PDA

View Full Version : Ian Boys: Please read. Reference for Oleg re. P-47 Rollrate



XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 10:36 PM
Salute Ian

You have stated that Oleg is looking for more detailed proof that the P-47's rollrate is incorrect. You said that he wanted more background on the charts which have been presented to show the rollrate is incorrect.

This post is to provide the data he requires, as well as background to where that data was obtained.

In this post I will begin with this Study, available on the NASA/NACA website:

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-report-868/

As you can see from the title, "Summary of lateral-control research ", it is a summary of all the information gathered by NACA during the 1930's and 1940's. It includes references and data from many tests and studies done during that period. It is an attempt to quantify exactly what design parameters best help an aircraft maneuver with input from its ailerons.

It was not a study of a single aircraft, but rather a general examination of a multitude of different aircraft tests, with an eye to determining what designs worked the best.

It did however, include much data and flight testing from specific aircraft.

Reference sources for the study are numerous as you can see beginning with this page:

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-report-868/index.cgi?page71.gif


Some of the tests used as references in Report #868 were theoretical, some were done in Wind Tunnels, and some were actual Flight Tests.

Data from Flight Tests came from the Langely Laboratory of NACA. On the Flight Tests, the following procedures were applied, as you can see detailed on these pages, beginning Paragraph bottom right side:

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-report-868/11.gif


http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-report-868/12.gif



In regards specifically to the P-47C-1RE, data from this aircraft is included a number of times, including the well known chart showing flight test data of its rollrate over the speedrange, as well as a number of other aircraft, here:

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-report-868/42.gif


as well as a chart which shows variations on Helix Angle, calculating radians:

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-report-868/41.gif


as well as a series of charts which detail the various tests done to improve the P-47C-1RE's ailerons over the originals which equipped the aircraft:

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-report-868/30.gif


http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-report-868/31.gif


Notice the standard 50 lbs stick force benchmark is used in all of these test reports.

There is also a chart which details the advantages of a aircraft with a heavily built, rigid wing, such as a P-47, over an aircraft such as a Spitfire, which had a relatively lightly built wing. The more rigid wing flexes less at high speeds and therefore rollrate is better.

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-report-868/07.gif


There were a number of other aircraft tests made reference to, as for example this one on the early P-51 prototype:

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-report-868/23.gif


As with all the flight tests, note that once again, a stick force of 50 lbs was used to determine maximum rolling performance in the Flight tests.

There is no doubt that the figures for rollrate presented here are accurate and come from actual Flight tests of the P-47C-1RE aircraft.

The P-47C-1RE was in almost all respects identical to the P-47D10 represented in FORGOTTEN BATTLES. The only substantial difference was the addition of Water Injection in the D10 model.

Aerodynamically, the P-47C-1RE was identical to the P-47D10, having the same wing area, same ailerons, same rudder and same elevator. Weights of the two aircraft were the same, with the exception of the addition of the Water injection tank, and the injectors required for its use. Those were situated in the body of the aircraft, not the wings, and would have no effect on the rolling performance of the D10.

I will make another post regarding the P-47D22 and D27, and the studies which are applicable to them.


Thankyou for your patience /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif RAF74 Buzzsaw



Message Edited on 08/15/0309:59PM by RAF74BuzzsawXO

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 10:36 PM
Salute Ian

You have stated that Oleg is looking for more detailed proof that the P-47's rollrate is incorrect. You said that he wanted more background on the charts which have been presented to show the rollrate is incorrect.

This post is to provide the data he requires, as well as background to where that data was obtained.

In this post I will begin with this Study, available on the NASA/NACA website:

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-report-868/

As you can see from the title, "Summary of lateral-control research ", it is a summary of all the information gathered by NACA during the 1930's and 1940's. It includes references and data from many tests and studies done during that period. It is an attempt to quantify exactly what design parameters best help an aircraft maneuver with input from its ailerons.

It was not a study of a single aircraft, but rather a general examination of a multitude of different aircraft tests, with an eye to determining what designs worked the best.

It did however, include much data and flight testing from specific aircraft.

Reference sources for the study are numerous as you can see beginning with this page:

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-report-868/index.cgi?page71.gif


Some of the tests used as references in Report #868 were theoretical, some were done in Wind Tunnels, and some were actual Flight Tests.

Data from Flight Tests came from the Langely Laboratory of NACA. On the Flight Tests, the following procedures were applied, as you can see detailed on these pages, beginning Paragraph bottom right side:

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-report-868/11.gif


http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-report-868/12.gif



In regards specifically to the P-47C-1RE, data from this aircraft is included a number of times, including the well known chart showing flight test data of its rollrate over the speedrange, as well as a number of other aircraft, here:

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-report-868/42.gif


as well as a chart which shows variations on Helix Angle, calculating radians:

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-report-868/41.gif


as well as a series of charts which detail the various tests done to improve the P-47C-1RE's ailerons over the originals which equipped the aircraft:

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-report-868/30.gif


http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-report-868/31.gif


Notice the standard 50 lbs stick force benchmark is used in all of these test reports.

There is also a chart which details the advantages of a aircraft with a heavily built, rigid wing, such as a P-47, over an aircraft such as a Spitfire, which had a relatively lightly built wing. The more rigid wing flexes less at high speeds and therefore rollrate is better.

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-report-868/07.gif


There were a number of other aircraft tests made reference to, as for example this one on the early P-51 prototype:

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-report-868/23.gif


As with all the flight tests, note that once again, a stick force of 50 lbs was used to determine maximum rolling performance in the Flight tests.

There is no doubt that the figures for rollrate presented here are accurate and come from actual Flight tests of the P-47C-1RE aircraft.

The P-47C-1RE was in almost all respects identical to the P-47D10 represented in FORGOTTEN BATTLES. The only substantial difference was the addition of Water Injection in the D10 model.

Aerodynamically, the P-47C-1RE was identical to the P-47D10, having the same wing area, same ailerons, same rudder and same elevator. Weights of the two aircraft were the same, with the exception of the addition of the Water injection tank, and the injectors required for its use. Those were situated in the body of the aircraft, not the wings, and would have no effect on the rolling performance of the D10.

I will make another post regarding the P-47D22 and D27, and the studies which are applicable to them.


Thankyou for your patience /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif RAF74 Buzzsaw



Message Edited on 08/15/0309:59PM by RAF74BuzzsawXO

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 10:52 PM
Salute Ian

Please reply to indicate you have read this post.


Thankyou RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 10:56 PM
Even though I find this P47 thing roll rate annoying, I gotta hand it to you, RAF74BuzzsawXO , at least you`re really trying.

"Tis better to work towards an Impossible Good, rather than a Possible Evil."

SeaFireLIV.

Message Edited on 08/15/03 09:58PM by SeaFireLIV

Message Edited on 08/15/0309:59PM by SeaFireLIV

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 11:05 PM
Bump for response.

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 11:08 PM
Good read, thanks i`ll bump for anyone who does their homework.

Regards,
VFC*Crazyivan
http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/ivan-reaper.gif

"No matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down." Ivan Kozhedub

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 11:13 PM
Bumpity bump bump.

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/WAR-08.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 11:41 PM
I'll give it a bump, though I expect Ian is down at the Pub, what? Pip Pip and all that rot.

(No offense intended to the friends across the pond, just a poor attempt at humor).

The_Blue_Devil
08-15-2003, 11:50 PM
It is not a bump..it is keeping what matters at the top. Ahh who am I kidding BUMP

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center>
<center>[b]"Pilots who liked to dogifght could do it their own way. I avoided it. I always attacked at full speed and I evaded a bounce in the same manner. When you were hit from above and behind, and your attacker held his fire until he was really close, you knew you were in with someone who had a great deal of experience.-Erich Hartmann"[b]</center>


<center> <img src=http://www.angelfire.lycos.com/art2/devilart/MySigII.gif> </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 12:15 AM
OK I'm still not awake but my first reactions:

1) It shows a P-47C-1-RE: How far is that different to a P-47D-10? What was the fuel load? Was ammo carried?

2) The NACA results at 10,000 feet indicate 4.86 seconds for a roll at 300kmh. Jaeger posted FB results of 4.91 at 6500 feet and 5.63 at 13,000 feet. Given that Jaeger was carrying 100% fuel and a standard ammo load I'd say this was close enough not to worry about. It's not as though this is out by a factor of 2 or anything is it? Did the NACA test aircraft carry ammo in the wing?

3) The test shows a stick force of 50 lbs. We don't know what stick forces are available in game. Some suggest less may be more realistic, but I have no idea.

4) Lastly, the report makes clear on page 155 that the C-1-RE carried a modified aileron system. Whether this was used in the D-10 I have no idea.

Basically though it suggests the P-47 may roll some 10% (0.54 seconds) too slow. Given that the D-10 is heavier, carried ammo and full fuel I'd say Oleg has it just right for this speed.

Now, at 450kmh Jaeger's results diverge quite strongly from the NACA results, by a factor of >2. I therefore tried it myself at the exact height with a plane with 25% fuel and no wing ammo and was able to reduce the discrepancy to a factor of 1.8 (that is, the plane takes 1.8 times longer to complete a roll than suggested by the NACA test).

So basically Oleg has it right for 300kmh and maybe too slow for 450kmh. But without knowing max stick forces Oleg thinks are reasonable it's hard to say he's wrong. Anyway, I will send this stuff to him and we'll see.



Message Edited on 08/16/0308:22AM by ianboys

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 12:39 AM
Well, ya can't do more than that.

I hope this gets addressed to everyone's satisfaction and doesn't just become the "because I said so" kind of thing (like the FW190 cockpit 'view').

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 12:43 AM
Salute Ian

Thankyou for your response.


I realize you are tired, and perhaps not at 100%, but I would ask you to re-read my post carefully, especially the original documents.


In reply to your points:

-
- 1) It shows a P-47C-1-RE: How far is that different
- to a P-47D-10? What was the fuel load? Was ammo
- carried?

Aircraft had full fuel and ammunition load.
I would remind you there are no fuel tanks in the wings of the P-47.
-
- 2) The NACA results at 10,000 feet indicate 4.86
- seconds for a roll at 300kmh. Jaeger posted FB
- results of 4.91 at 6500 feet and 5.63 at 13,000
- feet. Given that Jaeger was carrying 100% fuel and a
- standard ammo load I'd say this was close enough not
- to worry about. It's not as though this is out by a
- factor of 2 or anything is it? Did the NACA test
- aircraft carry ammo in the wing?

The figure of 4.86 and 5.63 lbs which Jaeger achieved were with rudder application.

If you go back and re-read the flight test criteria documents I posted, you will see the following specified:

"Each test roll is made by moving the control (stick or wheel) abruptly to some predetermined deflection and by holding the control at that deflection until the maximum rolling velocity occurs. Until maximum rolling velocity occurs, the rudder is held in its original trim position."

Ie. no rudder is used to start the roll. Neither is the roll a "Snap Roll" with elevator and rudder applied as well as aileron as Ming posted in his "test".
-
- 3) The test shows a stick force of 50 lbs. We don't
- know what stick forces are available in game. Some
- suggest less may be more realistic, but I have no
- idea.

All the aircraft's rollrates in the game for which I have figures match up with a 50 lb stick force, or the maximum stick force which could be applied in a particular aircraft.
-
- 4) Lastly, the report makes clear on page 155 that
- the C-1-RE carried a modified aileron system.
- Whether this was used in the D-10 I have no idea.

The C-1RE final tests were done with the finalized ailerons.
-
- Basically though it suggests the P-47 may roll some
- 10% (0.54 seconds) too slow. Given that the D-10 is
- heavier, carried ammo and full fuel I'd say Oleg has
- it just right for this speed.

As mentioned, the C-1RE is essentially exactly the same as a D10, with the exception of perhaps 100 lbs for the water injection tank and water injectors which went directly into the intake venturi. And that extra weight was located in the center of the aircraft at the engine and behind the seat, not in the wings.
-
- Now, at 450kmh Jaeger's results diverge quite
- strongly from the NACA results, by a factor of >2. I
- therefore tried it myself at the exact height with a
- plane with 25% fuel and no wing ammo and was able to
- reduce the discrepancy to a factor of 1.8 (that is,
- the plane takes 1.8 times longer to complete a roll
- than suggested by the NACA test).

The essence of your results are from rudder and aileron application. Please do tests without rudder or elevator application.
-
- So basically Oleg has it right for 300kmh and maybe
- too slow for 450kmh. But without knowing max
- stick forces Oleg thinks are reasonable it's hard to
- say he's wrong. Anyway, I will send this stuff
- to him and we'll see.

As you read above, I would have to disagree with your conclusion, since your results are obtained with rudder application. The P-47 cannot even meet its historical rollrate at 300 kph.

I would urge you to do the tests as specified by the NACA report.


Thankyou for your patience RAF74 Buzzsaw

The_Blue_Devil
08-16-2003, 12:50 AM
ianboys wrote:
- OK I'm still not awake but my first reactions:
-
- 1) It shows a P-47C-1-RE: How far is that different
- to a P-47D-10? What was the fuel load? Was ammo
- carried?
-
- 2) The NACA results at 10,000 feet indicate 4.86
- seconds for a roll at 300kmh. Jaeger posted FB
- results of 4.91 at 6500 feet and 5.63 at 13,000
- feet. Given that Jaeger was carrying 100% fuel and a
- standard ammo load I'd say this was close enough not
- to worry about. It's not as though this is out by a
- factor of 2 or anything is it? Did the NACA test
- aircraft carry ammo in the wing?
-
- 3) The test shows a stick force of 50 lbs. We don't
- know what stick forces are available in game. Some
- suggest less may be more realistic, but I have no
- idea.
-
- 4) Lastly, the report makes clear on page 155 that
- the C-1-RE carried a modified aileron system.
- Whether this was used in the D-10 I have no idea.
-
- Basically though it suggests the P-47 may roll some
- 10% (0.54 seconds) too slow. Given that the D-10 is
- heavier, carried ammo and full fuel I'd say Oleg has
- it just right for this speed.
-
- Now, at 450kmh Jaeger's results diverge quite
- strongly from the NACA results, by a factor of >2. I
- therefore tried it myself at the exact height with a
- plane with 25% fuel and no wing ammo and was able to
- reduce the discrepancy to a factor of 1.8 (that is,
- the plane takes 1.8 times longer to complete a roll
- than suggested by the NACA test).
-
- So basically Oleg has it right for 300kmh and maybe
- too slow for 450kmh. But without knowing max
- stick forces Oleg thinks are reasonable it's hard to
- say he's wrong. Anyway, I will send this stuff
- to him and we'll see.
-
-
-
Well honestly I have seen the info from Skychimp/Buzz/ et al. I would like to see the in all honesty and respect the Data that Oleg used in the developement of the P-47 to it's current state in which you yourself seem to be uninformed about. I would like to see stick forces/charts of performance/etc. Until I see the OFFICIAL Data used on the part of Oleg and CO I will have to believe that the Roll Rate is off, low speed or high. I really don't know how you can declare that Oleg has it right for 300KmH ian since you posted above that that you do not know the particulars of the data used, including fuel and armament. I'd also like to see this from Oleg himself, no one else since he has the final say. I'm not whining, I'm not making claims, I just want to see the Data on both sides so we can see who has it accurate and who doesn't.

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center>
<center>[b]"Pilots who liked to dogifght could do it their own way. I avoided it. I always attacked at full speed and I evaded a bounce in the same manner. When you were hit from above and behind, and your attacker held his fire until he was really close, you knew you were in with someone who had a great deal of experience.-Erich Hartmann"[b]</center>


<center> <img src=http://www.angelfire.lycos.com/art2/devilart/MySigII.gif> </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 12:55 AM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
- As you read above, I would have to disagree with
- your conclusion, since your results are obtained
- with rudder application. The P-47 cannot even meet
- its historical rollrate at 300 kph.

It's pretty close at 300kph. I did some tests with
and without rudder and elevator inputs at 300kph
tonight. I did the timings by slowing things down
to 1/4 speed. The average was 21+-1 seconds at
1/4 speed without rudder or elevator inputs, giving
an angular rotation, average, of just under 70 degrees
per second (to nearest 10), as compared to exactly 70 in
the charts for the P47C1-RE. That's basically within
10% which is pretty close for a roll rate.

I wouldn't worry about the roll rate at 300kmh - it is
pretty much on the mark.

At 400km/h the roll rate is halved from 300kmh.

At 200km/h the roll rate is the same as at 300km/h.

Neither are close to the charts.





Message Edited on 08/15/0311:57PM by AaronGT

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 12:56 AM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:


"Salute Ian

Thankyou for your response.

I realize you are tired, and perhaps not at 100%, but I would ask you to re-read my post carefully, especially the original documents."



RAF74BuzzsawXO old chap,
You got a good response. Ian is forwarding it on. What more do you want? An instant patch!? If they DO do it, it`ll take time. Although I think Ian Boys put his point across well.

There`s so much to FB, does it really have to just hinge on ONE plane for you guys? And just the roll rate alone? If I was like this I`d never play FB cos it never had a Spitfire. And it still doesn`t have the Spitfire! Consider yourself fortunate to have a P47 at all!





"Tis better to work towards an Impossible Good, rather than a Possible Evil."

SeaFireLIV.

Message Edited on 08/16/0312:00AM by SeaFireLIV

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 01:01 AM
Hi Buzz,

1) Yes I know re wing tanks. Didn't know that re fuel/ammo, but good to know.

2) I can match those roll rates of Jaegers under the method you post. I tried them at 300kmh/10,000 feet like the NACA test and get, as OI posted, similar results for 300kmh but too slow a roll at 450.

3) NT

4) Yes, but were these aierons on the D-10?



As I say, I tested again with the method you post - ie with rudder once you start rolling fast. Even without rudder the results weren't too different.

Basically, speaking as a layman who doesn't have these problems with his paramotor (try rolling one of those!), I'm happy with the 300kmh roll but feet the 450kmh roll needs speeding up. That's just a personal view from just another simmer. We'll see what Oleg says once the bugs have been sorted out and things like sound work properly.

_____________
Ian Boys
=38=Tatarenko
Kapitan - 38. OIAE

The_Blue_Devil
08-16-2003, 01:03 AM
SeaFireLIV wrote:
- RAF74BuzzsawXO old chap,
-
- You got a good response. Ian is forwarding it on.
- What more do you want? An instant patch!? If they DO
- do it, it`ll take time. Although I think Ian Boys
- put his point across well.
-
- There`s so much to FB, does it really have to just
- hinge on ONE plane for you guys? If I was like this
- I`d never play FB cos it never had a Spitfire. And
- it still doesn`t have the Spitfire! Consider
- yourself fortunate to have a P47 at all!
-
-

Ignored..there are no such things as Trolls. This thread Will stay on topic and will not be sidetracked. Last response to Seafire..you can reply all you want but I will not respond. Buzz has provided information in a respectful way, read a post instead of coming in to flame any and every P-47 thread as I have seen you doing. This post will not be Hi-Jacked.

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center>
<center>[b]"Pilots who liked to dogifght could do it their own way. I avoided it. I always attacked at full speed and I evaded a bounce in the same manner. When you were hit from above and behind, and your attacker held his fire until he was really close, you knew you were in with someone who had a great deal of experience.-Erich Hartmann"[b]</center>


<center> <img src=http://www.angelfire.lycos.com/art2/devilart/MySigII.gif> </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 01:07 AM
You think this is bad - wait till we get Stangwhiners!

_____________
Ian Boys
=38=Tatarenko
Kapitan - 38. OIAE

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 01:16 AM
Stangwhiners

lol

There's no end to it Ian

Forty bloody quid and they think they own you http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Ming

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 01:18 AM
Good thread and good work there with all the data. You have to fight for what you believe in! I think that eventually you will heard and this situation will be improved in coming patches. These sims are complex and tweaking one thing can sometimes screw two others. Some of it defies science and is more voodoo than can be imagined. Every time I turn on my computer and it boots I feel its a small miracle especially with all that Microsoft code in there.

Keep up the good fight and good work!!!!

Happy hunting and check six!

Tony Ascaso, RN


Happy hunting and check six!

Tony Ascaso, RN

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 01:25 AM
ianboys wrote:
- You think this is bad - wait till we get
- Stangwhiners!
-
- _____________
- Ian Boys
- =38=Tatarenko
- Kapitan - 38. OIAE
-


Sorry Ian, but I don't think this is a very healthy approach, do you? Sure there will be enough asshats who think the P-51 should turn like a 109F-4 and run like a 190D9 at the same time, but you connect those idiots to the ppl who are worried about the P-47D rollrate. Those are two different things. Of the serious posters on the P47 issue, no one expects the Jug to turn with ANY of them. It's just about rollrate, which in FB is far worse than anything ppl have heard yet, while all the other planes are (now) more or less corresponding.


=38=OIAE

47|FC=-

Message Edited on 08/16/0312:26AM by Heart_C

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 01:44 AM
Ian Boys:

There are a couple of things that are a bit disturbing at this time in the debate/development process.

1.There have been a few respectful requests that Oleg's team post the data or source material for the current FM of the P-47.

This will put a stop to the endless data posts, since we all could just 'see' what the current FM is based on and the veracity of this source.

This is no minor issue at this point because Oleg has requested source material of a credible nature and got it. However, his lack of posting the same material for his JUG is questionable at best. This should be priority one because at the very least the veracity of his source material is at issue.

2.I think it would be better to just forward the data sent directly to Oleg's team and 'NOT' continuously debate these issues 'personally' in the forums. Frankly, you begin to look bias by doing so and if you are not the one making the final determination on FM, why try to prove folks wrong? That does not serve any purpose. This should 'NOT' be a pizzing contest mates.

This is not a flame or whine, it is a reasonable request for the benefit of the Il2-FB community.
S! all virtual pilots.

<center>
http://sunstarentertainment.maddsites.com/images/1asig3.gif

http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat/
JOIN OUR SQUAD TODAY!
http://sunstarentertainment.maddsites.com/images/1banner.gif

http://sunstarentertainment.maddsites.com/il2homepage.html

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 01:54 AM
ianboys wrote:

- OK I'm still not awake but my first reactions:
-
- 1) It shows a P-47C-1-RE: How far is that different
- to a P-47D-10?

The major differences between the P-47C-1 and the P-47D-10 are as follows:

D-10 had the new General Electric Type C-23 turbosupercharger, better turbine cooling, and water injection.

The basic weight of the C-1 was 10,700 lbs.
The basic weight of the D-10 was 10,540 lbs.

Neither were serially produced with wing racks.



- What was the fuel load?

- Was ammo carried?

I'll get to this next.



- 2) The NACA results at 10,000 feet indicate 4.86
- seconds for a roll at 300kmh. Jaeger posted FB
- results of 4.91 at 6500 feet and 5.63 at 13,000
- feet. Given that Jaeger was carrying 100% fuel and a
- standard ammo load I'd say this was close enough not
- to worry about.

The difference between 4.91 (73 degrees per second) and 5.60 (63 degrees per second) is significant - 10 degrees per second.

I've conducted a test in the D-10 with NO ammo and 50% full and get similarly poor numbers as I do with 100% fuel and full ammo:

6+ seconds ay 250 mph IAS, and 11 seconds at 300 mph IAS.



- It's not as though this is out by a
- factor of 2 or anything is it? Did the NACA test
- aircraft carry ammo in the wing?

Doesn't matter, the roll of the P-47D-10 in FB is grossly wrong. It's grossly wrong with or without ammo, with or without fuel. A roll test in the D-10 with 1/2 fuel and no ammo still produces numbers that are innaccurate.





- 3) The test shows a stick force of 50 lbs. We don't
- know what stick forces are available in game. Some
- suggest less may be more realistic, but I have no
- idea.

Well, the Fw-190 is certainly modelled to a 50lb stick force. In fact, I'd argue at that high speeds its modeled to a much greater force as I am able to achieve 3 second rolls at 860 km/h TAS.

If your argument now is that 30lbs may be appropriate, then Oleg has a helluva job ahead of him reducing the roll of every other plane in this game. Every other plane I've tested rolls approximately consistently to a 50 lb stick force.

In short, the P-47 is modelled to a different standard than any other plane in this game.



- 4) Lastly, the report makes clear on page 155 that
- the C-1-RE carried a modified aileron system.
- Whether this was used in the D-10 I have no idea.

The modification had negligible effect on roll rate. The attempt was to correct overbalance problems.



- Basically though it suggests the P-47 may roll some
- 10% (0.54 seconds) too slow.

At low speeds only. At high speeds, it rolls as much as 100% too slow. At speeds where a 5-6 second roll is appropriate, it rolls at 11-12 seconds.



- Given that the D-10 is
- heavier,

Wrong. Basic weights suggest the C-1 was actually heavier.



- carried ammo and full fuel

Wrong. Your own test without fuel and ammo still produce inaccurate numbers.



- I'd say Oleg has
- it just right for this speed.

Wrong. At best, the roll is off by about 10 degrees persecond (slow speed). It nosedives from there.





- Now, at 450kmh Jaeger's results diverge quite
- strongly from the NACA results, by a factor of >2. I
- therefore tried it myself at the exact height with a
- plane with 25% fuel and no wing ammo and was able to
- reduce the discrepancy to a factor of 1.8 (that is,
- the plane takes 1.8 times longer to complete a roll
- than suggested by the NACA test).
-

80% margin of error is "just about right"? Because that's what a "factor of 1.8" is. To suggest that is "about right" also suggests a low standard of accuracy in this sim, and I'm sure that's not what you intend to do.




- So basically Oleg has it right for 300kmh and maybe
- too slow for 450kmh.

Agreed, "about right" at low speeds, horridly wrong at higher speeds (80% off in your tests).



But without knowing max
- stick forces Oleg thinks are reasonable it's hard to
- say he's wrong.

I'd be interested to know why Oleg would limit the P-47 to a less than 50lb force roll when he has every other plane rolling to that standard.



- Anyway, I will send this stuff
- to him and we'll see.

Thank you.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/SkyChimp2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 01:56 AM
ianboys wrote:
- You think this is bad - wait till we get
- Stangwhiners!
-
- _____________
- Ian Boys
- =38=Tatarenko
- Kapitan - 38. OIAE
-

No $hit! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/SkyChimp2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 02:05 AM
Salute SkyChimp

I appreciate you posting information, but I would prefer original documents.

I would also request that you and others keep the tone of your posts objective.

I posted this material because I believe Oleg still considers Flight model issues on the basis of scientific proof. And I am not interested in turning this into a "us versus them" debate.

Thankyou RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 02:10 AM
The original documents have already been posted.
And this is an issue that I feel as strongly about as you. And my tone is respectful, but matter-of-fact. I think Ian can deal with that. We'll keep the discussion meaningful.



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/SkyChimp2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 02:38 AM
the patch is already out. its too late. at the earliest the jug will get patched again in six months. if any patches are forthcoming. i read that there may not be any more patches. and i seriously doubt he will re patch the game again. for any reason. what we need is a p47M in the add on planes and have roll rate correct in it. no way any jug in ww2 could have been successful with such a horrible roll rate at high speeds. does anyone have any explanation why the jug was so good in europe if the roll rate is correct? every single pilot account and i mean every one disputes the idea of the jug rolling slow. but as i said. its TOO LATE . you cant put the baby back in and oleg isnt patching just one plane. we gotta live with it now. we have no other option

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of the 11 time Champions Team AFJ. 6 Years Flying http://www.world-data-systems.com/aerofiles/albums/userpics/p47-22.jpg 47|FC=

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 02:44 AM
ianboys wrote:
- You think this is bad - wait till we get
- Stangwhiners!

Hehe, I was just thinking as I was looking over Buzz's chart again....didcha catch the roll rate of that clipped wing Spitfire? Didn't catch which Spit that is but, I seriously hope it's the MkIX or the MkXIV, lol./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

SpitWhiners UNITE!!!/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Great information, Buzz and all, good to see that things that are possible in this sim are given the attention they need to help create the most realistic approach to history as possible.

Personally, I'm thankful for the guys like you who do the endless hours of research, so we can have fun blasting planes out of the sky over Russia. Keep up the great work and thanks.

_______________________________________
çk?¯kT 2003**

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 04:16 AM
Hope you sent this to Oleg using the offical form.

System Specs
AMD XP 2.4 Retail
Not Over Clocked
MB MSI KT4 Ultra
1 Gig PC2700 Kingston Cas 2.5 Ram
WD 80 Gig HD
Evga GF4 4600 128meg Video
On Board C-Media Sound
19 inch Princeton Monitor
OS XP Home DirectX 9

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 05:53 AM
depalmer wrote:
- Hope you sent this to Oleg using the offical form.
-

This is the offical form. The email address is only to be used for program bugs. Any flight model debates must go through these forums.

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 06:19 AM
bump, with a small question to the Chimpmeister- and anyone else.....

I see some references to a fuel amount- this would have an effect of weight on the aircraft, but seeing as how the -47 had no wing tanks, would it make a difference in rolling performance?

I'm just curious, and would like to know /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Also, specifically for Chimp- I seem to remember from AHT (I lent my copy to a buddy of mine) that some models had "bobweight" or "weight assisted" control surface assistance.

Is this right?

-R

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 06:57 AM
RedDeth wrote:
- the patch is already out. its too late. at the
- earliest the jug will get patched again in six
- months. if any patches are forthcoming. i read that
- there may not be any more patches. and i seriously
- doubt he will re patch the game again. for any
- reason. what we need is a p47M in the add on planes
- and have roll rate correct in it. no way any jug in
- ww2 could have been successful with such a horrible
- roll rate at high speeds. does anyone have any
- explanation why the jug was so good in europe if
- the roll rate is correct? every single pilot account
- and i mean every one disputes the idea of the jug
- rolling slow. but as i said. its TOO LATE . you cant
- put the baby back in and oleg isnt patching just one
- plane. we gotta live with it now. we have no other
- option
-

I think RD is correct. "Oleg isn't patching just one plane" and certainly not the P-47.

People, you are wasting you are wasting your time here. You would probably get faster action starting your own flight sim.

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 07:25 AM
Well, it's our time to waste, isn't it?

<html> <body><p align="center">http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig3.jpg
<font color=red>If.I.could..just.reach.my.utility.belt!</font> </body>
<center><font color=yellow>BlitzPigMachine<font>

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 08:54 AM
MachineII wrote:
- Well, it's our time to waste, isn't it?
-

Not necessarily.

Note I said "you're wasting your time here," I didn't say "you're wasting my time here" or "you're wasting Joe Blow's time here." So I made no claims as to third parties, as you do when you say "it's our time to waste."

Whether it is actually exclusively "your time" would depend on the circumstances of each individual. For instance, maybe you are contractually committed to spend all your time working on a new invention for NASA. Instead, you spend some of that time chatting online in this group. You are wasting NASA's time, probably as well as your own time.

As far as you go, MachineII, I am willing to take your word for it that you are only wasting only your own time. But for other people, it may not be exclusively their time.

So speak for your self.

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 10:52 AM
I'm iching close and closer to buying cfs 4 and Giveing FB away. I personally don't see why we cant hear from Oleg on this. The 190 fans got a response from him..and we ain't hearing Jack Sh*t. As for some one else being the "Go between" for the community & the Developer...I have very little faith in that form of comunication.
See the "Middle Man" might not exactly agree with you on the topic and may if so inclinded, not even relay the message. (or alter the facts to their likeing) As i said before it's my cash and my choice where I spend it. If this issue cannot be at lest replied to from some one who REALLY MATTERS...Such as Oleg Maddox himself, then my wallet will stay in my pocket. Now i'm sure that some one with some small intellegnce would replay to that statment with....

"SO What? Big deal your just one person, and your 40 bucks won't be missed."

My reply would be yes.. you absolutly correct. I alone don't matter. Nither does the money i spent buying the game.
But i'm sure that there are more ppl like my self out there,
that would have the idea that if you cant get it right..get it some where else. Now add my self in with all these other people of like mind.. and that mathmatically comes out to a whole lot more than "40 quid" that will be sadly missed come time for the next prodject from the Developer & Publisher.

As for the "Stang-whiners"...Speaking only for my self..all i can say is this. If the P-51 Mustang does not live up to its real life reputation then i will NOT be purchasing another product from this company. as it stand now, IMO, either the german aircraft are all vastly overmodeld or the american aircraft are all modeled so poorly that they come no where near to the actuall perfomance of the real Aircraft. As of RIGHT now the americans are at a huge Disadvantage against the geramns in FB. So much so that there is NO SAM WAY IN HEEL that FB comes close to being realistic.
Your's truely,
A pizzed off consumer.


<CENTER>http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p809.jpg
<CENTER>><FONT COLOR="blue">Please visit the 310thVF/BS Online at our NEW web site @:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="orange"> http://members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron/
<CENTER>A proud member Squadron of IL-2 vUSAAF
<CENTER>310th VF/BS Public forum:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW"> http://invisionfree.com/forums/310th_VFBG/
<CENTER><CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW">
Proud Sponsor of IL-2 Hangar Forums
<CENTER> Visit the Hangar at:
http://srm.racesimcentral.com/il2.shtml

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 12:13 PM
Copperhead310th

There is thread saying Oleg is sick. Someone else from 1C/Maddox Games could come forward though.

As to the Fw answer, an explanation was asked for in the IL-2 days. So look how long the Fw explanation took to be posted, /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif and in the end was debunked by numerous posts as hogwash.


http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-stormclouds2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 01:04 PM
MiloMorai That would be fine with me. Provided it's a some one that is actually employed by 1c:Maddox and is On the Development team. I undertnd that Oleg has been sick, and truly i can sympathize with that. He should take as much time as he needs to get well. and if the poor man's health is in that bad of shape for God sake screw FB, ya know?
But I'm just very disapointed...even more so than after they crippled the IL-2 models in the first patch for IL-2.
I guess mainly because this has always been my favorite plane, even as a kid. And even though it shouldn't be, it's important that it perform they way it should. And i'm sorry but Oleg is wrong on one point. No one and i mean NO ONE knows an air craft better than it's pilots or ground crews. Not the engineer behind the drafting table, not the guys in the tower, nobdy. And do you know why know one know's it better? Quiet simply because their very lives depended on it. So on THAT point i think that Oleg is Very wrong. If a pilot or a Mechanic of an air craft say it performed a piticular way then i belive them it did. If the P-47 was anything in real life like it is in FB the USAAF would have ordered all prodution halted.

<CENTER>http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p809.jpg
<CENTER>><FONT COLOR="blue">Please visit the 310thVF/BS Online at our NEW web site @:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="orange"> http://members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron/
<CENTER>A proud member Squadron of IL-2 vUSAAF
<CENTER>310th VF/BS Public forum:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW"> http://invisionfree.com/forums/310th_VFBG/
<CENTER><CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW">
Proud Sponsor of IL-2 Hangar Forums
<CENTER> Visit the Hangar at:
http://srm.racesimcentral.com/il2.shtml

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 01:18 PM
Then you'd be surprised to know about all the bullshi* and urban legends surrounding the planes and stuff, the real pilots believed in.

Pilot anecdotes are very tricky piece of historical data, which always needs a certain amount of filter, to grasp the truth.


ps) besides, 'reputation' does not always stem up from soild fact. Watch out for the hype, friend.

-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

Message Edited on 08/17/0309:19PM by kweassa

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 01:31 PM
one advantage has p47, she can more as 10min water injection use


mw50 109 and dora 45 similar water injection can that not

and when she has better rollrate

think we all want that the plane have correct rollrate,speed,climb,dive,dive accelerate

how la-7 30m/sec initialclimb and p39n-1 that better climb as la-5fn solch crap


Message Edited on 08/17/0310:46PM by Skalgrim

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 02:27 PM
Its not hard for a pilot who has flown different aircraft to make a judgement on a certain aircrafts performance characteristics by comparison.It is also credible to make comparisons to the enemy in combat as long as the judgements are supported by the majority of reports.Without knowing these things as certainties tactics cannot be developed,and what you would have is a bunch of pilots flying around in a fog.

Add to that the manufacturers data and you have unimpeachable evidence to support or discredit a claim.

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 02:40 PM
Keep at it, Buzzsaw. The 190 pilots finally got relief in a big way. I hope you p-47 guys get some as well.

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 02:50 PM
kweassa wrote:
- Then you'd be surprised to know about all the
- bullshi* and urban legends surrounding the planes
- and stuff, the real pilots believed in.
-
- Pilot anecdotes are very tricky piece of historical
- data, which always needs a certain amount of filter,
- to grasp the truth.

Yes, you have to look at the testimonies, but also
the circumstances regarding them.

For example, back in the 1980s I used to collect
US WW2 equipment, and had a fair collection of USAAF
equipment. Our reenactment unit got called on to ferry
around a group of WW2 veterans in 1988 according
to what is in my photo album. I'm not sure now what
bomb group it was as I didn't note it down on the photos,
and the commemorative plaque is at my mother's house.
Anyway, the air controller told us that contrary to what
we might read in history books, no USAAF bombers
conducted any missions over the Normandy beaches on
D-Day. This is eyewitness testimony, but is it reliable?

Reports from the time are probably more reliable in
some instances, given that they are contemporaneous,
but witness reports of the relative performance of
Spitfires and 109s in the Battle of Britain - pilots
often felt the enemy aircraft had advantages in terms
of being able to bounce each other, but had great
faith in the ability of their aircraft to survive combat
damage. In both instances when captured aircraft became
available the apparent superiority was not so marked.
But in the heat of combat, every small circumstance is
naturally amplified, since your life is on the line.

Also different people have different opinions - the
USAAF was not impressed by the Buffalo, but the Finns
achieved wonders with the B239 that, if you just take
the bald statistics of kill:loss, would make it the
best fighter of WW2! How can essentially the same
machine (some differences in weight and performance
between sub versions aside) be rated so differently?
The same is true of the P39 (although one of the
criticisms levelled against it by the RAF leading to
its rejection wasn't performance based, but the issue
of gases from the 37mm cannon building up in the cockpit).

So, like most historical research, you have to consider
all sources, and give weight to them depending on their
provenance, and in relation to the circumstances. I'd
give good weight to the NACA reports, though, as the
testing is quite objective and rigorous.

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 03:19 PM
Slightly OT, but I did some tests on the P39N roll
rate. See separate thread.

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 07:53 PM
*punt*
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 08:37 PM
Gents,

We are all playing with a beta patch. This is apparently not the last version. But Oleg certainly is not going to patch each issue individually, he will do so collectively.

We've presented our arguments about the roll-rate. Buzzsaw has packed them up real nice in the manner requested by Oleg. Ianboys is aware of them. New let's see what happens. Oleg will either fix it or he won't. If he doesn't, it won't be for a lack of our trying, or because we are wrong.

If you have a gripe about another plane, document your tests, gather your arguments and proofs, and start a new thread.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/SkyChimp2.jpg




Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/SkyChimp2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 09:05 PM
Who is Ian Boys and why did he call himself that?

<img src=http://lafayettefederation.com/screenshots/repository/turo/tn-Numbaone.jpg>
"The Force is strong with this one." -What an ace said of RayBanJockey during a fight when he was still a newbie.
<a href=http://www.theinformationminister.com/press.php?ID=612109283>news update</a>

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 11:19 PM
Aaron depends on how you define Normandy beaches.

"TUESDAY, 6 JUNE 1944

STRATEGIC OPERATIONS (Eighth Air Force):

The Eighth Air Force reaches its top strength as the 493d Bombardment Group (Heavy) becomes operational, making a total of 40 heavy bomber groups now operational.

Heavy bombers fly 4 missions in support of the Normandy invasion:

1. Mission 394: At first light, 659 of 882 B-17s and 418 of 543 B-24s hit coastal targets in the area of the invasion beaches between Le Havre and Cherbourg; overcast and inability of the bombers to locate (or absence of) PFF leaders causes failure of some units to attack; 1 B-24 is lost, 1 B-24 is damaged beyond repair and 14 B-17s and 1 B-24 are damaged; 12 airmen are KIA, 2 WIA and 13 MIA.
2. Mission 394: The second mission strikes at transportation chokepoints in towns immediately around the assault area; total cloud cover causes 84 B-17s and 259 B-24s dispatched to return with their bombs but 37 B-24s manage to bomb secondary target of Argentan; 2 B-24s are lost and 1 B-17 is damaged; no casualties.
3. Mission 395: The third mission is dispatched against the important communications center of Caen; 58 of 73 B-24s bomb through overcast skies without loss.
4. Mission 395: Transportation chokepoints in towns immediately S and E of the assault area are the objectives of the fourth mission; 325 of 409 B-17s and 125 of 300 B-24s hit targets including Vire, Saint-Lo, Coutances, Falaise, Lisieux, Thury-Harcourt, Pont-l'Eveque, Argentan, and Conde-sur-Noireau; 1 B-24 is lost, 1 B-24 is damaged beyond repair and 11 B-24s and 5 B-17s are damaged; 10 airmen are KIA.

In all, 1,729 bombers drop 3,596 tons of bombs during D-Day.

The VIII Fighter Command has the threefold mission of escorting bombers, attacking any movement toward the assault area, and protecting Allied shipping. The fighters fly 1,880 sorties including fighter-bomber attacks against 17 bridges, 10 marshalling yards, and a variety of other targets including convoy, railroad cars, siding, rail and highway junctions, tunnel, and a dam. Very little air opposition is encountered. The fighters claim 26-0-8 Luftwaffe aircraft in the air and 4-0-9 on the ground. Also destroyed are 21 locomotives and 2 carloads of ammunition. Numerous targets are damaged including locomotives, trucks, tank cars, armored vehicles, goods carriers, barges, and tugboats. Targets attacked with unreported results include warehouses, radar towers, barracks, troops, artillery, staff cars, 85 trains, and a variety of other targets. 25 fighters are lost.

Mission 396: During the night, 12 B-17s drop leaflets in France and the Low Countries.

TACTICAL OPERATIONS (Ninth Air Force):

800+ A-20s and B-26s bomb coastal defense batteries, rail and road junctions and bridges, and marshalling yards in support of the invasion; 2,000+ fighters fly sweeps, escort for B-26s and C-47s, ground support, and dive-bombing missions over W France. During the preceding night and during the day over 1,400 C-47s, C-53's, and gliders deliver glider troops and paratroops, including 3 full airborne divisions, which are to secure beach exits to facilitate inland movement of seaborne assault troops. A total of about 30 aircraft are lost."

http://hometown.aol.com/jlowry3402/jun44.html

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-stormclouds2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 12:36 PM
OK guys thanks to Buzz' excellent materials and some feedback from Oleg I believe I can see the discrepancy and where it went wrong. I think we're close to a solution.

RBJ: Ian Boys is my name. Simple as that. From the French word for wood.

_____________
Ian Boys
=38=Tatarenko
Kapitan - 38. OIAE

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 02:04 PM
As a civil-engineer I find the information very interesting.

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 04:04 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- Aaron depends on how you define Normandy beaches.

Too late to ask him now exactly what he meant. I got
the impression he meant no missions anywhere near
the beaches. I didn't want to make his reunion visit to
his old airfield an inquisition - we were there to ferry
the veterans around in Jeeps - not interrogate them!
He seemed fairly specific that he didn't mean just his unit,
but all USAAF 8th airforce bombers.

I'll try to find from my friends who were there what
bomb group it was, as I honestly can't remember the
number with any certainty, although I _think_ it was
the 385th. I just did a check and their base was at
least somewhere in the area that I remember we travelled
to (East Anglia). I'll see if my friends recall the number
better than I do.

I ought to find out which one my wife's grandfather
flew for - maybe he was there! (12 years before I met
my wife).

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 06:06 PM
ianboys wrote:
- OK guys thanks to Buzz' excellent materials and some
- feedback from Oleg I believe I can see the
- discrepancy and where it went wrong. I think we're
- close to a solution.
-

Could you elaborate?

Curious minds want to know!


<html> <body><p align="center">http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig3.jpg
<font color=red>If.I.could..just.reach.my.utility.belt!</font> </body>
<center><font color=yellow>BlitzPigMachine<font>

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 06:22 PM
All I can say is thank you Ian Boys for sharing this information.

And thanks to all who has done the foot work to provide objective data - nice work.

S!
609IAP_Recon

Forgotten Wars Virtual War
Forum: http://fogwar.luftwaffe.net/forums/index.php
Website: http://forgottenwars.dyndns.org
Visit 609IAP at http://takeoff.to/609IAP

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg

Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 11:54 PM
Yes, this is encouraging.

Although I think this issue should have been fixed a long time ago when it was brought up, along with those NACA docs, later is better than never.

Hopefully Oleg will correct the error. And a Big thanks to Ian Boys for relaying our concerns to Oleg.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/SkyChimp2.jpg

JerseyD
08-20-2003, 04:27 AM
ianboys wrote:
- OK guys thanks to Buzz' excellent materials and some
- feedback from Oleg I believe I can see the
- discrepancy and where it went wrong. I think we're
- close to a solution.
-
- RBJ: Ian Boys is my name. Simple as that. From the
- French word for wood.
-
- _____________
- Ian Boys
- =38=Tatarenko
- Kapitan - 38. OIAE
-

I was typing e-mails back and forth to someone from this forum once about skins and the like and in one of his replys he stated "Those Ian Boys make great skins"
"they are really good skinners"

I thought you might get a kick out of this/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



<Center>http://home.cfl.rr.com/jerseydevil/JerseyDevil's%20Frag%20Zone/Frag%20Zone_files/109chevysig.jpg (http://www.mudmovers.com/Sims/IL2/il2_skins_sports.htm)</center>

J¨rsé¿D¨v*L

<a href=http://www.diskworks.com/myth.html>The Jersey Devil (Fact or Fiction?)</a>



Message Edited on 08/19/0311:28PM by JerseyD