PDA

View Full Version : G~Suit for USAF: PROOF



GR142_Astro
04-01-2005, 07:58 PM
Early in 1944, U.S. crewmen began to use the G-suits in Europe. G-suits were tactically valuable because they helped fighter pilots maintain consciousness under high gravitational forces. One P€"51 pilot, who was credited with shooting down five enemy planes on one sortie, wrote:


I found myself all alone in the middle of a bunch of Jerrys. Having no one to keep Jerry off my tail I had to keep full throttle and keep my air speed sufficient so that I could break away from anyone coming up on my tail. This maneuver would normally black me out but my G-suit kept me fully conscious of what was going on. I followed Jerry down to the deck, picking up an air speed of 600 mph. The Jerry went straight in without pulling out, and I would have, too, if I had not been wearing my G-suit.

MORE (http://www.usaaf.net/ww2/medical/mspg1.htm)

Oleg/1C, what are we lacking in order to get a G~Suit effect for USAF fighter pilots? Some official document that says more than 200, 500, 1,000 were issued AND worn? Both Bud Anderson and Chuck Yeager have mentioned using them, even discussing the 2 different types that were being used.

More:

Several thousand G suits were shipped overseas to fighter groups in 1944, and, unlike many items of personal pretective equipment, they achieved immediate popularity among the men who have to wear them. Pilots have contributed case histories of kills attributed to the extra margin of clear-headedness the G suit gave them during pull-outs and turns. Equally important, the device reduces the fatigue frequently resulting from aerobatics.

Complete Article (http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/history/wwii/aaf/aaf-103.htm)



How many Ta152s saw action before the end of the war.....and we have them in the game. But no G~Suit.

In the MGeshoss "Proof" thread they are using the example of a solitary 109 shot down, that supposedly contained this type of shell. Are you more stringent for Allied proof requirements?

GR142_Astro
04-01-2005, 07:58 PM
Early in 1944, U.S. crewmen began to use the G-suits in Europe. G-suits were tactically valuable because they helped fighter pilots maintain consciousness under high gravitational forces. One P€"51 pilot, who was credited with shooting down five enemy planes on one sortie, wrote:


I found myself all alone in the middle of a bunch of Jerrys. Having no one to keep Jerry off my tail I had to keep full throttle and keep my air speed sufficient so that I could break away from anyone coming up on my tail. This maneuver would normally black me out but my G-suit kept me fully conscious of what was going on. I followed Jerry down to the deck, picking up an air speed of 600 mph. The Jerry went straight in without pulling out, and I would have, too, if I had not been wearing my G-suit.

MORE (http://www.usaaf.net/ww2/medical/mspg1.htm)

Oleg/1C, what are we lacking in order to get a G~Suit effect for USAF fighter pilots? Some official document that says more than 200, 500, 1,000 were issued AND worn? Both Bud Anderson and Chuck Yeager have mentioned using them, even discussing the 2 different types that were being used.

More:

Several thousand G suits were shipped overseas to fighter groups in 1944, and, unlike many items of personal pretective equipment, they achieved immediate popularity among the men who have to wear them. Pilots have contributed case histories of kills attributed to the extra margin of clear-headedness the G suit gave them during pull-outs and turns. Equally important, the device reduces the fatigue frequently resulting from aerobatics.

Complete Article (http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/history/wwii/aaf/aaf-103.htm)



How many Ta152s saw action before the end of the war.....and we have them in the game. But no G~Suit.

In the MGeshoss "Proof" thread they are using the example of a solitary 109 shot down, that supposedly contained this type of shell. Are you more stringent for Allied proof requirements?

Fehler
04-01-2005, 08:37 PM
Correct me if I am wrong...

You are one of the people that believes that the P-51 sheds wings too early, and suffers from blackouts faster than other planes, even though it has been proven via Devicelink that all planes blackout at the same time. (Yes, I believe you are...)

Did you stop to think that given a G-Suit, you will shed wings even faster because your virtual pilot will not black out as soon, thus you can pull even more G's and snap the wings even earlier?

Now, can you imagine all the whining if that happens?

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

Willey
04-01-2005, 08:41 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

GoToAway
04-01-2005, 08:53 PM
The P-47 had an ashtray! I'm shocked and appaled that it isn't modeled in this sim. The lack of a usable ashtray is clear evidence of Oleg's bias against the P-47, especially when we stop to consider that some of the Japanese aircraft (which Oleg is biased towards!) have functional back up reticles!

bolillo_loco
04-01-2005, 09:21 PM
bolillo is sickened by the responses to this thread.

faustnik
04-01-2005, 09:34 PM
This exact same quote was sent to 1C during the FB beta. Trust me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

GR142_Astro
04-01-2005, 10:00 PM
Fehler you are wrong, and now corrected.

I rarely lose a wing in the P51, and although I think it's modeled incorrectly I have learned to work around the problem.

Yes bolillo a real lack of class is being displayed here by these responses.

lbhskier37
04-01-2005, 10:03 PM
sure bring the primitive 1940s G suits, but then they have to model the increased resistance to blackout by giving the pilot a descent seating position http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

thompet03
04-02-2005, 12:51 AM
@ lbhskier37.. No, they wil deny that things to be moddeled correctly... If i remeber correctly than the last 2 threads about that g-suits ends with the colclusion of 2 real-live pilots that the better seat position has a much greater effeckt than the suits...

If you want a realistic simulation of the g-forces you wil have to simulate also the descent sitting position... So you see: Maybe reds should not shout to lout because maybe they will end of getting their historical disadvantages ;-)

JG5_UnKle
04-02-2005, 01:55 AM
G-Suits and seating position influence both get my vote http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

In the 109 you were almost lying down...

VW-IceFire
04-02-2005, 09:34 AM
Oleg DID say that if people could provide sufficient details of the G-suits and what effect they had...it would be modeled.

That was back before AEP came out. Nobody did anything...

Same with the tail warning radar on the P-38L.

BigKahuna_GS
04-02-2005, 01:37 PM
S!
__________________________________________________ _________________________
VW-IceFire
Tempest Maniacposted Sat April 02 2005 08:34
Oleg DID say that if people could provide sufficient details of the G-suits and what effect they had...it would be modeled.
That was back before AEP came out. Nobody did anything...
Same with the tail warning radar on the P-38L.
__________________________________________________ _________________________



Hya Ice,

I provided data and links to information on both the G-suit and tail warning radar about a year ago. The 8th AF had issued G-suits to all of it's fighter pilots starting in June and finishing by fall of 1944. We also had a friendly debate on which held more merit seat position or G-suit. The best would be both used in combination at the same time. Both the RAF and USAAF used G-suits.

A mechnical device that is basically like a big blood pressure cuff will win out every time vs just seat position alone. Case in point is the Korean War. F-86 Sabre pilots reported being able to pull more G's than Mig15's and watched as many spun out of control or simply departed the flight course they were on due to pilot blackout.

Great artical on the inventors of the G-suit:
http://www.space.gc.ca/asc/eng/astronauts/osm_aviation.asp#anti-g
http://www.space.gc.ca/asc/img/MkVI_gsuit.jpg
http://www.space.gc.ca/asc/img/MkVII_gsuit.jpg

MIGHTY EIGHTH WAR MANUAL, by Ron Freeman

Heres the relevant text regarding G-suits from MIGHT EIGHTH WAR MANUAL:

QUOTE-

G-SUITS
Pre-war work had been carried out in the US to perfect some form of pressure suit that would prevent pilot 'blackout' in aircraft performaing sharp manoeuvres at speed. The benefit in fighter combat was clear, for the prevention of blackout would allow a pliot to make tighter turns. The Eight Air Force became interested in the American Berger anti-G suits in September 1943 and in early 1944 acquired sufficient to conduct tests. Comparative tests were run with the RAF water pressure anti-G device, the Frank suit. The results showed both equally effective, and as 9th Air Force had a priority on the Berger suit, VIII FC decided for the time being to use the Frank suit as this was more readily available. During April 1944 the 4th Group gace the suit an extended trial but pilots took a dislike to it because of bulk, weight, heat and discomfort, to say nothin of the difficulties if it sprang a leak. Faced with this disapproval, VIII FC decided to abandon the Frank and wait for the Berger. By 3 June sufficient Berger G-3 suits had been obtained from 9th Air Force to equip the 339th Group, who quickly appreciated the benefits and wore the suits on every mission. A larger supply of G-3s was not available until October, but all groups were equipped by November.

____

Here is the scan of the Anti G-Suit the US was using in 1944. This G-suit was rated very high by the 75 pilots (including British pilots) who tried it out at the Joint Fighter Confrence 16-23 October 1944, Pg 314. The G-suit was rated excellent for pulling short high G rated turns. Pulling as much as 7 G's without graying out were noted while utilizing this G-suit, some pilots were able to pull 7.9 G's. A 4-g turn was held for 720degrees with no sign of fade or blackout.

I researched dates and times the G-suit was implemented into service. I attended a WW2 Fighter Pilot Symposium last year where many of the pilots wore this G-suit.
_______________


This email is from Col. Bud Anderson:

Dear Keith, We had g-suits in the later part of WW II. The first type suit used was a water suit that was quickly discarded for then the chaps type suit that was pressurized with air. They were much the same as the air force used for years after WW II. I am not sure where you could get much information on them. I wrote about them in my book. I leave tomorrow for a few days. If you have some specific question I could try to anser them maybe next week Mar 10-12 Bye (bud anderson)

From Bud's Anderson's book :
-"To Fly & Fight"-pg161
Col. Anderson-"With g-suits, we could fly a little harder, turn a little bit tighter. We could pull maybe 1 extra G now which gave us an edge. There was no resistance to wearing them. Not at all. We understood what they meant right away. Wearing the G suit was the same as making the airplane better."
___


P38L Airborne Radar

Duxford Radio Society

Imperial War Museum, Duxford, England

In fact most all late model USAAF aircraft recieved this radar device including the P51 and P47.

http://www.duxfordradiosociety.org/restoration/conservedequip/aps13/aps13.html

RT-34/APS-13 Tail Warning Radar (USA)

http://www.duxfordradiosociety.org/restoration/conservedequip/aps13/aps13.html

The RT-34/APS-13 is a low power UHF tail warning radar transmitter/receiver which was used in Allied aeroplanes such as the P51 Mustang and also the P-38L, P-47D, P-61, P-63, P-82D in the later stages of the war.

http://www.duxfordradiosociety.org/restoration/conservedequip/aps13/aps-13-cockpit1-600p.jpg
The equipment operates at 420 MHz with a receiver IF of 30 MHz and is powered by an internal rotary generator which is supplied from the aircraft 27V dc system.

The electro-mechanical construction is all aluminium, and the equipment uses all miniature glass valves except for the voltage stabiliser which is a VR105V (0C3). The PA is two 6J6s.

A modified APS-13 was employed as a radar fuse for the €˜LittleBoy€ atomic bomb dropped on the Japanese city of Hiroshima.
This APS-13 equipment was manufactured by RCA, Camden, New Jersey, USA under a 1944 contract number 13711:CRV 458-DAY-44.

This equipment example is in excellent condition and appears to be complete mechanically and almost complete electrically except for one component. This equipment has been cleaned and repaired and is now functioning, except that it is missing one large wire-wound resistor.

It is expected that with time, this equipment will be returned to complete working order.

http://nj7p.org/millist/sch/aps-13.gif

Airborne Tail-warning RADAR, AN/APS-13(XA-1)
JAN Type: AN/APS-13(XA-1)
Nomenclature: Airborne Tail-warning RADAR
Components: RT-34/APS-13 Receiver-Transmitter, AS-62/APS-13 Antenna System
Weight: 20
Mode: Pulse PRF:300-450, PW: 0.4-0.5
Frequency Range: 415 MHz
Power Input: 27 VDC @ 3.25 A
Power Output: 450 W Peak
Description: Airborne RADAR system for use in day fighters to warn the
pilot of the approach of an enemy aircraft from the rear. 3 element Yagi
on vertical fin of plane. Indication: red light and bell when another
aircraft enters coverage zone.
Source: US RADAR Survey, 1 Nov 44
Manufacturer: General Electric/RCA
Created: Wed Jul 12 19:24:04 2000
Last Modified: Wed Jul 12 19:24:04 2000

Airborne Tail-warning RADAR, AN/APS-13(XA-2)
JAN Type: AN/APS-13(XA-2)
Nomenclature: Airborne Tail-warning RADAR
Components: RT-34/APS-13 Receiver-Transmitter, AS-62/APS-13 Antenna System
Weight: 20
Mode: Pulse PRF:300-450, PW: 0.4-0.5
Frequency Range: 415 MHz
Power Input: 27 VDC @ 3.25 A
Power Output: 450 W Peak
Description: Airborne RADAR system for use in day fighters to warn the
pilot of the approach of an enemy aircraft from the rear. 3 element Yagi
on vertical fin of plane. Indication: red light and bell when another
aircraft enters coverage zone.
Source: US RADAR Survey, 1 Nov 44
Manufacturer: General Electric/RCA
Created: Wed Jul 12 19:24:04 2000
Last Modified: Wed Jul 12 19:24:04 2000

Airborne Tail-warning RADAR, AN/APS-13
JAN Type: AN/APS-13
Nomenclature: Airborne Tail-warning RADAR
Components: RT-34/APS-13 Receiver-Transmitter, AS-62/APS-13 Antenna System
Weight: 20
Mode: Pulse PRF:300-450, PW: 0.4-0.5
Frequency Range: 415 MHz
Power Input: 27 VDC @ 3.25 A
Power Output: 450 W Peak
Description: Airborne RADAR system for use in day fighters to warn the
pilot of the approach of an enemy aircraft from the rear. 3 element Yagi
on vertical fin of plane. Indication: red light and bell when another
aircraft enters coverage zone.
Source: US RADAR Survey, 1 Nov 44
Manufacturer: General Electric/RCA
Created: Wed Jul 12 19:24:04 2000
Last Modified: Fri Jul 21 19:27:46 2000

This is the entry from the old database:

AN/APS-13
Radar set, Tail warning, 450 MHz, 0.5 W, Pulse, 27 VDC, Major component:
RT-34/APS-13.

If I had to guess, I would suspect these units would have been used on
long-range fighters that operated alone or in pairs. P-38 in the
pacific would have been a good candidate. Night fighters would be, too.
I don't recal seeing any pictures of fighters with a 3 element 400 MHz
yagi on the vertical stabilizer.

____


The bottom line is Oleg decided to keep all planes at the same G level wether you agree with that or not. Also it was decide not to put the tail radar on the P38 because of all the other planes that had it would cause modeling issues. I think the G-suit should have been factored in all late model USAAF and RAF fighters.


___

Aaron_GT
04-02-2005, 04:18 PM
"The RT-34/APS-13 is a low power UHF tail warning radar transmitter/receiver which was used in Allied aeroplanes such as the P51 Mustang and also the P-38L, P-47D, P-61, P-63, P-82D in the later stages of the war."

Tail warning radar was also fitted to some RAF bombers (Lancaster, Mosquito, not sure about Halifax) although I am not sure how regularly it was fitted or what the model numbers were.

Aaron_GT
04-02-2005, 04:20 PM
"The bottom line is Oleg decided to keep all planes at the same G level wether you agree with that or not. Also it was decide not to put the tail radar on the P38 because of all the other planes that had it would cause modeling issues. I think the G-suit should have been factored in all late model USAAF and RAF fighters."

I could also see that tail warning radar would need additional code which would need to warn appropriately given the model number of radar which would probably be a headache. Also if the G-suit is modelled then seat angle also needs to be modelled to make things fair.

BigKahuna_GS
04-03-2005, 08:14 AM
S!

__________________________________________________ ________________________
Aaron_GT posted Sat April 02 2005 14:20
I could also see that tail warning radar would need additional code which would need to warn appropriately given the model number of radar which would probably be a headache. Also if the G-suit is modelled then seat angle also needs to be modelled to make things fair.
__________________________________________________ _________________________



Initaly adding the radar to the P38L wasn't going to be a problem. The problem was if people complained because other planes did not have this feature. Imagine trying to add tail warning radar to all the other planes that had it, a big headache.

The G-suit vs seat position was interesting. The RCAF medical flight studies showed the G-suit more effective than just seat position by itself. There was a disagreement on this, so who knows how the G-suit and seat position would have been modeled. If the seat position alone had been given a slight edge in delayed grayout/blackout over the G-suit, that would have gone against all RCAF, RAF & USAAF medical flight tests. It would of also gone against combat reports from Korea.

So maybe just leaving G-load even was the right thing to do when people disagree on which was better. Even though medical science and combat proved which one was better http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

__

DarthBane_
04-03-2005, 08:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
Early in 1944, U.S. crewmen began to use the G-suits in Europe. G-suits were tactically valuable because they helped fighter pilots maintain consciousness under high gravitational forces. One P€"51 pilot, who was credited with shooting down five enemy planes on one sortie, wrote:


I found myself all alone in the middle of a bunch of Jerrys. Having no one to keep Jerry off my tail I had to keep full throttle and keep my air speed sufficient so that I could break away from anyone coming up on my tail. This maneuver would normally black me out but my G-suit kept me fully conscious of what was going on. I followed Jerry down to the deck, picking up an air speed of 600 mph. The Jerry went straight in without pulling out, and I would have, too, if I had not been wearing my G-suit.

http://www.usaaf.net/ww2/medical/mspg1.htm

Oleg/1C, what are we lacking in order to get a G~Suit effect for USAF fighter pilots? Some official document that says more than 200, 500, 1,000 were issued AND worn? Both Bud Anderson and Chuck Yeager have mentioned using them, even discussing the 2 different types that were being used.

More:

Several thousand G suits were shipped overseas to fighter groups in 1944, and, unlike many items of personal pretective equipment, they achieved immediate popularity among the men who have to wear them. Pilots have contributed case histories of kills attributed to the extra margin of clear-headedness the G suit gave them during pull-outs and turns. Equally important, the device reduces the fatigue frequently resulting from aerobatics.

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/history/wwii/aaf/aaf-103.htm



How many Ta152s saw action before the end of the war.....and we have them in the game. But no G~Suit.

In the MGeshoss "Proof" thread they are using the example of a solitary 109 shot down, that supposedly contained this type of shell. Are you more stringent for Allied proof requirements? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excelent! I would like you amerikanos to have suts and lose your wings more often, but when we get correct planeset for 44-45: ME262 included. You can wear sute together with dipers funboys, to avoid having fecalia all around cockpit gauges and glass. S!

BigKahuna_GS
04-03-2005, 08:50 AM
S!

__________________________________________________ ________________________
DarthBane-Excelent! I would like you amerikanos to have suts and lose your wings more often, but when we get correct planeset for 44-45: ME262 included. You can wear sute together with dipers funboys, to avoid having fecalia all around cockpit gauges and glass. S!
__________________________________________________ ________________________



The G-suit would apply for all late model USAAF Planes. And if the US had a correct 1944-45 plane set we would have the P47M & P47N flying at 470mph at 33,000ft, overboosted flying on 150 avgas at 490mph at 33,000ft. The F4U-4 flying at 450+mph at 27,000ft and a max climb rate near 5,000fpm. The F4U-4 was considered the best of the Corsair fighter line with an excellent roll and turn rate.

And since you Luft boys like adding planes that never really saw combat in WW2, how about we through in the P51H at 580mph and the F8F Bearcat that could climb and turn circles around any 109. If you want jet vs jet, I'll take the P-80 over the 262 any day of the week.

If the US side had these planes, or just the correct dive superiority, speed and climb for the present ones, I think you would be crapping in your Lederhosen.


___

Hetzer_II
04-03-2005, 09:27 AM
Ohh man not again.....

When did your p47 m/n, p51H, f8f,f4u4 and finally p80 saw combat service in Europe?

Almost all of them were not even introduced before april 1945... P80 never saw combat....

And? What you want to tell us now?

p1ngu666
04-03-2005, 09:44 AM
p47m was in europe, p47n did b29 escort http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

p51 was in service in america at wars end, f4u-4 in the pacific. f8f was on carrier on the way to pacific when war ended.

p80, well that did a few flights :\

tbh, i like the idea of equal g and strength etc

BigKahuna_GS
04-03-2005, 11:05 AM
S!

__________________________________________________ _______________________
Hetzer_II posted Sun April 03 2005 08:27
Ohh man not again.....
When did your p47 m/n, p51H, f8f,f4u4 and finally p80 saw combat service in Europe?Almost all of them were not even introduced before april 1945... P80 never saw combat....
And? What you want to tell us now?
__________________________________________________ ______________________



This is AEP/PF right ?

I am going by service and manufacturing dates. I realize that some of these planes saw duty in the PTO only----c'mon.

And please tell me out of all the Luftwaffe planes available in the AEP/PF
plane set how many never saw combat or were very limited use at wars end ?

Quite a few. Thats my point.


___

VW-IceFire
04-03-2005, 12:46 PM
If we want to fully flesh out the USAAF for 1945 aircraft in the ETO strictly...than the P-47D-30 and the P-47M plus the B-26 and A-26 would give us quite a bit more for the USAAF side.

The Mustang and Lightning are pretty much already at the top of their model lines already. Excellent aircraft. No P-51H's ever saw combat anywhere as amazing as they were.

Interesting about the tail radar. I'm glad he got it then.

JG5_UnKle
04-03-2005, 12:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:

If the US side had these planes, or just the correct dive superiority, speed and climb for the present ones, I think you would be crapping in your Lederhosen.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And that's where a pretty good set of informative posts degrades. You pretty much lost half of the people who would support that idea right there with that one statement.

GR142_Astro
04-03-2005, 01:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:

If the US side had these planes, or just the correct dive superiority, speed and climb for the present ones, I think you would be crapping in your Lederhosen.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And that's where a pretty good set of informative posts degrades. You pretty much lost half of the people who would support that idea right there with that one statement. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He didn't lose anybody. It's just a mild little jab compared to what hetzer and the darthbane people are trying to do to the thread. Both of their posting histories show they add nothing to any discussion, other than trying to hamper every plane that's not a 190 or 109.

Back to the topic!

Go ahead and give some consideration to this laid-back seat position, I will take the USAF G-Suit and still come out with better G ability. It's been PROVEN. And if you think I'm going to lose a wing in a high-G turn @ 500kph then you are in for a 6 O'clock surprise!

The fact is somebody doesn't want United States aircraft to have their historical abilities, and it's becoming more clear all the time.

quiet_man
04-03-2005, 03:02 PM
please concentrate on the topic
just ignore other stuff

Korean pilots had no G-suits?
what seat positions had F86 and Mig15?

quiet_man

VW-IceFire
04-03-2005, 05:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The fact is somebody doesn't want United States aircraft to have their historical abilities, and it's becoming more clear all the time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
How do you figure? At the moment, the P-51 and P-47 are pretty much at the top of their game. The P-51 in particular, being the only aircraft ingame to have a gyro gunsight (oh, plus the YP-80), is a very fast, very deadly ride. As far as I can tell from data that I've seen, its performing as it should. And the zoom climb is simply superb.

The P-47, after quite some time of argument, is now pretty much also where it should be. The D-27 until a few patches ago not having the proper climb rate...but that was finally fixed too. I had quite a few discussions with Oleg over this plane myself...particularly on the roll rate problems of long ago. I've been flying the P-47 of all types since 1.01.

The P-38 seems to be a mixed bag. Compressability a bit overdone I'm told and its not got any natural advantages when it comes to its impressive stall capabilities. But I've taken it out for a spin on several occasions and been very impressed with it. Its not a plane to be trifled with by an inexperienced pilot but its deadly in the right hands. I'll have to dig up the quotes on that but I'm finding exactly what a couple of ETO pilots said the P-38 was like. I like the P-38 enough that its the subject of my next 12 mission campaign. Historically, the only thing we're lacking on the P-38L is the tail warning radar.

Oh and the G-Suit, which is what we're all here to talk about. Mind you, all aircraft of all types have the same G tolerances for the pilot. Even for planes where the seat position was supposed to be helpful. So I figure its an even game as far as thats concerned.

Now I've heard alot of bragging by some people about the absolute superiority of USAAF planes here and there on various servers and in the HL lobby which just makes me laugh. Raving about the Mustang, and the Thunderbolt, and the Lightning as this that and the other...super weapons to be sure that shot the Luftwaffe down in droves. Having done some reading...thats pretty rediculous.

Just so you know where I'm coming from. Within the current planeset on Warclouds Western Front...if I was on the Allied team and asked to select the best fighter on that list...my answer would be the P-51D. In a heartbeat. Best Allied fighter available and quite possibly the best fighter available in the game. Its not a tactical fighter and if/when we get the Spitfire XIV, we'll see if my scale tips back to the Spitfire...but I honestly don't see the problem. Certainly no lack of historical ability.

fabianfred
04-03-2005, 06:16 PM
so if you want to pretend you've got a G-suit on, switch off 'blackouts and redouts' ......
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

AlmightyTallest
04-03-2005, 06:35 PM
This was brought up a few months ago before in this thread:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=8991091942

One source here:

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/history/wwii/aaf/aaf-103.htm

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The earliest workable G suits were introduced by the Canadian and Australian air forces, followed closely by the U. S. Navy. The AAF modified and adapted the 18-pound Navy suit after extensive tests on the human centrifuge at the Aero Medical Laboratory, Wright Field, Ohio, and evolved the G-3 suit. This is, in essence, a pair of pneumatic pants weighing 2 pounds and containing air bladders which automatically fill with compressed air from the airplane's vacuum instrument pump. The pressure is released when the airplane levels off. The effect of the air pressure in the bladder is to keep the blood from rushing to the lower extremities of the body and pooling there. While the extra G tolerance provided the pilot is theoretically limited, fighter pilots wearing the suit have never reported a complete back-out.

Several thousand G suits were shipped overseas to fighter groups in 1944, and, unlike many items of personal pretective equipment, they achieved immediate popularity among the men who have to wear them. Pilots have contributed case histories of kills attributed to the extra margin of clear-headedness the G suit gave them during pull-outs and turns. Equally important, the device reduces the fatigue frequently resulting from aerobatics.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://www.acepilots.com/usaaf_anderson.html

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> In the fall of 1944, the 357th combat-tested the new G-suits that had been developed for pilots, as Bud Anderson recounts. "The Mustangs could take very hard turns. Long before the wings flew off, the pilots would lose consciousness. Five G's and you might "gray out" but be able to function.

Six G's or so and you would black out completely. The form-fitting suits inflated as the airplane pulled G's, hugging you, and preventing the blood from leaving your head all at once. There were two experimental suits. One was water-filled, and turned out to be too cold at six miles up, even when filled with warm water on the ground. The other ones, air suits, drew air from the pressure side of the engine's vacuum pump. These suits wrapped around your abdomen, thighs, and calves, and inflated automatically. These worked much better."
"With the G-suits, we could fly a little harder, turn a little tighter. We could pull maybe one extra G now, which gave us an edge. There was no resistance to wearing them as we understood that wearing them was the same as making the airplane better."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


My post a few months ago regarding F4U-1 pilots using G-Suits here:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> posted about this yesterday in the F4U-4 thread, bumping and pasting the following:

these guys were getting issued anti-G suites when they flew -1's.

Here's a link about that here:
http://www.vnh.org/FSManual/AppendixA.html



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17 Jan 1943
Tests conducted at NAS San Diego by pilots flying F4U-1s report that the antiblackout suits developed at the Naval Aircraft Factory increased their tolerance to the accelerations encountered in gunnery runs and other maneuvers by three to four Gs.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, we know the model was G-3 Anti-G Suit for Allied pilots, we have multiple documents stating they were used and in some intances the amount of extra tolerance they gave to the pilot for handling G-forces. Keep it up guys, perhaps we will get G-Suits modelled in a future patch http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

GR142_Astro
04-03-2005, 08:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fabianfred:
so if you want to pretend you've got a G-suit on, switch off 'blackouts and redouts' ......
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why do we have to pretend when they existed in substantial numbers in WW2?

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

faustnik
04-03-2005, 09:22 PM
As seen in Almighty Tallest's last quote (which has already been sent to 1C), the G-suit was even quantified. Tests with the early suit showed it gave the average pilot the ability to withstand 1 extra "G". I don't know how the sim is coded, of course, so, I can't guess at how much work it would be to alter blackout for a small set of a/c only.

fordfan25
04-03-2005, 10:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fabianfred:
so if you want to pretend you've got a G-suit on, switch off 'blackouts and redouts' ......
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why do we have to pretend when they existed in substantial numbers in WW2?

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

that and its kinda hard to do that in warclouds or warbirds lol

AlmightyTallest
04-03-2005, 11:00 PM
faustnik, you guys sent a notice to 1C about this before?

Just wanted to know, I wasn't sure if any of my info was getting to the main man in charge. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

faustnik
04-03-2005, 11:52 PM
I sent that quote during the FB beta.

GR142_Astro
04-04-2005, 01:53 AM
IceFire,

What AllMightyTallest and Faustnik are talking about is kind what I'm on about US planes being denied historical abilities. No G Suit, no late war boost, strange P38 behavior and so on. These issues are being sent to Oleg/1C with proof, and still nothing.

Giganoni
04-04-2005, 02:22 AM
Look, I know this might be important to some people, but I guess with all these updates and everything we are starting to get spoiled. Sure its "historic" to have some squads with g-suits in some planes during a certain period of time, but this is a game, a simulator game, but a game nonetheless. Are G-suits really that important to divert time and resources from correcting fms, coding in new planes and working on BoB? Correct me if wrong, but 1C didn't make a Western Front campaign, a third party did. BoB will be their serious foray into the air battles over Western Europe and if they add late war planes with that game, perhaps then it is the best time to discuss G-suits when the new sim is just beginning.

fordfan25
04-04-2005, 02:23 AM
by the way astro i tottaly love that sig man. very kool and well done. did you make it your self. be cool to have a desk top wallpapper like that.

VW-IceFire
04-04-2005, 08:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
IceFire,

What AllMightyTallest and Faustnik are talking about is kind what I'm on about US planes being denied historical abilities. No G Suit, no late war boost, strange P38 behavior and so on. These issues are being sent to Oleg/1C with proof, and still nothing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Now I'm starting to see where you're going. And by US planes you're mostly talking about the P-38 yes? Because it doesn't appear to have a boost...although going to 110% I assume means something. The strange P-38 behavior I imagine stems from the limitations of the FM...I don't think a single sim has done the P-38 right yet. Maybe the new 4.0 FM will help.

Trouble is...if we want G-suits, then the Luftwaffe is going to want seat positions modeled too. Oleg may have decided that neither side is going to get a historical advantage. Can you blame him?

AlmightyTallest
04-04-2005, 08:59 AM
Thanks faustnik for that info. Appreciate it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Not much else I can add to this conversation though, just have to let Oleg look at it and make a decision based on the facts.

Blutarski2004
04-04-2005, 09:46 AM
Use of G-Suits by American pilots could provide an explanation behind the neverending argument about relative turn performance of USA and German fighters. At the higher speeds under which late-war ETO aerial combat occurred, maximum turn performance may have been more a function of the pilot's ability to withstand G's than of his aircraft's ability to turn at high speeds (which produced those G loads). A pilot able to tolerate 1/2 or 1 G more than his opponent would have enjoyed a considerable advantage.

Aaron_GT
04-04-2005, 10:12 AM
I'm in favour of historical capabilities for all sides, be it G suits where appropriate or modelling of seat angle. But too many would call foul if one was modelled without the other.

In terms of the late war (1944-5) planeset the USA doesn't do too badly in terms of single-engined fighters - the ones that fought in large numbers are represented. Some of the ones that fought in smaller but significant numbers are not present, but some of that may now be due to the legal situation. After all, the RAF has had little in the way of late war types (hopefully changed with 4.0) so it's not like the USAAF/USN/USMC has been singled out for unfair treatment here.

With regards to how much of an advantage G suits give over seat angle I am not sure. G suits in 44-5 gave 0.5 to 1G impovement. Prone positions can give improvements of several times this. How much a modest angle gives I don't know. If your planes don't have seat angle then G suits make sense, though - retero fit the pilot! There might be issues with ergonimics and seat angle that are hard to model in the sim, though.

DarthBane_
04-04-2005, 10:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:

If the US side had these planes, or just the correct dive superiority, speed and climb for the present ones, I think you would be crapping in your Lederhosen.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And that's where a pretty good set of informative posts degrades. You pretty much lost half of the people who would support that idea right there with that one statement. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He didn't lose anybody. It's just a mild little jab compared to what hetzer and the darthbane people are trying to do to the thread. Both of their posting histories show they add nothing to any discussion, other than trying to hamper every plane that's not a 190 or 109.

Back to the topic!

Go ahead and give some consideration to this laid-back seat position, I will take the USAF G-Suit and still come out with better G ability. It's been PROVEN. And if you think I'm going to lose a wing in a high-G turn @ 500kph then you are in for a 6 O'clock surprise!

The fact is somebody doesn't want United States aircraft to have their historical abilities, and it's becoming more clear all the time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You mean abilities written in a sales material for this planes after the war? Dont think so. That junk had to be sold so it had to be comercialized: glorious tales about wining, false tech data, pilots as their promoters tell stories about their rocket like performance. U are just a victim of comercials. How did amerikanos AC stend against d9 and k4 you dont have a clue. Neither do i. You are yust biased for your side AC. Keep watching comercials. In RL they were junk in overwhelming numbers. With numbers, not skill and quality.

GR142_Astro
04-04-2005, 11:01 AM
@ Giganoni

Agreed that it is a late date to begin adding G-Suit / seat position effects, but I actually was thinking more of BoB and FB's role now as a test bed.


@ fordfan25

Thanks for the comment. Yes I did that sig awhile ago. Did a bunch of color enhance on the sky and added some extra smokage. I need to size it down a bit before I get busted. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif


@ VW-IceFire

It's hard to say anything about your nation's a/c without sounding like a whiner or conspiracy theorist. Seems like the proof requirements are more stringent for US and British a/c for that matter. Recall the P47 roll rate drama. Anyway, agreed that the P38 probably is difficult to model and 4.0 may be a whole new day. As I mentioned to Giganoni, it would still be nice to see these issues addressed in FB as groundwork for BoB. It's going to be years before we are flying the FTD in BoB.

faustnik
04-04-2005, 11:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DarthBane_:
You mean abilities written in a sales material for this planes after the war? Dont think so. That junk had to be sold so it had to be comercialized: glorious tales about wining, false tech data, pilots as their promoters tell stories about their rocket like performance. U are just a victim of comercials. How did amerikanos AC stend against d9 and k4 you dont have a clue. Neither do i. You are yust biased for your side AC. Keep watching comercials. In RL they were junk in overwhelming numbers. With numbers, not skill and quality. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WTF? P-51s and P-47s stood up very well against all late war LW prop fighters. If you don't trust American accounts, read LW accounts. You'll find the LW had a lot of respect for the American planes.

Or maybe you're just trolling?

ruxtmp
04-04-2005, 11:43 AM
This discussion seems pointless. A pilots ability to withstand the effects of high G manuevers is based more on his/her physiology not the technical marvels of a G-suit and seat position. An old fat out of shape unit commander strapping on a G-Suit and lying practically flat on his back will blackout well before a young in shape pilot with poor seat position and no G-Suit. Also G-Tolerance is developed over time. A pilot that does not pull high Gs for a copule days and then decides to do a few high G turns will notice that his tolerance has dropped a few Gs from what he was doing only a few days ago. Finally there is the straining maneuver that pilots do when pulling Gs kinda looks and sounds like someone with severe constipation. Maybe Oleg can simulate a this by setting the mic up so that grunting into it properly will gain you another 0.5 gs http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

GR142_Astro
04-04-2005, 02:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ruxtmp:
This discussion seems pointless. A pilots ability to withstand the effects of high G manuevers is based more on his/her physiology not the technical marvels of a G-suit and seat position. An old fat out of shape unit commander strapping on a G-Suit and lying practically flat on his back will blackout well before a young in shape pilot with poor seat position and no G-Suit. Also G-Tolerance is developed over time. A pilot that does not pull high Gs for a copule days and then decides to do a few high G turns will notice that his tolerance has dropped a few Gs from what he was doing only a few days ago. Finally there is the straining maneuver that pilots do when pulling Gs kinda looks and sounds like someone with severe constipation. Maybe Oleg can simulate a this by setting the mic up so that grunting into it properly will gain you another 0.5 gs http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, your theory holds NO water.

One thing we have to assume is a standard fitness level across the board for any pilot of any nation. That is only fair.

Fact: G Suit added extra tolerance beyond a pilots natural ability or current fitness level.

Fact: Reclined position aided against blackout somewhat, but not as much as G suit.

Took sig out.

ruxtmp
04-04-2005, 03:28 PM
Astro,
I'm not against its implementation but it will probably just cause a bunch of whining over something really minor (ie the Blue Angles don't use them and pull 9 gs during their shows... etc.) That extra G may save your butt or may get you a kill every now and then but it will not be an ace maker. Someone flying better than you without a G suit will always kill you in your G suit it just may take a few seconds longer.

Does IL2FB+AEP+PF simulate the effects of exhaustion from numerous heavy G loading on the sim pilot? I do not ever really TnB much but someone constantly pulling heavy Gs should have GLOC onset occur much sooner then somone just flying around at 2-3 Gs even if with a G suit on. I know a common tactic of real life advesary pilots is to let the rookie F-16 pilots pull a bunch of 9g turns to evade which they could not follow and get them real tired, then they would move in for a easy kill.

JG5_UnKle
04-04-2005, 03:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
Fact: Reclined position aided against blackout somewhat, but not as much as G suit. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure about the "fact" part of that statement. If a G-suit aided tolerance by only 1G I don't see good seating position as being worse than that - tricky to get data on it though. Helps F-16 pilots though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

GR142_Astro
04-04-2005, 04:40 PM
For the record, I was never a part of the discussions on P51 elevator authority, and never saw a need to increase it. (Don't know the patch when it got "better"). This is kind of like the Fw190 roll rate....too much of a good thing.

A patch or two ago, with the P51 it was possible to loosely follow a bandit and keep him in sight but avoiding blackout. I don't have any exact figures on what speeds because as you know, things happen quick. Mostly between 400 and 500kph. Now it seems you can't follow any turns at higher speeds without a quick onset of blackout. This has nothing to do with elevator authority when you are barely putting any stick input.

I know all about trying to turn inside and that will obviously black you out before your opponent. I'm talking about taking a wider track (again, loosely following) to maintain vis on the bandit.

Just doesn't seem to work anymore.

G Suits were issued, worn and well received. Would be nice to tap into the P51's hidden potential. Right now the thing is kind of an also-ran IMHO. No it didn't win the war, but it was a Top 5 fighter, easy.

Took sig out.

p1ngu666
04-04-2005, 04:55 PM
i wonder if pilot position relative to cog (all planes rotate around their cog ingame, pretty much) effects g force the pilot gets. closer to the cog the better. heard of stuka rear gunner having nasty stuff like bleeding ears or something because of very high G.

we would whine that our g suit or reclinging seat wasnt good enuff or was too good or whatever, im content with it being equal http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

VW-IceFire
04-04-2005, 08:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
@ Giganoni

Agreed that it is a late date to begin adding G-Suit / seat position effects, but I actually was thinking more of BoB and FB's role now as a test bed.


@ fordfan25

Thanks for the comment. Yes I did that sig awhile ago. Did a bunch of color enhance on the sky and added some extra smokage. I need to size it down a bit before I get busted. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif


@ VW-IceFire

It's hard to say anything about your nation's a/c without sounding like a whiner or conspiracy theorist. Seems like the proof requirements are more stringent for US and British a/c for that matter. Recall the P47 roll rate drama. Anyway, agreed that the P38 probably is difficult to model and 4.0 may be a whole new day. As I mentioned to Giganoni, it would still be nice to see these issues addressed in FB as groundwork for BoB. It's going to be years before we are flying the FTD in BoB. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
See I think it helps to blather about all sides aircraft...better perspective I think. There are some, not saying you are, that come across as people who ONLY fly American/British/German/Japanese aircraft and have no tolerance/respect/interest in anything else...and having flown only one side seem to feel that their side has somehow been unfairly attacked or hindered.

What they need to do is start flying for all sides with all aircraft and learn to be a little more humble with their piloting skills. Just my thoughts on the matter.

DGC763
04-04-2005, 09:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142_Astro:

Sorry, your theory holds NO water.

One thing we have to assume is a standard fitness level across the board for any pilot of any nation. That is only fair.

Fact: G Suit added extra tolerance beyond a pilots natural ability or current fitness level.

Fact: Reclined position aided against blackout somewhat, but not as much as G suit. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


G-suits where popular and effective, yes, the fighter conference and the numerous sources listed in the above post confirm this, however, as one ruxtmp already stated physiological factors play a more significant roll. Fitness and exposure to G are of much more importance than G-suits or seating position, that is a irrefutable fact. Given equal people a G-suit will make a difference yes, but not all people are equal. What you are asking for is an across the board advantage to the allied aircraft that was not there. Not all allied pilots could sustain more G than there luftwaffe counterparts and vice versa. So do not you think that having a similar G-tolerance across the board is not an unreasonable thing, just as you assume that all the nations pilots shoud be of equal fitness. It could be argued for instance that Soviet/Luftwaffe/Japanese pilots should have better G tolerance because they flew a lot more combat missions than there USAAF/USN/RAF counterparts. The arguements could go on and on.

Stamina is also not factored into the game. You cannot forever pole an aircraft around the sky pulling close to max G as you do in game for substanstial periods of time and not get tired and lose some of your ability to sustain G. Falcon 4 tried fairly well to simulate this IL-2 does not. How to do it is extremely difficult.

You can claim Korean war sources, yet I am sure you could find numerous combat reports of the Soviet pilots (Who shot down a lot of F-86s) in Korea that would state that they saw exactly the same thing as the F-86 drivers saw in Mig-15. There are sources that would seemingly support most suppositions in relation to fighter combat. E.g in Bob Johnsons book he recalls seeing a wingman turning with 109s on the deck even though he should not have been able to. Such things happen in real life.

Also you claims of the aircraft like the P-51 not being given there historical performance is a complete fabrication. The P-51 is perhaps the best modelled aircraft in the game. Get the NACA test on its performance and compare the ingame performance to the real world and you will see how closely the align. You have absolutely no idea of how much test information that 1C has on aircraft performance, and how much of it conflicts with other test information.

Boosted late model allied fighters may just be coming to a computer near you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

GR142_Astro
04-04-2005, 09:33 PM
You are reading something else into my post.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DGC763:

Stamina is also not factored into the game. You cannot forever pole an aircraft around the sky pulling close to max G as you do in game for substanstial periods of time and not get tired and lose some of your ability to sustain G. Falcon 4 tried fairly well to simulate this IL-2 does not. How to do it is extremely difficult. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I said, pilot stamina and current fitness must be modeled even across the board, given the current technology. Therefore, the G suit and reclined seat position are modeled based on a standard fitness level.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Also you claims of the aircraft like the P-51 not being given there historical performance is a complete fabrication. The P-51 is perhaps the best modelled aircraft in the game. Get the NACA test on its performance and compare the ingame performance to the real world and you will see how closely the align. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, I never said that about the 51 specifically. "Would be nice to tap into the P51's hidden potential. Right now the thing is kind of an also-ran IMHO." P38 is a different story.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> You have absolutely no idea of how much test information that 1C has on aircraft performance, and how much of it conflicts with other test information. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Conflicts? So which information is correct, 1C's or the "other" test information?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Boosted late model allied fighters may just be coming to a computer near you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That would be a very nice addition for sure.

JG5_UnKle
04-05-2005, 03:34 AM
Stamina would be bloody brilliant! It would open up a whole new set of "issues" to think about.

At the moment in IL-2 if you have just pulled some G and had a "greyout" you do find that loading some G on again makes you blackout faster. I have found this in the P-51.

Say you are in a descending slice and not quite graying out but you can tell its close - it doesn't take much more to go the whole hog and blackout. So maybe there is a little of this modelled and this might be what the P-51 pilots are experiencing. After a sustained G load that isn't enough to cause a "graphical G effect" you load on a little more and blackout - seemingly out of nowhere.

My experience and my opinion only of course http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I think a G-suit would help with that, less effective for rapid high-G loads but good for helping with a sustained load. I hope that makes sense... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

GR142_Astro
04-05-2005, 11:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
Stamina would be bloody brilliant! It would open up a whole new set of "issues" to think about.

At the moment in IL-2 if you have just pulled some G and had a "greyout" you do find that loading some G on again makes you blackout faster. I have found this in the P-51.

Say you are in a descending slice and not quite graying out but you can tell its close - it doesn't take much more to go the whole hog and blackout. So maybe there is a little of this modelled and this might be what the P-51 pilots are experiencing. After a sustained G load that isn't enough to cause a "graphical G effect" you load on a little more and blackout - seemingly out of nowhere.

My experience and my opinion only of course http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I think a G-suit would help with that, less effective for rapid high-G loads but good for helping with a sustained load. I hope that makes sense... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Makes complete sense, and it's one of the points I failed to come across with. With the right combination of moves you can come to a point where a 5mm move of the stick and you are history. Of course you should blackout in a high performance ac, but it seems overdone.

Kind of frustrating to watch 109/190s put together move on top of move with wild stick-stirring barrel rolls in between and you are blacking out just trying to maintain vis. Btw, I subscribe to the thoery that G is not modeled even for all the aircraft. My reason for this is the turning ability of the Zero with little blackout consequence. I've passed too many Zeros in a high-speed headon and watched them do a sharp 180, then start shaggin me.

Anyway, good discussion so far. This G phenom is interesting, and it will be fun to see what 1C does with BoB in regards to physio effects.

faustnik
04-05-2005, 11:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142_Astro:

Kind of frustrating to watch 109/190s put together move on top of move with wild stick-stirring barrel rolls in between and you are blacking out just trying to maintain vis. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

190s move on top of move??? Hmmm...it only takes one silly move to bleed off all your E. I'm with you on the E-suits Astro, but, please leave out the superfluous whines about LW a/c.

ruxtmp
04-05-2005, 02:08 PM
Pulling Gs is pretty brutal on the human body. Anything over 6Gs for any length of time starts to have pretty signinficant physiological effects. JG5_Unkle's description of how IL2 handles successive Gs seems OK for a game. The only thing it will never be able to simulate is the disorientation that occurs as you start to recover from GLOC. This recovery process differs per individual some recover pretty quick while others have cob webs for a few minutes.
I'm not entirely sure that wearing a g-suit will actually gain you another 1G in all cases. Pulling 10Gs with a g-suit is not the same as pulling 9Gs without one. Also a G-suit has no effect on the recovery process. Once the blood drains out of your brain only your heart is the only thing that can get it back in.

BigKahuna_GS
04-05-2005, 03:49 PM
S!

__________________________________________________ _________________________
VW-IceFire Tempest Maniac posted Sun April 03 2005 16:25 uote:
How do you figure? At the moment, the P-51 and P-47 are pretty much at the top of their game.
__________________________________________________ _________________________



Hya Ice, I respectfully disagree.

The 1944 and on late war picture is far from complete. With the introduction of 150octane avgas, overboosting became the norm for almost all P47 groups. The 56th FG was getting 460-470mph TAS at alt. The Brits overboosted all their Mustang Mark IIIs and later Ponys at 25Lbs and were getting over 400mph TAS on the deck and over 450mph TAS at alt. The P47M at 470mph/490mph overboosted, is not even in the sim and with the copyright issue will probably not make it. The P38L was operating on 1,725bhp WEP and had a max climb rate of 4300fpm at sea level.

The P47D-27 flight model has gotten better but it is not correct in dive speed acceleration and energy retention. The 109K4 has basically the same dive speed as the P47 until terminal dive speed is reached. There is no historical seperation or a point of greater acceleration during the dive before final dive speed that Gunther Rall talked about. and dive tests indicated.

I think that Oleg would be open to historical documents that give speed and climb curves for allied overboosted aircraft. I have contacted the USAF historical archives about overboosted P47s. We can hope that some of the information passed on will be included in the next patch.

Guess you guys missed the G-suit vs seat position debate:
The G-suit vs seat position was interesting. The RCAF medical flight studies showed the G-suit more effective than just seat position by itself. There was a disagreement on this, so who knows how the G-suit and seat position would have been modeled. If the seat position alone had been given a slight edge in delayed grayout/blackout over the G-suit, that would have gone against all RCAF, RAF & USAAF medical flight tests. It would of also gone against combat reports from Korea. The F-86 Sabre pilots wore G-suits, the Mig 15 drivers did not. The F-86 pilots wearing g-suits had an obvious advantage during turns against the Mig pilots.

So maybe just leaving G-load even was the right thing to do when people disagree on which was better. Even though medical science and combat proved which one was better.


Sorry if I offened you Jg5-Unkle. Like Astro said it was just a friendly jab back at Darthbone and Hezter comments. Usually I dont bother responding to that sort of drivel. But on the other hand Unkle, I noticed you did not object to Darthbone's latest triad :

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by DarthBane_:
You mean abilities written in a sales material for this planes after the war? Dont think so. That junk had to be sold so it had to be comercialized: glorious tales about wining, false tech data, pilots as their promoters tell stories about their rocket like performance. U are just a victim of comercials. How did amerikanos AC stend against d9 and k4 you dont have a clue. Neither do i. You are yust biased for your side AC. Keep watching comercials. In RL they were junk in overwhelming numbers. With numbers, not skill and quality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks faustnik for calling him on it.



_____

actionhank1786
04-05-2005, 04:14 PM
Is this really a feature that needs implimenting that badly?
It seems like something that wouldn't be that great of an addition, compared to the time taken away from other things to add, test, and put it with the add on. You'd get a few more seconds of vision.
I dont really think in this game, it's something that is needed. Sure it'd be a nice touch but it's kind of a "what's the point" feature in my eyes.
Plus it doesn't look like all that many pilots got ahold of them.
For only a few thousand being shipped over, and then being confined only as a feature for the later war P-(number here) series, it just doesn't seem that needed.
that's just my thought on it

GR142_Astro
04-05-2005, 04:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142_Astro:

Kind of frustrating to watch 109/190s put together move on top of move with wild stick-stirring barrel rolls in between and you are blacking out just trying to maintain vis. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

190s move on top of move??? Hmmm...it only takes one silly move to bleed off all your E. I'm with you on the E-suits Astro, but, please leave out the superfluous whines about LW a/c. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Noooooo,

No LW a/c whine there. No doubt that twisting and turning the 190 bleeds off E in a heartbeat, I've done it myself. What I mean is the multiple high-speed split-s, turn, roll, split-s, roll, roll, jink, and so on. I'm keeping my distance watching this and if I even think about matching some of the moves the blackout begins. If I understand correctly, the P51 and 190 have similar elevator authority, so it's a bit puzzling.

Maybe the 190 guy is on the edge of grey the entire time. I feel like I'm wearing dark sunglasses everytime I fight in the 51.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

GR142_Astro
04-05-2005, 04:30 PM
Aaron,

No it's not at the top of the list, when there's no flyable Pe2, B17 and the list goes on. My point has been that they could unlock some hidden advantage for the P51 and other allied a/c.

There were more G Suits in theatre than Ta152s, just another kookie twist of FB.

faustnik
04-05-2005, 04:31 PM
Fw190s black out plenty. You're barking up the wrong tree there.

p1ngu666
04-05-2005, 06:15 PM
some of us ignore darth for a reason http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

190 is one of the best planes for stick sturing, i want oleg to put in a vomit effect for stick stirr'ers http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

its ebleed is alarming tho, for sure

imo the g suit would help on recovery, as theres less blood in the lower body, and it will squeeze it up too?

GR142_Astro
04-05-2005, 06:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Fw190s black out plenty. You're barking up the wrong tree there. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Geez Faustnik, you keep jumping the gun. Read carefully.....

"Maybe the 190 guy is on the edge of grey the entire time."

Unless you have the guy on comms or something, it's not possible to know his status. However, you have to be blind not to notice when a bandit traveling at the same speed as you has 3 or 4 more "twisty moves" beyond what you can hope to get away with. Again, during these engagements I NEVER attempt to turn sharper, knowing I will probably wake up dead.

Discussions like this can be helpful. For some reason you are getting way defensive about the 190, yet I've not assaulted it in any way. My query is not about the 190, but rather the P51/g~suit. For the record I think the 190 is one of the few "honest" aircraft in the game.

God forgive me for mentioning an opposition a/c.

faustnik
04-06-2005, 01:38 AM
Sorry, I'm getting 190 sensitive. Too many uber190 comments online lately (not here).

I will read slower. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Flydutch
04-06-2005, 04:13 AM
In the "Game Dificulty's" screen there is A Button to nulify G-forces!

JG5_UnKle
04-06-2005, 07:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
Sorry if I offened you Jg5-Unkle. Like Astro said it was just a friendly jab back at Darthbone and Hezter comments. Usually I dont bother responding to that sort of drivel. But on the other hand Unkle, I noticed you did not object to Darthbone's latest triad
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No worries, I have realised of late that there are far more unsavoury characters around here http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif. I missed Darthbone's post but yes it was pretty silly. No offence taken my friend I think I was just having a bad day http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

JG5_UnKle
04-06-2005, 07:32 AM
It might be interesting to run a comparison track where both pilots record a steady spiral dive?

Let's say you start at about 7000M in trail formation and go into a steady turn - not so aggresive that you can't follow. It shouldn't take too long before you build up loads of airspeed. Just keep going like that until you grey out and then blackout.

Not very exact I know but might might for a comparison of sorts. The trailing aircraft would have to behave and not pull lead - just trail.

Oh and no shooting either http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

JV44Rall
04-06-2005, 11:15 PM
I have no problem with g-suits and pilot position if are both modeled.

But there are also obvious features missing on LW planes. I have yet to see Oleg model a FW with a 20mm shell installed to blow the canopy off. It's widely reported that explosive canopy jettison systems were installed in every production FW, going back to 1942.

Fehler
04-07-2005, 01:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JV44Rall:
I have no problem with g-suits and pilot position if are both modeled.

But there are also obvious features missing on LW planes. I have yet to see Oleg model a FW with a 20mm shell installed to blow the canopy off. It's widely reported that explosive canopy jettison systems were installed in every production FW, going back to 1942. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You is wrong Rall... The 20mm Hispano makes the canopy come off everytime. One round, and you have to pop the canopy. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Hoarmurath
04-07-2005, 04:12 PM
Well, you seem puzzled because a 190 can make shorter turns without blacking out, and you think this is because the 190 pilot is modelled to sustain Gs better?

It is not the case, the sim make all pilots blackout at same G output. (as they lose their wings at same G output too)

What you experience here is that the 190 bleed its energy faster than your mustang, hence its speed sink faster, as well as the number of G... As it lose more and more E, it will be able to cut its turn and probably have a fire solution before stall without blacking out....

This have already been discussed here about other planes, and with the same conclusion...

All you have to remember is that when you do a maneuver, the G forces for the plane that is following you are not necessarily the same.

NorrisMcWhirter
04-07-2005, 05:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Sorry, I'm getting 190 sensitive. Too many uber190 comments online lately (not here).

I will read slower. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

190 is uber?

Sorry, I had a very long laugh about that one. That truly is the best one I've ever heard.

Norris

Hetzer_II
04-08-2005, 01:37 AM
ohh boy here were some threads that describe the 190 as completely uber, outmaneuvering a Spit, leaving an LA7 behind, D9 climbs like k4 and especially the noob weapons on any of the 190....

Tachyon1000
04-10-2005, 11:27 AM
I just saw a movie last night "Dive Bombers", released in 1941, that chronicled the search for a solution to the blackout problem for, well, dive bombers. The movie suggested that a simple inflatable belt about the waist had been developed and tested as early, well, 1941, obviously. It seems hard to believe, unless the film was pure propoganda, that G-suit type devices were not in wider use, since this film was publicly disseminating the essential G-suit principle to anyone who could pay the price for a movie ticket in 1941.