PDA

View Full Version : About P-38L_LATE in game.



Atomic_Marten
07-27-2005, 03:47 PM
gibbage1 wrote:
Both the L-1 and L-5 had the F-30 engine. There is not P-38 L Late. All L's had the same engine. It may not be listed in the pilots manual as having more power, but its listed in Allison, and pilots talking about the L compaired the the J said "it has more HP" many times. The manual is in error. Its not the first time a pilots manual does not list the full power of an engine. Does the 109 K4 engine list the 1.98ATA setting? It was certified for 1.98ATA just like the F-30 engine was certified for 1725HP.

I think this issue deserves more attention. According to the gibbage's words above, in-game P-38L_LATE either have F-30 engines or it is not P-38L.

My question is fairly easy for those who knows about this issue:

Can you please explain engine differences between three P-38 types we have in game J, L, L_LATE?
And maybe few other main differences, if they have existed (like fitted airbrake on L model and not on J model.)

Atomic_Marten
07-27-2005, 03:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">gibbage1 wrote:
Both the L-1 and L-5 had the F-30 engine. There is not P-38 L Late. All L's had the same engine. It may not be listed in the pilots manual as having more power, but its listed in Allison, and pilots talking about the L compaired the the J said "it has more HP" many times. The manual is in error. Its not the first time a pilots manual does not list the full power of an engine. Does the 109 K4 engine list the 1.98ATA setting? It was certified for 1.98ATA just like the F-30 engine was certified for 1725HP. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think this issue deserves more attention. According to the gibbage's words above, in-game P-38L_LATE either have F-30 engines or it is not P-38L.

My question is fairly easy for those who knows about this issue:

Can you please explain engine differences between three P-38 types we have in game J, L, L_LATE?
And maybe few other main differences, if they have existed (like fitted airbrake on L model and not on J model.)

MEGILE
07-27-2005, 03:50 PM
This is going to be a barrel of laughs.
Wonder if it will stay civil... we can only hope http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Cajun76
07-27-2005, 04:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Atomic_Marten:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">gibbage1 wrote:
Both the L-1 and L-5 had the F-30 engine. There is not P-38 L Late. All L's had the same engine. It may not be listed in the pilots manual as having more power, but its listed in Allison, and pilots talking about the L compaired the the J said "it has more HP" many times. The manual is in error. Its not the first time a pilots manual does not list the full power of an engine. Does the 109 K4 engine list the 1.98ATA setting? It was certified for 1.98ATA just like the F-30 engine was certified for 1725HP. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think this issue deserves more attention. According to the gibbage's words above, in-game P-38L_LATE either have F-30 engines or it is not P-38L.

My question is fairly easy for those who knows about this issue:

Can you please explain engine differences between three P-38 types we have in game J, L, L_LATE?
And maybe few other main differences, if they have existed (like fitted airbrake on L model and not on J model.) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The engine differences are in the thread you mentioned. The P-38L and P-38L "Late" as it's called are identical and have the same engines. The "Late", which is a misnomer, has it's engines at the 1725 hp Allison cleared the F-30 engines for on 100/130 avgas, commonly available.

Oleg had enough evidence that the conservative 1600 hp that the USAAF had in it's pilot manual as the maximum was underrated. (Mechanics don't follow pilot manuals, we follow technical orders and tech reps from the company) So the P-38L "Late" is really just a reflection of the wartime operational level of the F-30 Allison. It would be more accurate representation of the operational P-38s in service than the P-38L that is modeled, hence the misleading "Late" moniker. Better decription is P-38L_Standard.

ElAurens
07-27-2005, 04:43 PM
The sad part is that that the "L_Late" in game does not meet the pilot's operating manual climb figures for the 1600HP "L".

Gibbage1
07-27-2005, 04:46 PM
Ow god. ANOTHER thread. Whats this, the 5th one so far?

Kurfurst__
07-27-2005, 04:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cajun76:
The engine differences are in the thread you mentioned. The P-38L and P-38L "Late" as it's called are identical and have the same engines. The "Late", which is a misnomer, has it's engines at the 1725 hp Allison cleared the F-30 engines for on 100/130 avgas, commonly available. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Well, the correction. 1725 HP was never cleared by Allision for the F-30 engines. Even less on 100/130 grade fuel. This was made up from the first word to the last by Gibbage and co. in their desperation, as they could show absolutely no evidence of any 1725HP P-38 in squadron service EVER, could not show clearances, could not show use.

Briefly, it`s pure fantasy about it.


Fact is that every and all P-38L manual notes the highest maximum power as 1600 HP :

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1121184060_resizeof503_1102467228_p38lsetup.jp g

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1121183759_p-38l_datasheet.jpg


The P-38L 'late' did not exist in operational service. It was born in the minds of notorious Yankwhiners, who lied to and misinformed Oleg and forced a fantasy plane into the game, so that it would be more competive... sad, really.

Atomic_Marten
07-27-2005, 06:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Ow god. ANOTHER thread. Whats this, the 5th one so far? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I want my UBI forum P-38 thread. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
The sad part is that that the "L_Late" in game does not meet the pilot's operating manual climb figures for the 1600HP "L". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't want to spoil things for you, but did you check climb ability of other fighters? And compared it (of course relatively) to the P-38LATE?
I have did a little test on my own and of about 20 fighters tested (also tested same models with different fuel loads) P-38LATE is on 3rd place. Up to 5000m. Better are K4, G10.

Other planes tested:
Yak-9U
FW-190D9
LA-7
HFMK9E
MK3
LaGG3S66
P-47D27
FW-190A8
FW-190A9
P-51D

Quite good IMO.

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

This is not a flame thread. I want to clear this issue up. We had a ton of similar posts, but so far I did not see the FACTS clearly. BTW can anyone post a link for some P-38L_LATE info?

Kurfurst said:
"This plane is fantasy plane. Never saw any service among US air force units".

Is this true?

If it is not please say which squadron was equipped with this exact model and when.
If this is not possible for any of you to tell, than it is for sure a fake plane and nothing else. No pun intended here, just facts.

Or then, if LATE was standardized L model, like Cajun suggested, then why old P-38L (pre 4.01) is in game? Since it obviously is wrong modelled. Would be just like Yak-3 have 150HP more than Yak-3P.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif -- a non existant difference in real life.

A lot of misinformation, so far that is only what is OBVIOUS.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Gibbage1
07-27-2005, 06:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

Fact is that every and all P-38L manual notes the highest maximum power as 1600 HP :
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What does the 109K4's manual list its engine output?

Kurfurst__
07-27-2005, 06:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
What does the 109K4's manual list its engine output? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quite irrevelant, but..

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1122509831_198_drehzahl.jpg

Atomic_Marten
07-27-2005, 06:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

Fact is that every and all P-38L manual notes the highest maximum power as 1600 HP :
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What does the 109K4's manual list its engine output? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

gibbage m8, please this is not about K4, this is about P-38LATE. If it is fact that the K4 is wrong modelled and have more HP than it should have, I would be the first person to agree with that.

You have said that in fact it was 3000+ P-38 built that have 1725HP (I take it to be standard L version then). If so, than it is old P-38L (pre 4.01) that was wrong modelled?

Gibbage1
07-27-2005, 06:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Atomic_Marten:
gibbage m8, please this is not about K4, this is about P-38LATE. If it is fact that the K4 is wrong modelled and have more HP than it should have, I would be the first person to agree with that.

You have said that in fact it was 3000+ P-38 built that have 1725HP (I take it to be standard L version then). If so, than it is old P-38L (pre 4.01) that was wrong modelled? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

All L models were built with the F-30 engine. Yes, the old L is wrong. There is no L Late.

Atomic_Marten
07-27-2005, 06:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Atomic_Marten:
gibbage m8, please this is not about K4, this is about P-38LATE. If it is fact that the K4 is wrong modelled and have more HP than it should have, I would be the first person to agree with that.

You have said that in fact it was 3000+ P-38 built that have 1725HP (I take it to be standard L version then). If so, than it is old P-38L (pre 4.01) that was wrong modelled? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

All L models were built with the F-30 engine. Yes, the old L is wrong. There is no L Late. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Clear answer. Thanks. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
It would be foolish of me to claim otherwise, since I really don't know.

SkyChimp
07-27-2005, 07:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

Well, the correction. 1725 HP was never cleared by Allision for the F-30 engines. Even less on 100/130 grade fuel.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The L's engines were most certainly cleared by Allison for 1,725 hp on 100/130 grade fuel. Allison rated their F series engines on 100/130 grade fuel.

Maybe you meant to say the USAAF didn't officially clear it's use?

RedDeth
07-27-2005, 09:35 PM
kurfurst dont argue with skychimp you will just end up wrong.

TAGERT.
07-27-2005, 09:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RedDeth:
kurfurst dont argue with skychimp you will just end up wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>End up? As in STARTS OFF wrong and never changes?

Pirschjaeger
07-27-2005, 10:59 PM
Anyone got a compass? I think we've been here a few times. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Fritz

GR142_Astro
07-27-2005, 11:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RedDeth:
kurfurst dont argue with skychimp you will just end up wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe Kornfest actually wants his monkey spanked....


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

Atomic_Marten
07-27-2005, 11:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Anyone got a compass? I think we've been here a few times. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

May be.. but you seem to be still confused. I see that you still have doubts:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Was the argument about whether or not they exsisted or was it about whether or not they saw combat in WW2?

You guyz confuse the heck out of me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As it was stated in this thread clearly, ALL P-38L's in WW2 were fitted with 1725HP engines.
Therefore old pre 4.01 P-38L was wrong, incorrectly modeled plane, and 4.01 P-38L_LATE is correctly, historically modelled P-38L.

Is it clear now?

Gibbage1
07-28-2005, 12:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Skychimp
It's known that Allison rated their production F series V-1710 with 100/130 grade fuel. The V-1710-111/113 was an F series engine. Allison rated it to 1,725hp at 3,200 rpm. I feel comfortable asserting that rating is on 100/130 grade fuel. Only late experimental E/F engines and G engines were rated on 115/145 grade fuel, and these engines didn't see service during the war. (See Vees..., page 375.)

And hell, maybe the some USAAF groups did use the high rating. And it doesn't appear to me any longer that 100/150 would have been required to do it. Maybe I'm wrong, which means Kurfurst is wrong (which sort to takes the sting out of it. )

See "Vees For Victory," chapter 12, The V-1710-F: The "Bread & Butter" Allison, page 265, which states, "Within the first six months of the war Allison responded to needs from the War Theaters by demonstrating and authorizing use of War Emergency Ratings for the E/F engines. Though the official Army Air Forces channels were slow to approve their use, these ratings were soon widely used within combat groups.""
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Warren M. Bodie's book, the Lockheet P-38 Lightning. Page 250 Comprehensive Table of Lockheed P-38 Production.

P-38-1-LO 1290 deliverd, V-1710F-30 engines. Serial numbers 44-23769-24058 June 1944-Nov 1944 (so YES, it is a 1944 aircraft)
P-38-5-LO 2200 deliverd, V-1710F-30 engines. Serial numbers 44-25059-27258 Oct 44-June 45.
P-38-5-LO 320 delivered, V-1710F-30 engines. Serial numbers 44-53008-53327 May 45-Aug 45.

Even 113 deliverd of P-38L-5-VN (?) also using the F-30 engines. VN is from the Nashvill Tenn production line.

780+ L's were converted to F-5's photo recon, all still having the F-30 engine.

On page 215 of the same book.

"One interesting point that has never been taken into account is that a P-38L-5-LO, enjoying up to 1725 bhp per engine at War Emergency Power settings, must have been coming very close to its critical Mach Number of .68 in level flight at its critical altitude. WEP speed at 20,000-23,500 feet was probably as high as 443 MPH (TAS)"

At that altitude, the critical speed was 460MPH TAS for the P-38.

Pirschjaeger
07-28-2005, 12:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Atomic_Marten:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Anyone got a compass? I think we've been here a few times. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

May be.. but you seem to be still confused. I see that you still have doubts:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Was the argument about whether or not they exsisted or was it about whether or not they saw combat in WW2?

You guyz confuse the heck out of me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As it was stated in this thread clearly, ALL P-38L's in WW2 were fitted with 1725HP engines.
Therefore old pre 4.01 P-38L was wrong, incorrectly modeled plane, and 4.01 P-38L_LATE is correctly, historically modelled P-38L.

Is it clear now? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interestng considering all the discussions and posts. The answer is clear, but the questions weren't. And somehow I believe someone will post that it isn't true before this thread is finished. Who can you trust?

I'm not a frequent flyer of the P-38 but do fly it sometimes. Not enough to notice great differences though.

I do like them for target practice(not fishing) simply because they are bigger than most fighers and although they are not very manueverable compared to most fighters, they are better than bombers. Besides, it's a pretty plane. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fritz

Hristo_
07-28-2005, 01:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RedDeth:
kurfurst dont argue with skychimp you will just end up wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe Kornfest actually wants his monkey spanked....


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

One more personal attack like this and I'll have to find a manga cartoon about you.

And we don't want that, now don't we ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Aaron_GT
07-28-2005, 02:42 AM
The question isn't really whether or not Allison rated the engine for 1725hp (the evidence is that it did). The question is what boost the USAAF rated it for. The general principle the game works on is that a boost level needs to have been officially sanctioned before it is allowed (otherwise all sorts of higher LW boosts should also be allowed as apparently units used them). 66" MAP for the P38J was sanctioned, but I have yet to see evidence posted for 70" being officially sanctioned. This having been said Tagert seems to have reasonable (not yet 100% conclusive - still an occiasional i to dot and t to cross) evidence that the P38s we have underperform a bit. If it ends up that the P38L performs as it should with 66" boost, which definitely was sanctioned, then there isn't really a problem - we have a plane running at higher than normal, but officially sanctioned, boost, with the right performance for that it is all fine. I'm not sure if the P38L(late) actually does fit the bill in terms of matching performance for 66" MAP, but that's another matter.

Aaron_GT
07-28-2005, 02:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As it was stated in this thread clearly, ALL P-38L's in WW2 were fitted with 1725HP engines. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It doesn't mean that at a particular point in time the boost to enable 1725HP was officially sanctioned, though. Look at the Spit IX - we could have versions with the same engines but different boosts. The fact that the same engine was later cleared for higher boost does not invalidate the existence of a version with the same engine with a lower boost earlier in the war. So the question then becomes - what range of officially sanctioned boosts were available during the lifetime of the P38L, and do the available models we have match those levels of boost? Or does the performance match those levels of boost?

Kurfurst__
07-28-2005, 03:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:
The L's engines were most certainly cleared by Allison for 1,725 hp on 100/130 grade fuel. Allison rated their F series engines on 100/130 grade fuel.

Maybe you meant to say the USAAF didn't officially clear it's use? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can we see the documentation, source or reference of this? So far we haven`t seen any, these are merely your assumption... a bit more than that is required, you know.

Kurfurst__
07-28-2005, 03:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Skychimp
It's known that Allison rated their production F series V-1710 with 100/130 grade fuel. The V-1710-111/113 was an F series engine. Allison rated it to 1,725hp at 3,200 rpm. I feel comfortable asserting that rating is on 100/130 grade fuel. Only late experimental E/F engines and G engines were rated on 115/145 grade fuel, and these engines didn't see service during the war. (See Vees..., page 375.)

And hell, maybe the some USAAF groups did use the high rating. And it doesn't appear to me any longer that 100/150 would have been required to do it. Maybe I'm wrong, which means Kurfurst is wrong (which sort to takes the sting out of it. )

See "Vees For Victory," chapter 12, The V-1710-F: The "Bread & Butter" Allison, page 265, which states, "Within the first six months of the war Allison responded to needs from the War Theaters by demonstrating and authorizing use of War Emergency Ratings for the E/F engines. Though the official Army Air Forces channels were slow to approve their use, these ratings were soon widely used within combat groups.""
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Warren M. Bodie's book, the Lockheet P-38 Lightning. Page 250 Comprehensive Table of Lockheed P-38 Production.

P-38-1-LO 1290 deliverd, V-1710F-30 engines. Serial numbers 44-23769-24058 June 1944-Nov 1944 (so YES, it is a 1944 aircraft)
P-38-5-LO 2200 deliverd, V-1710F-30 engines. Serial numbers 44-25059-27258 Oct 44-June 45.
P-38-5-LO 320 delivered, V-1710F-30 engines. Serial numbers 44-53008-53327 May 45-Aug 45.

Even 113 deliverd of P-38L-5-VN (?) also using the F-30 engines. VN is from the Nashvill Tenn production line.

780+ L's were converted to F-5's photo recon, all still having the F-30 engine.

On page 215 of the same book.

"One interesting point that has never been taken into account is that a P-38L-5-LO, enjoying up to 1725 bhp per engine at War Emergency Power settings, must have been coming very close to its critical Mach Number of .68 in level flight at its critical altitude. WEP speed at 20,000-23,500 feet was probably as high as 443 MPH (TAS)"

At that altitude, the critical speed was 460MPH TAS for the P-38. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



So the "proof" is :

- 'Skychimp'`s assertion that the Allision could run up at 1725 HP with 3200 rpm (no evidence that this rpm was cleared for the service) at 100/130 grade fuel (no evidence again, it`s pure speculation).

2nd "proof" :
*...."is that a P-38L-5-LO, enjoying up to 1725 bhp per engine at War Emergency Power settings"

Well as far as I know 'a' means ONE. Which means a proto and not an operational example if the source is right. The date (postwar test?) isn`t mentioned, the aircraft itself, wheter it was operationally cleared or not isn`t mentioned.. absolutely no evidence of operational clearance but the contrary...

So basically, you say the P-38Llate is a reasistic planeset with widespread service like the P-51D, MkXIV Spit etc, because a guy from the forum came up with a new version which even he admits an assertion, and that a secondary source mentions a single experimental plane, appearantly postwar, having done trials on the rating, while of course all primary documentation is completely lacking....

Utterly 'convincing'. Well is that all? Based on this, I put the P-38Llate along the fantasy/what if planeset, ie. Bf 109Z, Gotha, Russian protos, all of which saw no real service, and generally are based on projected/hypothetical perforfmanca claims and largely assumptions.


Now the facts against this, the P-38L was NEVER cleared for more than 1600 HP in USAAF service :

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1121184060_resizeof503_1102467228_p38lsetup.jp g

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1121183759_p-38l_datasheet.jpg

Hard evidence, hard to argue with.

Hastatus
07-28-2005, 08:48 AM
Oleg included it. If you want to prove it shouldn't be in the game , the onus is on you do disprove it, to the satisfaction of Maddox Games.

I think its the height of arrogance to assume because you don't have the data at your fingertips that its all a "conspiratorial fabrication".

So, 4.02 is a month away.

Get busy. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Atomic_Marten
07-28-2005, 08:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As it was stated in this thread clearly, ALL P-38L's in WW2 were fitted with 1725HP engines. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It doesn't mean that at a particular point in time the boost to enable 1725HP was officially sanctioned, though. Look at the Spit IX - we could have versions with the same engines but different boosts. The fact that the same engine was later cleared for higher boost does not invalidate the existence of a version with the same engine with a lower boost earlier in the war. So the question then becomes - what range of officially sanctioned boosts were available during the lifetime of the P38L, and do the available models we have match those levels of boost? Or does the performance match those levels of boost? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

While I can understand your POV, I also think that is silly to intentionally 'underrate' fighter which was in real life capable for more, just because it isn't officially sanctioned for that power output.
It's engines were rated on 1725HP (I doubt that mr.Bodie and the rest have a reason to lie about this) on 100/130 grade fuel.

About Spitfire MK.9.. well I don't have much clue, but seems to me if you have engine rated at 1565HP (with BOOST) at given alt it cannot be turned into engine with for example 1600HP.
I'm not a machinist engineer, but seems to me if you want to have more powerful engine, you must either:
-provide fuel with more octanes (the engine stays the same, but you may ruin engine)
-make some upgrades on engine (but if you do it isn't the same engine any more, is it?)

Also, take note that MK.9s in game were fitted with:

MK.9c, LF.MK.9c(CW), MK.9e - Merlin61
LF.MK.9e(CW) - Merlin66
HF.MK.9e - Merlin70

So when you talk about "the same engine" on MK.9s what exactly did you think of?

Pirschjaeger
07-28-2005, 09:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hristo_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RedDeth:
kurfurst dont argue with skychimp you will just end up wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe Kornfest actually wants his monkey spanked....


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

One more personal attack like this and I'll have to find a manga cartoon about you.

And we don't want that, now don't we ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can we vote? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Fritz

Pirschjaeger
07-28-2005, 09:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Atomic_Marten:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As it was stated in this thread clearly, ALL P-38L's in WW2 were fitted with 1725HP engines. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It doesn't mean that at a particular point in time the boost to enable 1725HP was officially sanctioned, though. Look at the Spit IX - we could have versions with the same engines but different boosts. The fact that the same engine was later cleared for higher boost does not invalidate the existence of a version with the same engine with a lower boost earlier in the war. So the question then becomes - what range of officially sanctioned boosts were available during the lifetime of the P38L, and do the available models we have match those levels of boost? Or does the performance match those levels of boost? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

While I can understand your POV, I also think that is silly to intentionally 'underrate' fighter which was in real life capable for more, just because it isn't officially sanctioned for that power output.
It's engines were rated on 1725HP (I doubt that mr.Bodie and the rest have a reason to lie about this) on 100/130 grade fuel.

About Spitfire MK.9.. well I don't have much clue, but seems to me if you have engine rated at 1565HP (with BOOST) at given alt it cannot be turned into engine with for example 1600HP.
I'm not a machinist engineer, but seems to me if you want to have more powerful engine, you must either:
-provide fuel with more octanes (the engine stays the same, but you may ruin engine)
-make some upgrades on engine (but if you do it isn't the same engine any more, is it?)

Also, take note that MK.9s in game were fitted with:

MK.9c(CW), MK.9e - Merlin61
MK.9eCW - Merlin66
HF.MK.9e - Merlin70

So when you talk about "the same engine" on MK.9s what exactly did you think of? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, when you modify and engine, lets say the bore, the stroke, shave the block, higher compression pistons, modified cams, and many more you usually get a higher compression resulting in higher HP. But if it was a 350 chev before your started, it's still a 350 chev when you've finished. I would say it's about the block and heads for the most part.

I didn't even mention the various ways to feed the fuel.

Fritz

Atomic_Marten
07-28-2005, 09:16 AM
I disagree. It is not the same engine any more. I have clearly said that in my initial post.

If you make any physical changes to engine -- IMHO it is not the same machine any more. To backup my thoughts I will say:
Me and you are constructing the SAME engine.
1.You use the finest material available
2.I use normal material, standardized
Will we have the SAME engine at the end? Most certainly not..
I am not talking about silly designation, I am talking about real life differences.

Well, I would like to see what Formula 1 constructors can say about this.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

lrrp22
07-28-2005, 09:49 AM
So if you don't have a Specific Engine Flight Chart to hand, it never happened?

If that's the case, how do you explain the P-51B/D running at 72" Hg in the ETO and 80" Hg in the PTO? There are certainly no available SEFC, General Data cards or Pilot's Manual notations that quote those manifold pressures. The fact is we know well over a thousand VIII Fighter Command P-51's flew at 72" Hg in the ETO and a couple hundred more at 80" Hg on Iwo Jima- with full Official USAAF authorization.

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

Now the facts against this, the P-38L was NEVER cleared for more than 1600 HP in USAAF service :

Hard evidence, hard to argue with. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

JuHa-
07-28-2005, 10:08 AM
Kurfurst,

Thanks for the charts, now the question:
Is there a date on them?

Gibbage1
07-28-2005, 11:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JuHa-:
Kurfurst,

Thanks for the charts, now the question:
Is there a date on them? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I could not find a date on my copy of the manual, but it does have lots of referances to the old G series even though the book was printed for the H, J and L. But it still shows the old F-17 engines on the J and H, and the new F-30 engines on the L. Please note that Kurd's top referance has THE WRONG ENGINE listed for the L, and contradicts the bottom image.

Fury_352FG
07-28-2005, 12:23 PM
I just put this up on another thread but will post it here also.

Information on capabilities of the P-38. Some really good stuff.

http://yarchive.net/mil/p38.html

Atomic_Marten
07-28-2005, 01:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
So if you don't have a Specific Engine Flight Chart to hand, it never happened?

If that's the case, how do you explain the P-51B/D running at 72" Hg in the ETO and 80" Hg in the PTO? There are certainly no available SEFC, General Data cards or Pilot's Manual notations that quote those manifold pressures. The fact is we know well over a thousand VIII Fighter Command P-51's flew at 72" Hg in the ETO and a couple hundred more at 80" Hg on Iwo Jima- with full Official USAAF authorization. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you have aimed this critic to my POV, I will say that you completely missed point. If not, then you can ignore this post.
I have never mentioned anything about Specific Engine Flight Chart, don't know from where you dig this one up. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

But when you already mentioned those hundreds of P-51B/Ds, please tell me what type of engines they were fitted? Are you reffering to B model, or D model, or both? Your words lead me to conclude how these P-51B/Ds were fitted with SAME engine.
(AFAIK P-51D had Merlin V-1650-7(1720HP) engine fitted, while P-51B had V-1650-3(1620HP) engine fitted)

Cippacometa
07-28-2005, 02:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1121184060_resizeof503_1102467228_p38lsetup.jp g

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1121183759_p-38l_datasheet.jpg
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Kurfust, there's a problem with your files: the "GENERAL DATA" says that P-38L had V-1710-89 and 91 engines, while the "SPECIFIC ENGINE FLIGHT CHART" says V-1710-111 and 113.
<span class="ev_code_RED">Something is wrong.</span>
AFAIK, reading on books and Internet, 89/91 Allisons were installed on the P-38J, while 111/113 on the P-38L. Thus, the data provided on these technical charts are not reliable and I would avoid to use them prove anything.

JuHa-
07-28-2005, 03:23 PM
Yeah, I'm aware that the charts refer to different engine types (but to L-type plane).

The power listings are about the same - which isn't the point IMHO. There's that plane serial
number (I assume) printed, 44-25077, which might shed light upon the date.

Assuming that the engines in question were reasonably similar, then running them with same
settings and ending up with same power values is reasonable result.

SkyChimp
07-28-2005, 03:35 PM
Kurfurst, why don't you prove the F-30 wasn't rated by Allison for 1,725 hp? So far you've moaned about it, but offered no proof whatsoever.

And by the waym what's your gripe with the "Late" L anwyas, since it isn't even performing to 1,600 hp standards?

I say, let's introduce a 1.98 ata Bf-109 K-4, but make it perform to 1.25 ata levels.

Gibbage1
07-28-2005, 03:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JuHa-:
Yeah, I'm aware that the charts refer to different engine types (but to L-type plane).

The power listings are about the same - which isn't the point IMHO. There's that plane serial
number (I assume) printed, 44-25077, which might shed light upon the date.

Assuming that the engines in question were reasonably similar, then running them with same
settings and ending up with same power values is reasonable result. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

P-38-1-LO 1290 deliverd, V-1710F-30 engines. Serial numbers 44-23769-24058 June 1944-Nov 1944 (so YES, it is a 1944 aircraft)
P-38-5-LO 2200 deliverd, V-1710F-30 engines. Serial numbers 44-25059-27258 Oct 44-June 45.
P-38-5-LO 320 delivered, V-1710F-30 engines. Serial numbers 44-53008-53327 May 45-Aug 45.

24077 falls within the -5-LO serial number block, given the F-30 engines.

Both F-17 and F-30 engines were the same, but the 12 point shaft on the F-30 were better balanced to allow higher RPM and higher HP. So if you ran the two engines at the same MAP and RPM, they WOULD give the same output. BUT the F-30 could take more then whats listed in the manual. Even the J could take and was officialy cleared for 66" at 3200RPM.

Kurfurst__
07-28-2005, 04:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
So if you don't have a Specific Engine Flight Chart to hand, it never happened?

If that's the case, how do you explain the P-51B/D running at 72" Hg in the ETO and 80" Hg in the PTO? There are certainly no available SEFC, General Data cards or Pilot's Manual notations that quote those manifold pressures. The fact is we know well over a thousand VIII Fighter Command P-51's flew at 72" Hg in the ETO and a couple hundred more at 80" Hg on Iwo Jima- with full Official USAAF authorization. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you miss your evidence then. I am not particularly interested in Mustangs, but I have the original docs (manuals, excerts of meetings etc.) that mention both 80" and 72" Hg for the Mustang... so you are wrong these do not exists. They do.

Funnily enough, absolutely NOBODY can find any documentation of the 1725 HP. You just twist the story, 1725 HP was claimed to have been obtained with 70"Hg and 3200 RPm, with 150 octane, when there was no documentation of it and it turned out 38Ls never got 150 grade, the claim was quickly changed that it was cleared for 1725 on 100 octane. And, 66" was also good enough... LOL.

You claim Allision cleared the V-1710 for P-38L. Fine. WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE? Documentation? Engine chart? Factory papers?

Kurfurst__
07-28-2005, 04:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Kurfurst, why don't you prove the F-30 wasn't rated by Allison for 1,725 hp? So far you've moaned about it, but offered no proof whatsoever. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, but I already did. Look at the charts, they say : 1600 HP max.
As for disproving 1725 HP, I`d need to see something I can disprove. Ie. sort of evidence of service use of 1725HP... So far no such thing.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And by the waym what's your gripe with the "Late" L anwyas, since it isn't even performing to 1,600 hp standards? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, the only guy claiming this is Tagert, and he, hmmm, well, not the person most of us can take seriously.

Oh and BTW... wouldn`t it be the simpliest way of prooving 1725 HP was approved by showing the performance trials a 1725 HP...?

Don`t tell me we have a plane in the sim with a fantasy boost and fantasy performance with no documentation behind it at all...


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I say, let's introduce a 1.98 ata Bf-109 K-4, but make it perform to 1.25 ata levels. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

50% agree. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Gibbage1
07-28-2005, 05:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:


Don`t tell me we have a plane in the sim with a fantasy boost and fantasy performance with no documentation behind it at all...
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

109Z and Go-229V3 never flew, and never had documentation so EVERYTHING about them is pure fantasy. Oddly, both German.

NorrisMcWhirter
07-28-2005, 05:20 PM
^ Those aircraft are irrelevant to the debate over the P38L-Late as they are rarely, if at all, used in servers whereas this plane is very likely to be.

Ta,
Norris

Gibbage1
07-28-2005, 05:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
^ Those aircraft are irrelevant to the debate over the P38L-Late as they are rarely, if at all, used in servers whereas this plane is very likely to be.

Ta,
Norris </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kurd said "Don`t tell me we have a plane in the sim with a fantasy boost and fantasy performance with no documentation behind it at all..." and I proved him wrong.

Hoarmurath
07-28-2005, 05:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
109Z and Go-229V3 never flew, and never had documentation so EVERYTHING about them is pure fantasy. Oddly, both German. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oddly, one of them have been included because YOU modelled it. If you didn't wanted fantasy german planes to be included in the sim, all you had to do was not work on them then send them to Oleg.

Gibbage1
07-28-2005, 06:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hoarmurath:

Oddly, one of them have been included because YOU modelled it. If you didn't wanted fantasy german planes to be included in the sim, all you had to do was not work on them then send them to Oleg. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quote me were I said I did not want any fantasy aircraft at all to be included, or any fantasy German aircraft? I dare you. Again, you put words in my mouth I never said. I dont think its your lack of english comprehention since you do this so much.

All that was in reply to was Kurd making a bold and ignorant statement "Don`t tell me we have a plane in the sim with a fantasy boost and fantasy performance with no documentation behind it at all..."

He lied. We do have 2 fantasy aircraft with no documentation behind them.

Hoarmurath
07-28-2005, 06:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:

Quote me were I said I did not want any fantasy aircraft at all to be included, or any fantasy German aircraft? I dare you. Again, you put words in my mouth I never said. I dont think its your lack of english comprehention since you do this so much.

All that was in reply to was Kurd making a bold and ignorant statement "Don`t tell me we have a plane in the sim with a fantasy boost and fantasy performance with no documentation behind it at all..."

He lied. We do have 2 fantasy aircraft with no documentation behind them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tu me prend pour un con? Chaque fois que tu cites les appareils inclus qui n'ont jamais volé, tu insistes sur le fait qu'ils sont bleus, ou allemands. Alors que c'est bien grace a toi, glandu, que l'un de ces avions a ete inclu, et qu'en plus tu travaillais sur d'autres appareils de la meme trempe. Encore heureux qu'Oleg y ai mis un Hola, sans quoi avec tes modeles, on avait droit aussi aux soucoupes volantes allemandes et autres absurdites. Apres ca, venir pleurer sur le fait que seuls des appareils allemands fantaisistes soient inclus, c'est quand meme fort!!! Et puis comme tu m'em*****s avec mes soi-disants problemes de comprehension de ta langue, a partir de maintenant, je m'adresserais a toi en francais. Ca me fera des vacances.

Gibbage1
07-28-2005, 07:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hoarmurath:

Frech crud I will Bablefish later
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Did you forget your English? Again, you prove your very immature and unable to debate on an intellectual level.
Since your rather immature, I will translate for you. Grow up or shut up.

Hoarmurath
07-28-2005, 07:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hoarmurath:

Frech crud I will Bablefish later
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Did you forget your English? Again, you prove your very immature and unable to debate on an intellectual level.
Since your rather immature, I will translate for you. Grow up or shut up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

he bien bon courage ma louloute pour traduire ca avec babelfish. Pour ce qui est de grandir, chaque fois que je lis un de tes posts, j'ai l'impression de parler avec un gosse de quinze ans, question maturité, zéro... Question honneteté, ben ca va avec ta maturité. Mais bon, faut dire que depuis que tu as lancé un ultimatum pour ton histoire de sulfateuse a Oleg, ta maturité on se doutait bien de son niveau (je sens que babelfish va encore nous mitonner une traduc de derriere les ***ots la). En tout cas, je constate que ma connaissance et ma comprehension de ta langue vont bien au dela de celles que tu peux avoir de la mienne. J'ai pas besoin d'un traducteur, merci, et je lis couramment l'anglais, litteraire et technique, depuis fort longtemps. J'ai lu suffisament d'auteurs anglophones dans le texte pour savoir reconnaitre un sarcasme, surtout a peine voilé, quand j'en lis un...

SkyChimp
07-28-2005, 07:31 PM
De flip de flap da boin floigen.

That's all the French I know. It's all I need.

Gibbage1
07-28-2005, 07:34 PM
I think its past someones bed time. What time is it in France anyways?

TAGERT.
07-28-2005, 10:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I think its past someones bed time. What time is it in France anyways? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>ROTFL!

AerialTarget
07-28-2005, 10:49 PM
Kornfest! That's the best one yet.

Kernow
07-29-2005, 06:03 AM
Not sure which is the 'correct' L-model, but as far as we need be concerned there was only one L-model. OTOH you could have a J and a J-late. If the L-late is the 'real' L then the game L-model is pretty much equivalent to a late J-model, should you wish to represent one.

Only books I can find say 1600hp or 1424 hp plus 'considerably more' war emergency power, for the F30.

It would be nice to see something to confirm 1725 hp. But the main thing is that the FM performs as it should - need to look closer at that.

joeap
07-29-2005, 06:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hoarmurath:

Frech crud I will Bablefish later
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Did you forget your English? Again, you prove your very immature and unable to debate on an intellectual level.
Since your rather immature, I will translate for you. Grow up or shut up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

he bien bon courage ma louloute pour traduire ca avec babelfish. Pour ce qui est de grandir, chaque fois que je lis un de tes posts, j'ai l'impression de parler avec un gosse de quinze ans, question maturité, zéro... Question honneteté, ben ca va avec ta maturité. Mais bon, faut dire que depuis que tu as lancé un ultimatum pour ton histoire de sulfateuse a Oleg, ta maturité on se doutait bien de son niveau (je sens que babelfish va encore nous mitonner une traduc de derriere les ***ots la). En tout cas, je constate que ma connaissance et ma comprehension de ta langue vont bien au dela de celles que tu peux avoir de la mienne. J'ai pas besoin d'un traducteur, merci, et je lis couramment l'anglais, litteraire et technique, depuis fort longtemps. J'ai lu suffisament d'auteurs anglophones dans le texte pour savoir reconnaitre un sarcasme, surtout a peine voilé, quand j'en lis un... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Salut Hoarmurath, faut pas s'enerver avec qql Amerloques, de toute facon, il vont jamais comprendre ... au moins si la Chine nous obligera de parler en chinois. Chaque coté, "blue" et "red" m'enerve par fois. Your english is excellent, I often agree with you (not always) take care. Very funny speech.

A bilingual anglophone Greek-Canadian (rare breed from Vancouver). http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Hoarmurath
07-29-2005, 07:25 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Kurfurst__
07-29-2005, 08:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:


Don`t tell me we have a plane in the sim with a fantasy boost and fantasy performance with no documentation behind it at all...
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

109Z and Go-229V3 never flew, and never had documentation so EVERYTHING about them is pure fantasy. Oddly, both German. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Look up the word 'sarcasm'.
And yes it`s odd.. the Gotha was put into the game BY YOU.
I never wanted it, never fly it - perhaps twice in QMB since it`s in the game. If it would be gone, I couldn`t care less.

darkhorizon11
07-29-2005, 05:48 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/5731071933/p/12

I think Tagert's research has put the hammer down on this rusty ol' nail.

And yes I still don't see how the LW guys can get away with this BS when they got the 109Z. Lets some historical numbers on that one....hardly.

MEGILE
07-29-2005, 06:14 PM
Cet argument est intéressant.
Si on a donné un avion l'équipe bleue avec peu de preuve qu'il a existé, les pilotes rouges crieraient sur le forum.....

Pourtant, comme l'avion est pour l'equipe rouge, la preuve n'est pas nécessaire. L'équipe rouge n'était pas heureuse quand le TA-152 a été présenté, encore il n'y a aucune plainte du P-38L Late.

Je m'excuse si mon français n'est pas parfait.

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

Low_Flyer_MkII
07-29-2005, 06:23 PM
La plume de ma tante c'est dans l'abre http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Hoarmurath
07-29-2005, 06:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
Cet argument est intéressant.
Si on a donné un avion l'équipe bleue avec peu de preuve qu'il a existé, les pilotes rouges crieraient sur le forum.....

Pourtant, comme l'avion est pour l'equipe rouge, la preuve n'est pas nécessaire. L'équipe rouge n'était pas heureuse quand le TA-152 a été présenté, encore il n'y a aucune plainte du P-38L Late.

Je m'excuse si mon français n'est pas parfait.

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

No need to apologize, your french is fairly good.

Well, as i said, nobody asked for the plane to be removed, or even toned down... It's a good plane, nice, no problem with that.

I have never seen any "blue" player saying that the 109z wasn't a fantasy plane, or the go229, or even that the Ta152 saw very limited use.
But curiously, when it come to US planes, any suggestion that they belong to the "what if" category is an anathem. Not only the P-38L late, but even the P-80... What is so bad about having "what if" planes? And this is not a "red side" issue... It is very specifically an US issue. I have never seen a "red" player trying to claim that the i185 wasn't a prototype, or the mig-3u, or the BI-1... They seem to accept the fact that we have some "what if" russian planes fairly well.

Atomic_Marten
07-29-2005, 09:39 PM
I can agree on your fantasy planes POV Hoarmurath.

Only the most childish and immature (nothing else comes to my mind now) players (actual age does not matter) will whine about fantasy planes in FB.
In FB IMO we do not have true fantasy planes.. those which NEVER saw any service and were only blueprints on paper.(AFAIK even I-185 was a prototype) Therefore I dare to say that it is really somewhat exaggerate to talk about "fantasy planes" term in FB.

It is groundless to talk about jet planes as "fantasy" ones just because of their performance.
To determine exactly how much is particular type important for game is fairly easy. Number produced is the most important factor IMO.. but on the other hand it is somehwat void to say that some plane shouldn't be in game because only (for example) 20-30 types were built and other type should be in game because it was produced over 500 types.. if for nothing else than for one simple fact: MAKE IT for yourself. Whining about this is in the explained manner is so void that in fact any simmer should avoid that because otherwise he would look like nutcase. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Back to topic; from what I have seen P-38LATE isn't fantasy plane -- on the contrary only old 1600HP P-38L is. And should be removed from game accordingly.

So much smoke, but no fire in sight...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT.
07-29-2005, 11:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Atomic_Marten:
Back to topic; from what I have seen P-38LATE isn't fantasy plane -- on the contrary only old 1600HP P-38L is. And should be removed from game accordingly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactally!

BSS_CUDA
07-29-2005, 11:52 PM
the irony of the whole fantasy plane issue, is that every single plane in this game is a fantasy plane. not 1 of them can be proven to fly like the real thing. not one of us knows what the real thing flew like, as none of us flew any of these aircraft in combat. it is all just a best guess. Oleg has taken data and made a best effort GUESS at what the real thing should be like, there are hundreds of factors that could effect the FM of a real aircraft that cannot be modeled into the game. in this game each aircraft type flies exactly the same, that was not the case in real life, quite the contrary, each plane had its own little quirks that caused it to handle different, each crew chief did his own little tweeks to make his plane fly different. this is a pure fantasy GAME and all of us my self included need to quit crying when things dont go our way. the 38-Late is here. get over it and play the game, I do want the plane to be as accurate as possible and I applaude those of you that have made serious efforts to do so. but to label anything as a fantasy plane is ludicris. they are all fantasy planes, so if you find you cannot live with it, then go play quake and stop trying to screw it up for those of us that enjoy what we have. its called FUN http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif