PDA

View Full Version : origional Il2 aircobra



XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 08:55 PM
is the il2 aircobra accurate? meaning is it modeled as well as in FB In Il2 it seems a little prone to stalling and like it's gun platform is less effective than it should be. tellme what you think


The Young Lions in the Forest suffer and lack, But thoser who know the Lord Shall not want of any good thing. Keep your tongue from Evil and your lips from speaking deciet. Depart from evil, do good and pursue it!

>Psalms

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 08:55 PM
is the il2 aircobra accurate? meaning is it modeled as well as in FB In Il2 it seems a little prone to stalling and like it's gun platform is less effective than it should be. tellme what you think


The Young Lions in the Forest suffer and lack, But thoser who know the Lord Shall not want of any good thing. Keep your tongue from Evil and your lips from speaking deciet. Depart from evil, do good and pursue it!

>Psalms

Buzz_25th
10-20-2003, 08:57 PM
I think the P-39 was more accurate in IL2, and from what I hear. It will be back ther in the new patch.

Welcome back to vicious stalls.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25th_Buzz
<center>
http://www.vfa25.com/sigs/buzz.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 09:07 PM
No, I don't think so. P-39 from il2 was a plane that could not be adopted by any airforce.

Now, it is almost right, if spins, as many as they are in FB, would transform more easily in flat spins. Problems with P-39 now are the slightly exagerated turn and climb (though they were slightly corrected from v1.0).


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Buzz_25th
10-20-2003, 09:16 PM
You know this because you've flown one Huck? Show me some documents that says the P-39 was as easy to fly as the Yak?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25th_Buzz
<center>
http://www.vfa25.com/sigs/buzz.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 09:27 PM
Trust me, the P-39 was much more realistic in the original IL2. Now, it barely even spins! In the original IL2, you had to handle it like a newborn baby! If you didn't, KABOOM!! Although, once you got it down pat, there was almost nobody that could take u down.

Boosher-PBNA
----------------
<center>It's your fault... <center>
Boosher-ProudBirds-VFW
http://www.uploadit.org/files/220903-Boosher%20Sig.jpg

Rew_
10-20-2003, 09:36 PM
If the P39 is accurate now I have no idea why the US Air Force dumped it. Christ, the things a damned rocket and has amazing acceleration.

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 09:40 PM
Original IL-2 was far superior, from a aerodynamics/physics perspective. I have not flown a P-39, but I have flown many aircraft types including warbirds and I know a thing or two about flight physics, and the current FB version is a big step back for many planes.

S!
TX-EcoDragon
Black 1
TX Squadron XO
http://www.txsquadron.com

Member-Team Raven
http://www.waynehandley.com

(Former)Reserve Pilot Aircraft #2 of Gruppo 313
Pattuglia Acrobatica Virtuale
http://www.vhvt.com/

http://www.attitudeaviation.com/

http://www.calaggieflyers.com/



http://www.txsquadron.com/uploaded/TX-EcoDragon/ravenvert.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 10:00 PM
Buzz_25th wrote:
- You know this because you've flown one Huck? Show me
- some documents that says the P-39 was as easy to fly
- as the Yak?

Show me an aircraft accepted by the airforce that enters in a flight spin just by pulling slightly the stick, sometimes even in a dive. Watch how many times the stall warning light is on in a dive, just by cutting power to 50%. Do you think that is realistic? Oh Buzz.

Fw-190 and P-39 had in Il2 completely unrealistic stall/spin behaviour. Nobody denies that P-39 was more prone to flat spins that other fighters, but where have you read that P-39 spun in each sortie, 50% from those being flat spins? You're the expert Buzz, you tell us.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 10:09 PM
Iam beginning to think this game is complete bogus... everyone says something about a planes performance saying its not true..

109 -- isnt fast enought etc... over heats too easy

LA7/Yak9 -- seems popular feeling is its way over modeled.. or from what i heard most russian planes..

P39 -- from me flying around this thing in the game is a stud, fast, turns great... kinda reminds me of what a p51 would do, maybe they where just giving us the a wolf in sheeps clothing? lol

its all good, but how can u model a plane if you havent flown it???? just opinnions you are taking into account... so i say just have fun and enjoy the game.. because its not perfect.

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 10:15 PM
Rew_ wrote:
- If the P39 is accurate now I have no idea why the US
- Air Force dumped it. Christ, the things a damned
- rocket and has amazing acceleration.
-

I fly the p-39, online and off.. And I can tell you it aint no rocket... Find me another 1944 plane that's slower than the p39Q1..

It's almost impossible to catch people/outrun them and the engine must be one of the absolute worst for overheating..

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.su27flanker.flyer.co.uk/spitire.jpg


~ Supermarine Spitfire Mk.IX LF

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 10:43 PM
i beg to differ, i had a P39Q catch me at 5k in a even run and climb... so i believe its over uberfied.. but hey

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 10:53 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

-
- Show me an aircraft accepted by the airforce that
- enters in a flight spin just by pulling slightly the
- stick, sometimes even in a dive. Watch how many
- times the stall warning light is on in a dive, just
- by cutting power to 50%. Do you think that is
- realistic? Oh Buzz.

This is a complete exaggeration. I flew the IL-2 version of the P-39 90% of the time online. If you knew what you were doing you could avoid spins and be very effective with the Cobra.

An American saying was "If you sneezed the P-39 would go into a spin". It was unstable but, with a steady hand at the stick the Cobra was deadly.

Buzz_25th
10-20-2003, 11:27 PM
Sorry for the late responce Huck. I had stuff to do.

Never mind trying to turn around my question. I'll ask again. Show me a document that says the P-39 was easy to fly?

As for the IL2 P-39? I'm just average, and had no problem with flying the P-39 without stalling it. If you were ham fisted,then it stalled as it should.

See if you can leave out the sarcasm in your answer.





------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25th_Buzz
<center>
http://www.vfa25.com/sigs/buzz.jpg

ZG77_Nagual
10-20-2003, 11:42 PM
Based on everything I've read and seen - which is quite a bit by now - it's obvious there are widely divergent views on this subject. Most american reviews are not favorable - but also almost all are about early models. The brits thought it a good low-level dogfighter - but it wasn't what they needed - the russians - who flew it the most - thought it an excellent and well-balanced dogfighter.

In my opinion the plane was undermodeled in il2 - by quite a bit - like any plane you could be effective in it but it had poor acceleration, and turn, was very unstable laterally, no zoom climb to speak of and did not accelerate or handle well in a dive. Now it is probably a bit over modeled - flat spins are rarer than it other aircraft that should be less prone to them - and sustained climb seems overdone (though zoom climb should be very good - as should e retention in general). I don't agree the il2 model was better - it was just as bad or worse - just in the opposite direction. It will be interesting to see how it is affected in the patch.


(OMG - I'm agreeing with Huck!!!)

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/whiner.jpg


Message Edited on 10/20/0306:44PM by ZG77_Nagual

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 12:24 AM
Smoke? I should smell Smoke.

Maybe a big cat?


http://www.jw-design.net/SIGGINEW.jpg


The world will change when you are ready to pronounce this oath:
I swear by my Life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man,
nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine.

Miss A. R.

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 12:25 AM
Hey Huck, the Red pilots that flew it knew how to handle it. Most American and British didnt.

---------------------------------
<img src=http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/history/wwii/ce32-1.jpg>

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 12:30 AM
Buzz instead of asking show me this show me that, how about you back up what you say for once? You can't?

Nic

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 12:31 AM
Those Russian vodka-chugging pilots like anything. Look at the other crap they flew into battle.

~Tate

___________________


Ubi Forums: No Scripts, No Lounge, No Fun

CWoS Forever.

<center> http://www.maxfurnitures.com/data/18f02d09-c264-4226-900a-814ae8f87368.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 12:35 AM
The P-39 acted very differently in different climates.

It made a show in various theatres and was used in incredibly different was by different Air Forces.

The records of it's history and perfomance I think are subject to those facts


http://www.jw-design.net/SIGGINEW.jpg


The world will change when you are ready to pronounce this oath:
I swear by my Life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man,
nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine.

Miss A. R.

Buzz_25th
10-21-2003, 01:06 AM
Hey Nic! You've never read the P-39 had vicious spins? Do I really need to find that for you?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25th_Buzz
<center>
http://www.vfa25.com/sigs/buzz.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 01:11 AM
Rew_ wrote:
- If the P39 is accurate now I have no idea why the US
- Air Force dumped it. Christ, the things a damned
- rocket and has amazing acceleration.

Have we all forgotten how the russians stripped the P39 to pieces after they received them from the United States. The US used the P39 for ground attack in the pacific, thus it had very thick armor and was much heavier and clumsier. But when the Russians got it they stripped most of the armor off it, and it became a contender (kinda). Anyway, IMHO, the P39 was a tad too heavy and stally in the regular Il2, but also in FB its a little too good in terms of turning ability etc....

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.stephencohengallery.com/current_exhib/P-40.jpg



Steaks
375th FS

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 01:15 AM
I would say it just how they program the planes and where they got the information from. Did they use pilots reports or did they program the aircraft from engineers specs and information. Just the fact that everyone flies different and that it maybe one person junk and another person treasure. Not to say it just a game there got to be flaws in it.

ZG77_Nagual
10-21-2003, 01:27 AM
ONce more the much posted interview

http://airforce.users.ru/lend-lease/english/articles/golodnikov/part3.htm

this basically mirrors comments by other vvs aces who flew it. The 39 was, supposedly - very light on the controls - if you were used to anything else you could easily over control it - even at faster speeds - high speed control is one of the debated items on this board - with some good evidence and pilot reports lending weight to the argument - stick force was very light - it woud take alot of getting used to in combat. And a good attitude.

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/whiner.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 03:00 AM
Hey, its a forum. You come here to talk and wish and hope about the game. It's mostly good natured griping anyway... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

The Young Lions in the Forest suffer and lack, But thoser who know the Lord Shall not want of any good thing. Keep your tongue from Evil and your lips from speaking deciet. Depart from evil, do good and pursue it!

>Psalms

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 04:06 AM
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


THE BELL XP-39 AIRACOBRA


How America's Best Pre-War Single Engine Fighter
Was Ruined By The Air Corps

The story of the Bell P-39 is one that causes you to stop and think of what might have been, as opposed to what actually was. Having gone down in aviation history as the "Iron Dog", the Airacobra had from its inception, the potential to be the world's finest fighter aircraft at the beginning of America's involvement in WWII. That it instead became one of the wars most loathsome fighters, easily conceals the real potential the prototype.
Bell's XP-39 prototype was rolled out for the world to see on April 6, 1939 at Wright Field. Essentially designed around the new Oldsmobile 37mm cannon (not unlike the A-10 Warthog), the XP-39 was the second design which incorporated the 37mm to come from Bell. Their original concept had placed the cannon behind a front mounted engine, pushing the cockpit too far to the rear of the fuselage to be practical.

Bell's chief engineer, Robert Woods, went back to work and conceived an aircraft with a mid engine location, which allowed the plane's nose to be dedicated to a very heavy ( by late 1930's standards ) battery of weapons. This rather unusual engine placement was not unique. A mid-engine concept had been tried by Koolhoven of Holland with limited success due to a poor choice of powerplant and inadequate technology. Their FK-55 fighter did not live up to expectations. The general concept, however, was not without merit.

Woods' design employed the new Allison V1710 engine, rated at 1,150 hp with the new B-5 turbosupercharger. Installation of the Turbosupercharged Allison promised excellent high altitude performance. This provided for a critical altitude of 20,000 feet, about the same as the XP-38. Expectations were fully met and justified when, on April 6, the XP-39 attained a speed of 390 mph. Later flights produced speeds that flirted with 400 mph (398 mph was reported). Bell's little fighter also displayed a remarkable rate of climb, reaching 20,000 feet in 5 minutes flat! This odd looking aircraft created no small stir in the aviation community. Nothing flying in Europe could match the overall level of performance displayed by the XP-39. At least nothing having the potential for production. It should be noted that the prototype was unarmed and was not fitted with armor plate nor self-sealing fuel tanks (the last two items were not part of the USAAC specification).

Despite the superlative performance of the new Bell fighter, there were design flaws. An undersized vertical stabilizer led to problems with directional stability. Woods' also made a poor choice in airfoil section for the wing. These problems could have been overcome, and in fact, the vertical stabilizer was later redesigned to resemble that of the Curtiss P-36/P-40. Airfoil section design was not addressed until the P-63 Kingcobra, where a laminar flow wing was employed.

After the initial test flight, the XP-39 was turned over to the engineers at Wright Field. And here is where the P-39 was generally undone.

At the time the Bell was being evaluated, the AAF was deep into "streamlining" as a way to improve aircraft performance. This is somewhat understandable, due to the relatively low powered aircraft engines of the 1930's. By reducing drag, especially parasite drag, the engineering minds at Wright Field found that significant increases in performance could be attained. This was all well and good. Unfortunately, they carried it too far as it related to the XP-39. NACA engineers decided that the Bell's turbosupercharger inlet created too much drag. Certainly the inlet generated no greater drag than did the Prestone inlets on the Lockheed XP-38. Nonetheless, they were insistent, the inlet scoop had to go. They reduced the height of the canopy, chopped 2 feet off the wing span and lengthened the fuselage by over a foot. A less powerful Allison with only a single stage mechanical supercharger replaced the turbosupercharged engine. This effectively eliminated decent high altitude performance. Thanks to these changes, the Airacobra had it's center of gravity shifted further aft, exacerbating its already marginal stability. All said and done, the people at Wright Field had reversed the old cliche, and created a sow's ear out of a silk purse.

Certainly Larry Bell and Bob Woods were outraged at the butchered result. Unfortunately, there was very little they could afford to do about it. Bell Aircraft was at the edge of bankruptcy. Having only produced 15 total flyable aircraft, of any type, Bell was deep in debt. Neither Bell nor Woods were willing to go to the mat for their beautiful fighter. To preserve the company's financial viability, they would have to take it on the chin. Their pressing need was to get an order and establish some inward cash flow.

Fortunately, Bell sold the French on the P-39 and received 2 million dollars in advance on an eleven million dollar order. Later that same year (1940), Bell received orders for just under 1,000 P-39Cs and Ds from the USAAF. These were equipped with self-sealing fuel tanks and additional armor, the weight of which, only further degraded performance. Without the turbosupercharger, or even a gear driven two speed, two stage supercharger, the Airacobra was not capable of taking on modern fighter aircraft at anything above 10,000 feet. It should also be noted that the early versions of the Allison V1710 engine never produced anything close to their advertised power rating without a turbosupercharger pressurizing the intake system.

Overall handling had degraded to a point where some claimed (without a grain of truth) that if the pilot simply sneezed, the plane would spin. Some Brits flat out refused to fly the plane, one pilot saying it was more dangerous to RAF pilots than the Luftwaffe. Such extreme examples of exaggeration followed the P-39 throughout its service life.

Adding to the general unhappiness with the airplane, the 37mm Colt M4 cannon frequently jammed after only firing a few rounds. The balance of the guns, 2 .50 cal. M2 and 4 .30 cal. Brownings were inadequate by 1942 standards. One of the problems pointed out by the British was the cockpit being filled with cordite fumes after firing the guns. They also found that firing the guns would knock the magnetic compass out of whack. The RAF did admit that at low level they found the Airacobra to be a match for the Bf-109E. Unfortunately, the RAF needed a high altitude fighter. Besides, the Luftwaffe was now getting newer and far better performing fighters.

Because the Russians were seemingly satisfied with the P-39 is not indicative of the aircraft's performance as much as the Russian's desperate need for combat aircraft. Moreover, the air war on the eastern front was fought largely below 20,000 feet, and more often than not, well below that. At these heights, the P-39 possessed some marginal level of capability. Credit must be given to those Soviet pilots who, despite the severe limits of the aircraft, used them very effectively against the Luftwaffe's superior Bf 109s and Focke Wulf 190s.

Bell P-39s served in North Africa and Italy with the USAAF and several other Allies including the Free French and Italians. Airacobra service in the Pacific has been the subject of many books and articles. In a single sentence; the "Iron Dog" was replaced as quickly as possible.

Taken as a whole, the P-39 was a dismal failure of the AAF's engineering and procurement establishment to identify and develop the better attributes of an advanced and promising fighter aircraft. This was the same establishment that prevented Lockheed from installing Merlin engines in the P-38 as early as 1941. Had the USAAC (Air Corps) not stripped the turbosupercharger from the XP-39, the United States may have entered the war with a competitive single engine fighter plane already in service. Indeed, it was not until the advent of the Bell P-63 that the level of performance finally matched that of the Bell XP-39 of 1939. Of course, by that time, the P-63 was already outclassed by the P-38, P-47 and P-51. Indeed, the P-63 was too little too late. In large part, it was the Air Corps myopic vision of the future of aerial warfare that caused it to be so.



<CENTER>http://www.world-wide-net.com/tuskegeeairmen/ta-1943.jpg <marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"Straighten up.......Fly right..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee> http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat

<CENTER><FONT COLOR="ORANGE">vflyer@comcast.net<FONT COLOR>
<Center><div style="width:200;color:red;font-size:18pt;filter:shadow Blur[color=red,strength=8)">99th Pursuit Squadron

Buzz_25th
10-21-2003, 04:32 AM
Does this sound like the P-39 we have in FB now?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25th_Buzz
<center>
http://www.vfa25.com/sigs/buzz.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 04:39 AM
No way, the snake got nuetered! When the elevator response got so dumbed up, that it is now SOP just hold the full elevator ( against the stop) and wait.

The factory modifications tweaked the bird a bit, added structure to empennage to increase safety margins over 410MPH, increased elevator pressure per G from 2#s, per to 4 #'s per. ( From N model on...)

In sum this was a pilots plane, a low time driver without serious transition training, could get in serious trouble.

The bird ( in FB) will flat spin, even now but darn you have to absolutely force it. The bird in RL would seem to respond to thought not force.

See/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif -39's Elevator Respones Since 1.1b...... first date of thread 8/29/03 in ORR.

The machine as evolved to more arcade like handling, IMHO.

~S!





BPO5_Jinx
C.O. Replacement Air Group
Birds of Prey. 16th GvIAP
http://www.birdsofprey16thgviap.com
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/RS-15/N50GL.html

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 04:43 AM
Keep in mind what Steaks said........

<CENTER>http://www.world-wide-net.com/tuskegeeairmen/ta-1943.jpg <marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"Straighten up.......Fly right..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee> http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat

<CENTER><FONT COLOR="ORANGE">vflyer@comcast.net<FONT COLOR>
<Center><div style="width:200;color:red;font-size:18pt;filter:shadow Blur[color=red,strength=8)">99th Pursuit Squadron

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 05:24 AM
Okay,weren't the P-39 models that US pilots hated the earlier ones? And weren't the ones that were sent to Russia later, improved models that were modified for Russian use? The P-39 that the USAAF pilots hated are different than the ones sent to Russia(and what's in FB). So aren't these claims that the "FB P-39" is too good inaccurate? Am I wrong in thinking this?

47|FC
http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 06:59 AM
necrobaron wrote:
- Okay,weren't the P-39 models that US pilots hated
- the earlier ones? And weren't the ones that were
- sent to Russia later, improved models that were
- modified for Russian use? The P-39 that the USAAF
- pilots hated are different than the ones sent to
- Russia(and what's in FB). So aren't these claims
- that the "FB P-39" is too good inaccurate? Am I
- wrong in thinking this?
-
- 47|FC

The U.S. didn't like early P-39s, they didn't like late P-39s and they didn't like P-63s. This doesn't mean they were bad planes, they just didn't meet U.S. pilots expectations of a great fighter. Not in the East and not in the West.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 04:02 PM
i think they should remodel the whole game to where its not even fun anymore. lame

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_01.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 04:40 PM
I have to agree with Buzz... (now shoot me!!!) /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Yes, I flew (and still fly) the P-39 a lot in the original IL2, and if you are used to it, it`s not that hard to fly.

You have to handle her carefully, and that`s what I`d call realistic, isn`t it?

Nobody can seriously claim the same for the noob-fighter of FB... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 04:45 PM
Does any of you POS want to explain a dedicated P-39 pilot since day 1, why are you arguing over this aircraft like it was used the same way in all theatres??????????

Does it realy have to be glued to the back of your heads, a sign saying you are categorizing this aircraft, for the way the Americans and the British flown it, and how they expected it to perform at the heights they were used to, as the oposite heights and tactics used by the Soviets??

Do you realy think the Soviets would have chosen this aircraft as they'r workhorse if it behaved like it did in IL-2, or are you just plain and simply calling the Russians dumb and stupid?

I swear to god, you boys are getting worse by the week!!!!


I fly this bucket of bolts since the days it behaved worse in favorable weather conditions, than a rinky dinky Cessna in the epicenter of a tropical storm, and NOW you clumsy pilots come and tell me its overmoddeled!!?

Boy oh boy, how low this community has come!



And BTW, i don't fly the Q1 or Q10, i dance with the N1, so pleeeeeease do tell me this is overmoddeled!!

Pretty please with sugar on top! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

<center>http://mysite.freeserve.com/resev/images/1-picture1.gif?0.8490278826190298 (http://oksquad.free.fr)</center><font color="#59626B">

Message Edited on 10/21/0304:47PM by resev

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 05:34 PM
resev wrote:
- Does any of you POS want to explain a dedicated P-39
- pilot since day 1, why are you arguing over this
- aircraft like it was used the same way in all
- theatres??????????
-
- Does it realy have to be glued to the back of your
- heads, a sign saying you are categorizing this
- aircraft, for the way the Americans and the British
- flown it, and how they expected it to perform at the
- heights they were used to, as the oposite heights
- and tactics used by the Soviets??
-
- Do you realy think the Soviets would have chosen
- this aircraft as they'r workhorse if it behaved like
- it did in IL-2, or are you just plain and simply
- calling the Russians dumb and stupid?
-
- I swear to god, you boys are getting worse by the
- week!!!!
-
-
- I fly this bucket of bolts since the days it behaved
- worse in favorable weather conditions, than a rinky
- dinky Cessna in the epicenter of a tropical storm,
- and NOW you clumsy pilots come and tell me its
- overmoddeled!!?
-
- Boy oh boy, how low this community has come!
-
-
-
- And BTW, i don't fly the Q1 or Q10, i dance with the
- N1, so pleeeeeease do tell me this is overmoddeled!!
-
- Pretty please with sugar on top!


Yes Resev, I`m talking about the N1 too.

And since you asked so nicely: Yes, in FB the P-39 IS overmodelled. Not only that, it`s WAY off.

Oh, and please don`t come along as the only holder of the truth. It just makes you look stupid. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 05:47 PM
leonid05 wrote:

- Yes Resev, I`m talking about the N1 too.
-
- And since you asked so nicely: Yes, in FB the P-39
- IS overmodelled. Not only that, it`s WAY off.
-
- Oh, and please don`t come along as the only holder
- of the truth. It just makes you look stupid.


Nice of you calling me stupid indirectly.

I guess your are a P-39 pilot in Russia in 43, riding a P-39N1 and saying:

- Gawd darn imperialists, look at what they sold the VVS!
* a few minutes later he crashes when he had to sneeze and the craft went into an unrecoverable inverted flatspin *


Can you page me your e-mail?
Got a little something here that you'l consider a real gem when you see it.




<center>http://mysite.freeserve.com/resev/images/1-picture1.gif?0.8490278826190298 (http://oksquad.free.fr)</center><font color="#59626B">

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 05:54 PM
I read yor some post Resev and I hope that you aren't betatester in FB. If you are i know now why FB is a big mistake compare to Il2.

ZG77_Nagual
10-21-2003, 06:07 PM
It's too bad all the data that's been exchanged on this board on this subject isn't available in one place.

This debate goes on and on only because people have trouble accepting that the american party line about this plane is not accurate - mostly because of a lack of understanding about the circumstances under which it was formed.

Basically - The P39 was a very good plane. Americans in the pacific employed an antiquated dogfighting paradigm against the superior numbers of superior turning japanese planes flown by superbly trained and experience pilots who almost allways had the alt advantage. It's rep was formed by it's situation as much as anything else. The p39 was very sensitive on the controls and not for the heavy handed. Bearcat - your post is mostly 'the party line' You can also find innumerable 'authoritative' accountings of the 39 that say the vvs used it for ground attack: which we know to be untrue - if you want to understand an airplane you need to read accounts by pilots who flew it and mastered it - not after the fact historians. (read here: vvs pilots) The russians CHOSE the p39 over other types they could have requested (moreover - they CHOSE the p39 for the duration of the war) - their requests were for spitfires and p39s. A number of sov pilots preferred the p39 - even over later vvs designs. Face it - it was a good plane - this is as proven as proven can be by it's combat record with the vvs. They didn't fly it because they were desperate - they flew it because they liked it - and they like it because it was at least as good or better than the opposition.

The p63 was a powerful fighter - according to america's hundred K it rolled better than ANY american type in ww2 - and it's turn was second only to the FM2 wildcat. It also had excellent climb, accel and low alt speed as well as good performance at high alt. What it did not have was range. Golodnikov described it as a 'quantum leap' above the p39.

some interesting perspectives on the p39 here

http://www.yarchive.net/mil/p39.html

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/whiner.jpg


Message Edited on 10/21/03 01:10PM by ZG77_Nagual

Message Edited on 10/21/0301:14PM by ZG77_Nagual

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 06:14 PM
ZG77_Nagual wrote:
- It's too bad all the data that's been exchanged on
- this board on this subject isn't available in one
- place.


Yeah, this topic has been discussed so many times over.


- Basically - The P39 was a very good plane. Americans
- in the pacific employed an antiquated dogfighting
- paradigm against the superior numbers of superior
- turning japanese planes flown by superbly trained
- and experience pilots who almost allways had the alt
- advantage. It's rep was formed by it's situation as
- much as anything else. The p39 was very sensitive on
- the controls and not for the heavy handed. Bearcat -
- your post is mostly 'the party line' - if you want
- to understand an airplane you need to read accounts
- by pilots who flew it and mastered it - not after
- the fact historians. (read here: vvs pilots) The
- russians CHOSE the p39 over other types they could
- have requested - their requests were for spitfires
- and p39s. A number of sov pilots preferred the p39 -
- even over later vvs designs. Face it - it was a good
- plane - this is as proven as proven can be by it's
- combat record with the vvs. They didn't fly it
- because they were desperate - they flew it because
- they liked it - and they like it because it was at
- least as good or better than the opposition.
-
- The p63 was a powerful fighter - according to
- america's hundred K it rolled better than ANY
- american type in ww2 - and it's turn was second only
- to the FM2 wildcat. It also had excellent climb,
- accel and low alt speed as well as good performance
- at high alt. What it did not have was range.
- Golodnikov described it as a 'quantum leap' above
- the p39.



Damnnnnnnnnn right.
Wish more ppl had they'r eyes open more often.

I got a perfect example of what you say, around here somewhere, about the tactics used by the American with the P-40.

Let me search around a bit, i know i have this webpage adress talking about just that, stored around here somewhere, but i didn't kept it in the favorites.

Gimme a few minutes...

<center>http://mysite.freeserve.com/resev/images/1-picture1.gif?0.8490278826190298 (http://oksquad.free.fr)</center><font color="#59626B">

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 06:28 PM
resev, I`m far from calling you stupid.

I wasn`t referring to your intelligence, but your attitude.


That said, did you read my first post in this thread?
All I`m saying is that you have to handle the P-39 carefully, or "sensitive", like Nagual said.

Of course she was a better fighter than her reputation is, but in FB you actually have to FORCE her into a stall, and that can`t be the truth, right?

Probably you should give IL2 a try again. The P-39 wasn`t that bad in it, if flown correctly. Way more challenging.
Your example of the russian pilot stalling because of sneezing is a bit off, don`t you think? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

ZG77_Nagual
10-21-2003, 06:39 PM
According to my understanding - the sustained climb is probably a bit overmodeled - though , as mentioned, zoom should be very very good. Also - along with greater sensitivity in the controls goes better high speed handline - the p39 should turn quite well at higher speeds.

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/whiner.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 06:59 PM
Here we go, took me a while:


http://yarchive.net/mil/p40.html

<center>http://mysite.freeserve.com/resev/images/1-picture1.gif?0.8490278826190298 (http://oksquad.free.fr)</center><font color="#59626B">

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 07:02 PM
Next Patch or add-on will make this clear.

I bet it will get worse. /i/smilies/16x16_robot-happy.gif

In 1.0, we got Hurricane that brought this debate. In 1.11, AiraCobra took the turn.

<br/i/smilies/16x16_robot-mad.gif ================================

<font size = 1/i/smilies/16x16_robot-mad.gif 815=Squadron in South Korea
http://cafe.daum.net/il2sturmovik
</font>

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 07:09 PM
Weren't there people insisting that the Hurri was modelled correctly in 1.0? I guess some people like not having to worry about bleeding E and like a 90kph stall speed. It must certainly make flying and fighting easier.

I'm looking forward to flying the Cobra in 1.2! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 07:45 PM
For better or for worse.

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<center>http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/bp_geminiCombined.gif

<center><table style="filter:glow[color=red,strength=1)">Warning: My intense sense of humor may tug at the stick crammed in your shaded spot.</table style></center> <center><table style="filter:glow[color=red,strength=1)">If you treasure your lack of humor please refrain from reading my posts as they may cause laughter.</table style></center> <center><table style="filter:glow[color=red,strength=1)">Heaven Forbid.</table style></center>
<center><table style="filter:glow[color=black,strength=4)"> P-39 Vet since the original IL-2 Sturmovik </table style></center> <center><table style="filter:glow[color=black,strength=4)"> Soon to be P-63 Vet </table style></center>

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif
<table style="filter:glow[color=green,strength=4)">www.blitzpigs.com</center> </table style>

ZG77_Nagual
10-21-2003, 07:46 PM
Definitely not me on the Hurri - the vvs pilot opinions of that plane - and the finns for that matter - are unanimous.

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/whiner.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 09:32 PM
Here's some good stuff i found.

Pretty much an eye opener.

Its a small copy and paste from: http://www.yarchive.net/mil/p39.html



From: cdb100620@aol.com (CDB100620)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: What undid the P-39.......
Date: 14 May 1998 05:39:03 GMT

>The P-39 served the RAF for less than 4 months before being withdrawn. That,
>I believe, is far more telling testimony than any "technical evaluation".

When Ben Kelsey was chief of the Fighter Project Branch at Wright Field before
the US entered the war, he was part of a team that evaluated the Spitfire for
possible production in the United States. The plane was already legendary for
its performance in the Battle of Britain, and the American evaluators
approached the aircraft with mixed awe and enthusiasm. But they quickly soured
on the airplane. As part of the evaluation, Kelsey flew the Spitfire from
Wright Field in Ohio to March Field in California. The trip was a nightmare.
Because of the short range of the airplane, he had to land at a number of
little-used secondary airfields and often touched down with the engine running
on little more than gas fumes. At many fields, engine cooling was inadequate
to permit taxiing from the landing strip to the service area. Long runways on
high desert airfields involved crosswind taxing that burned out the brakes.
The aircraft's marginal stability when airborne quickly exhausted the pilot,
especially in rough air. It was impossible to safely skirt the edges of even a
mild midwestern thunderstorm because of the plane's skittish handling, and what
was routine heartland weather in a P-40--or P-39--was dangerous in a
Spitfire.... In short, there were so many things wrong with the Spitfire from
the American point of view that the Air Corps evaluation board ruled it
unacceptable.
The point being that what one air force wants and needs is not what another one
does, and their evaluations of airplanes will be prejudiced by their own
requirements. The fact that the RAF had no particular use for the P-39 should
not be given more weight than the fact that the Soviet Air Force apparently not
only liked the P-39, but specifically requested it (my source for this is
Richard Lukas' "Eagles East," which is a fairly old book, but seems well
researched.)
{As an aside, Prof. Williamson Murray, who used to teach at the Air War
College, has said that the Luftwaffe had become a second-rate air force by the
end of 1943 at the latest, largely due to the atttrition warfare on the eastern
front. The P-39 must have played a part, perhaps a significant one, in
attriting the Luftwaffe; at least the Soviets, in negotiating the Third
Washington Protocol, which covered Lend-Lease to the USSR from Jan. thru June,
1943, asked for a staggering 500 P-39s a month to be delivered to them. They
had been using them (and P-400s) in combat for some time by then, and if the
airplane wasn't doing the job for them, they would have rejected it. They
certainly rejected the P-40 (which plane the USAAF in the SWPA thought was a
much better airplane than the P-39--again, different air force, different
needs)}.

It's interesting to note that the rate of climb of the P-39, which everybody in
the USAAF pi$$ed and moaned about, was actually not that bad. The D and F
models (identical except for props, one electric, one hydraulic) could beat
both the P47C and P-51A to 25,000 ft.--and take *half* the time the P-40E took.
A P-39Q could get to 25,000 ft. in about 10.5 minutes, almost six minutes
quicker than the P-51D. (Of course, the Q couldn't fly from London to Berlin
and back.)
One of the reasons the P-39 got a bad rap in the SWPA was that when it was
initially deployed fairly early in 1942, what was desperately needed was a
super-fast climbing interceptor, because the best warning of an incoming air
raid was about five minutes. What was needed was something like the CW-21
(something with its rate of climb, anyway). The fact was that no fighter would
have been able to respond effectively under those circumstances. But since the
P-39 was what was on hand, it got damned by frustrated pilots struggling uphill
at 160 mph while the Japanese, thousands of feet above, winged over and howled
down on them.
It's worth noting that, despite the disadvantages they fought under, the 8FG,
which took over from RAAF 75 Squadron at Moresby, suffered fewer losses with
its P-39s than did 75 Squadron with its P-40s. And it should not be forgotten
that the P-39 was, in fact, not a failure in those desperate early days in New
Guinea. The 8th (and later the 35th) and its Airacobras gave the JNAF's Tainan
Air Wing (and later the 2AW) and its Zeros a well-pulped and very bloody nose.
Air raids on Morseby tapered off from two a day at the end of April to one or
two a week by the end of June. Nobody else was shooting at the Japs, so it
must have been the P-39s that discouraged them.



*note* i had to edit one word because of the language filter.

<center>http://mysite.freeserve.com/resev/images/1-picture1.gif?0.8490278826190298 (http://oksquad.free.fr)</center><font color="#59626B">

Buzz_25th
10-21-2003, 09:49 PM
The question was is the P-39 more accurate in IL2 or now. Let's say the P-39 was slightly undermodeled in IL2. Maybe it did stall to easily, but if you had a light touch on the controls you were fine. Most all the dedicated P-39 pilots like Gemini liked the IL2 P-39.

Now we come to the FB P-39. You don't need a light touch to fly it. You can be a rank noob and do fine with it. Is this accurate? I won't even go into climb rate.I'm just talking about how easy it is to fly.

Maybe the answer is in between IL2 and what we have now. Maybe that's what the new patch will bring. However, if i had to pick a FM that's close to the real plane. I'd say the IL2 P-39 was closer.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25th_Buzz
<center>
http://www.vfa25.com/sigs/buzz.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 10:33 PM
Posted by REW...."If the P39 is accurate now I have no idea why the US Air Force dumped it. Christ, the things a damned rocket and has amazing acceleration. "


Because they flew the real ones, and not the imaginary ones we have.

These threads make me laugh.....It's accurate now! It's not accurate now!!! Oh yes it is!! OH NO IT ISN'T!

When the truth is... none of us know, because I'll bet that 95% of us have never flown an aircraft of any type, never mind a P39, or any other WW2 warbird.

So how does anyone now what's accurate and what isn't? It's pure speculation. Why bother, just go and enjoy the game.


"If I had all the money I've spent on drink....I'd spend it on drink!"

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 11:54 PM
We didn't fly any fighter of ww2. So EPP_Gibbs let to fly all planes in FB the same way. Are you happy than?

I doubt that Oleg will correct FM/DM such planes like La 5FN. La 7(expecially climb rate), I-16, Chaika, P-39 (maby little but not as IL2) and some others. I remember how flew P-39 and I-16 in IL2 - it was carefully to fly these birds but they were stil dangerous in good hand.