PDA

View Full Version : Brewster Bug?



XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 01:50 AM
Seems that the Brewster B-239 never overheats with 110% throttle an closed radiator.

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 01:50 AM
Seems that the Brewster B-239 never overheats with 110% throttle an closed radiator.

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 02:05 AM
It does. After a very long time. During that time, it never reaches the historical speeds it should be capable of. Even after a dive, it quickly bleeds speed.

I heard this will be fixed in the final... I certainly hope so. But while they're at it, they should take a look at the Emil too... if the fix the B-239, it will beat the E-4 in level speed ;-D

The underdogs.


http://sivusto.servepics.com/~lahnat/werre2s.jpg

prkl

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 03:12 AM
yeah the b239 seems like a superplane in 1.11 1.2 the b239 was perfect in 1.0, even a brewster pilot tested the fm and they recorded a video for those who remember or can post a link of it again i would be greatful.

back in 1.0 the i153 and i16 were super planes compaired to the b239 it seems to be the b239 has been increased to be competitive with the i16 and i153, it can be beat with proper tactics but certain planes like the p40 and hurricane are getting extremely out performced by i16s i153s and b239s

<center>http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LS1.txt
Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter
<a HREF="http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authoridfilter=:Leadspitter:&comefrom=top5&ts=1068087655"> LeadSpitters Skins
</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 02:22 PM
"The easiest one to shoot down of the enemy fighters is the Hurricane. It is totally helpless against us below 3,000 meters. It is slow and very clumsy and unmanoeuvrable. Whenever you meet a Hurricane, engage it in a turn-fight, where it is totally at our mercy. It is best to shoot this plane in the forward part of the fuselage when it almost immediately bursts into flames."

This is what Finnish ace wrote about Hurricane
here is link to full story.
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-CaptainWindsAirCombatTacticsLecture.html

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 02:41 PM
hey mokk you were fighting with us in virtualpiltos2, i dont recall anyone in the hurricane but alot of us were in p40s. I seen you guys shoot down bnzers in la5s and p40s 1 b239 vs 5 you guys would always get 2-3 before getting shot down. I had some lucky deflection shots but seemed me and 1 other was the only ppl bnzing from 3000+m to be able to get the b239s . Also you know what version of the hurricanes the b239s faced http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

you LLs are definatly the best b239 flyers, and you know the difficulty the early hurricanes have even with a 2000-3000m hieght advantage, im not saying they should slow down the b239 and manuverabilty but the p40 and hurricanes are really underdogs with thier heavy stick pressure against a plane that dont have it at any speed. so you guys can go to 5000-6000 and bnz to 600+ and have full turning ability while the p40 and hurricanes almost lockup at 560



<center>http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LS1.txt
Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter
<a HREF="http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authoridfilter=:Leadspitter:&comefrom=top5&ts=1068087655"> LeadSpitters Skins
</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 02:58 PM
LeadSpitter_ wrote:
- hey mokk you were fighting with us in
- virtualpiltos2, i dont recall anyone in the
- hurricane but alot of us were in p40s. I seen you
- guys shoot down bnzers in la5s and p40s 1 b239 vs 5
- you guys would always get 2-3 before getting shot
- down. I had some lucky deflection shots but seemed
- me and 1 other was the only ppl bnzing from 3000+m
- to be able to get the b239s . Also you know what
- version of the hurricanes the b239s faced http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
-
- you LLs are definatly the best b239 flyers, and you
- know the difficulty the early hurricanes have even
- with a 2000-3000m hieght advantage, im not saying
- they should slow down the b239 and manuverabilty but
- the p40 and hurricanes are really underdogs with
- thier heavy stick pressure against a plane that dont
- have it at any speed. so you guys can go to
- 5000-6000 and bnz to 600+ and have full turning
- ability while the p40 and hurricanes almost lockup
- at 560
-
-
-
Yes I saw you on VP2 and I think you did pretty well.
But I think you was fighting against LLv24 guys
I fly b239 very rarely becasue LLv34 is 109 squadron.
I quickly searched two book.
Lent√¬§j√¬§nn√¬§k√¬∂kulma 2 (only in Finnish) and America's Hunderd Thousand and they both says that stick forces was light in diving and recovery.

Russian Hurricanes was mostly MKII versions (A and B)




Message Edited on 11/21/0304:16PM by LLv34Mokkeri

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 03:19 PM
LLv34Mokkeri wrote:
- Russian Hurricanes was mostly MKII versions (A and B)

You mean IIB and C. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 03:28 PM
Cappadocian_317 wrote:
-
- LLv34Mokkeri wrote:
-- Russian Hurricanes was mostly MKII versions (A and B)
-
- You mean IIB and C.

I know that russians had lot C models, but I dont know
how common it was in finnish front

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 03:37 PM
LeadSpitter_ wrote:
- yeah the b239 seems like a superplane in 1.11 1.2
- the b239 was perfect in 1.0, even a brewster pilot
- tested the fm and they recorded a video for those
- who remember or can post a link of it again i would
- be greatful.
-
- back in 1.0 the i153 and i16 were super planes
- compaired to the b239 it seems to be the b239 has
- been increased to be competitive with the i16 and
- i153, it can be beat with proper tactics but certain
- planes like the p40 and hurricane are getting
- extremely out performced by i16s i153s and b239s
-

Brewster is far from beeing superplane.. it was superplane in FB 1.1B, but 1.11 made it kinda crappy again.. why? Because It misses 30kmh topspeed, making it Slower than I-16, and thats really not nice.. She cant outrun an I-16, makes fights sometimes kinda hard..Brewster did outturn even I-16s in 1.1beta, back then it was superplane, it had marvellous climb, which was indeed incorrect, but I rather take it in 1.1B, when she did have correct topspeed.. Sure make it overheat, its not like all other planes do overheat (like Lagg-3 - never overheating problems), but just give her correct top speed. IRL Brewster was very successfull against Hurricanes and I-16 and Chaikkas..

____________________________________



<center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/sig3.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 04:22 PM
LLv34Mokkeri wrote:
-
- Cappadocian_317 wrote:
--
-- LLv34Mokkeri wrote:
--- Russian Hurricanes was mostly MKII versions (A and B)
--
-- You mean IIB and C.
-
- I know that russians had lot C models, but I dont
- know
- how common it was in finnish front

In the game the MKII models are only B, C and the Field Mod.
The MKI is an A model.

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 06:42 PM
- Brewster is far from beeing superplane.. it was
- superplane in FB 1.1B, but 1.11 made it kinda crappy
- again.. why? Because It misses 30kmh topspeed,

Hi Vipez,

For something like the 8th time now, I'm writing to ask you three things.

a) how fast do you think the Brewster should go?
b) how fast are you able to make it go in FB?
c) do you remember the last time you jumped up and down about it only hitting 400kmh in-game, and I had to make a track of it hitting 430 sustained at SL for you? Are you now saying that sea level speed should be 460kmh?

So what's new? I've seen you making this claim for months after being shown a track of it hitting the magical 430kmh mark. Has something changed in 1.2rc?

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/worker_parasite.jpg

Need help with NewView? Read this thread. (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yzbcj)

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 07:11 PM
Leadspitter is deadly no matter what craft he steers.

BTW guys, I feel it is more fun to fly inferior planes - that way you need to cooperate more with your squad mates. No fun flying solo....

--oh yeah.... Virtualpilots 1/2 are the best servers in my very own opinion.

Cheers


<center>http://www.gbg.bonet.se/bjorta/F19-Orheim-IDCard-sm.gif

<center>


http://www.gbg.bonet.se/bjorta/F19%20VS%20banner%20B.jpg (http://www.f19vs.tk)

</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 07:14 PM
LLv34Mokkeri wrote:
- I quickly searched two book.
- Lent√¬§j√¬§nn√¬§k√¬∂kulma 2 (only in Finnish) and America's
- Hunderd Thousand and they both says that stick
- forces was light in diving and recovery.
-
- Russian Hurricanes was mostly MKII versions (A and
- B)
-
-
-
-
-
- Message Edited on 11/21/03‚ 04:16PM by
- LLv34Mokkeri


I think the point is not that Brewster's stick forces are too light / high speed handling too good in the game, but that the P-40 has major issues with these. Similar to the FB Jug before, which was proven absurd and corrected. The Americans build great divers (read: this includes good and often superior high speed handling), that seems to be one of their continued strongpoints in the arsenal. This was also true for the P-40 iRL, and some of the Squadrons adopted their tactics accordingly, taking it to major advantage over the enemy, like the AVG in the China/Burma theater of operation, and the US fighter arm in general from on mid war.

Can't comment much on the Hurricane, don't know much about this one regarding high speed handling. What I think is, in BoB, they were bomber interceptors and had the speed disadvantage anyway against all else fighters, which restricted them more to T&B once in a fight. Later on, in the desert, they were drawing out-dated lufberry circles (also the british P-40 Squadrons did that, learning the hard way) and ended up as cannon armed ground attack planes anyway. So, not much to find about Hurricanes engaging in high speed air combats. Remember, the Hurricane was designed and reached operational status in a time most Air Forces still thought in WWI "dogfighting" terms.

Regards
heartc


=38=OIAE

47|FC=-

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 08:05 PM
LLv34Mokkeri wrote:
- Yes I saw you on VP2 and I think you did pretty
- well.
- But I think you was fighting against LLv24 guys
- I fly b239 very rarely becasue LLv34 is 109
- squadron.
- I quickly searched two book.
- Lent√¬§j√¬§nn√¬§k√¬∂kulma 2 (only in Finnish) and America's
- Hunderd Thousand and they both says that stick
- forces was light in diving and recovery.
-
- Russian Hurricanes was mostly MKII versions (A and
- B)
-

Maybe it serves to add that Finns had Hurricanes too. They also had _one_ Mk II. What did they accomplish with this asset 5 1/2 kills (it's probably worst service record of all FAF types during the war), not bad, the same airforce had the best combat record of all air forces with Brewster.
It is not the aircraft of which Boyington snarled "it's a dog" - it's the earlier variant of which he said:"it could turn inside a phone booth".

Leadspitter, cut finally the crap, none of the virtualpilots members confirm this 1.0 testing of Brewster by FAF vet and his acceptance of the FM back then. 1.0 Brewster had sustained turn of 24 seconds and very low structural speed limit (I recall below 600 km/h). The current FM is much more accurate performancevice than any of the previous patches. Brewster was relatively good at diving (compared with contemporary aircraft, this info is from AHT BTW) and climber. You can't automatically assume that P-40 is better in any regard. It certainly does not turn better nor climb better it is highly likely that it does not even outdive Brewster. You can't compare FAF Brewster with P-40 by simply looking at USAF record on pacific (the US record with later Brewster types do not count for sh!t, F2A-3 was totally failed design).

The current climb was also lately discussed in SimHQ, after goign deeper into the topic it was surprisingly noted that uh, oh it happens to be surprisingly accurate. Much more so than normal in this game.

For your information there were more La-5 shotdown by Brewster than Brewsters shotdown by La-5. The records contain some other types that might make your hair raise.



-------------------------------------
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/schimpf.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 08:20 PM
Ugly_Kid wrote:

- It is not the aircraft of which Boyington snarled
- "it's a dog" - it's the earlier variant of which he
- said:"it could turn inside a phone booth".
-

Gotta agree with you here. Here is Boyington's account in more detail http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif :


http://www.danford.net/pappy.htm

However, you do agree that P-40's high speed handling has been severed since 1.2 leaked (tm), while it was already worse in 1.11 than it was in 1.0 (mostly on the elevator between these 2 versions, while the ailerons are also severed since 1.2 leaked), do you not? And that this, like it is now, is off beyond the margin of error. I think this was what Leadspitter wanted to point out, albeit he did it in comparison with other crafts, where it becomes even more obvious and a matter of virtual life and death (Zero - P-40 e.g.). And while you're at it, taking Boyington's opinion on the history of the Brewster into account, you might also want to do that with his first combat unit, the AVG, which lived for the most part from the P-40s high speed handling.

Regards
heartc




=38=OIAE

47|FC=-

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 08:30 PM
I will quote some AHT, just for the hell of it:

"An old Navy pilot recalled with evident relish "We used to dive those things; the Brewster would pick up speed in a hurry." Diving characteristics, particularly if the aircraft center of gravity was not too far aft, were considered good, though the Finns reported"Ailerons became a little twisted while diving." Maximum engine speed allowed in dive was 450 knots (518 mph) IAS."

"The Brewster fighter was initially a very manouverable machine, though much less so in later versions having significantly increased weigth. This manoeuverability was due in part to a near neutral static stability characteristic. Reports of the F2A-1/239 and early F2A-2 were enthusiastic about maneuverability. These reports were particularly interesting when they came from pilots who had been flying the quite manouverable Grumman F3F-biplane fighter series of airplanes. The Finns reported "Its inherent quality of high maneuverability was succesfully demonstrated." A US Navy pilot said "When first produced the F2A-1 was an excellent aerobatic aircraft, a delight to fly." The British stated "The aircraft was excellent for all acrobatics. It behaves with the ease of a Gloster Gladiator, and is just as simple to acrobat." And perhaps the greates accolade of all, for an F2A-2 (presumeably before modifications) by a Navy pilot "I think it would have matched the Zero (in maneuverability)." This pilot thought of the F2A-3 as "a different airplane; I wasn't as impressed with the F2A-3."

AHT gives Finnish 239 model empty weight as 3744.1 lbs and F2A-3 as 4765.3 lbs. Normal gross weight for F2A-1 was 5053 lbs and 6518.6 lbs. Power was respectively 1000 HP vs 1200 HP. The power loading is 0.2 HP/lb and 0.18 HP/lb and wingloading is 30% higher on F2A-3. It is obvious that F2A-3 was totally outperformed by 239.

239 was a damn fine aircraft, people who think that the performance can't be anything close to real do not generally have a clue. Simultaneously, same people comfortably forget how I-16 in the game makes a very short process of 239 in the game, on all aspects (climb, turn, dive and level flight). Yet, surprise, surprise, how many Brewster were lost to Ratas and how many I-16 were lost to Brewster?

-------------------------------------
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/schimpf.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 08:44 PM
Heart_C wrote:
- However, you do agree that P-40's high speed
- handling has been severed since 1.2 leaked (tm),
- while it was already worse in 1.11 than it was in
- 1.0 (mostly on the elevator between these 2
- versions, while the ailerons are also severed since
- 1.2 leaked), do you not? And that this, like it is
- now, is off beyond the margin of error. I think this
- was what Leadspitter wanted to point out, albeit he
- did it in comparison with other crafts, where it
- becomes even more obvious and a matter of virtual
- life and death (Zero - P-40 e.g.). And while you're
- at it, taking Boyington's opinion on the history of
- the Brewster into account, you might also want to do
- that with his first combat unit, the AVG, which
- lived for the most part from the P-40s high speed
- handling.
-

I haven't really tested P-40, in 1.11 I flew it couple of times and I thought it was a good aircraft. Zeros high speed handling does not seem to be correct and I do not know how good P-40 was after all. However, if you have beef with P-40 then concentrate on documenting P-40 inconsistencies rather than saying it sux all the others have to suck more because flying tigers killed zeros in China. This chain of logic does not really hold water.
Additionally it is not very constructive. You can only learn so much of one aircraft type, if you bothered to test its performance and see that it gets corrected it would be a start. Not getting pepped beyound specs just correct.

Saying Hurris, P-40 and La-5 gets swatted on VP server by B-239 sounds like it should not be happening. It happened and it happens so what, most of the LaLa drives are so fixated banking with the stick on their bellies that they can't comprehend that there can be always a better turner.

-------------------------------------
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/schimpf.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 09:02 PM
Ugly_Kid wrote:
-
- However, if you have beef with P-40 then
- concentrate on documenting P-40 inconsistencies
- rather than saying it sux all the others have to
- suck more because flying tigers killed zeros in
- China. This chain of logic does not really hold
- water.

Well, I wonder why I post here at all, not whispering you in the ears instead, since you can comprehend so greatly what I say.


- Additionally it is not very constructive. You can
- only learn so much of one aircraft type, if you
- bothered to test its performance and see that it
- gets corrected it would be a start. Not getting
- pepped beyound specs just correct.
-

Not neccessary. We had those charts around here plenty of times, in addition with plenty of accounts, including from the site the link above comes from, but the only thing that happened was it changed for the worse. It's not my business to advise Oleg if I don't choose it to be. I'm only debating this here out of interest, not because I have any hope left for FB. There are so many inaccuracies, and every version just seems to be one step forward, one step back.
But tell me, Ugly Kid, why are you talking out of your *** btw? From some of your tirades in other places I'm aware that you are the prototype of a Luftwhiner, and now you proved it again, since even when you in fact agree that a plane other than from the LW could be undermodelled, you do it in a manner that shows your ignorance. Well, nothing to see here.



=38=OIAE

47|FC=-



Message Edited on 11/21/0308:08PM by Heart_C

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 09:08 PM
I dont know much about P40, but AHT have some words about it. Dive speed limit of a P40E was 485mph IAS with engine limit of 3120RPM, and minimum safe altitude to start pullouts from this speed was 7100 to 8000 feet depending on model. This was because dive acceleration was rapid and intial pullout stick force was inclined to be heavy.

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 09:09 PM
clint-ruin wrote:
-- Brewster is far from beeing superplane.. it was
-- superplane in FB 1.1B, but 1.11 made it kinda crappy
-- again.. why? Because It misses 30kmh topspeed,
-
- Hi Vipez,
-
- For something like the 8th time now, I'm writing to
- ask you three things.
-
- a) how fast do you think the Brewster should go?
- b) how fast are you able to make it go in FB?
- c) do you remember the last time you jumped up and
- down about it only hitting 400kmh in-game, and I had
- to make a track of it hitting 430 sustained at SL
- for you? Are you now saying that sea level speed
- should be 460kmh?
-
-

Eh Clint gain you.. I thought you agreed me on this.. your track barely get 420 TAS, and even that was archieved on slight dive. Show me a track where you can archieve 435 kmh, this should about the maximum speed. All I could archieve was some 420 and even this took 5 minutes (with serious overheating) to accelerate for this top speed, that means we are missing some 20 kmh top speed. And sorry, but this is important for Brewster pilot. In an I-16 I easily could get I-16 to fly 435 kmh with very fast acceration. Now this makes I-16 faster than Brewster, so soorry it is not right now. So I am saying even your track file did not reach the proper top speed. This must be something like 9th time Im telling this to you.. So sorry top speed on sealevel does not mean you archieve this by methods of DIVING! This topspeed issue may seeem small to you, but its about to become important when Northern front opens on VEF /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif And where Brewster is the most important plane..and since we can't outrun I-16s..

____________________________________



<center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/sig3.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 09:32 PM
I fully agree there is no sense posting here at all. Most of the times the discussion partners are certainly not those that you're looking for.

Most of the times these charts pop up with so much as aaha said so it's all wrong, lots of enthusiasm and considerably less on the knowledge but a mutual opinion seems to carry just as much credebility.

Fine so I'm a prototype Luftwhiner, name me what you want for all I care. I generally do not care too much for allied aircraft because I do not have too much knowledge about them. I have enough knowledge of aeronautical engineering to know what is possible and what is highly unlikely. So what do I do? I try to concentrate on aircraft that interest/fascinate me. P-40 does not belong to the category, I am sorry. These do not have to carry Luftwaffe markings nor Werkenummer but often do. I like P-51D just as well and I am happy to fly with it.

Why am I bothering? Good question, I am convinced of the sincere will to improve things and I have noted a considerable improvement through the patches being rather disappointed with 1.0. I think I am also more convinced that the development team want to improve things without too much of a secret political agenda. I have also realised that it is not as simple to put something like an elevator authority to a correct historical perspective if you do not have the exact test flight data. So what happens things change and some aircraft suffer from handicaps that may or may not have been real. Perversely some aircraft do not suffer from for example roll rate limitations simply because there is not data for them. Same for the elevator authority. I can name couple of figures for stick force per gee for Bf-109, P-39, P-51 and FW-190 but what about the rest of them? Tjah, tell me, now with this information which one pulled tighter loopings at 500 km/h, Brewster or P-40, huh? Essential piece of information but may not be available, yet half of the cries on this forum is in the manner :"When do I get my Wright Flier, it's essential piece, every serious sim has it!" - accept it, more aircraft, more complexity and more pieces of the puzzle are missing.

-------------------------------------
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/schimpf.gif

ZG77_Nagual
11-21-2003, 09:43 PM
posted before but good info from a p40 pilot.(flew it against the japanese)


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




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

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 09:55 PM
Vipez, while I usually get a good chuckle out of others fanatical arguments and limp wristed flames on these boards, I'm about an inch short of completely losing my patience with you over this.

Others have viewed the track and confirmed that it does indeed show the Brewster hitting 430kmh on the deck.

You have not, to my knowledge, replied to any message I have written to you on this subject outside of the original thread.

You are now telling the same story that you told when you first saw the track - firstly that the speed does not hit 430, second that it occurs as a result of a dive.

The first you explained originally as a result of not even bothering to check the TAS guage on the no-cockpit view. The one that shows 430kmh. Oh dear.

The second was a quite obvious fabrication to anyone who has viewed the track. Please - explain to us all - what do you think a dive is? After settling out to low alt over the sea, the speed in the track is 380 at 80% throttle at 11m height. Throttle increases, speed goes to 430 .. yet ... somehow .. the height hasn't increased or decreased more than a couple of metres as it accelerates.

I have no idea why this is such an important matter to you that you have had to outright lie, over and over, about it. It is quite annoying to find that even when proven wrong through a track I had to record and host, you still persist in talking utter crap.

Track [v1.11 only] should still be at:

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/b239-430.zip


http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/worker_parasite.jpg

Need help with NewView? Read this thread. (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yzbcj)

Message Edited on 11/22/0309:47PM by clint-ruin

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 03:28 AM
Ugly_Kid wrote:
- Yet,
- surprise, surprise, how many Brewster were lost to
- Ratas and how many I-16 were lost to Brewster?


I'd like to know that. Can you (or anyone else) put some numbers on the table?

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 03:44 AM
Heart_C wrote:
- I'm only
- debating this here out of interest, not because I
- have any hope left for FB. There are so many
- inaccuracies, and every version just seems to be one
- step forward, one step back.

Hiya, heartc! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I seem to be having similar "issues" here.
Maybe we'll bump to eachother in FH again. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Message Edited on 11/22/0302:51AM by ladoga

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 03:52 AM
think it was heavly in the brewsters favour. i think its more than pure plane performance tho, tatics, motivation etc.
oh take a brewster up against zeros, and then vice versa, harder in the zero (for me atleast)


whineingu /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 03:55 AM
Bump for the Boyngton anecdote

http://www.danford.net/pappy.htm

Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1993-1951.

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 03:55 AM
Yes, i know it was. Im merely interested in seeing exact numbers if someone has those.



Message Edited on 11/22/0302:56AM by ladoga

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 04:20 PM
Clint, URL you provided seems not to be working. I would be interested seeing you to provide similar track, and explain why I16 is faster than brewster on sealevel..

____________________________________



<center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/sig3.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 10:47 PM
Hi Vipez,

I've corrected the link in the original post.

A result of quick testing with 1.2rc:

B239: 427kmh @ SL, auto/closed rad, CEM, Crimea, full fuel/ammo, wind off, overheat on
I-16 Tip 18: 416kmh @ SL, same settings as above

Here's a new game for you to play - do the same test as the above, record a track, and show us your results.

As far as the original post in the thread goes - the overheat message does indeed appear in the B239. Whether engine damage occurs as a result of this or not, I don't know.



http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/worker_parasite.jpg

Need help with NewView? Read this thread. (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yzbcj)

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 11:28 PM
"239 was a damn fine aircraft, people who think that the performance can't be anything close to real do not generally have a clue. Simultaneously, same people comfortably forget how I-16 in the game makes a very short process of 239 in the game, on all aspects (climb, turn, dive and level flight). Yet, surprise, surprise, how many Brewster were lost to Ratas and how many I-16 were lost to Brewster?"

Compare real life to a game is completely useless.

Why did the Russians lost so many planes against the Fins?

a) Poor training. (If you could call it training at all)
b) Poor tactics
c) Poor maintenance
d) Poor communication
e) Poor leadership

Since none of these points are in the game (Well point (a) if you fly against a total noob) it's not going to happen like that.

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 11:41 PM
f) poor significantly superior numbers

What do you think you know BTW about average training hours of an average fighter pilot back then? (Finn vs. Russian)

-------------------------------------
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/schimpf.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 11:58 PM
Apparently more then you.

It's a well known fact that after Stalin's purges there was not much left in the leadership department.

It's also a well known fact that there was not much training going on in the Russian army in the early years of the war.

XyZspineZyX
11-23-2003, 11:17 AM
Cappadocian_317 wrote:
- Apparently more then you.
-
- It's a well known fact that after Stalin's purges
- there was not much left in the leadership
- department.
-
- It's also a well known fact that there was not much
- training going on in the Russian army in the early
- years of the war.
-
-


The question was training hours, pilot experience. You assume Finns had significantly more. Now put that knowledge on numbers. Apparently you don't know as much as you assume, do you?


-------------------------------------
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/schimpf.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-23-2003, 12:17 PM
I knew this was not going to get anywhere.

So basicly you want this:

Both the Russians and Fins sucked at flying during WWII and the Fins beat the Russian airforce with flying colors.
So, the Finnish planes must be really great and the Russian planes must be really crap.

But what is this? I cannot beat those Russian planes so easy in this game.
There must be something totally wrong in this game, OLEG MUST FIX IT!!!

Besides, what patch are you using right now?

If you use the 1.2 RC01 and RC02 patch and you still cannot beat the I-16's easy in a Brewster you must really suck at this game.

XyZspineZyX
11-23-2003, 01:23 PM
No and don't try to twist my words, you're not very good at it. Basically why I bothered at all was Leadspitter's idea that Brewster got pepped beyound specs to give a change to fight against I-16s and other contemporary aircraft. This is simply not true, the current FM is pretty close to real counterpart, if you bothered to check. I then added that I-16 is not bad at all in the game in comparison. I said nothing about changing, boosting or downgrading any aircraft, did I? I made not one single claim of changing anything, did I?

The only thing I said in that manner is that if people have problems getting in terms with P-40 getting shot down should have a careful look at it, get respective real documents (not internet site and not pilot's account) and compare this. Document the stuff and send it to an appropriate e-mail address.

I am mostly using 1.11, except when playing 1.2 servers. I haven't had the pleasure of flying against I-16 with Brewster in RC, I only know of 1.11. I have tried separately I-16 and Brewster and they feel pretty much the same. In 1.11 as far as we tested a good pilot was more succesfull in I-16. I am sure that you are absolutely an ace when being off-line. Unfortunately, I have somehow missed your killer-rep in on-line community, though.

-------------------------------------
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/schimpf.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-23-2003, 01:32 PM
Cappadocian_317 wrote:
- Apparently more then you.
-


And your last retort would seriously hint that this is untrue as well /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

-------------------------------------
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/schimpf.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-23-2003, 01:47 PM
I fly with a different online community then you.

People like you are the ones I avoid online.

I have flown online in the past but got really tired of all the BS.

Servers blocking plane types because they could not beat them, early war servers where Red side only got the crap planes, etc, etc.

Really sad and pathetic.

I joined a squadron and used a different name for that.
Besides I usually fly missions with squad buddies and friends.
Friendly squad vs squad missions.

I don't fly in the online wars and I am never flying on the arcade dogfight servers.

XyZspineZyX
11-24-2003, 10:12 AM
Finnish pilots killing Hurris easy tells more about training & tactics than planes


Hurri was user freindly with good low stall incidence

Hurri gave british pilots confidence at that stall limit ( I>E> she was readable )

FB Hurri stalls like a joke

XyZspineZyX
11-24-2003, 11:59 AM
WUAF_Badsight wrote:
- Finnish pilots killing Hurris easy tells more about
- training & tactics than planes
-
-
- Hurri was user freindly with good low stall
- incidence
-
- Hurri gave british pilots confidence at that stall
- limit ( I>E> she was readable )
-
- FB Hurri stalls like a joke


I don't find that it stalls like a joke at all.

I would seriously recommend adjusting your joystick settings if you're having problems with any hurricane mark stalling out unpredictably on you.

Ps - UglyKid - great posts on this thread. Don't worry about playing Whack A Mole with people who have no intention of sourcing or verifying their words, it's completely obvious why sources aren't forthcoming on pilot training :>


http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/worker_parasite.jpg

Need help with NewView? Read this thread. (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yzbcj)

XyZspineZyX
11-25-2003, 07:53 AM
its not that it stalls out unpredictably that is the problem

its the way it stalls

even tips the wrong wing but at least they got that about it replicated .... sort of