional G-6/AS variant (which is actually a G-10, but don't tell anyone) which you appear to have left out.

Oh, and strangely enough I find quite a significant difference between the G-10, G-14 and K-4. This is in 3.04 mind you as I haven't downloaded the patch.
So by my recount, which will addmittedly be controversial, you get 16 LW planes and 12 US planes. This is assuming a late war (1945) scenario in North-Western Europe. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am taking the entire game, not only europe.

Ok.. I forgot the G6/AS.

If you take the BF110 you must take the A-20 with it too.

And I feel almost no difference between G10- K4 and G14. They exist but are minimal. Also you will hardly see any G10 and G14 when K4 is available. LW planes present much less variance to us than to US players. So Things are more or less even.

I also was never able to find any Dora 45 in full real servers since I bought FB 1 and a half year ago.

ImpStarDuece
06-13-2005, 09:03 AM
Well if your talking the entire game then you forgot a few more US types;

P39N
P39Q-1
P39Q-10
P-40E
P-40N
F4F
F3F
F2A


I think the reason that you will find more US planes in the sim is the fact that the US produced more single seat fighter types than any other nation in the confilct;

P-51, P-47, P-38 (the European 'Big 3')
P-40, P-39 (the early war fighters and MTO mainstays)
P-63 (the Lend Lease fighter)
F4F, F6F, F7F, F8F (Grumman's Carrier born Cats)
F-4U (Voughts mighty bird)

Plus some also-rans like the F2A Buffalo, CW-21 Demon, P-43 Lancer, P-35 Gaurdsman.

If you compare this to the LW the Germans employed only a few single seat fighter types; the FW-190, Me-109, Me-262, Ta-152 and He-219 you can probably stretch it and include the He-162. The Bf-110, 210/410 were all dual seaters, but even if you include these the LW still comes up short in fighter types, even if you don't include US two seaters.

It's late and time for bed.

Before I disappear though here is a quote from Joe Baughers aviation web pages. Just for Nagual 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"> It is in Soviet service that the Airacobra was used to its best effect. Soviet Air Force military doctrine was that its primary mission was to support the ground operations of the Soviet Army, and the P-39 was a natural for this role since it had an excellent low altitude performance and was heavily armed. Contrary to many published reports, the Soviet Airacobra was not primarily used as a ground-attack aircraft and tank buster, although it is certainly true that it often strafed targets of opportunity. It was actually primarily used as a low-altitude escort fighter for ground attack aircraft such as the Il-2 and later the Il-10. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

WWMaxGunz
06-13-2005, 09:48 AM
I think that the Soviet Union also had a good many types and we don't know them all,
or perhaps now we are close to. It was one of the attractions of IL2 to get to see and
fly and learn something besides names and top speeds of planes rarely touched elsewhere.
Over 10 years ago I had Dynamix Aces series and it took someone hacking the game to get
Russian fighters, but we got them!

If Oleg was not so tight on perfect cockpits we might have flyable Pe-2 and Pe-3, yes?
Are they in that Russian-only patch? What else don't we get yet?

We have many though, for which I am thankful someone put a light on.

Schlum66
06-13-2005, 11:52 AM
The purpose of this post was to get some answers regarding the P-38L lates performance compared to German aircraft. No one seem to have posted any reply on that, other than useless replys like the one in my signature...

Since this tread allready has hit a sidetrack I might as well contribuite to ithttp://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 CUJO_1970:
Every single werk # for a FW190A-9 that I have ever seen was for a western front or Reich Defense unit.

FW190A-9s (as per werk #) operated with the following gruppes starting in 1944:

JG/1
JG/3
JG/11
JG/26
14./JG54
15./JG54
JG/300
JG/301

There were 373 FW190A-9 delivered to the Luftwaffe by the Autumn of 1944, and 446 by Jan. 1945. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jupp Cujo, the Fw190A9 saw signifacant service on the western front. In the book "Jagdgeschwader 301/302 wilde Sau" by Willi Reschke I found loss lists for this unit. The Jg301 got their first Fw190A9 in September 1944 after conversion from the Bf109G6. They lost their first Fw190A9 in oktober the same year. During the war Jg301 lost 138 Fw190A9s, the last one lost was on 11 april 1945.
I hope some of you found this interesting.

Gibbage1
06-13-2005, 12:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
Usefull (and not banned) LW planes from 42 to 44 are
bf109G2
bf109G6 (no one uses this one)
bf109G6-late
bf109G10
bf109G14
bf109k4 (unfortunately last 3 are 99% equal in game.. if at least they had 20mm cannon on gustv)
FW190 A4
FW190 A5
FW190 A6
FW190 A8 (most produced but is not available in the most popular servers... not LW players or developers fault)
FW190 A9
FW190 D9
Ta152 (only very very few servers allow it)

Now.. American planes.

P51B
P51C
P51D
P51D with fancy gunsite
p38j
P38L
p38L-late
P47D
p47D
p47D (dont remember the numbers of 3 variants)
Mustang III(ok was a Raf one but I doubt any US flyer bothers with that since is a pony)
F4-U A
F4-U C
F4-U D
F6
F6-late
P63

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your skewing the numbers in your favor. Did you truly think you could get away with that? No ETO server I visit has the F4U's or F6's in them since they did not serv in the ETO. If you wanna include them, then you should include the Axis Pacific fighters like all the A6M's and Ki's. You also forgot the one of the TWO D9's. Odd that you included the L and the Late L, but not the D9 and the late D9. Again, skewing the numbers!!!!

14 Axis

11 Allied.

Without skewing the numbers.

Hunde_3.JG51
06-13-2005, 12:53 PM
From "FW-190, Production Line to Frontline" by Malcolm Lowe.

Werk Nummern for A-9, pg. 134:

"Production by Focke Wulf at Cottbus;

202125 to circa 202319, 202360 to 202450, 202565 to 202590, 205001 to 205100, 205180 to 205300, 205901 to 205999, 206031 to 206200, 207160 to circa 207240, 208378 to circa 209915.

Production by Focke Wulf at Aslau;

490020 to 490050.

Production by Mimetall at Erfurt;

750070 to 750160

Production by Norddeutsche Dornier at Wismar;

980150 to 980230, 980360 to 980380, 980540 to 980590.

Again, there are several unidentified blocks of numbers for the A-9, including 380001 onwards."

Just thought some might find this interesting.

lrrp22
06-13-2005, 01:15 PM
Imp,

The RAF received 900+ Mustang III's alone. They received a similar number of Mustang IV's but only 4 or 5 squadrons were so equipped by V-E Day. Seventeen ETO RAF squadrons were equipped with the Mustang III/IV by V-E Day. Five more sqn's operated the Mustang III/IV in the MTO bu they were limited to +18 lbs boost.

Four Mustang III squadrons (129, 306, 315, 316) converted to +25 lbs boost during the last week of June/first week of July '44. By mid August over 7,000 hrs flight time at +25 lbs boost had been logged.

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

The RAf recieved 900 Mustangs. That's about equal to the total number of 190D9s delivered to the LW.

The Mustang III equiped around 30 squadrons and was really only active in any numbers in an operational sense from around March 1944. The overboosted Mustangs wouldn't of appeared unitl July 1944 at the absolute earliest and most proably August would of rolled around before there were many squadrons operating at 25 lbs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

bolillo_loco
06-13-2005, 01:29 PM
exactly gibbage and if you take out the early war types and only include 1944 and later aircraft the germans have a 2:1 advantage of late war models to choose from.

schlum66 thanks for the heads up on Jagdgeschwader 301/302, looks like an interesting book, even published by schiffer my favorite publisher. going to check it out.

OldMan____
06-13-2005, 02:04 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 OldMan____:
Usefull (and not banned) LW planes from 42 to 44 are
bf109G2
bf109G6 (no one uses this one)
bf109G6-late
bf109G10
bf109G14
bf109k4 (unfortunately last 3 are 99% equal in game.. if at least they had 20mm cannon on gustv)
FW190 A4
FW190 A5
FW190 A6
FW190 A8 (most produced but is not available in the most popular servers... not LW players or developers fault)
FW190 A9
FW190 D9
Ta152 (only very very few servers allow it)

Now.. American planes.

P51B
P51C
P51D
P51D with fancy gunsite
p38j
P38L
p38L-late
P47D
p47D
p47D (dont remember the numbers of 3 variants)
Mustang III(ok was a Raf one but I doubt any US flyer bothers with that since is a pony)
F4-U A
F4-U C
F4-U D
F6
F6-late
P63

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your skewing the numbers in your favor. Did you truly think you could get away with that? No ETO server I visit has the F4U's or F6's in them since they did not serv in the ETO. If you wanna include them, then you should include the Axis Pacific fighters like all the A6M's and Ki's. You also forgot the one of the TWO D9's. Odd that you included the L and the Late L, but not the D9 and the late D9. Again, skewing the numbers!!!!

14 Axis

11 Allied.

Without skewing the numbers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No I dont twist numbers , I dont need it since I am not a fanatic like some people here are.

Japan is not germany. I am talking about US vs Germany . If you want to put Japan, please include Soviet Union and RAF. You are the one that is twisting things here. Soviet Union is not US.. and Japan is not Germany.


As I said.. don 't care about wich theater the plane is. P38 Late is also not suposed to be in ETO (AFAIK) .... but is in every server now.

Simple comparisson between 42 to 44 GERMAN AND US PLANES! Cant you understand THAT? too difficult concept for Red players?

I did not put Dora 45 because... because I said 42- to 44.. can't you read things before commig with a hammer up on someone? You don 't get much confidence when you attack someone without reading what was posted.


Really. That is Pathetic! That proves who are the real whinners and fanatics here.

Although I should correct me And remove the F4UC from this list since it is as a 45 plane in game.



So Mr. Gibagge Don't come with fake acusations upon me. I am no child and do not accept this kind of agression.

Gibbage1
06-13-2005, 02:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:

Japan is not germany. I am talking about US vs Germany . If you want to put Japan, please include Soviet Union and RAF. You are the one that is twisting things here. Soviet Union is not US.. and Japan is not Germany.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK. US Vs Germany. Your still twisting numbers. US never used F4U or F6F VS Germany. Mustang III was not flown by US pilots but Brits. P-63 was never flown in combat by US forces.

Outch. You lost 2 more using your own rules.

Germany 13 (-1 for the 45 Dora)
US 10.

BTW, I never did include Japanese aircraft.

OldMan____
06-13-2005, 02:18 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 OldMan____:

Japan is not germany. I am talking about US vs Germany . If you want to put Japan, please include Soviet Union and RAF. You are the one that is twisting things here. Soviet Union is not US.. and Japan is not Germany.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK. US Vs Germany. Your still twisting numbers. US never used F4U or F6F VS Germany. Mustang III was not flown by US pilots but Brits. P-63 was never flown in combat by US forces.

Outch. You lost 2 more using your own rules.

Germany 13 (-1 for the 45 Dora)
US 10.

BTW, I never did include Japanese aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pretty close numbers 10 vs 13. But I said that Mustang II was RAF not US.. but I would list it since most US players would use it.

And I am talking about US vs Germany in number of planes in GAME. You are twisting my words!! It is impossible that a human being capable of reading cannot understand what I am trying to say. US has as many planes as Germany in this game. Simple!!!

BTW: I did not know that P63 was never flown by US. So maybe It should be removed from WarClo0uds, since Soviet Union was not there.

Gibbage1
06-13-2005, 02:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
too difficult concept for Red players?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
I am no child and do not accept this kind of agression. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That comment above is rather childish.

OldMan____
06-13-2005, 02:28 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 OldMan____:
too difficult concept for Red players?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
I am no child and do not accept this kind of agression. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That comment above is rather childish. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And making a reply upon is is not? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Gibbage1
06-13-2005, 02:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
In fact US have MORE planes that LW... is you put Blue against Red... Red outnumbers blue by lots! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did I read that wrong? You were trying to say that the US outnumberd blue "by lots" NOT that they were "close". Your twisting your own words, and your the one who is attacking people.

Aaron_GT
06-13-2005, 02:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">US never used F4U or F6F VS Germany </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The RAF did, though.

Aaron_GT
06-13-2005, 02:44 PM
Oops I mean RN. (FAA)

Aaron_GT
06-13-2005, 02:46 PM
The US and Germany have comparable numbers of non jet, non fantasy fighters in the game. Germany has more late 1944/early 1945 fighters in the game. Now calm down...

lrrp22
06-13-2005, 02:49 PM
<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">US never used F4U or F6F VS Germany </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The RAF did, though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The U.S. Navy used the Hellcat during Anvil/Dragoon.

OldMan____
06-13-2005, 02:59 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 OldMan____:
In fact US have MORE planes that LW... is you put Blue against Red... Red outnumbers blue by lots! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did I read that wrong? You were trying to say that the US outnumberd blue "by lots" NOT that they were "close". Your twisting your own words, and your the one who is attacking people. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No Gibagge. I said RED outnumbers BLUE. RED= US+ Soviet Union + RAF.. ... You said ealier (think was your) that If I include Hellcat in US count we should include Japanese planes also in axis. So I said that I was comparing Germany and US. And that If you wanted to put Japan, you would geta red vs Blue compare.. where RED outnumbers Blue by a lot!

Hunde_3.JG51
06-13-2005, 03:03 PM
"BTW: I did not know that P63 was never flown by US. So maybe It should be removed from WarClo0uds, since Soviet Union was not there."

P-63 was only flown by US as a target aircraft. They nicknamed it "pinball" or something like that because when it was shot by trainees, and a hit was scored, there was a red light on the nose that flashed. I believe that P-63 had some sort of protective armor on it and the trainees used frangible rounds. They say at times trainees got overzealous and fired too much, damaging the aircraft http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif.

Warclouds is a great server but I never understood the thinking with the P-63C. The Kingcobra is probably the most under-rated fighter in the game IMO, but it does not belong on any Western front server seeking any type of historical accuracy (note that I am not saying Warclouds or any other server claims historical planesets, from what I understand Sparx wanted to remove it but there was an outcry, don't know if that is true though), it is a '45 Eastern front aircraft. IMO it is not much different than adding the Ki-84 to the blue side.

p1ngu666
06-13-2005, 03:10 PM
well, the germans had two main fighters (single seat) 109 and 110. in the begining 110 was teh offensive fighter http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

USA made more fighter types, incidently so did the british, spit, hurri, typhoon and tempest, plus p51 sort of http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

italy made more different fighters, so did japan, russia.

can only think of HE100 family but they didnt do much http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

missing varients etc http://pingu666.modded.me.uk/aep2/
(its out of date tho)

Gibbage1
06-13-2005, 03:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
No Gibagge. I said RED outnumbers BLUE. RED= US+ Soviet Union + RAF.. ... You said ealier (think was your) that If I include Hellcat in US count we should include Japanese planes also in axis. So I said that I was comparing Germany and US. And that If you wanted to put Japan, you would geta red vs Blue compare.. where RED outnumbers Blue by a lot! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, lets spacify your rules for the count. Your very mixed up and confused. First you start counting ONLY US aircraft vs ONLY German aircraft and state that blue has so much more then red, then your saying the count did NOT include ONLY US when you counted? Your twisting your own words yet again.

I also think that if you do include all Allies and all Axis the number would be close to even. But thats a differant subject. You were CLEARLY talking about US aircraft and Germany aircraft, not all blue and all red. In that case, the Germany aircraft out-number the US aircraft.

Gibbage1
06-13-2005, 03:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
well, the germans had two main fighters (single seat) 109 and 110. in the begining 110 was teh offensive fighter http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dont you mean the 190 and 109?

Atomic_Marten
06-13-2005, 03:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
well, the germans had two main fighters (single seat) 109 and 110. in the begining 110 was teh offensive fighter http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dont you mean the 190 and 109? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He he .. nice.
But I would not eliminate 190 out of 'offensive' late war competition.. that sentence would not work http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

About 110, I still remember one funny anectode (one guy on the forum has put that citation in his sig) it was something like:
"G¶ring: Zerstorers will form offensive circle.." http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Gibbage1
06-13-2005, 04:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Atomic_Marten:

He he .. nice.
But I would not eliminate 190 out of 'offensive' late war competition.. that sentence would not work http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

About 110, I still remember one funny anectode (one guy on the forum has put that citation in his sig) it was something like:
"G¶ring: Zerstorers will form offensive circle.." http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never considerd the Bf110 one of Germany's two main single seat fighters. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif 110 would need a few modifications to fit that description!

bolillo_loco
06-13-2005, 05:13 PM
old man, make up your mind red out numbers blue, you are twisting words and stacking numbers to fit what you want to get across. you include russian, english, and american aircraft and compair the numbers to german type. then you talk about 1944 usa vs germany servers??? what are english and russian aircraft doing in a usa vs germany server? why do you feel the 38L does not belong in a usa vs german server from 1944? why is it ok that in usa vs germany 1944 servers Ta 152s, Bf 109Ks, Fw 190A9s, and Fw 190D9s all dominate what the blue team uses, but that is ok?

all of the above mentioned aircraft saw very limited service when you compair them to earlier variants with the exception of one, the Ta 152. From your historical perspective this plane does not even belong in a historical server. many books state only 67 were either produced or reached operational units and this is early 1945 not 1944.

you keep stating the 38L does not belong in the ETO. I have no problem finding pics and text about 9th airforce units using P-38Ls before 1944 ended.

couple this with 38L models that were used in italy and flown into germany and france and you can see that units that flew P-38s during 1944 and 1945 actually did use quite a few P-38Ls. why are italian based aircraft that flew into the ETO discounted as ETO aircraft? just because of the maps location?

WWMaxGunz
06-13-2005, 05:53 PM
Terribly rude of the Nazis not making more different fighter planes and squeezing Heinkel
out the way they did. They should have had more foresight for later sim players.

Gibbage1
06-13-2005, 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 WWMaxGunz:
Terribly rude of the Nazis not making more different fighter planes and squeezing Heinkel
out the way they did. They should have had more foresight for later sim players. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They had a lot of models drawn on napkins!

fordfan25
06-13-2005, 07:13 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 Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">. How many 109Z's were built? Or Go-229's? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gibbage, I find it ironic that you seem to be complaining about the inclusion of a plane you modelled unless I am misunderstanding what you meant! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Im just saying people accepted the 109Z and Go-229 with little to no whining, but something like the P-80 or even the P-38L Late is meating all sorts of sceptisizm.

Do a little test. Go into IL2 and count how many Allied 1945 aircraft we have. 3 last time I counted. P-80 and 2 BC Yak's. Now count how many Axis 1945 aircraft we have. 9!!! Go online and you see 1945 D9's, Ta-152's and K4's going up against all 1944 stuff. Even the new stuff we got in this patch is 1944. We dont have the P-47N or M, or the F4U-4, P-51H or any crazy late-war allied aircraft. Only the Axis, and they not only have them, but get to fly them! So it chaps my hide just a LITTLE when people question the addition of the P-38 late. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yea GIB iv felt the same way for along time.

fordfan25
06-13-2005, 07:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
PS: Bf109K4 is '44 not '45 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Same is true of the F4U-1C. It was nothing more than a 43 plane with cannons. It was up and flying in 44, Dont know why Oleg changed it from 44 to 45.. It use to be listed as 44. I think it has to do with Oleg using first flight for Lw planes and first saw action for US planes.. In that it sometimes took months to get the planes from state side to the action.. Now had the Lw or IJN been attacking the S out of the states Im sure they would have seen action sooner.. But the Lw and IJN never got close to attacking the states with anything that could do any real damage.

Strange thing is.. why did Oleg choose the -1C over the -4 or -4C? They only made 200 -1C but made well over 2000 -4s by 1944.. Yet.. Oleg chose to do the -1C and not the -4 or -4C? I know the CURRENT EXCUSE to not add the -4 is to blaim northrop, even though CFS addons have come out with northrop planes.. and new pacific sims are about to come out with northrop planes.. But, what about befroe all that? Why pick the 200 production vs 2,000 production? Could it be that the -4 had twice the climb rate and was about 50mph faster? Only Oleg knows the anser to that one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

dang it TAG. you keep talking like that and im going to start haveing respect for you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

p1ngu666
06-13-2005, 07:30 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 WWMaxGunz:
Terribly rude of the Nazis not making more different fighter planes and squeezing Heinkel
out the way they did. They should have had more foresight for later sim players. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They had a lot of models drawn on napkins! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

indeed, but so did everyone else http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
HE100 and similer where considered better than teh 109 but cost abit more, plus hassles and all the engines going too 109 and 110 and he100 couldnt be reequiped with jumo and be worth it.

109 was kept and not replaced because it was cheap (decent performance for the money tho)

and yes i ment 109 and 190 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

Gibbage1
06-13-2005, 07:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
indeed, but so did everyone else http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shush! Everyone wants to believe only the Luftwaffe could draw really cool looking aircraft! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

p1ngu666
06-13-2005, 07:54 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 p1ngu666:
indeed, but so did everyone else http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shush! Everyone wants to believe only the Luftwaffe could draw really cool looking aircraft! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

indeed, and it goes without saying, a kind of cool far better than anyone else could ever surpass, let alone achieve http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

OldMan____
06-13-2005, 08:29 PM
I dont need to make my mind. I am speakign the same from the very beggining. Just some people need to learn reading.

If you compare US and Germany.. on 42 to 44 plane set. US has slighty more planes.


If you compare FULL red and FULL blue you have lots more Reds than blue. Simple huh?

Anyone that cannot understand something so simple should not be allowed to fly. better, anyone that cannot understan that is because is uncapable of reading something witout introducing its own toughts and disturbances on others sentences.

JG53Frankyboy
06-13-2005, 08:39 PM
this topic moved again to a direction because i wish sometime maddoxgames had strictly staid to the easternfront in the flight sim.

and dont get me wrong , if the original game would have taken plance atthe western front ore med front ore pacific front - i would also of the opinion - stay at the original released theater of operations.

just as reminder:
the whole mappack we have in PFm 4.0 , for example the P-51s , historical only the Normandie map can be used for June, July, August 44 to have a base to start/land and roughly to fight on !
if more, pls correct me.
P-38L late , well................. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

and now imagine all the time and manpower would have been put in the easternfront - sure , propably bad for US sellings.

Atomic_Marten
06-13-2005, 08:44 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 Atomic_Marten:

He he .. nice.
But I would not eliminate 190 out of 'offensive' late war competition.. that sentence would not work http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

About 110, I still remember one funny anectode (one guy on the forum has put that citation in his sig) it was something like:
"G¶ring: Zerstorers will form offensive circle.." http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never considerd the Bf110 one of Germany's two main single seat fighters. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif 110 would need a few modifications to fit that description! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, maybe my English is a bit rusty nowadays http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. But..

Coming from the p1ngu, I'm sure that he knows that the bf110 is not single seat (fighter/bomber), and that his "single seat" remark is considering Bf109 only. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

However p1ngu can prove me wrong. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

------------------------------------------------
AFAIK in the beggining of the war Bf110s were considered effective as day fighters by LW and were given according role..http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif(one hammer for G¶ring. BTW I think I've read somewhere that Hitler himself, in one of his late war attacks of bitter-anger http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif said to G¶ring --"You have personally destroyed the LW"--).

Debating about issue is needlessly, because I think that we would all agree that the Bf110 can not seriously be treated as a fighter.(not even in the very beggining of the war; exception from rule may be if facing very outclassed fighters, like P.11c).

JG53Frankyboy
06-13-2005, 08:49 PM
these Bf110s using as Dayfighters was a waste of men , very well trained btw , and matrial .

much betterwould have been puttingg these pilots in Bf109 Wings and develop and equip the units much earlier with droptanks.

fortunatly the Nazis were not only evil , they were also very often just dumb !
good luck, if you can speak about that in this 12 years of horror, for my fatherland.

Atomic_Marten
06-13-2005, 08:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
this topic moved again to a direction because i wish sometime maddoxgames had strictly staid to the easternfront in the flight sim.

and dont get me wrong , if the original game would have taken plance atthe western front ore med front ore pacific front - i would also of the opinion - stay at the original released theater of operations.

just as reminder:
the whole mappack we have in PFm 4.0 , for example the P-51s , historical only the Normandie map can be used for June, July, August 44 to have a base to start/land and roughly to fight on !
if more, pls correct me.
P-38L late , well................. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

and now imagine all the time and manpower would have been put in the easternfront - sure , propably bad for US sellings. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

Gibbage1
06-13-2005, 08:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:

If you compare US and Germany.. on 42 to 44 plane set. US has slighty more planes.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong. We did the count, remember? Germany has more fighters then the US has. 13 Germany vs 10 US, and I would not call ~25% "slightly".

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Anyone that cannot understand something so simple should not be allowed to fly.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again with the childish attacks. If you cant count, then maybe you should not be allowed to fly? If you cant have a simple conversation without resorting to insulting everyone who does not agree with you, maybe you should not be allowed to post?

I suggest stop attacking and start counting.

Gib

Gibbage1
06-13-2005, 08:58 PM
The Bf-110's during BoB got butchered. They were a jucy target after that. They should of been left in the ground attack/night fighter role.

Atomic_Marten
06-13-2005, 09:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
these Bf110s using as Dayfighters was a waste of men , very well trained btw , and matrial .

much betterwould have been puttingg these pilots in Bf109 Wings and develop and equip the units much earlier with droptanks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

About your observation on 109 and drop tank, I agree.

About
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
fortunatly the Nazis were not only evil , they were also very often just dumb !
good luck, if you can speak about that in this 12 years of horror, for my fatherland </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know what do you mean by that. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif
If you want to say something bad to me you do not have to be ironical http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

p1ngu666
06-13-2005, 09:24 PM
i made a typo http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

there was a few field mod single seat 410's, rear guns removed too. proved tobe a failure, extra speed was hoped to make them much harder for escort fighters to get them, guess the escorts just dived on them.

thought of another german fighter tho produced in large numbers.... ju88 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

some suggestions from my aep2 list
109F with GM1 and or higher boost
g6 with gm1
109z but with F series airframe, like the real one (think that would be cool tbh http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif )
late 109s with mg151, and 1.98ata but maybe they perform like that anyways..

190F9
some types or dora...
A9 with low alt prop
A sturbock - bomber buster

TAGERT.
06-13-2005, 10:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Over 10 years ago I had Dynamix Aces series and it took someone hacking the game to get
Russian fighters, but we got them! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Your Welcome!

TAGERT.
06-13-2005, 10:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
They had a lot of models drawn on napkins! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>ROTFL! Yes, and whole web sights devoted them the napkins as if they all flew in combat! Too Funny! http://www.Napkins46.com

JG53Frankyboy
06-13-2005, 10:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Atomic_Marten:
...........
If you want to say something bad to me ................. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

not at all !

Kurfurst__
06-14-2005, 05:03 AM
This thread really holds some excellent bug reporting and I am sure Oleg will find it of great use.

OldMan____
06-14-2005, 05:34 AM
<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 OldMan____:

If you compare US and Germany.. on 42 to 44 plane set. US has slighty more planes.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong. We did the count, remember? Germany has more fighters then the US has. 13 Germany vs 10 US, and I would not call ~25% "slightly".

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Anyone that cannot understand something so simple should not be allowed to fly.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again with the childish attacks. If you cant count, then maybe you should not be allowed to fly? If you cant have a simple conversation without resorting to insulting everyone who does not agree with you, maybe you should not be allowed to post?

I suggest stop attacking and start counting.

Gib </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

After you twsit my numbers in your favor ... Only thing I coutn wrong is that I forgot G6/AS and including F4-U1C All 42 to 44 planes (fighters) in game US has more than LW.

I am not being the childish one here gibagge. I am not the one that started an attack on others without trying to understand what was written. I am not the one that tries to read things under a "fanatics" optics. I


Btw.. 16 against 14 is for sure more for US. I posted in answer to a post talking about P38 Late and wahy not F4-U-4 but lots of german late. So is not me that mixed US pacific planes with germany stuff.

If there is a coutnry that deserves more planes, these are Italy and RAF. A Spit 14 would be gladly welcome as well as a tempest. US might use some more lat planes (p47M for example, maybe F4-U4) but it not incredbly necessary when comapred to RAF and Italy needs. LW don't really need anything else, at maximum a late fw190a6 (not so uber late plane).

In fact aside from these planes this sim does not NEED (pay attention on streght of the word.. NEED as VERY NEEDED, not need as I wish ) any more late planes.

TAGERT.
06-14-2005, 08:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
After you twsit my numbers in your favor ... Only thing I coutn wrong is that I forgot G6/AS and including F4-U1C All 42 to 44 planes (fighters) in game US has more than LW.

I am not being the childish one here gibagge. I am not the one that started an attack on others without trying to understand what was written. I am not the one that tries to read things under a "fanatics" optics. I


Btw.. 16 against 14 is for sure more for US. I posted in answer to a post talking about P38 Late and wahy not F4-U-4 but lots of german late. So is not me that mixed US pacific planes with germany stuff.

If there is a coutnry that deserves more planes, these are Italy and RAF. A Spit 14 would be gladly welcome as well as a tempest. US might use some more lat planes (p47M for example, maybe F4-U4) but it not incredbly necessary when comapred to RAF and Italy needs. LW don't really need anything else, at maximum a late fw190a6 (not so uber late plane).

In fact aside from these planes this sim does not NEED (pay attention on streght of the word.. NEED as VERY NEEDED, not need as I wish ) any more late planes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Need is relitive, and it is not a question of need or number, it is a question of why. As in why no late war US planes and only late war Lw planes? Why no P47M, or F4u-4? Two planes that were produced in number greater than alot of the axis planes currently in the game, Two planes that saw more action then alot of the axis planes currently in the game.. No mater how you slice it, it does not make any since. How do you think the luftie's would feel if the 109K was not part of the 109 mix? Ill bet you one thing, if it wasnt, you would see it being brought up in more threads than you currenly see mention about the P47M and F4u-4!

And Gibbage is also correct about ETO vs PTO.. This is two games within one.. The USA fought on two seperate fronts both half way around the world seperated from each other, I would EXPECT they would have more *types* of planes than anyone else, thus I would expect the game to have more US planes in it that anyone else.. Yet when you take that into consideration, we only have 2 more? And when you conpare just the seperate fronts we have less? Again, makes no since and play into the whole Oleg hates US planes conspericy. I like to keep an open mind, and hate to think Oleg is like that.. But if you were to ask an outside person to judge this game just based on the planes included.. That is judge it on Olegs ACTIONS not his WORDS I think they would conclude there is a bias aginst adding the best of the best US planes

JG53Frankyboy
06-14-2005, 09:11 AM
just curious:
do you seriously believe the maddox team is anti US biased ?

F4UDash4
06-14-2005, 09:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
just curious:
do you seriously believe the maddox team is anti US biased ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you seriously believe the FACTS don't indicate that to be the case?

JG53Frankyboy
06-14-2005, 09:19 AM
these FACTS are than hopefully more than just two missing late war variants of already existing planes...................

but forgett, it. this is a game, and i cant take this so seriously like some of you here.....

OldMan____
06-14-2005, 10:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
After you twsit my numbers in your favor ... Only thing I coutn wrong is that I forgot G6/AS and including F4-U1C All 42 to 44 planes (fighters) in game US has more than LW.

I am not being the childish one here gibagge. I am not the one that started an attack on others without trying to understand what was written. I am not the one that tries to read things under a "fanatics" optics. I


Btw.. 16 against 14 is for sure more for US. I posted in answer to a post talking about P38 Late and wahy not F4-U-4 but lots of german late. So is not me that mixed US pacific planes with germany stuff.

If there is a coutnry that deserves more planes, these are Italy and RAF. A Spit 14 would be gladly welcome as well as a tempest. US might use some more lat planes (p47M for example, maybe F4-U4) but it not incredbly necessary when comapred to RAF and Italy needs. LW don't really need anything else, at maximum a late fw190a6 (not so uber late plane).

In fact aside from these planes this sim does not NEED (pay attention on streght of the word.. NEED as VERY NEEDED, not need as I wish ) any more late planes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Need is relitive, and it is not a question of need or number, it is a question of why. As in why no late war US planes and only late war Lw planes? Why no P47M, or F4u-4? Two planes that were produced in number greater than alot of the axis planes currently in the game, Two planes that saw more action then alot of the axis planes currently in the game.. No mater how you slice it, it does not make any since. How do you think the luftie's would feel if the 109K was not part of the 109 mix? Ill bet you one thing, if it wasnt, you would see it being brought up in more threads than you currenly see mention about the P47M and F4u-4!

And Gibbage is also correct about ETO vs PTO.. This is two games within one.. The USA fought on two seperate fronts both half way around the world seperated from each other, I would EXPECT they would have more *types* of planes than anyone else, thus I would expect the game to have more US planes in it that anyone else.. Yet when you take that into consideration, we only have 2 more? And when you conpare just the seperate fronts we have less? Again, makes no since and play into the whole Oleg hates US planes conspericy. I like to keep an open mind, and hate to think Oleg is like that.. But if you were to ask an outside person to judge this game just based on the planes included.. That is judge it on Olegs ACTIONS not his WORDS I think they would conclude there is a bias aginst adding the best of the best US planes </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well at least you have an argument. But I respectfully disagree with It. Us was nothing more important than any of the other major powers in war. There is no reason why it should have more planes. Also remember that the majority of player still face this as an european theather game. No country i s more important in war on europr than Germany, or do you disagree with that? With no enemy... what would be of this theather?

Germany, UK, US and Soviet Union should have about same effort on including planes in game. no reason why it should not be done. US have more planes missing just because it had much more planes than any other country. If you wanted to have all US planes included... we would have to compensate somewhere.. where? Take out LW planes? What is Europe Air war without LW? Take out RAF, don't think so? Soviet Union?.. hope all people here still remember how this game started.

If there is one country that would suffer less from not having one or 2 planes , this is US, exactly because it had more planes. maybe Soviet Union also, but That is MAIN COUNTRY in this game original conception!

People must also keep in mind that other people have other tastes than of their own. I don 't care much for Weaster front, unfortunately most good servers only have Weastern and Pacific fronts. Much people simply don't care about late war, some people is more interested in more middle war planes. I would love an early P38.

Is not easy to keep so much people satisfied.

I also would not like if effort is made to include more 45 planes for LW before RAF and Italy receive the planes they deserve, but conspiracy is at least BULL#$%*.

Gibbage1
06-14-2005, 01:49 PM
Oldman. Why do you keep including US Navy fighters in your count? Your counting what is usable for online servers in US vs Ge maps. The US did not use Navy fighters vs Germany!!!! Not in Europ to any major extend. No full real server gives us 109's AND F4U's on the same map!!!!! Your twisting numbers once again. GreaterGreen and War Clouds does not include Navy fighters, why are you?

Gibbage1
06-14-2005, 01:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:

No country i s more important in war on europr than Germany,
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow. So your saying since Germany started the war and was the aggressor, they deserve to have more aircraft? Thats such BS. They simply did not have that much veriety in aircraft!!!!!!!!! They had TWO main fighters during the war. To make of for this, those two fighters have more sub varients then the US. P-51 has 3 varients. 109 has 12! (E4, E7, E7Z, F2, F4, G2, G6, G6/Late, G6/AS, G10, G14, K4) and your saying that Germany is getting the short end of the stick?

msalama
06-14-2005, 02:10 PM
1C having intentional bias against the Yanks? Bah.

It could very well be that other types have been easier for them to model, because the research/source data for them has been more easily available, or whatever as mundane as that.

But all kinds of crackpot conspiracy theories _are_ of course more $exy (and humorous), so please carry on by all means! Passes the time if nothing else...

OldMan____
06-14-2005, 02:15 PM
No Gibagge.. You are trying to make it look as I said that.. you are twisting my words.. you are the TWISTER here. Germany is more important because without it there would be no AIR WAR in europe! Without US.. there would be AIR WAR in europe anyway. Is that hard to understand that? Can you name one country that its removel from game would damage europe theather more than Germany? If you say US I must say LOL !


BTW.. if you cant read (it seems that this is now not in discussion anymore since you comproved it everytime I asked). I said LW should not also receive more planes... I am not saying LW should receive more....

In order, countries that should receive planes:

Italy
UK
only then
US
LW (maybe with something between LW and US)



BTW.. If I remember correctly RAF used Corsairs against germany in Scandinavia....

faustnik
06-14-2005, 02:19 PM
There are more German and Russian planes in the sim because it started as a German vs. Russian only sim. There is no bias. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Aaron_GT
06-14-2005, 02:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The USA fought on two seperate fronts both half way around the world seperated from each other, I would EXPECT they would have more *types* of planes than anyone else, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Er.. ditto the UK, and for longer, so by that reckoning the UK should have more...

But it is a silly nationalistic pissing contest at the moment. It's very silly indeed.

Aaron_GT
06-14-2005, 02:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If I remember correctly RAF used Corsairs against germany in Scandinavia.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Against the Tirpitz most notably, and F4F and F6Fs in the Med at the very least (and probably TBFs too).

Gibbage1
06-14-2005, 02:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
No Gibagge.. You are trying to make it look as I said that.. you are twisting my words..
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was quoting you and asking if this is what you ment. Its clear that english is not your first language, so your post's are confusing and not worded properly. But without Germany, there would be no WWII at all. But that does not change the fact that Germany only had 2 main fighters. US had 3 main fighters in Europ, and 3 main fighters in the Pacific. Even still, Germany ETO fighters outnumber the US ETO fighters by more then 25%. F4U and F6F is NOT an ETO fighter but a Pacific fighter.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
BTW.. if you cant read (it seems that this is now not in discussion anymore since you comproved it everytime I asked). I said LW should not also receive more planes... I am not saying LW should receive more....
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. Your saying US has more ETO aircraft to select from, and I am saying your wrong. The numbers prove it since the F4U and F6F was NOT A ETO US AIRCRAFT! Maybe your just too old to understand this?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
BTW.. If I remember correctly RAF used Corsairs against germany in Scandinavia.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But thats RAF. We already disqualified the Mustang III because its also RAF. If you wish to include the RAF (or AAF) fighters, then thats a differant game since British were our allies. Then you need to start counting Germany's Allies like Japan.

OldMan____
06-14-2005, 03:20 PM
The Corsair observation was only that, an observation. But I frankly don 't think many US flyers care if they are flying a US plane that only fought that LW plane in non US hands. P63 in WC prove that. I am trying not br too much strict on definition of what is a valid US plane exactly because this changes by player to player. In the most generic ones US have more planes than LW, in the more restrict no. But if you are going to be as precise as $!%!#&... our G10 and G14 are not german planes.. are hungarians :P

p1ngu666
06-14-2005, 03:37 PM
does it really matter?....

italy has 2 **** fighters, dunno how they fly in 4 but in 3 they had dodgy handling too.

also we can only sim a tiny part of bomber commands activities, blehiems, b25, a20 (maybe) and soon the mossie. bc used the b24 too possibly. all those are teh lightest aircraft operated by bomber command, in terms of payload http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif
56,000 airmen died in bomber command, BOB cost fighter command some 500 pilots, the activities of bomber command where considerable http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

JG53Frankyboy
06-14-2005, 03:45 PM
you all have still in mind that these game based in origin on a theater of operation ?

what would you do with a Lancaster ??? realy no map to start/land AND to fight on.

but yes, unfortunatly oleg left this way since a long time- his BIGGEST mistake !

if i read the last posts it realy looks like the game went in a nationes planes vs nationes planes war - on gunslinging dogfightservers - and sure only late war

Atomic_Marten
06-14-2005, 04:14 PM
The best way of doing this game(s) from my point of view was not adding random planes and maps that had nothing to do with the intended theatre.
I completely agree in this with Frankyboy.

Much more happier solution would be to finish specific theatre to the smallest detail possible, and than move on to another.
I think many of you can agree with me on that.

But than I guess that scenario could never be, because of many (financial/other http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) reasons..

Jee, we are way OT. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

crazyivan1970
06-14-2005, 04:23 PM
Gibb, english is not your first language either http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

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

On the serious note... how did we end up in what planes should or should not be added to this sim? Might as well change topics title... or lock it perhaps? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

ZG77_Nagual
06-14-2005, 04:41 PM
No f4u4 because of grumman issue ladies. This was covered ages ago.

carguy_
06-14-2005, 05:10 PM
Observing Yankwhiners trying to develop a whole western theater in IL2 is really funny.One thing is for sure -Forgotten Battles even if it is not EF strictly it certainly came out of this theater - maps,ground objects and finally planes-all are even now EF centered.And you still put pressure on 1C to make more and more USAAF/RAf stuff that really is countless - pressure to make B17,B29 or Lancaster available...where are yer heads?! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Germany has to have a big choice in planes simply because 3rd Reich was a country that fought all allies - USAAF/RAF/VVS.And Germany`s best ally - Italy?Friggin 2 flyables!

Yeah,even if 3rd party modelers did 3d models they have to be further developped by 1C to be included ingame...and frankly even with all your money,1C is almost out of resources for IL2 because of BoB.

This was never meant to be western front,but the effort 1C put to make it one is impressive.A planeset of US esceeding this of LW....what else to say.

Yankwhiners can do two things
1.Let go and wait for BoB.
2.Put more pressure on already left product development without much chance of success.


You can also put pressure to open the code so you can make your toys flyable.But I don`t fly with open code,so I don`t care.

Give them a finger and they will take an arm...sheeeeeeeeeeesh http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Gibbage1
06-14-2005, 10:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:

Give them a finger and they will take an arm...sheeeeeeeeeeesh http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Question for you. Who asked for the P-38 L Late? I modeled it and I did not even ask for it. I did not even know about it till everyone on the forum!!! Nobody ever asked on these forums for it. Not that I can remember it! Who asked for a Mustang III? The fact is, Oleg put these aircraft in. IL2 is not a EF or WF game only. Its a WWII flight sim. You have Pacific maps, Africa maps, Berlin, Russia, and France. There is no way you can still consider all that OLEG added to the game (P-51 was modeled and added by OLEG's team, not 3rd party) that its JUST a Russian vs Germany game with a few odd aircraft in it. Lol.

TAGERT.
06-14-2005, 10:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
No f4u4 because of grumman issue ladies. This was covered ages ago. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Negative Ghost Rider! Allow me to point out my point once more. Even though I was pretty clear about it the 1st time.

Why no F4u-4 from the start is the question.. i.e. prior to the grumman excuse.

TAGERT.
06-14-2005, 11:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
just curious:
do you seriously believe the maddox team is anti US biased ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Did you read any of my post? What part of me saying "and play into the whole Oleg hates US planes conspericy" did you not understand? or the part about based on his actions and not his words?

TAGERT.
06-14-2005, 11:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
Well at least you have an argument. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Agree 100%

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
But I respectfully disagree with It. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>As I and many others here do with yours

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
Us was nothing more important than any of the other major powers in war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Disagree 100%! For many many reasons, for example, the US provided airplane types to the rest of the allied in great numbers. Yes, the British did provide us with a few spits.. but no where near the numbers we provided to the rest of the allied

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
There is no reason why it should have more planes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Disagree 100%! In that the US had to produce more types to deal with the two very different needs of the two different theaters.. and provide them in numbers! Each of which have several versions per type. Thus on that FACT alone there should be more US types in a WWII games.. ESPECIALLY one that claims to simulate the PACIFIC

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
Also remember that the majority of player still face this as an European theaters game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Disagree 100%! I'm sure the lufties *feel* that way, but if that marketing was true, they would have never justified making PACIFIC FIGHTERS in the 1st place

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
No country i s more important in war on Europe than Germany, or do you disagree with that? With no enemy... what would be of this theaters? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>No country is more important in the war in the pacific than Japan, or do you disagree with that? With no enemy... what would be of this theaters? And a little news flash for you, the US and UK were in both theaters, thus it makes the US and UK more important than Germany or Japan imho.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
Germany, UK, US and Soviet Union should have about same effort on including planes in game. no reason why it should not be done. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Disagree 100%! The country that fought in both theaters in numbers should have more

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
US have more planes missing just because it had much more planes than any other country. If you wanted to have all US planes included... we would have to compensate somewhere.. where? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Nice try.. but no sale, the point your missing in all this.. or just trying to side step because it is too painful is the FACT that we are not asking for more types.. i.e. types that are not currently in the game.. just more versions of existing types.. You know, like the 109! I noticed you did not address the whole question about what the lufties would be whining about had the 109K not been included.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
Take out LW planes? What is Europe Air war without LW? Take out RAF, don't think so? Soviet Union?.. hope all people here still remember how this game started. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Again, nice try, but, that silly logic only muddies the waters and the topic at hand.. Big gold star for effort, and some may fall for it, but been around too long to fall for that tangent topic ****

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
If there is one country that would suffer less from not having one or 2 planes , this is US, exactly because it had more planes. maybe Soviet Union also, but That is MAIN COUNTRY in this game original conception! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Not talking more types, talkin more version of types.. Had you attempted to answer the 109k question you would have realized that.. But in doing show you would have proved yourself wrong.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
People must also keep in mind that other people have other tastes than of their own. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Now in light of all this, you say that? Too Funny!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
I don 't care much for Western front, unfortunately most good servers only have Western and Pacific fronts. Much people simply don't care about late war, some people is more interested in more middle war planes. I would love an early P38.

Is not easy to keep so much people satisfied. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Still missing the whole point.. Ah well, cant beat them, baffle them with bull$hit tangent topics tactics! Sorry, no sale!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
I also would not like if effort is made to include more 45 planes for LW before RAF and Italy receive the planes they deserve, but conspiracy is at least BULL#$%*. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Of course not, because the Lw 45 list is complete! As for conspiracy, never said there was one, only that the ACTIONS up to now feed into it. I'm sure it is by chance, but, based on the fact that all the late war Lw planes are present and none of the US and UK stuff is, Well lets just say I can totally understand why the conspiracy nuts belive what they belive!

bolillo_loco
06-15-2005, 12:10 AM
I think it is time to step in and remind everybody that

Baby~Jesus loves all of us no matter what plane we like.

JG53Hunter
06-15-2005, 12:15 AM
OT: Hey Tagert, i dont read your posts. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif
Your quoting-style hurts my eyes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

TAGERT.
06-15-2005, 12:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Hunter:
OT: Hey Tagert, i dont read your posts. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif
Your quoting-style hurts my eyes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Gee, I feel so empty inside.. What will I do.. How shall I go on knowing that JG53Hunter does not read my posts! How shall I ever face the day knowing deep down in my hart that JG53Hunter does not consider me worthy! Boo Hoo, poor me!

Aaron_GT
06-15-2005, 12:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Who asked for a Mustang III? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Myself, pingu, and lrrp (who came up trumps with the required data).

JG53Frankyboy
06-15-2005, 03:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
just curious:
do you seriously believe the maddox team is anti US biased ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Did you read any of my post? What part of me saying "and play into the whole Oleg hates US planes conspericy" did you not understand? or the part about based on his actions and not his words? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

im so sorry for my not perfect english - thx.
so, even you not clearly answerd my question , you are seriously thinking olegs is biased . that was all i wanted to know.

Aaron_GT
06-15-2005, 07:11 AM
Tagert wrote:

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

Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No f4u4 because of grumman issue ladies. This was covered ages ago. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Negative Ghost Rider! Allow me to point out my point once more. Even though I was pretty clear about it the 1st time.

Why no F4u-4 from the start is the question.. i.e. prior to the grumman excuse. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why no Fw190D from the start? Obvious anti-LW bias! No G4M flyable from the start - anti Japanese bias! No Mosquito - anti UK bias (even though Oleg is 1/4 British). We could go on for ever like this.

The reason why there wasn't an F4U-4 was probably that it just didn't get modelled. Has anyone actually modelled an F4U-4 yet? Lots of stuff still hasn't been modelled, and some stuff that has been modelled (e.g. Go-229) wasn't not important in the progress of WW2. The Mosquito has been modelled, but still isn't in the sim.

I don't think we've had a totally definitive statement on the Grumman issue, so that might still be a problem (it might have been settled for existing stuff in the game, but what of new stuff?)

p1ngu666
06-15-2005, 08:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
you all have still in mind that these game based in origin on a theater of operation ?

what would you do with a Lancaster ??? realy no map to start/land AND to fight on.

but yes, unfortunatly oleg left this way since a long time- his BIGGEST mistake !

if i read the last posts it realy looks like the game went in a nationes planes vs nationes planes war - on gunslinging dogfightservers - and sure only late war </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

u could say the same for many planes in the game, ai AND flyable. lancs flew all over europe, from 42 till the very end. probably nearly every day there was a raid involving lancs. there was probably very few days in the war when there wasnt some bomber command action.

the lanc was also the best bomber till b29 was reliable.
nearly double the payload of a b17. FAR FAR wider range of bombs too. handled better too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

JG53Frankyboy
06-15-2005, 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 p1ngu666:

u could say the same for many planes in the game, ai AND flyable. .............: </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

totaly correct !
there fore i said it was olegs biggest mistake.

ECV56_Pato1
06-15-2005, 09:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
They had a lot of models drawn on napkins! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>ROTFL! Yes, and whole web sights devoted them the napkins as if they all flew in combat! Too Funny! http://www.Napkins46.com </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yea but sometimes those napkins once contained jet engine designs, solid fuel rockets, and many of but the most advanced investigation projects at that time, I mean come on Mercury Project/apollo program anyone? yea surely that was VERY funny.

Aaron_GT
06-15-2005, 09:32 AM
Off topic, but the laser started out as a design on a scrap of paper the inventor found in his pocket when on a park bench (which is when the idea came to him).

ZG77_Nagual
06-15-2005, 09:37 AM
Good on Gibb for the 38 - by the way. It's become my fav.

I believe Oleg gave us the 38L late because there was not a great deal to model FM wise - over and above the 38L which was allready there - and nothing 3d wise - and some members of this forum made an excellent case for higher Horsepower being common in the L. The vanilla L can now be regarded as a J-25-lo - with boosted alerons a dive flaps - but not the higher HP/boost.
I don't know much about the history of the Mustang III being added - complete surprise to me. Certainly bias against american or any other planes in this simm is just a silly thing to try and support.

If anything the stuff we get, beyond the basics, just seems a product of real interest and enthusiasm.

As regards the -4 - I am sure they wanted to get PF out the door with all the major players modeled and add planes like the -4, ki100 etc. later as time and resources permitted. Flight modeling takes alot of work - and the -4 would also need a new 3d model.

I remember being thrilled to see a simm that finally featured the much and undeservedly maligned P39 - one of my favs from way back. And the beautiful P63! And Polikparov's really superb designs - the I-16 and I-185 (what a work of art the I-185 is!!). The many wonderful Russian a/c that remained relatively unknown in the west.

I think we are missing the great Italian birds - and a few Japanese planes that are in simm but not flyable yet. But I can't see any bias except maybe toward some of the more interesting a/c.

Sig.Hirsch
06-15-2005, 10:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Tagert's craps ... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


1) F4-U4 needed a whole new 3d modell , that's why they didn't implement it , end of discussion .

2) This Tagert Morr.. wants this plane because he wants to have the most powerful planes in the Hypperlobby Warclouds dogfight server ...

Hopefully Oleg isn't as stupid to listen to these freaks , and knows that more than 95% of people who bought the game don't play online and don't want necessarily the most powerful planes , but the Most Common planes ... Thanks Oleg

3) You have the French planes , Italian planes , one Finnish , and English planes still missing , Mossies , , depth charges , correct loadouts , Sunderlands , PBY Catalyna , Swordfish , CW-21 , Japanese Torpedo planes flyable like the Kate , the Avenger flyable ,Basic WWII German ground attack planes like the Hs-129 , Me-410 , Do-217 etc... etc... !!!!

All these planes are 100.000 times more important to the sim than F4-U4 of mid-1945

I'm getting sick of those extremist Americans thinking evrybody owes them full respect and everything while they are just lobbying aggressively here in ORR and don't respect anybody nor any country 's History and planes !!

Go moan to Microsoft , they'll give u F4U4 and possibly F-22 too

ZG77_Nagual
06-15-2005, 10:48 AM
Watch who you callin' an 'american' http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Seriously - all sane people know nationalism is a psychosis.


"People can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy.
All you have to do is tell them you are being attacked and denounce the
peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It
works the same in any country."

Nazi Reichsmarshall Hermann Goering, testifying at the Nuremberg War Crimes
Trials

p1ngu666
06-15-2005, 10:53 AM
so true http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

BigKahuna_GS
06-15-2005, 10:57 AM
S!

__________________________________________________ _________________________
Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
PS: Bf109K4 is '44 not '45

Tagert:
Same is true of the F4U-1C. It was nothing more than a 43 plane with cannons. It was up and flying in 44, Dont know why Oleg changed it from 44 to 45.. It use to be listed as 44. I think it has to do with Oleg using first flight for Lw planes and first saw action for US planes.. In that it sometimes took months to get the planes from state side to the action.. Now had the Lw or IJN been attacking the S out of the states Im sure they would have seen action sooner.. But the Lw and IJN never got close to attacking the states with anything that could do any real damage.

Strange thing is.. why did Oleg choose the -1C over the -4 or -4C? They only made 200 -1C but made well over 2000 -4s by 1944.. Yet.. Oleg chose to do the -1C and not the -4 or -4C? I know the CURRENT EXCUSE to not add the -4 is to blaim northrop, even though CFS addons have come out with northrop planes.. and new pacific sims are about to come out with northrop planes.. But, what about befroe all that? Why pick the 200 production vs 2,000 production? Could it be that the -4 had twice the climb rate and was about 50mph faster? Only Oleg knows the anser to that one.
__________________________________________________ ________________________



Well said Tagert . I was wondering why the F4U-1C instead of the F4U-4 from the release of Pacific Fighters. Basically the F4U-1A/C/D all fly the same and are all about 10mph to slow at sea level and do not have the emergency take off 2800RPM setting. Copies of official US Navy Docs sent to 1C months ago with no change. But I understand-there is a long list of fixes needed.

These planes needed to be added to the sim:

Spit XIV, Tempest, F4U-4, P47M and/or P47N


If you look at the german A/C released in this sim, many are very late 1944(109K4/G10) almost 1945 planes (190D-9 is 1945). The Ta152(45) didn't become operational until the last month(s) of the war April 45. How late is that ?

The late model russain planes like the Yak 3-P is a 1945 design and the last varient of the Yak 9U is a late war design.

The F4U-1C is listed as a 1945 plane when in fact it is a 1943 plane. The F4U-1D is a late 43/early 44 plane. The P47D-27RE is an early 44 plane. Also none of the P47s are modeled overboosted as they were operating from 1943-45 till wars end.

The Spit 9 is a 1943 design. The Typhoon, Spit XIV arent even in the sim and the Tempest is only AI.

So as you can see many of the best Brit & US late war 44/early 45 planes have been left out of the sim.

As for the Western Front servers as a side note; Wildcats(Marlets), Hellcats and Corsairs all served with the Royal Navy in the ETO. I think Hellcats and Corsairs were part of the operation to sink the Tirpitz.

P38L===P38L Late, it has the same engines but wrong specs

The difference between the P38J F-17 Allison engines & P38L F-30 Allison engines is 200RPM and 250-brake horsepower.

I sent Oleg five scans of information that I cant post here from Warren Bodie & Daniel Whitney. I just wanted to see the P38L get the right engine specs.

--The 2 best books on the P38 are :

"Vee for Victory" by Daniel D. Whitney
"The P38 Lightning" by Warren Bodie

This information is from "Vee's for Victory" by Daniel Whitney. Whitney's background as a Mechanical and Nuclear engineer is quite impressive. Whitney is not affiliated with either Lockheed or Allison but his study is the result of years of independent research on Allison aircraft engines during WW2. Whitney's book is considered the definitive book on this subject.

According to Whitney, Allison engine techs were in the ETO always monitoring the P38 engine performance. It was Allison engine techs that told Whitney that operating the F-30 engines at 1725bhp was a routine matter. In other words everybody was flying the P38L this way.

This is the correct Allison factory specs of the (F-30) on WEP
Allison V-1710-111 and -113

The P38L factory installed engine:
"The F-30 engine was still rated as the F-17's but incorperated many internal improvements, most notably the 12-counterweight crankshaft. As a consquence it could be operated up to 3200rpm. Using 150 fuel it could deliver 1,725bhp under WER conditions."
Directly from Allison Aircraft engines.
Vee's for Victory pg145

Here is an email response from Warren Bodie on this subject :

Using 3200rpm and 1,725bhp during combat :

"And, as certain pilots, including the great Col. Cass Hough who shared command with Col. (later B/Gen.) Ben Kelsey, would have been glad to tell you, if you needed more in combat situations, you did whatever was necessary to escape being defeated. "

The USAAF played it safe and told the pilots not to go over the 3,000rpm setting. If you had another 200rpm & 250bhp avaialble during air combat manuevering would you use it ? Bet your butt you would.

The Allison F-30 proved to be a very reliable engine and performed very well both in the PTO & ETO.

__


P38J

Max climb rate (WEP) 4000fpm at sea level and 2900fpm at 23,400ft.

Here are official performance numbers of an USAAF fighter evaluation of the P38J-10, P47D-10, P39Q-5 and P51B. The P38J-10 serial number AC42-67869 was flown by 3 pilots during a 30hour accelerated flight test on December 2, 1943.

Maximum horsepower at 60.8 inches of Hg manifold pressure, 3000rpm was listed at 1,612 brake horse power (WEP) per F-17 Allison engines. (P38 J10-LO) pg.213 "The Lockheed P38 Lightning" by Warren M. Bodie Lockheed engineer/historian.

USAAF flight test results P38J-10 :
Maximum Sea Level speed -----------------------------345mph
Maximum critical alt speed --------------------421.5mph (WEP) (25,800ft)
Rate of climb (SL) ----------------------------------4000fpm
Rate of climb (critical alt) ------------------------2900fpm (23,400ft)
Time to critical alt --------------------------------6.19 mins. (23,400ft)
Service ceiling -------------------------------------40,000ft


_____

ZG77_Nagual
06-15-2005, 11:19 AM
Righto - and if I'm not mistaken it's you we've to thank for our nice new lightning http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

As mentioned I think the lack of the -4 is a result of it needing a new 3d model etc. - I seem to recall it was in the works but got canned after Grumman effectively put the lid on any further work on anything bearing it's name.
Regardless of whether I'm right or not I'm certain it was NOT because of the -4's stellar performance. I doubt very much that oleg makes decisions based on such criteria.

It's reasonable to think the emphasis on german and russian a/c in il2/fb is because it started out as a russian front simm - that's where most of the time and research had allready gone.

There was a bit of a conceptual hump to get over as they decided to start adding more x theatre a/c. Personally I'd like to see more of the brit wonders - the mosquito, whirlwind, lancaster etc. They built some fascinating a/c and the color schemes are allways so tasteful http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

BigKahuna_GS
06-15-2005, 11:42 AM
S!


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Righto - and if I'm not mistaken it's you we've to thank for our nice new lightning </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Thank Oleg --he deserves it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


This is my opinon, when Pacific Fighters was released there was no flyable torpedo planes(Japanese or US) and you had an early 43/44 Corsair design going against a late war Ki84 in 3 different versions and time frames. The F4U-4 should been there from the beginning in PF. Yes I am thankful that PF was even released--just would of liked to seen it more completed.

In War Clouds ETO server you have no true 1945 US or Brit aircraft. The P63-went to Russia-but is there. The Spit 9 has to take on very late 1944/45 german A/C. For balance in the ETO, the Spit 14, Tempest and P47M should be in the sim.


__

geetarman
06-15-2005, 11:53 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sig.Hirsch:
[QUOTE]
I'm getting sick of those extremist Americans thinking evrybody owes them full respect and everything while they are just lobbying aggressively here in ORR and don't respect anybody nor any country 's History and planes !!

Now THIS is funny! I can imagine the knashing teeth and spittle flying out of your mouth when typing this. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

F4UDash4
06-15-2005, 12:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sig.Hirsch:

I'm getting sick of those extremist Americans ... blah blah blah </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And yet your post is the most extremist so far in this thread.....

p1ngu666
06-15-2005, 12:23 PM
well the f4u ingame matches the ki84 fairly well, its certainly much better than the zero, ki61,43

imagine a server with f4u4 against zero (late useless ones ofcourse) and ki61 and 43 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

p1ngu666
06-15-2005, 12:24 PM
oh and id like a performance difference of worth over the corsair range, ie D full 2800 water etc, but early one on the low power

BigKahuna_GS
06-15-2005, 01:00 PM
S!


[Pling--quote]well the f4u ingame matches the ki84 fairly well, its certainly much better than the zero, ki61,43
imagine a server with f4u4 against zero (late useless ones ofcourse) and ki61 and 43[/quote]


I am speaking like for like. Late Ki84 against late Corsair F4U-4. If anymore late war japanese planes are added like a flyable George and Raiden then the early Corsairs will be grossly outnumbered by late war japanese planes. There is also the K-100 and A6M-7 both 1945 planes.

There is no true late war 1945 US or Brit plane in Pacific Fighters. Did the Spit 14 make it to the PTO ?


___

ZG77_Nagual
06-15-2005, 01:19 PM
That's all true.

But the corsair and lightning do nicely match out the ki. In fact I usually do okay against them in a p39 - or a beaufighter for that matter..And I don't think the '45 ki has any real performance edge - just bigger guns.

Outnumbered in terms of types, but not outclassed.

But -4 is really the apex of navy fighters that saw action - too bad.

They've made some other great changes to the P38 as well - rudder oscillation being a biggy. Truly the dev team did some great work on these FMs. I agree Oleg deserves our thanks.

OldMan____
06-15-2005, 01:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
Well at least you have an argument. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Agree 100%

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
But I respectfully disagree with It. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>As I and many others here do with yours

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
Us was nothing more important than any of the other major powers in war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Disagree 100%! For many many reasons, for example, the US provided airplane types to the rest of the allied in great numbers. Yes, the British did provide us with a few spits.. but no where near the numbers we provided to the rest of the allied

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
There is no reason why it should have more planes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Disagree 100%! In that the US had to produce more types to deal with the two very different needs of the two different theaters.. and provide them in numbers! Each of which have several versions per type. Thus on that FACT alone there should be more US types in a WWII games.. ESPECIALLY one that claims to simulate the PACIFIC

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
Also remember that the majority of player still face this as an European theaters game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Disagree 100%! I'm sure the lufties *feel* that way, but if that marketing was true, they would have never justified making PACIFIC FIGHTERS in the 1st place

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
No country i s more important in war on Europe than Germany, or do you disagree with that? With no enemy... what would be of this theaters? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>No country is more important in the war in the pacific than Japan, or do you disagree with that? With no enemy... what would be of this theaters? And a little news flash for you, the US and UK were in both theaters, thus it makes the US and UK more important than Germany or Japan imho.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
Germany, UK, US and Soviet Union should have about same effort on including planes in game. no reason why it should not be done. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Disagree 100%! The country that fought in both theaters in numbers should have more

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
US have more planes missing just because it had much more planes than any other country. If you wanted to have all US planes included... we would have to compensate somewhere.. where? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Nice try.. but no sale, the point your missing in all this.. or just trying to side step because it is too painful is the FACT that we are not asking for more types.. i.e. types that are not currently in the game.. just more versions of existing types.. You know, like the 109! I noticed you did not address the whole question about what the lufties would be whining about had the 109K not been included.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
Take out LW planes? What is Europe Air war without LW? Take out RAF, don't think so? Soviet Union?.. hope all people here still remember how this game started. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Again, nice try, but, that silly logic only muddies the waters and the topic at hand.. Big gold star for effort, and some may fall for it, but been around too long to fall for that tangent topic ****

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
If there is one country that would suffer less from not having one or 2 planes , this is US, exactly because it had more planes. maybe Soviet Union also, but That is MAIN COUNTRY in this game original conception! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Not talking more types, talkin more version of types.. Had you attempted to answer the 109k question you would have realized that.. But in doing show you would have proved yourself wrong.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
People must also keep in mind that other people have other tastes than of their own. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Now in light of all this, you say that? Too Funny!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
I don 't care much for Western front, unfortunately most good servers only have Western and Pacific fronts. Much people simply don't care about late war, some people is more interested in more middle war planes. I would love an early P38.

Is not easy to keep so much people satisfied. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Still missing the whole point.. Ah well, cant beat them, baffle them with bull$hit tangent topics tactics! Sorry, no sale!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
I also would not like if effort is made to include more 45 planes for LW before RAF and Italy receive the planes they deserve, but conspiracy is at least BULL#$%*. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Of course not, because the Lw 45 list is complete! As for conspiracy, never said there was one, only that the ACTIONS up to now feed into it. I'm sure it is by chance, but, based on the fact that all the late war Lw planes are present and none of the US and UK stuff is, Well lets just say I can totally understand why the conspiracy nuts belive what they belive! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

well it seem is impossible to have a conversation with some people. They always want to see evil on others actions, "he is hiding the true, he does not answer that because of that.. look infidel"


You are pathetic Target.. no answer to you ever is productive since you will disagree with anything until erath crumbles and the seas get dry.

I don 't ***** care for the fact that you think your country deserves more planes. Form all powers in WAR, US was the LESS important one. Sometimes I doubt it really deserves to have any plane in face of type of players it has "defending" its planes. But that would be unfair with some of its players that really don't deserve that.


From now on I will pray everyday that never again an US plane appear in any game for ever. If you can have a nonsense opinion I may also have mine.

have a good day, and you should try to be understand the idea of discussion and opinion, and that when people do not tell what you think they may.. just may... not be trying to hide the true.

Gibbage1
06-15-2005, 01:33 PM
Anyone test out 4.01's P-38 yet? Im stuck at work for another 7 hours.

F4UDash4
06-15-2005, 01:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Anyone test out 4.01's P-38 yet? Im stuck at work for another 7 hours. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm told by a reliable source that the 4.01 P-38 is as good if not a bit better than it is in 4.00.

Goodness abounds in other words http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

ZG77_Nagual
06-15-2005, 01:58 PM
Headed home now gib. Heard the roll onset was getting slowed a bit

Gibbage1
06-15-2005, 01:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F4UDash4:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Anyone test out 4.01's P-38 yet? Im stuck at work for another 7 hours. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm told by a reliable source that the 4.01 P-38 is as good if not a bit better than it is in 4.00.

Goodness abounds in other words http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I will believe it when I fly it. The last few YEARS of patches have made me very pestimistic about US aircraft in patches.

Kurfurst__
06-15-2005, 02:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
Headed home now gib. Heard the roll onset was getting slowed a bit </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, I tried the P-38J for brief moment.

It looked stable. OTOH, it rolls like as if the wings were made of lead : LOT`s of inertia, obviously. Note though that`s it`s also true for the others planes, the 109 and 190 certainly roll slower. I think it`s just a case that inertia is much better modelled.

I could not test further because I get freezes over okinawa... haveto figure out why.

Aaron_GT
06-15-2005, 03:09 PM
Kahuna,

Dates on planes in the planeset is a very minor thing, and if there are errors I'd subscribe to the **** up theory, not conspiracy. Mistakes are easy to mistake - for example you indicated that the Spit IX is a 1943 plane, when in fact it was introduced in 1942. Easily done, and very prone to typos too.

I just can't see that there is some deliberate anti-US bias. I doesn't make sense and I think people are inferring a lot from little implication.

p1ngu666
06-15-2005, 03:13 PM
if u run HL in the background then ull stutter all over the place http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

theres two 1945 zeros
but there also probably the worst zeros to fly.

ki84 is the only plane that gets close to performance of corsair.
ki61 is okish but its like a slug..

ZG77_Nagual
06-15-2005, 03:40 PM
Looks about the same as 4.0 beta - on the deck I get 560kph (347mph) which is about right for the J - which is what I tested - in fact it's pretty much spot on!. Roll seems about the same - maybe very slightly more intertia than 4.0 - but I kinda doubt it. Gib - if you've flown the betas you will see no problem.

In short: It's great! Radical changes since 3.04 - in an excellent direction! But no big woob since 4.0

JG53Frankyboy
06-15-2005, 05:32 PM
the A6M7s were generaly planed do be used as fighterbombers.
they had again thicker wings for that duty.

also they had droptanks for the wings , like in the game - BUT these tanks were developed to be able to carry bombs below the fuselage AND droptanks.
maddox has unfortunatly forgotten to ad the bombs to the wingdroptnak option http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

TAGERT.
06-15-2005, 10:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
im so sorry for my not perfect english - thx. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I forgive you

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
so, even you not clearly answerd my question, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Not ture, you just failed to read it and understand it

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
you are seriously thinking olegs is biased. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Never said that

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
that was all i wanted to know. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>As long as you know that your wrong.

TAGERT.
06-15-2005, 10:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ECV56_Pato1:
Yea but sometimes those napkins once contained jet engine designs, solid fuel rockets, and many of but the most advanced investigation projects at that time, I mean come on Mercury Project/apollo program anyone? yea surely that was VERY funny. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%! Someone should have told Goddard to be a little more careful with this napins.. Look at what the Jerrys did with all his patents.. They build the V2 with it! As for the jets.. Too bad most of Jerrys napkins never made it to blue prints let alone production like Goddards work did.
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/gallery/fact_shee.../goddard/goddard.htm (http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/gallery/fact_sheets/general/goddard/goddard.htm)

TAGERT.
06-15-2005, 10:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sig.Hirsch:
1) F4-U4 needed a whole new 3d modell , that's why they didn't implement it , end of discussion . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Not ture. The cockpit was very differnt.. but no more or less that the P51B vs P51D, or the P47C vs P47D. The exterior was not that much different, a little different cowling, 4 blad prop, slightly wider in spots, but no more differnet than a 190 and a 190D.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sig.Hirsch:
2) This Tagert Morr.. wants this plane because he wants to have the most powerful planes in the Hypperlobby Warclouds dogfight server ... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>This Sig.Hirsch Morr.. does not want this plane because he does not want to have the most powerful plane in the Hypperloby Warclouds dofight server shooting down his 190s and 109s like flys

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sig.Hirsch:
Hopefully Oleg isn't as stupid to listen to these freaks, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Your whole family posts here?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sig.Hirsch:
and knows that more than 95% of people who bought the game don't play online and don't want necessarily the most powerful planes , but the Most Common planes ... Thanks Oleg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Bingo! And sense the -4 was one of the most highly produced version of F4us it would make it one of the the most common. Gotcha! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
http://www.vought.com/heritage/products/html/f4uquant.html

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sig.Hirsch:
3) You have the French planes , Italian planes , one Finnish , and English planes still missing , Mossies , , depth charges , correct loadouts , Sunderlands , PBY Catalyna , Swordfish , CW-21 , Japanese Torpedo planes flyable like the Kate , the Avenger flyable ,Basic WWII German ground attack planes like the Hs-129 , Me-410 , Do-217 etc... etc... !!!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>What part of not new types, just more versions of the same type do you fail to comprehend?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sig.Hirsch:
All these planes are 100.000 times more important to the sim than F4-U4 of mid-1945 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Im sure the lufies would agree with that statment

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sig.Hirsch:
I'm getting sick of those extremist Americans thinking evrybody owes them full respect and everything while they are just lobbying aggressively here in ORR and don't respect anybody nor any country 's History and planes !! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Let me guess, the Americans freed your country from some other country once and you just can not get past it?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sig.Hirsch:
Go moan to Microsoft , they'll give u F4U4 and possibly F-22 too </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Step off twit!

TAGERT.
06-15-2005, 10:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
Well said Tagert . I was wondering why the F4U-1C instead of the F4U-4 from the release of Pacific Fighters. Basically the F4U-1A/C/D all fly the same and are all about 10mph to slow at sea level and do not have the emergency take off 2800RPM setting. Copies of official US Navy Docs sent to 1C months ago with no change. But I understand-there is a long list of fixes needed.

These planes needed to be added to the sim:

Spit XIV, Tempest, F4U-4, P47M and/or P47N


If you look at the german A/C released in this sim, many are very late 1944(109K4/G10) almost 1945 planes (190D-9 is 1945). The Ta152(45) didn't become operational until the last month(s) of the war April 45. How late is that ?

The late model russain planes like the Yak 3-P is a 1945 design and the last varient of the Yak 9U is a late war design.

The F4U-1C is listed as a 1945 plane when in fact it is a 1943 plane. The F4U-1D is a late 43/early 44 plane. The P47D-27RE is an early 44 plane. Also none of the P47s are modeled overboosted as they were operating from 1943-45 till wars end.

The Spit 9 is a 1943 design. The Typhoon, Spit XIV arent even in the sim and the Tempest is only AI.

So as you can see many of the best Brit & US late war 44/early 45 planes have been left out of the sim.

As for the Western Front servers as a side note; Wildcats(Marlets), Hellcats and Corsairs all served with the Royal Navy in the ETO. I think Hellcats and Corsairs were part of the operation to sink the Tirpitz.

P38L===P38L Late, it has the same engines but wrong specs

The difference between the P38J F-17 Allison engines & P38L F-30 Allison engines is 200RPM and 250-brake horsepower.

I sent Oleg five scans of information that I cant post here from Warren Bodie & Daniel Whitney. I just wanted to see the P38L get the right engine specs.

--The 2 best books on the P38 are :

"Vee for Victory" by Daniel D. Whitney
"The P38 Lightning" by Warren Bodie

This information is from "Vee's for Victory" by Daniel Whitney. Whitney's background as a Mechanical and Nuclear engineer is quite impressive. Whitney is not affiliated with either Lockheed or Allison but his study is the result of years of independent research on Allison aircraft engines during WW2. Whitney's book is considered the definitive book on this subject.

According to Whitney, Allison engine techs were in the ETO always monitoring the P38 engine performance. It was Allison engine techs that told Whitney that operating the F-30 engines at 1725bhp was a routine matter. In other words everybody was flying the P38L this way.

This is the correct Allison factory specs of the (F-30) on WEP
Allison V-1710-111 and -113

The P38L factory installed engine:
"The F-30 engine was still rated as the F-17's but incorperated many internal improvements, most notably the 12-counterweight crankshaft. As a consquence it could be operated up to 3200rpm. Using 150 fuel it could deliver 1,725bhp under WER conditions."
Directly from Allison Aircraft engines.
Vee's for Victory pg145

Here is an email response from Warren Bodie on this subject :

Using 3200rpm and 1,725bhp during combat :

"And, as certain pilots, including the great Col. Cass Hough who shared command with Col. (later B/Gen.) Ben Kelsey, would have been glad to tell you, if you needed more in combat situations, you did whatever was necessary to escape being defeated. "

The USAAF played it safe and told the pilots not to go over the 3,000rpm setting. If you had another 200rpm & 250bhp avaialble during air combat manuevering would you use it ? Bet your butt you would.

The Allison F-30 proved to be a very reliable engine and performed very well both in the PTO & ETO.

__


P38J

Max climb rate (WEP) 4000fpm at sea level and 2900fpm at 23,400ft.

Here are official performance numbers of an USAAF fighter evaluation of the P38J-10, P47D-10, P39Q-5 and P51B. The P38J-10 serial number AC42-67869 was flown by 3 pilots during a 30hour accelerated flight test on December 2, 1943.

Maximum horsepower at 60.8 inches of Hg manifold pressure, 3000rpm was listed at 1,612 brake horse power (WEP) per F-17 Allison engines. (P38 J10-LO) pg.213 "The Lockheed P38 Lightning" by Warren M. Bodie Lockheed engineer/historian.

USAAF flight test results P38J-10 :
Maximum Sea Level speed -----------------------------345mph
Maximum critical alt speed --------------------421.5mph (WEP) (25,800ft)
Rate of climb (SL) ----------------------------------4000fpm
Rate of climb (critical alt) ------------------------2900fpm (23,400ft)
Time to critical alt --------------------------------6.19 mins. (23,400ft)
Service ceiling -------------------------------------40,000ft


</div></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%

TAGERT.
06-15-2005, 10:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
As mentioned I think the lack of the -4 is a result of it needing a new 3d model etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>No more than a P51B vs a P51D. Actully much closer than that... yet was not done.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
Regardless of whether I'm right or not I'm certain it was NOT because of the -4's stellar performance. I doubt very much that oleg makes decisions based on such criteria. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Regardless of whether Oleg does it on purpose or by chance, if one is to judge the game based on action and not words, the TREND here is to NOT include late ware US planes.. Yet 109K and Ta152s aboound.

TAGERT.
06-15-2005, 10:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
You are pathetic Target.. no answer to you ever is productive since you will disagree with anything until erath crumbles and the seas get dry.

I don 't ***** care for the fact that you think your country deserves more planes. Form all powers in WAR, US was the LESS important one. Sometimes I doubt it really deserves to have any plane in face of type of players it has "defending" its planes. But that would be unfair with some of its players that really don't deserve that.


From now on I will pray everyday that never again an US plane appear in any game for ever. If you can have a nonsense opinion I may also have mine.

have a good day, and you should try to be understand the idea of discussion and opinion, and that when people do not tell what you think they may.. just may... not be trying to hide the true. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Let me see if I can help you pull your head out..

Answer one simple question.. The one you have been avoiding up to now.. Then and only then do I stand of chance of helping you with your biased problems..

Ready?

Ok.. What do you think the forum would look like if the 109K was not included in the game?

Get it? Simple question right? Yet you keep avoding it.. Why do you think that is?

BigKahuna_GS
06-16-2005, 01:29 PM
S!

__________________________________________________ _______________________
Aaron_GT Posted Wed June 15 2005 14:09
Dates on planes in the planeset is a very minor thing, and if there are errors I'd subscribe to the **** up theory, not conspiracy.
I just can't see that there is some deliberate anti-US bias.
__________________________________________________ _______________________



Hya Aaron---
Just so we are clear---I Never claimed or used the words conspiracy or bias in my posts. Also I said the best Brit & US late war planes are missing--and they are. A simple observation. You shouldnt assume mate.

From a balance standpoint you have a bunch of very late war 44/45 german A/C fighting 1942/43' and early 44' designs on Western Front servers. That is why I said the Spit XIV, Tempest and P47M or P47N need to be added to the sim.

I did talk to Oleg about the F4U-1C and he felt it was a 1945 design. I pointed out that there is pictures of it in Americas Hundred Thousand dated 1943. It is a 1943 aircraft. You cannot simply add 4-20mm hispanos to a F4U-1C Corsair and call it a 1945 aircraft.

For some reason the best Brit & US planes are missing from this sim. I dont know why. Maybe they will be included in a pay add-on later this year. One can only hope.


__

bolillo_loco
06-16-2005, 03:29 PM
kahuna!!! dont stir the pot!! :O

agree with you 100%

I dispise spitfires for many reasons so do not mistake me for some nancy boy spit lover, but I have often wondered why we have 109K4s which began reaching units in the last 2 months of 1944, but no spit Mk XIV which became operational with units in March of 1944 I believe. I also wonder where the Tempest is.

47M......130 made and were operational in the 56th F/G, when compairing this to the Ta 152 (went operational late march or early april 1945, but is accepted in 1944 servers????? and was produced in less numbers than the 47M) what gives on this a/c? no excuse for having to make a 3D model or flight model......Just use a 47D-27 and give it more speed and climb.

Gibbage1
06-16-2005, 05:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
47M......130 made and were operational in the 56th F/G, when compairing this to the Ta 152 (went operational late march or early april 1945, but is accepted in 1944 servers????? and was produced in less numbers than the 47M) what gives on this a/c? no excuse for having to make a 3D model or flight model......Just use a 47D-27 and give it more speed and climb. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think we have the Ta-152H?

Several Fw 190C airframes were used in the project. The first Ta 152H-0 service test aircraft rolled off the assembly lines in October-November 1944. The Ta 152H-0s had no fuel tanks in their wings. They were joined a month later by the first production Ta 152H-1 aircraft, which had fuel tanks in the wings. The Ta 152H-1 was armed with one engine-mounted 30-mm MK 108 cannon with 90 rounds and two 20-mm MG 151 cannon in the wings with 175 rpg. 330 pounds of armor were carried for the protection of the engine and the pilot. Most production machines were delivered to Ta 152H-1/R11 bad-weather fighter standards. A MW 50 boost tank was fitted in the inboard port wing tank for use in enhancing low-altitude performance, with the GM 1 high-altitude boost tank aft of the cockpit being standard.

Approximately 150 Ta 1252H-1 fighters were manufactured between January 1, 1945 and the final abandoning of production with the arrival of Soviet forces at the Cottbus assembly plant. No Jagdgruppen ever completely converted to the type, but several Jagdstaffeln operated the Ta 152H alongside the Fw 190D and other types. Most of the Ta 152s operated in the close-support role. Others flew "top-cover" for bases from which Messerschmitt Me 262 jet fighters operated, trying to protect the jets from being "bounced" by Allied fighters during takeoff or landing. It was said that no British or American fighters risked attacking an Me 262 during landing while Ta 152s were known to be circling the airfield. The large wing area of the Ta 152 made it quite easy to fly. Most of the Ta 152Hs, however, were destroyed on the ground by Allied air attacks while awaiting delivery. A few Ta 152Hs were allocated to the Mistel program.

Clearly a 1945 aircraft.

JG53Frankyboy
06-16-2005, 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 Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
47M......130 made and were operational in the 56th F/G, when compairing this to the Ta 152 (went operational late march or early april 1945, but is accepted in 1944 servers????? and was produced in less numbers than the 47M) what gives on this a/c? no excuse for having to make a 3D model or flight model......Just use a 47D-27 and give it more speed and climb. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think we have the Ta-152H?

Several Fw 190C airframes were used in the project. The first Ta 152H-0 service test aircraft rolled off the assembly lines in October-November 1944. The Ta 152H-0s had no fuel tanks in their wings. They were joined a month later by the first production Ta 152H-1 aircraft, which had fuel tanks in the wings. The Ta 152H-1 was armed with one engine-mounted 30-mm MK 108 cannon with 90 rounds and two 20-mm MG 151 cannon in the wings with 175 rpg. 330 pounds of armor were carried for the protection of the engine and the pilot. Most production machines were delivered to Ta 152H-1/R11 bad-weather fighter standards. A MW 50 boost tank was fitted in the inboard port wing tank for use in enhancing low-altitude performance, with the GM 1 high-altitude boost tank aft of the cockpit being standard.

Approximately 150 Ta 1252H-1 fighters were manufactured between January 1, 1945 and the final abandoning of production with the arrival of Soviet forces at the Cottbus assembly plant. No Jagdgruppen ever completely converted to the type, but several Jagdstaffeln operated the Ta 152H alongside the Fw 190D and other types. Most of the Ta 152s operated in the close-support role. Others flew "top-cover" for bases from which Messerschmitt Me 262 jet fighters operated, trying to protect the jets from being "bounced" by Allied fighters during takeoff or landing. It was said that no British or American fighters risked attacking an Me 262 during landing while Ta 152s were known to be circling the airfield. The large wing area of the Ta 152 made it quite easy to fly. Most of the Ta 152Hs, however, were destroyed on the ground by Allied air attacks while awaiting delivery. A few Ta 152Hs were allocated to the Mistel program.

Clearly a 1945 aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i think we are all thinking that the years given in the game are sometimes not correct....

you have to do your own planetable, sad but true
here is a try of the german community - and sure also not perfect

http://forums-de.ubi.com/eve/ubb.x/a/tpc/f/388104122/m/6121057432

Gibbage1
06-16-2005, 06:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
Clearly a 1945 aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i think we are all thinking that the years given in the game are sometimes not correct....

you have to do your own planetable, sad but true
here is a try of the german community - and sure also not perfect

http://forums-de.ubi.com/eve/ubb.x/a/tpc/f/388104122/m/6121057432[/QUOTE]

I think seperating aircraft into just years is not very good. It should be quarters or half. Like early 44 and late 44. Not just 1944, or stuff that flew in December of 1944 winds up in maps in early Feb!!!

JG53Frankyboy
06-16-2005, 06:58 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 JG53Frankyboy:
Clearly a 1945 aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i think we are all thinking that the years given in the game are sometimes not correct....

you have to do your own planetable, sad but true
here is a try of the german community - and sure also not perfect

http://forums-de.ubi.com/eve/ubb.x/a/tpc/f/388104122/m/6121057432 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think seperating aircraft into just years is not very good. It should be quarters or half. Like early 44 and late 44. Not just 1944, or stuff that flew in December of 1944 winds up in maps in early Feb!!![/QUOTE]

sure, tell that oleg - but no in this sim anymore.
btw, there fore in that link above is "begin, middle ore end " of a year

p1ngu666
06-16-2005, 07:23 PM
aprently the jet bases had tons of flak, that was the main danger, im going off whats in clostermans book tho

WWMaxGunz
06-16-2005, 09:47 PM
Month and year would have made much more sense especially for online wars that span
months over different battles but mostly because mission month could easily determine
possible plane mix.

As Gibbage says, you need your own planesets and I think serious server operators (at
least they feel serious about it) and online war organizers do. At least no one is
stuck with the 1C dates.

Badsight.
06-16-2005, 10:21 PM
i love the Late 38

TY Maddox Games

BigKahuna_GS
06-17-2005, 04:44 AM
S!

I Luv the P38L Late too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

It would just be nice to see a 1944 Spit 14 flying against late war 44/45 german A/C, rather than a 1942 Spit 9 straining to catch anything that has speed--which most 44/45 a/c do. The Tempest would balance out the 190 speed demons down low. The P47 F/M has seen so many trails and tribulations that the only way to make it competetive again would be to add the P47M or hey actualy give the Jug it's historical strengths of speed, dive, zoom & energy retention.


___

ElAurens
06-17-2005, 05:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
It would just be nice to see a 1944 Spit 14 flying against late war 44/45 german A/C, rather than a 1942 Spit 9 straining to catch anything that has speed--___ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wonder why no one ever mentions the Spitfire VIII? It is actually the latest Spitfire design in the sim currently, and has better performance (at least in real life) than the Spitfire IX. The IX series were largely rebuilt V airframes with more power, whilst the VIII was a totally new/imporved airframe, the design time for which actually pushed it's entry into service after the IX series.

bolillo_loco
06-17-2005, 03:01 PM
<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 609IAP_Kahuna:
It would just be nice to see a 1944 Spit 14 flying against late war 44/45 german A/C, rather than a 1942 Spit 9 straining to catch anything that has speed--___ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wonder why no one ever mentions the Spitfire VIII? It is actually the latest Spitfire design in the sim currently, and has better performance (at least in real life) than the Spitfire IX. The IX series were largely rebuilt V airframes with more power, whilst the VIII was a totally new/imporved airframe, the design time for which actually pushed it's entry into service after the IX series. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the spit Mk VIII in this game is so slow below 6000 meters when compairing it to the 109K4 and Fw 190D9 as to make it ineffective unless said 109 and 190 begin to turn with it at low speeds.

at altitudes of 4,000 meters or less the K4 on manual prop pitch leaves an current spit feeling weighed, measured, and found wanting, especially in a climb.

since many people seem to misunderstand the performance gains of the bf 109k on manual pitch I will further explain it if you have the patients to put up with my insanity.

I will gladly show anybody this who runs into me in the hyper lobby.

two bf 109k4s flying at sea level with an airspeed of 300 kmph go into a steep climb. k4-x uses manual prop pitch while k4 y does not. with in 30 seconds plane x will be so much higher than plane y that he can now effectively begin to boom and zoom plane y, now you show me any other plane in this game that can perform like this while using manual prop pitch. it also works in level flight so that you can leave people in the dust. during take off a k4 using manual can already be off the ground with wheels retracted while the k4 using auto pitch will still be rolling down the runway.

for the 4 billionth time "No other plane in this game has performance gains while using manual pitch like the Bf 109 series does"

hence bring on the spitty XIV!


bolillo_loco, Known "nancy boy" spitfire hater extaodinaire

QUOTE Hristo "Spit Mk XIV? Great! more nancy boys to kill"
http://free-kc.t-com.hr/nino/sig03.jpg

Monty_Thrud
06-18-2005, 07:23 AM
There's some info on P38's HERE (http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/) it probably isnt the same P38 but hope it helps http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif