PDA

View Full Version : Why bother to do the IL-46



zugfuhrer
11-28-2006, 02:14 AM
I liked the IL2 because of it graphics and landscape and it focused on the eastern front.
The pacific fighter brand was fun because of the carrier and anti-ship missions.
They focused on things that happened.

But the IL-46 is purely what if.... odd birds that never flew. Aircrafts manufactured because the allies got their hands on German documents and factories.

Perhaps a Tiefighter is included in a near future.

I would have seen the Battle of Britain first and than perhaps the Suez Canal crize 1956 or what if scenario, the uprising in Hungary, the six day war if you want forgotten battles.

There are a lot of bugs in the game that by some to me unknown reason is and never will be fixed?
I say fix them first instead of making aircrafts like the Lerche and LW aircrafts only existing on the drawing board.

zugfuhrer
11-28-2006, 02:14 AM
I liked the IL2 because of it graphics and landscape and it focused on the eastern front.
The pacific fighter brand was fun because of the carrier and anti-ship missions.
They focused on things that happened.

But the IL-46 is purely what if.... odd birds that never flew. Aircrafts manufactured because the allies got their hands on German documents and factories.

Perhaps a Tiefighter is included in a near future.

I would have seen the Battle of Britain first and than perhaps the Suez Canal crize 1956 or what if scenario, the uprising in Hungary, the six day war if you want forgotten battles.

There are a lot of bugs in the game that by some to me unknown reason is and never will be fixed?
I say fix them first instead of making aircrafts like the Lerche and LW aircrafts only existing on the drawing board.

NSAdonis85
11-29-2006, 05:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cajun76:
Not only are some of you guys barking up the wrong tree, it's the wrong d*mn forest! It's your cash, spend how and where you want. Your "feedback" on this addon is meaningless, since Oleg and 1C didn't develop it. A 3rd party spent time on new content for the Russian market. AFAIK, they didn't have access to 1C's stuff, and 1C agreed (after community pressure) to graft it into the international versions as well. I'm happy they did it, so I'm not going to look a gift horse in the mouth. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Fair enough but I just don't see how including ficticious planes furthers the image of IL-2 being for serious gamers interested in historically accurate aircraft representation.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Ar-243, Yak-15, MiG-9 and X-4 wire missiles are historically acurate (they flew and the X-4 was in late testing in '45), while the Ta-183 existed as a proved windtunnel model. I should mention two more planes here, the Me-1101 and Ba-349, which where already made as real testplanes (wonder why these two weren't included instead of the Lerche). But anyways, the Lerche will be an interesting plane to fly non the less.

Me-1101: http://www.luft46.com/mess/mep1101.html
Ta-183: http://www.luft46.com/fw/ta183-i.html
X-4: http://www.luft46.com/missile/x-4.html<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

"What CAN go wrong, WILL go wrong!"
"Walking point = sniper bait"
"Teamwork is essential; it gives the enemy other people to shoot at."
"If you attack is going well, you're running into an ambush!"
&gt;&gt;Murphy
http://outalance.battleclinic.com/adonis/images/Sig.gif

Ruy Horta
11-29-2006, 05:53 AM
First let me say that I consider myself to be a hardcore history nut, which influences my view on PC games.

The Il2-series has had balanced development history. There has always been great eye for detail. Has every choice been the right one? No, probably not, but overal it is a product without equals. That's pretty much end of case.

Would I have prefered some WW2 workhorses over some of the exotic and even fantastic games available, yes. Does it bother me, very little.

IL2-46 is only part exotic or fantastic. There are even a number of new workhorses, both early and late war. That alone makes it worth my money.

As for the exotics, even those have their valuable additions in terms of history. And some of the types may not have seen WW2 service, they are certainly operational types, like the MiG 9 and Yak 15.

Two crates that I am looking forward to.

Some of the experimental types should proof to add some spice as well, even if only as "test planes".

Leaves the German fanatasy planes, well... they'll be fun as well I am certain.

IL2-46 is also pretty much the "total DVD", again, making it value for money (even if I have bought every official UBI add on, that doesn't bother me).

The more I think about it the more I wish I had the package on my desk!

Is it worth it?

Yes, d a m n i t, every penny, cent or whatever your currency may be!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif
Ruy Horta

http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/7748/signaturecommunismih6.png

Philipscdrw
11-29-2006, 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 GR142-Pipper:
Fair enough but I just don't see how including ficticious planes furthers the image of IL-2 being for serious gamers interested in historically accurate aircraft representation.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
"Serious" gamers won't be put off by the 'image', they're not that shallow - they'll look under the surface and see the other content. Il-2'46 still has more historically-realistic content to knock the socks off any other product, and no 'serious' gamer will be put off by the Lerche.

Anyway, since when is it OUR responsibility to look after the image of Ubi/1C/RRG products? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

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

The "Il-2 Sturmovik: 1946" DVD will contain EVERYTHING since FB, including all the new addons and Pe-2.

I_KG100_Prien
11-29-2006, 09:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cajun76:
Not only are some of you guys barking up the wrong tree, it's the wrong d*mn forest! It's your cash, spend how and where you want. Your "feedback" on this addon is meaningless, since Oleg and 1C didn't develop it. A 3rd party spent time on new content for the Russian market. AFAIK, they didn't have access to 1C's stuff, and 1C agreed (after community pressure) to graft it into the international versions as well. I'm happy they did it, so I'm not going to look a gift horse in the mouth. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Fair enough but I just don't see how including ficticious planes furthers the image of IL-2 being for serious gamers interested in historically accurate aircraft representation.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Being a History follower encompasses a lot more than just taking a look at what actually happened, and focusing soley on that. We should all be familiar with what happened yesterday being part-in-parcel to what happens today. That also includes thinking about what didn't happen and why it's a good thing.

Part of the fun of looking back 60+ years is to put some serious thought into what could have happened had things gone differently, because it's entirely possible that it could have. To put it into context with the IL2 Series, is there are some very creative folks out there that will do marvellous jobs of crafting campaigns and scenarios based on the new, albeit "fictional" machinery. Enough so that the straight up finicky might even be able to have some fun and let loose the iron grip of "reality". Creative freedom has the opportunity to run amok even further.

Of course, Reality and anything to do with this SIMULATION do not go hand in hand. Everything we do in this simulator is fictional, based on History. Some may be familiar with "Historical Fiction"? There have been some great books written as such. Anyway, it's not real, any of it. None of us are WW2 Pilots. We're not shooting down Germans/Brits/Russians/Americans/Japanese. We're shooting down Binary Coded electrial pulses that produce a graphical representation of such on our monitors.

Should we not enjoy the Battle of Britain BASED scenarios/campaigns even though we don't actually have a Southern England/France map? Hell no. We should enjoy every second of them, irregardles of the fact we're fighting the BoB over the Finnish Coast (or Britain is represented by a tiny Island 5 miles off the coast of france). What is so "Real" about that? Nothing. But in line with this being a Simulation we can sit back and immerse ourselves and "believe".

It's the ability to use our imaginations that makes this (and any) simulator so great. So what is so hard about applying the same imaganative creativity to add some enjoyment to some of the less "Historic" aircraft?

Besides, if folks are still going to sit in the corner and pout because we didn't get Mustang Version #25 and Spitfire Version #46. Here is a suggestion..

Learn how to program. Become an ace at manipulating the 1's and 0's. Rise to "Experten" in 3D Modelling. Program your own flight simulator. Get it published, and sit back and enjoy your work. Then also sit back and watch dozens of people who have never even attempted what you do nitpick every single "flaw" they can find.

Some "flaws" are worth the nitpicks. Others, are just people pissin 'n moaning. Sad fact is the piss 'n moans far outweigh the legitimate gripes.

Anywho, gonna get off my soap box and end my contribution to the horse flogging.

russ.nl
11-29-2006, 09:42 AM
You can really sapporate the men from the boys in this thread. Not age related, or maybe it is.

DuxCorvan
11-29-2006, 11:33 AM
Sapporate? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Is it sexual? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

Can I watch? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

GR142-Pipper
11-29-2006, 12:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by I_KG100_Prien:
Of course, Reality and anything to do with this SIMULATION do not go hand in hand. Everything we do in this simulator is fictional, based on History. Some may be familiar with "Historical Fiction"? There have been some great books written as such. Anyway, it's not real, any of it. None of us are WW2 Pilots. We're not shooting down Germans/Brits/Russians/Americans/Japanese. We're shooting down Binary Coded electrial pulses that produce a graphical representation of such on our monitors. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The difference, of course, is that this game has (historically) attempted to represent REAL aircraft as they actually were. When this stops and ficticious planes get introduced it then becomes pure fantasy. If that's what people want, then OK. It's just a clear departure from what this product has been billed as.

GR142-Pipper

Xiolablu3
11-29-2006, 02:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by I_KG100_Prien:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cajun76:
Not only are some of you guys barking up the wrong tree, it's the wrong d*mn forest! It's your cash, spend how and where you want. Your "feedback" on this addon is meaningless, since Oleg and 1C didn't develop it. A 3rd party spent time on new content for the Russian market. AFAIK, they didn't have access to 1C's stuff, and 1C agreed (after community pressure) to graft it into the international versions as well. I'm happy they did it, so I'm not going to look a gift horse in the mouth. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Fair enough but I just don't see how including ficticious planes furthers the image of IL-2 being for serious gamers interested in historically accurate aircraft representation.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Being a History follower encompasses a lot more than just taking a look at what actually happened, and focusing soley on that. We should all be familiar with what happened yesterday being part-in-parcel to what happens today. That also includes thinking about what didn't happen and why it's a good thing.

Part of the fun of looking back 60+ years is to put some serious thought into what could have happened had things gone differently, because it's entirely possible that it could have. To put it into context with the IL2 Series, is there are some very creative folks out there that will do marvellous jobs of crafting campaigns and scenarios based on the new, albeit "fictional" machinery. Enough so that the straight up finicky might even be able to have some fun and let loose the iron grip of "reality". Creative freedom has the opportunity to run amok even further.

Of course, Reality and anything to do with this SIMULATION do not go hand in hand. Everything we do in this simulator is fictional, based on History. Some may be familiar with "Historical Fiction"? There have been some great books written as such. Anyway, it's not real, any of it. None of us are WW2 Pilots. We're not shooting down Germans/Brits/Russians/Americans/Japanese. We're shooting down Binary Coded electrial pulses that produce a graphical representation of such on our monitors.

Should we not enjoy the Battle of Britain BASED scenarios/campaigns even though we don't actually have a Southern England/France map? Hell no. We should enjoy every second of them, irregardles of the fact we're fighting the BoB over the Finnish Coast (or Britain is represented by a tiny Island 5 miles off the coast of france). What is so "Real" about that? Nothing. But in line with this being a Simulation we can sit back and immerse ourselves and "believe".

It's the ability to use our imaginations that makes this (and any) simulator so great. So what is so hard about applying the same imaganative creativity to add some enjoyment to some of the less "Historic" aircraft?

Besides, if folks are still going to sit in the corner and pout because we didn't get Mustang Version #25 and Spitfire Version #46. Here is a suggestion..

Learn how to program. Become an ace at manipulating the 1's and 0's. Rise to "Experten" in 3D Modelling. Program your own flight simulator. Get it published, and sit back and enjoy your work. Then also sit back and watch dozens of people who have never even attempted what you do nitpick every single "flaw" they can find.

Some "flaws" are worth the nitpicks. Others, are just people pissin 'n moaning. Sad fact is the piss 'n moans far outweigh the legitimate gripes.

Anywho, gonna get off my soap box and end my contribution to the horse flogging. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

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

Klemm.co
11-29-2006, 03:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
The difference, of course, is that this game has (historically) attempted to represent REAL aircraft as they actually were. When this stops and ficticious planes get introduced it then becomes pure fantasy. If that's what people want, then OK. It's just a clear departure from what this product has been billed as.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
None of the new 46 aircraft are fictious. All of them were invented by some people more than 60 years ago. But you keep on implying that RRG Games created them from scratch. And thats just wrong and stupid.
And for: "It's just a clear departure from what this product has been billed as."
Guess what: They bring out a whole new DVD and remarket the whole thing. So we did not get something someone didn't told us about on the DVD case. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
You just sound like the 46 addon alone is going to change the whole game into something very different and new from what the Il-2 Complete Edition was.
Well, since you dislike the "New" IL-2, you can just go play the "Old" and "correct" version.

Its just that the 46 addon isn't going to change the game in any way, it is just adding stuff, thats why it is called an Addon.
I just cant see where your problem is.

Biiaattcchhh
11-29-2006, 04:31 PM
Man I can't believe all the *****ing about the lerche and "What-if" planes many of which had a bit of time put into research and development, even if they never flew. As a die-hard ww2 aviation fanatic,especially when it comes to the german aviation program I think it's absolutley FANTASTIC that their are aircraft such as the Lerche being represented(Thanks Oleg!!!!) as the Germans were willing to think outside the box and it opens up all kinds of "what-if" scenarios.....lets face it guys there was more to WW2 aviation then spitfires and mustangs(or in this game I should say spitfires and La7's lol)....

TgD Thunderbolt56
11-29-2006, 05:35 PM
I'm not very interested in the jet stuff. Oh, I'll get my stick-time in on them but 99% of my time will be just as it is now...on a few select servers that make strong attempts to maintain historical accuracy and combine it with balanced playability.


TB<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v687/Thunderbolt56/English157.jpg
================================================== ======
I.O.C.L. (International Online Competition League) (http://www.gozr.net/iocl/index.php?sid=77e1596a8421c8d6f7e717eab883f534)

VW-IceFire
11-29-2006, 07:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TgD Thunderbolt56:
I'm not very interested in the jet stuff. Oh, I'll get my stick-time in on them but 99% of my time will be just as it is now...on a few select servers that make strong attempts to maintain historical accuracy and combine it with balanced playability.


TB </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
And absolutely nothing will stop you or anyone else from carrying on as before. Even better...the new addons come with a variety of extremely useful objects for building historical scenarios with even greater detail as well as several aircraft and plane types that can be used in all sorts of historical scenarios.

Absolutely agree with you.

Not sure why some folks are all worked up...just as usual...about stuff that doesn't affect them.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

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

Fatoomch
11-29-2006, 08:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Perhaps a Tie fighter is included in a near future. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

!!! What do you think a spitfire is??!!!

I've been flying for the rebellion for some time watching these perform moves up into outer space.
(George Lucas MUST be Oleg's best mate!!)

About time we got some new space craft..I mean planes.

NAFP_supah
11-30-2006, 12:09 AM
If I remember correctly there was talk that after the current series of addons had been completed there would be a chance for some third party development based on the current engine. I would love to see some more early jets like the F-86, F-84 straight and swept wing (underpowered ***** the swept wing version was), MiG-15 (polish, czech and russian versions). Anything more modern then those would just suck as the current engine doesn't allow for any in depth system modelling for stuff like radars which became common place in aircraft like the MiG-17 and F-86K. But perhaps some day in the new SoW Engine.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://supah.chaotic.nl/profiles/profile-sig.jpg (http://supah.chaotic.nl)

-HH-Quazi
11-30-2006, 12:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fatoomch:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Perhaps a Tie fighter is included in a near future. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

!!! What do you think a spitfire is??!!!

I've been flying for the rebellion for some time watching these perform moves up into outer space.
(George Lucas MUST be Oleg's best mate!!)

About time we got some new space craft..I mean planes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif Good one m8!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

<center>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v289/HH_Beebop/Personal/HHLoGo3.jpg

Hunters' Magnum-PC House (https://magnum-pc.com/Search/External/)
So You're Interested In Water Cooling? (http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=70)
Welcome To The Dogz Hound Pound! (http://www.k9squadrons.com)
Mission 4Today (http://www.mission4today.com/)

GR142Pipper
11-30-2006, 01:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Klemm.co:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
The difference, of course, is that this game has (historically) attempted to represent REAL aircraft as they actually were. When this stops and ficticious planes get introduced it then becomes pure fantasy. If that's what people want, then OK. It's just a clear departure from what this product has been billed as.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
None of the new 46 aircraft are fictious. All of them were invented by some people more than 60 years ago. But you keep on implying that RRG Games created them from scratch. And thats just wrong and stupid. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Easy there cowboy. My remarks were solely directed toward planes that never saw the light of day as REAL planes.

As an aside, it never ceases to amaze me how people can read into posts words which were never said and in the next breath offer a contradictory post to those same imaginary words. Go figure.

GR142-Pipper

CrazySchmidt
11-30-2006, 02:37 AM
I just put my order in today for "IL-2 1946".
The main reason I am buying this release is so that I may have a single DVD that contains all of the content of the best WWII sim on the market to-date.

But also lets not forget, the development of this sim over the years is second to none, coupled with the strength of this community and the large variety of third party contributers, effectively makes this DVD a tribute to everyone of us.

IL-2 is to flight sims as Duke Nukem was to First Person Shooters, groundbreaking to the genre and will never be forgotten for raising the bar to a great new level for all else to aspire to.

All this brilliant development on one final disk... yep that's for me alright.

Cheers, CrazySchmidt. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Mission Mate : Skins : Campaigns : Missions: - All at &gt;&gt;&gt;
http://airwarfare.com/AWX/Webpage%20Graphics/m4tsig.jpg (http://www.mission4today.com/index.php)

Deadmeat313
11-30-2006, 04:40 AM
Everything that VW_Icefire said:

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


T.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

"I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it." --- Jack Handey

WB_Outlaw
11-30-2006, 04:56 AM
I thought the barrel extended through the camshaft.

--Outlaw

Philipscdrw
11-30-2006, 05:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
The difference, of course, is that this game has (historically) attempted to represent REAL aircraft as they actually were. When this stops and ficticious planes get introduced it then becomes pure fantasy. If that's what people want, then OK. It's just a clear departure from what this product has been billed as.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pipper, why is 'what the product is billed as' so important? Are you trying to impress people by saying 'Oh yes, I fly Il-2 Sturmovik on my PC, it's a realistic WW2 air combat simulator' and you're worried they'll now think you're playing Secret Weapons Of The Luftwaffe? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

The 'image' of the sim really isn't important! Serious users will recognise the sim for its depth of content and versatility, uncrackable modelling and fantastic developer support. They won't be put off by the presence of the Lerche!

I think we should stop focussing on the Lerche. Take it for what it is - either a hard-working developer making something for fun at the end of a long series, or a serious proof-of-concept of VTOL aircraft in the Il-2/SoW engine. (They're making that autogyro for BoB, remember? Maybe the Lerche is a coding prototype for that?)<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

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

The "Il-2 Sturmovik: 1946" DVD will contain EVERYTHING since FB, including all the new addons and Pe-2.

Redwulf 32 - Nis
11-30-2006, 05:32 AM
Any particular reason for mounting the engine upside-down?

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

http://redwulf.adelby.dk/images/fenris.jpg

msalama
11-30-2006, 05:34 AM
"Why bother"... why _NOT_ bother? It's just another addon so hardly the end of the world one way or another, huh? Some of you guys just take this s**t all too seriously IMHO!

OK, granted, so do I if someone fries my virtual a** when I'm drunk http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

x6BL_Brando
11-30-2006, 05:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I thought the barrel extended through the camshaft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What a frightening idea! As in having the barrel anywhere near the drive train, or a hollow camshaft http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

In fact you meant crankshaft, because the camshafts are on top of cylinder blocks in this OHC engine.
And a glance at any crankshaft will show you it's not possible to have a continuous tube running through the axis of rotation.

B.

F0_Dark_P
11-30-2006, 07:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Redwulf 32 - Nis:
Any particular reason for mounting the engine upside-down?

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

bet they done that for a more easy maunting on the carts

edit: nice pics btw! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v238/Nahoj/monkysign.jpg

JtD
11-30-2006, 08:31 AM
Usually, cannons firing through the propshaft (or propeller at all) were placed somewhere behind the engine.

Thanatos833
11-30-2006, 09:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F0_Dark_P:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Redwulf 32 - Nis:
Any particular reason for mounting the engine upside-down?

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

bet they done that for a more easy maunting on the carts

edit: nice pics btw! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Wasn't the DB 601 an inverted vee? Wasn't it actually like that IIRC?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/9285/do17in9.jpg

The Dornier Do-17, another brilliant example of German engineering, a ???Schnellbomber" which could just outrun all fighters, this plane led to the German victory in the Battle of Britain and indeed, the Second World War.

NonWonderDog
11-30-2006, 09:23 AM
Yes, it was an inverted V. That's why it's upside down in the pictures. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

T_O_A_D
11-30-2006, 09:41 AM
The crank shaft is located below the tube in these photo's. The tube is essentually located in the lifter valley area, if it was a more common looking V engine, with the Cam located above the Crank. But since its an overhead cam design, it allowed them the space to locate the area for a Gun barrel.

Nice pics by the way TY http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

<center>
Flying as BlitzPig_TOAD
My TrackIR fix, Read the whole thread (http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/6/ubb.x?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=49310655&m=15310285&p=1)
Charvel's Tutorial on setting up yout Track Ir (http://www.airwarfare.com/guides/tir_setup.htm)

<A HREF="http://blitzpigs.com/forum/index.php?sid=3b61cb4521d729767adc892dfd2ceddf" TARGET=_blank>http://home.mchsi.com/~t_o_a_d/T_O_A_D.jpg
</A>
<b style="color:black;background-color:#a0ffff">UBI[/b] Forums/IL2/FB/PF Moderator
I.O.C.L (http://www.gozr.net/iocl/)> Pictures of War (http://forums.ubi.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/2291023914)>My AT-6 Flight (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/6641084723?r=6641084723#6641084723)>

biggs222
11-30-2006, 09:43 AM
ohhhh... and here I thought this thread was about taking photos by putting a camera in the propellar hub.

doesnt sound like a bad idea actually. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v215/Biggs222/spits/JJ_03.jpg

WB_Outlaw
11-30-2006, 09:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by x6BL_Brando:
In fact you meant crankshaft, because the camshafts are on top of cylinder blocks in this OHC engine.
And a glance at any crankshaft will show you it's not possible to have a continuous tube running through the axis of rotation.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, no, I didn't mean the crankshaft for the obvious reason you stated. If that's what I had meant that's what I would have said. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I've never seen a detailed breakdown before and didn't know it was an OHC engine.

--Outlaw.

WWMaxGunz
11-30-2006, 11:55 AM
Nice pics. 2500 rpm engine gets perhaps 1000 rpm prop?

Abbuzze
11-30-2006, 12:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Redwulf 32 - Nis:
Any particular reason for mounting the engine upside-down?

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

Better view over the nose for example.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

I./JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
http://www.jg53-pikas.de/

http://mitglied.lycos.de/p1234/bilder/Ani_pikasbanner_langsam%20neu.gif

flyin_scotzzman
11-30-2006, 01:54 PM
Great pics, easy to see how it works in the cutaways. Any more pics worth posting from your museum visit? Thanks for posting.

zugfuhrer
11-30-2006, 01:58 PM
The idea of mounting the engine with cylinder-heads down is because it fits better in a cymetrical rounded frame.

If you look at the spanish Hispano Aviacion Ha 1112 equipped with a rolls royce engine the frame is "swollen" to host the cylinder heads.

Redwulf 32 - Nis
11-30-2006, 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 NonWonderDog:
Yes, it was an inverted V. That's why it's upside down in the pictures. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thnx NonWonderDog for clarifying.

Yes -- the DB600 series of engines were inverted Vee's hence the "upside-down remark".

On another note - I wouldn't call it an OHC engine - probably more likely an UHC (!?) engine.

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

http://redwulf.adelby.dk/images/fenris.jpg

T_O_A_D
11-30-2006, 05:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Redwulf 32 - Nis:
On another note - I wouldn't call it an OHC engine - probably more likely an UHC (!?) engine.

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

Yes your probably right, fell into the trap of the inverted pictures LOL

I bet though in the manual for overhaul they had it in this postion. Can you imaging trying to repace the cyl heqads and stuff inverted http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

<center>
Flying as BlitzPig_TOAD
My TrackIR fix, Read the whole thread (http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/6/ubb.x?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=49310655&m=15310285&p=1)
Charvel's Tutorial on setting up yout Track Ir (http://www.airwarfare.com/guides/tir_setup.htm)

<A HREF="http://blitzpigs.com/forum/index.php?sid=3b61cb4521d729767adc892dfd2ceddf" TARGET=_blank>http://home.mchsi.com/~t_o_a_d/T_O_A_D.jpg
</A>
<b style="color:black;background-color:#a0ffff">UBI[/b] Forums/IL2/FB/PF Moderator
I.O.C.L (http://www.gozr.net/iocl/)> Pictures of War (http://forums.ubi.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/2291023914)>My AT-6 Flight (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/6641084723?r=6641084723#6641084723)>

LEBillfish
11-30-2006, 08:35 PM
The story goes true or not that when German engineers paid a visit to GB, they noted the engine "inverted" (upside down) and assumed how that is how it was designed not realizing it was simply being serviced.......So when designing their own, did so inverted as it really ends up being a 6 or 1/2 dozen thing (unlike a car where it is impractical to work underneeth..........Oddly, supposedly the Rolls Royce Merlin they saw was developed from a WWI Daimler Benz engine. No expert, just some things I have read researching the Ha-40 based off of the 601 design.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/IL2/Engine-end.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/IL2/EngineDwg1.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

<span class="ev_code_BLACK">"Does this make my Hien look big?"
"I love my Ha-40's"
"She loves teh Swallow"
"Don't call me cho-cho san"
</span>

x6BL_Brando
12-01-2006, 06:05 AM
Well, OHC is still the term, whatever the configuration of the cylinders http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I think it stems from the standard diagrammatic representation of an IC engine, and the fact that the camshaft goes 'on top' of the head, rather than 'down' inside the crankcase. Once assembled it's the whole engine that is inverted. As noted, the engine would be assembled with jigs, in the conventional 'heads-up' position.

German engineers have carried on this theme for a long time, with horizontally-opposed cylinders, horizontal cylinders and so on. Their skill at this, and dealing with the potential problems, is widely acknowledged. I don't imagine that the layout significantly interfered with maintenance. Any engine requiring work deeper than the heads would surely be better removed than left in situ . I imagine removal was probably easier with the crankcase inverted too.

If you want a real 'plumber's nightmare' - try the big Bristols (yeah, yeah http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v458/brando6BL/Hercules_light.jpg

Luckily we don't have to invent names for camshaft positions, as this engine uses sleeve-valves http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

B.

BfHeFwMe
12-01-2006, 09:25 PM
They put them down so all the oil would flow to the top, onto the wind screen, when taking the merest of fragmental scratches to the paint job on the cowling. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif