PDA

View Full Version : 1.1 P-39



XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 04:10 AM
Ok, i normally keep my whines to myself.... most of the time...

But i'll take some cheese, and call the Waaaambulance. Why does the p-39 outclimb 190A's??? I mean, i know that sometimes, they will have hte e advantage, speed advantage, etc. But sometimes i get outclimbed by p39's that *just* took off. This is with the rad. closed, erhohte on, and power 110%. I'm sorry, but from what I know, this shouldnt happen. The p39 wasnt that great of a plane in real life. The americans didn't like it, the british didnt want it, but the russians took it. because of the 37mm cannon, which they loved for ground attack. Now, i have a certin amount of respect for Dedicated P39 pilots, because it takes a heck of a shot to land that 37mm shell most of the time. But when i see this thing outclimb superior planes, pull crazy zoom climbs, go into a loop, not stall, and come out with tons of E, i just want to puke.

Proceed to flame me, because "I r teh 190 fanboy" or "An un-educated n00b" And defend your p39. Its a good plane, it takes a certin amount of skill to fly, but it just shouldnt be able to do some of the stuff it does. Just like my 190's high speed roll rate.

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 04:10 AM
Ok, i normally keep my whines to myself.... most of the time...

But i'll take some cheese, and call the Waaaambulance. Why does the p-39 outclimb 190A's??? I mean, i know that sometimes, they will have hte e advantage, speed advantage, etc. But sometimes i get outclimbed by p39's that *just* took off. This is with the rad. closed, erhohte on, and power 110%. I'm sorry, but from what I know, this shouldnt happen. The p39 wasnt that great of a plane in real life. The americans didn't like it, the british didnt want it, but the russians took it. because of the 37mm cannon, which they loved for ground attack. Now, i have a certin amount of respect for Dedicated P39 pilots, because it takes a heck of a shot to land that 37mm shell most of the time. But when i see this thing outclimb superior planes, pull crazy zoom climbs, go into a loop, not stall, and come out with tons of E, i just want to puke.

Proceed to flame me, because "I r teh 190 fanboy" or "An un-educated n00b" And defend your p39. Its a good plane, it takes a certin amount of skill to fly, but it just shouldnt be able to do some of the stuff it does. Just like my 190's high speed roll rate.

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 04:19 AM
Remember that the Russians took out some of the armor and guns in favor of better performance. Also depends on which model these one's you fought against were. The Q-10 has better performance than the N-1 because of its lighter gun loadout.

http://www.geocities.com/therealdiscman/sig1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 04:23 AM
The climb rate of the P-39 is excessive. Not much else to say, except "2 weeks".

Various sources state the P-39N climb rate at 1525m to be 13.2m/s. http://www.xs4all.nl/~fbonne/warbirds/ww2htmls/bellp39.html#bellp390 (http://www.xs4all.nl/~fbonne/warbirds/ww2htmls/bellp39.html#bellp390))

IL2compare states the P-39N climb rate at 1525 as being 19.5m/s. A big difference.

Also note that the P-39 does not conform to its ceiling, which should be 9784m. At 9784m, the P-39 is still capable of a 210m/s climb rate in FB.

http://members.shaw.ca/fennec/compare.jpg

You may have heard that the Russian P-39 is lighter than the American version. You will note that the P-39 empty weight in IL-2 object viewer (2,854 kg) is identical to the empty weight of the standard American version. So even if there were lighter P-39s, they are not in FB.

Even if they stripped the armor and radio out, they would only save a few kilos, as the P-39 does not have much armor to start with. Certainly nothing to justify a nearly 50% increase in climb rate.

I am now accepting donations to buy the smilies a new home.
http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb06894.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb57471.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb11726.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb75733.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb80477.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb64472.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb59442.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb80347.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb73057.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb48642.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb24962.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb72600.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb72327.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb10373.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb70750.gif



Message Edited on 09/11/0309:42PM by StG77_Fennec

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 04:42 AM
Yup, only thing you can do in a Fw-190 is run, straight out & level.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 04:58 AM
Korolov wrote:
- Yup, only thing you can do in a Fw-190 is run,
- straight out & level.
-
<img
- src="http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a
- .jpg">
-

...or dive and then do that 16G snap pull, like Pourshot showed. I allways end up like 500m lower in my "ubermodelled" P-39. Or do that fish flop as they call it. When I first saw it I thought that poor guy has broken joystick.../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 05:09 AM
StG77_Fennec wrote:

-
- You may have heard that the Russian P-39 is lighter
- than the American version. You will note that the
- P-39 empty weight in IL-2 object viewer (2,854 kg)
- is identical to the empty weight of the standard
- American version. So even if there were lighter
- P-39s, they are not in FB.

The object viewer also claims that the wing mounted guns in the Q1 model are .30 cal, which isn't the case. I also seem to remember that there have been many other errors in the object viewer data that have been reported in the past.

While I'm not discounting what you say as far as climb rates go, at this point I'm not inclined to believe data based on what's found in the IL2/FB object viewer, since it seems to have enough errors in it to make it at least somewhat suspect.

It may report the empty weight as identical to the American version, but that doesn't mean that it actually is in the sim (as evidenced by the guns in the Q1).

Is there any way to get a direct read on the weight numbers the sim actually uses for its calculations, or are we stuck with the object viewer as our only source? If we are, it seems likely that the best we can ever do is just guess, since we can never be sure if the data we're using is truly accurate.

As for service ceiling, once again, I'm not discounting the possibility that it's off, but to make a meaningful comparison we need to know the simulated conditions, and the conditions upon which the chart data is based.

Presumably the chart data is based on standard atmosphere, and the ceiling is density altitude (DA). However, what kind of atmosphere is IL2/FB modeling? Is it standard? Above standard? Below for the winter maps?

The altimeter in the sim isn't reading DA, so it's possible (and even likely) that it won't fall in line with the charts or data you have, unless the modeled atmosphere in FB is standard.

Again, I'm not saying you're wrong here (and it's late, and I'm tired and just throwing this out there), but without knowing for sure where we're starting from, it's difficult to draw any meaningful conclusions based on some random testing in the sim.

Even in the real world the best you could really hope for are ballpark figures, there's going to be some variation depending on the conditions, pilot and aircraft. Probably not 360'/min variation, but it's probably not going to exactly match your charts either.

I've said this before and I very much believe it: Flying is a lot like cooking. There's a whole lot of science involved, but when it comes down to it it's as much art as science.

Sure, you can figure everything down to gigahertz and nanoseconds, but when it comes to really doing it, the nature of the real world means that "good enough" is usually just as accurate when it comes to getting the final results, and it's a lot easier. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Or, as the saying goes, "Measure with a micrometer, mark with chalk, cut with an axe."

Message Edited on 09/12/0304:22AM by BinaryFalcon

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 05:19 AM
Ebriac, There may be a slight bit of overmodeling, pulling up, but i havent noticed it as noticable as purshot showed. maybe thats only the A8 an A9, but i know in the A5 when i try to do that i usually go splat.

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 05:27 AM
Salute Fennec

While I haven't tested the P-39 in the game, and am not sure what the performance figures it achieves are, I do know what the USAAF test figures for these aircraft are. And those do not correspond with the figures you are posting.

The book "America's Hundred Thousand" has climb figures for the P-39D, P-39N and P-39Q. This book has been accurate to original tests whenever I have had the opportunity to compare its charts to original ones.

The P-39's are listed as having the following initial climbrates at sea level in "A.H.T":

P-39D-1,2, F and K: 2400 ft/min at MILITARY power at Sea Level. (Military power is roughly equivalent to 100% power rating) This increases to a maximum of 2550 ft/min between 3,000 and 8,000 ft. That translates to a maximum of 12.95 meters per second.

P-39N, Q: 3250 ft/min at COMBAT power between Sea level and 3,000 ft, dropping off to 3100 ft/min between 3,000 and 12,000 ft. (COMBAT power is equivalent to 110% WEP) That translates to a maximum climbrate of 16.51 meters per second.

This second climbrate is clearly more than the figure you mention of 13.2 meters per second. So I think you are mistaken in pointing to the 13.2 figure.

Further:

It is important to remember that the Soviets removed equipment from these aircraft. For example, the standard P-39Q as tested by the USAAF had two wing mounted .50 calibre MG's plus ammunition. The Soviets removed that equipment in most of their Q models, and had the Bell Company remove it in the later models supplied to the Soviets. The weight of those guns and ammunition is approximately 300 pounds.

The Soviets also removed some armour and sometimes fuel cells from the wings.

Taking that into account, it is pretty clear that the P-39Q as flown by the Soviets, would have a better climbrate than 3250 ft/min. Just how good a climbrate is a question. I don't know. A rough guess would be around 3500-3600 ft/min, which would translate to between 17.78 and 18.28 meters per second. That is not 19.5 meters per second, but I don't have the info Oleg has.

I do have Soviet charts which show top speed of the P-39Q-15 but unfortunately I don't have charts for the climb of the aircraft. So I can't be sure.

I haven't tested the P-39's yet so who knows where they fall in FB.

My suggestion is that a series of people do tests, using the beta testers criteria. Ie.

1) Start at sea level, right on wavetops.

2) Initial speed 300 kph.

3) Climb in whatever means allows for the best rate, and check climb times at 5,000 ft, 10,000 ft, (3,000 meters) 15,000 ft, (4520 meters) 20,000 ft (6100 meters)

Then come back and check the figures versus the known facts.

RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 05:28 AM
How do you do a "fish-flop"?

denbug

http://www.il2skins.com/skins/thumbs/4765.jpg

get it here: http://www.il2skins.com/?action=display&skinid=4778

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 05:35 AM
denbug wrote:
- How do you do a "fish-flop"?
-


You basically just roll left and right like your on crack.

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 05:44 AM
BS87 wrote:
-
- denbug wrote:
-- How do you do a "fish-flop"?
--
-
-
- You basically just roll left and right like your on
- crack.
-
-

Something like that. From how it looked, the fish-flops are half-a-second rolls to the left, then right, up and down without any order...looks weird and funny till you want to shoot him. Then it can be really annoying.