PDA

View Full Version : Lucky for the Luftwaffe: The P-53 was too late for WWII



XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 12:13 AM
This baby would have ruled any German fighter thrown against it. Too bad it was just too late to see service. With a top speed of 495 mph at 30,000 feet, and 420 mph at sea level, nothing, save the Me-262, even came close.

Anyone gonna model it?


Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 12:13 AM
This baby would have ruled any German fighter thrown against it. Too bad it was just too late to see service. With a top speed of 495 mph at 30,000 feet, and 420 mph at sea level, nothing, save the Me-262, even came close.

Anyone gonna model it?


Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 12:30 AM
We don't need it Chimpster- we've already got the I-153. It rules every German fighter in the game already /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

"I will pay attention to only aviation knowledge on an engineering level"
S!

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

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 12:31 AM
piccy
ive googled for like 30mins and dug up nothing
fing annoying

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 12:35 AM
The Do-123456 Vonderslicker would eat it for breakfast./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



"......und mein Herz steigt wie ein Falke in die Lüfte!"

EJGr.Ost Kimura

http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/image/ejgrost.gif


http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/Forums/

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 12:36 AM
the P-53C is brutal with six 20 mm cannons


VICTOR MAY HAVE BEEN A WEIRDO,BUT HE WAS A DAMN GOOD FIGHTERPILOT.
<ceter>http://www.boners.com/content/788904.1.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 12:36 AM
KIMURA wrote:
- The Do-123456 Vonderslicker would eat it for
- breakfast

Vonderschlicker, you numbskull! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 12:37 AM
p1ngu666 wrote:
- piccy
- ive googled for like 30mins and dug up nothing
- fing annoying
-
-

Try Yahoo, that's how I found it.

Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 12:41 AM
Mig29 would have ruled. Shame it came too late.../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

|TAO|


http://www.geocities.com/dangdenge2004/omdx.txt

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 03:39 AM
Couldnt resist to post this link. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.luft46.com/


<marquee>
= = = = = Sturzkampfgeschwader 77 : Soon coming to an airbase near you. = = = = = </marquee>

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 04:19 AM
Using Yahoo and still not finding the P-53. Never heard of it...

http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/icefire/icefire_tempest.jpg
"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." - Winston Churchill

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 04:46 AM
http://www.driko.org/usdes_p.html

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p60.htm

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p60.html


Just a small tip IceFire, search engines work best when you add related words to narrow the search criteria otherwise it will probably just list every example of page 53 on the web. I added the word aircraft to my search.



Message Edited on 10/04/0303:47AM by Lost_Lamb

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 05:24 AM
only thing i could find on the P-53 is on this page...

http://www.driko.org/usdes_p.html

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 05:47 AM
Luckily for the P-53, the war ended before it could be butchered by Go-229's. It works both ways Skychimp /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif .

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I/JG1 Oesau (http://jg1-oesau.org) is recruiting. Join us!

Stab.I/JG1Death at HL, Maj_Death at Ubi.com

At the start of WW2 the German army lacked experienced anti-aircraft gunners. The average gunner was so bad that the USSR decided to help them out. They did it by forcing some of their pilots to fly I-153 flak magnets. These planes were slow but very sturdy. This allowed German anti-aircraft gunners to get a large amount of target practice on a relatively small number of planes. Thanks to the Soviets help, by the end of the war the German anti-aircraft gunners were amoung the best in the world.</center>

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 06:22 AM
i cant find anything on P-53s either, other than it was expiramental

well my name was spelled wrong

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 06:27 AM
Here it is. This is actually a P-60.
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p60s.jpg

It's technicaly the same plane.

here's the low down on this bird. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

The P-60 series of aircraft were the last attempts by Curtiss to build a replacement for the P-40. Previous attempts included the XP-46 and XP-53. The Army Air Corps wanted a "Merlin" powered aircraft so the second XP-53 was modified for the new engine and re-designated XP-60. Because the V-1650 engine was in demand for production aircraft (e.g. P-51), the P-60 underwent many modifications to test different engines more readily available. First, the Allison V-1710-75 was substituted for the Packard in the XP-60A. Next, a Pratt & Whitney R-2800-53 radial engine was tried with a contra-rotating propeller on the XP-60C. An order for 500 P-60's (26 YP-60A and 474 P-60A) was canceled in June 1943 and Curtiss built 354 P-47G's instead.

TYPE Built/Converted - Remarks
XP-60
XP-60A
YP-60A
P-60A
XP-60B P-60C
XP-60D
XP-60E
YP-60E
1
3
0
1
1 (cv)
1 (cv)
1 (cv)
1 (cv)
1 (cv) Remarks
Imp. P-40
Imp. XP-60 w/ 8 .50-cal. mgs.
Service test -A model; 26 canceled
Prod. -A model; 473 canceled
Mod. XP-60A with turbosupercharger
Mod. XP-60A; contra-prop
Mod. XP-60; eng. chg.; 4-blade prop.
Mod. XP-60B; eng. chg.; 4-blade prop.
Mod. P-60A; eng. chg.; 4-blade prop.
SPECIFICATIONS (XP-60)
Span: 41 ft. 5 in.
Length: 33 ft. 4 in.
Height: 14 ft. 4 in.
Weight: 7,010 lbs. empty/9,350 lbs. gross
Armament: None; later models designed for eight, six or four .50-cal. machine guns
Engine: Packard V-1650-1 "Merlin" of 1,300 hp.
PERFORMANCE
Maximum speed: 380 mph.



P-60 Photo Gallery

XP-60 in flight - from XP-53 design; S/N 41-19508
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p60-1.jpg

XP-60C 3/4 front view - close-up of contra-prop
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p60-2.jpg

XP-60 side view - (larger version of above photo)
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p60-3.jpg

XP-60A 3/4 front view - taken 14 Oct 1942
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p60-4.jpg

XP-60C 3/4 front view - S/N 42-79424
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p60-5.jpg

XP-60C in flight - modified from 2nd XP-60A
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p60-6.jpg

XP-60E side view - S/N 43-32763; former P-60A
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p60-7.jpg


Packard V-1650 "Merlin" Engine
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/engines/eng33.jpg

The V-1650 liquid-cooled engine was the U.S. version of the famous British Rolls-Royce "Merlin" engine which powered the "Spitfire" and "Hurricane" fighters during the Battle of Britain in 1940. In Sept. 1940, the Packard Co. agreed to build the Merlin engine for both the American and the British Governments, and adapted it for American mass-production methods. The first two Packard-built Merlins to be completed were demonstrated on test stands at a special ceremony at the Packard plant in Detroit on August 2, 1941. Full production began in 1942 and by the end of World War II, 55,873 Merlins had been produced in the U.S.A. The Army Air Forces used the engine almost exclusively in the famed P-51 "Mustang", for it provided greatly improved high-altitude performance over the Allison V-1710 engine used in earlier series of the airplane. The V-1650 Merlin also replaced the V-1710 in the "F" series of the P-40. The British also used Packard-built Merlins during the last three years of the war in their "Spitfire", "Mosquito", and "Lancaster" airplanes.

ENGINE SPECIFICATIONS
Model: V-1650-7
Type: 12-cylinder with two-stage mechanically-driven supercharger
Displacement: 1,649 cu.in.
Weight: 1,690 lbs.
Max. RPM: 3,000
Max. HP: 1,695
Cost: $25,000

ANy thing esle you want to know? lol
really just a hot roded P-40M. From what i can tell anyway.


<CENTER>http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p837.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
http://www.brunching.com/images/hellweather.gif (http://www.brunching.com/toys/hellweather.html)
<FONT COLOR="Green">Slainte Mhath- Good Health to you!

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 06:43 AM
KIMURA wrote:
- The Do-123456 Vonderslicker would eat it for
- breakfast


yes kimura,
the USAAF would have no chance against the Dornier.
if i remember me right, in a testflight, the P53 made an crash-landing in a Jauchegrube.(what means it in english ? )
the pilot, Tschortsch Dappelju Busch had luck to survive, because the plane sunk into the jauchegrube.

a very sad end for a very interesting airplane, and skychimp said it already , lucky for the luftwaffe.


http://www.bayern.de/Layout/wappen.gif

Bavaria is one of the oldest European states.
It dates back to about 500 A.D., when the Roman Empire was overcome by the onslaught of Germanic tribes. According to a widespread theory, the Bavarian tribe had descended from the Romans who remained in the country, the original Celtic population and the Germanic invaders.

Bavarian History : http://www.bayern.de/Bayern/Information/geschichteE.html#kap0


Message Edited on 10/04/0305:49AM by Boandlgramer

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 11:47 AM
When you bring this up it makes me wonder how the Ta 152C would perform with the projected Jumo 224 and Jumo 225, both in the 4000/5000hp range./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/GK-2.JPG


'When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!'

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 12:20 PM
wasnt there a accident with a goose on one of the
testflights, it got into the cokpit on takeoff,
because the pilot had the sliding hood open,
and this caused the plane to go in to a ground loop,
I know the pilot survived but not the goose. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

VICTOR MAY HAVE BEEN A WEIRDO,BUT HE WAS A DAMN GOOD FIGHTERPILOT.
<ceter>http://www.boners.com/content/788904.1.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 12:28 PM
Boandlgramer wrote:
- if i remember me right, in a testflight, the P53
- made an crash-landing in a Jauchegrube.(what means
- it in english ? )


This site is good for translations (i hope),

http://world.altavista.com/

or just type babelfish into your search engine (Hicthhikers Guide to the Galaxy, anyone?)

'Jauchegrube' translated as 'liquid manure pit'. Sounds like a sewage pond.

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 12:44 PM
Jauchegrube = sewage pit, sink hole

GreyBeast_P39

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 12:49 PM
This is stolen from Joe Baughers homepages:

"Following the failure of the XP-46 to win any Army production orders, the Curtiss company proposed another design in their search for the eventual replacement for the P-40. This was the Curtiss Model 88, which was an improved XP-46 powered by the yet-to-be-built 1600-hp Continental XIV-1430-3 twelve-cylinder liquid-cooled inverted Vee engine.

The Model 88 was to use the fuselage and tail assembly from the P-40D combined with a NACA laminar flow wing. Armament was to have consisted of eight wing-mounted machine guns. The mainwheel retraction scheme reverted to the sequence used by the original P-40, with the mainwheels rotating 90 degrees before they retracted rearwards into wing wells. Maximum speed was projected to be 430 mph.

On October 1, 1940, the USAAC ordered two examples of the Model 88 under the designation XP-53. Serials were 41-140 and 41-19508. In a conference held six weeks later, the USAAC informed Curtiss-Wright of its need for a fighter combining laminar flow wing technology with the British Rolls-Royce Merlin engine. Since the XP-53 was already being designed for laminar-flow wings, Curtiss proposed to convert the second XP-53 airframe (41-19508) to the Merlin engine while it was undergoing construction. This airframe was redesignated Model 90 by the company. The USAAC accepted this idea, and assigned the designation XP-60 to the new aircraft. The other XP-53 airframe was to retain the Continental engine.

However, while the XP-53 and XP-60 were both undergoing construction, the Army cancelled the XP-53 order because of the excessive delays in the temperamental Continental XIV-1430 engine. The XP-53 never flew. As it turned out, the Continental engine never did enter production, and all of those aircraft projects which had planned for it ultimately failed.

In November 1941, the XP-53 airframe was converted into a static test airframe in support of the P-60 project, and its bullet-proof windshield, self-sealing fuel tanks, and armament were scavenged and transferred to the XP-60. "

Skarphol





Message Edited on 10/04/0312:50PM by Skarphol

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 01:03 PM
yet another american plane powered by a british engine good job we gave u the desgin or u would of been in the shti

unless you have certified, verified data and proof of this or have actually flown the planes that stop your whineing!

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 01:28 PM
The Allison was and STILL IS a very good engine. The fact that its still produced today and winning Redo and race boat races is testimoney to its design. Also, only the P-51 had the British engine. P-47 and P-38 were both US engines. P-40 and P-39 also had early Allison engines. All navy fighters used American engines. All US bombers used US engines. The Brits only WISHED they could produce a radial engine like the US could http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Sure the Allison took some time to develop into a top notch engine, but it was clean, efficiant, and in the end pumping 1750HP in P-38's. Give the US some credit http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Gib

fiestapower wrote:
- yet another american plane powered by a british
- engine good job we gave u the desgin or u would of
- been in the shti
-
- unless you have certified, verified data and proof
- of this or have actually flown the planes that stop
- your whineing!



No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 01:31 PM
???? But. ehh.. the Germans did already loose the war so what difference does it make if the P 53 did approach earlier??/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



Good Hunting
Jaws43

Message Edited on 10/04/0302:20PM by Jaws43

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 05:58 PM
winston57 wrote:
- only thing i could find on the P-53 is on this
- page...
-
- http://www.driko.org/usdes_p.html
-
-
-

You mean there really was a P-53? I knew about the P-60, but thought I made up the P-53 /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Regards,

SkyChimp

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


Message Edited on 10/04/0309:01PM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 06:18 PM
fiestapower wrote:
- yet another american plane powered by a british
- engine good job we gave u the desgin or u would of
- been in the shti
-
-

Want proof Lime Suckers are snotty? Read the above./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Was good American manufacturing facilities were there to produce all that equipment you needed./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

This posted on the AH forum by Bolillio Loco

>>from Vees for Victory isbn 0764305611

hours flown before engine needs overhaual and number of hours to overhaul the engine

1945 1st quarter

V-1650 302 flying hours 251 labor hours

V-1710 362 flying hours 134 labor hours

R-1820 591 flying hours 104 labor hours

R-1830 580 flying hours 147 labor hours

R-2800 469 flying hours 242 labor hours

1945 2nd quarter

V-1650 200 flying hours 259 labor hours

V-1710 387 flying hours 104 labor hours

R-1820 609 flying hours 93 labor hours

R-1830 562 flying hours 141 labor hours

R-2800 500 flying hours 241 labor hours

the book states that the figures for the 1650, 1710, and R-2800 are from pursuit aircraft while the R-1820 and R-1830 are from bomber aircraft.<<


As can be CLEARLY seen the Allison V-1710 was a better engine than the Rolls-Royce 1650/Merlin. More flying hours and less time to do maintanance.

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 06:32 PM
fjuff79 wrote:
<irrevelant stuff removed>
<most horrible sig removed>

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE
change your sig. It makes me want to vomit more than any tv appearance of GWBush. And that is saying alot.


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

prkl

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 06:38 PM
Why so much talk about a fantasy aircraft which was considered a failure even before it flew ? No wonder they gave it up so soon !

PS: I can see allied fanboys already demoralized as the patch comes. They would want new UFOs for "balance"!


http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 06:53 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
-
- Why so much talk about a fantasy aircraft which was
- considered a failure even before it flew ? No wonder
- they gave it up so soon !
-
- PS: I can see allied fanboys already demoralized as
- the patch comes. They would want new UFOs for
- "balance"!


Isegrim, you know this thread was a joke don't you?

BTW, we still gonna get together and have that dogfight, now that Oleg has fixed the Bf-109 and P-47?

Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 07:59 PM
Naw, goulash brain does not have the smarts to relize this is a "fun thread".

Should we all give Dizzy Issy a great big resounding SIEG HEIL? /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

What an imbicle he is.

SkyChimp wrote:
-
- Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
--
--
-- Why so much talk about a fantasy aircraft which was
-- considered a failure even before it flew ? No wonder
-- they gave it up so soon !
--
-- PS: I can see allied fanboys already demoralized as
-- the patch comes. They would want new UFOs for
-- "balance"!
-
-
- Isegrim, you know this thread was a joke don't you?
-
-

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 08:21 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
--
--
-- Why so much talk about a fantasy aircraft which was
-- considered a failure even before it flew ? No wonder
-- they gave it up so soon !
--
-- PS: I can see allied fanboys already demoralized as
-- the patch comes. They would want new UFOs for
-- "balance"!
-
-
- Isegrim, you know this thread was a joke don't you?
-
- BTW, we still gonna get together and have that
- dogfight, now that Oleg has fixed the Bf-109 and
- P-47?


I'll do that whenever you wish Skychimp. You can met me much easier than Isegrim.

Can you face me now or should we delay it again until you'll got another UFO?


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 08:26 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- I'll do that whenever you wish Skychimp. You can met
- me much easier than Isegrim.
-
- Can you face me now or should we delay it again
- until you'll got another UFO?


Lets go now, before Oleg gives in to the whining and overmodels your Bf-109.

Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 08:31 PM
Great! we can meet today.
I think that in two hour or so I'm free. If we can't meet in two hours then tonight I'll be on hyperlobby. We can set an hour.

Also keep in mind that I play with padlock on. Prefferably with map icons on, because I don't want that we look for each other for hours. If we set a meeting point on the map then we can drop the map icons.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 08:38 PM
2 hours? Padlock? Did Nazis have padlock in real life? How about full real? How about right now?

Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 08:43 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
- 2 hours? Padlock? Did Nazis have padlock in real
- life? How about full real? How about right now?
-
- Regards,


I can't right now.
And yes padlock. I never heard that allied pilots moved their heads with hat switch.

Padlock is full real.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 08:52 PM
Winner in 5 fights. Simultaneous take-off. Simple summer online map.

I estimate 5-0 for me.
Place your bets gentlemen.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 08:55 PM
No. We meet in the air. 7500 meters. Full real. No padlock.

Just like in real life /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Regards,

SkyChimp

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


Message Edited on 10/04/0311:57PM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 08:59 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
- No. We meet in the air. 7500 meters. Full real.
- No padlock.


High altitude does not work. Above 3000m the FM is complete bogus, don't start this argument.

Are you able to to face me or not?


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 09:05 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- High altitude does not work.

Oh please. Great excuse.



- Above 3000m the FM is
- complete bogus, don't start this argument.

According to you.



- Are you able to to face me or not?

Of course I can face you. WILL you face me? Or are you only willing to do it where you have all the advantages and I have none? You only want to do it in some ahistorical setting.

I'll build a mission. You and I meet, 7,500 meters over Berlin, so your Fuerher can see your glorious deeds. Head to head. No BS dogfight maps. The way it was. You and me. Full real.

How about it? Ready to put your money where your mouth is?

Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 10:22 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
-- High altitude does not work.
-
- Oh please. Great excuse.
-
-
-
-- Above 3000m the FM is
-- complete bogus, don't start this argument.
-
- According to you.


No, according to il2 compare.


-- Are you able to to face me or not?
-
- Of course I can face you. WILL you face me? Or are
- you only willing to do it where you have all the
- advantages and I have none? You only want to do it
- in some ahistorical setting.
-
- I'll build a mission. You and I meet, 7,500 meters
- over Berlin, so your Fuerher can see your glorious
- deeds. Head to head. No BS dogfight maps. The way
- it was. You and me. Full real.
-
- How about it? Ready to put your money where your
- mouth is?


I tested FB at 9000 and all the planes I flew made a complete turn in less than 30 sec. In reality most of them should do it in double that time. If you want to fly fantasy pick CFS.

On the other hand, I agree that in real life P47 was a dog at low altitudes and it won't be a fair fight. So we'll have to fight in the same plane.

You choose one plane, I'll choose another. There'll be 2 flights in one plane, two in the other, WE BOTH FLY THE SAME PLANE. If the score is indecided then we'll fly alternatively the planes until one of the players takes a lead of 2 games.

Take-off on the runnaway like in real life. Default summer online map. Padlock on. Nothing else is accepted.

Choose your plane.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 10/04/0304:23PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 10:32 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- Nothing else is
- accepted.

Typical. You're worthless.

Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 11:25 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
-- Nothing else is
-- accepted.
-
- Typical. You're worthless.


What a cheap excuse. Why am I not surprised?
You can't face me even in a plane picked by you.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 11:35 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- What a cheap excuse.

Cheap excuse? Funny.. I think the following are cheaper

1) High altitude does not work. Above 3000m the FM is complete bogus, don't start this argument.

2) I can't right now.

3) And yes padlock. I never heard that allied pilots moved their heads with hat switch.

Talk about WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 11:38 PM
tagert wrote:
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-- What a cheap excuse.
-
- Cheap excuse? Funny.. I think the following are
- cheaper
-
- 1) High altitude does not work. Above 3000m the FM
- is complete bogus, don't start this argument.
-
- 2) I can't right now.
-
- 3) And yes padlock. I never heard that allied pilots
- moved their heads with hat switch.


Do your parents know that you're wasting your time on the net instead of preparing for school?


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 11:45 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Do your parents know that you're wasting your time
- on the net instead of preparing for school?

My parents? No.. not mine, but ask your mom.. she knows where Im at! Shaaaaaaawing! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 11:51 PM
tagert wrote:
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-- Do your parents know that you're wasting your time
-- on the net instead of preparing for school?
-
- My parents? No.. not mine, but ask your mom.. she
- knows where Im at! Shaaaaaaawing!


You're an idiot kid. Brain damage is all I see when reading your posts.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 12:03 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- You're an idiot kid. Brain damage is all I see when
- reading your posts.

Who's your daddy? Ask your momie!


<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 12:07 AM
Is Skychump your daddy? why do you care, can't he defend himself?




<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 12:08 AM
I don't have all day for you Skychimp. Are you in it or not?


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 12:14 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Is Skychump your daddy? why do you care, can't he
- defend himself?

Ok, that's it go get me a stick!

<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 12:35 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- I don't have all day for you Skychimp. Are you in it
- or not?


I gave you the criteria. You wanna play cheap girls rules, not me. Full real, in the air, 7500m. P-47 versus Bf-109.

Regards,

SkyChimp

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


Message Edited on 10/05/0303:42AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 12:43 AM
Huck - if you want historical accuracy you really must start with the P-47 at high altitude. The only aircraft taking off from the ground should be your Nazi one.

Remember, by the time the P-47 appeared the Luftwaffe was on the defensive and had to respond to events dictated by the Allies. Odd that, for a force equipped with the Bf 109 wonderplane, but there you go.

If you play it any other way, it's just special (ahistorical) pleading.

Regards,

RocketDog.

PS - Skychimp, please record a track.

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 12:50 AM
Huck, the great manipulator, has plastered all over these boards his assertions that the LW planes were just plain better than the allied planes they faced. But she shrinks away from a challenge to duel in a historical setting. Is he unsure of himself, or his Nazi planes?

Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 12:57 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-- I don't have all day for you Skychimp. Are you in it
-- or not?
-
-
- I gave you the criteria. You wanna play cheap girls
- rules, not me. Full real, in the air, 7500m. P-47
- versus Bf-109.


You're the girl Skychimp. Can't you make a take-off?


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 01:08 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- You're the girl Skychimp. Can't you make a take-off?

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif




Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 01:10 AM
RocketDog wrote:
- Huck - if you want historical accuracy you really
- must start with the P-47 at high altitude. The only
- aircraft taking off from the ground should be your
- Nazi one.
-
- Remember, by the time the P-47 appeared the
- Luftwaffe was on the defensive and had to respond to
- events dictated by the Allies. Odd that, for a force
- equipped with the Bf 109 wonderplane, but there you
- go.

Radar warning gave plenty of time to be in the air to intercept the bombers. What you say is completely inaccurate. When americans flew bombing missions against Ploesti, early warning network gave the defenders the signal of bombers approaching from almost 1000km, even before they reached Bulgaria.

-
- If you play it any other way, it's just special
- (ahistorical) pleading.

Depends on the mission. An 109K taking off to intercept a squad of heavily loaded P47 straffing a column of vehicles is a historically accurate mission. Why not try that?


This encounter will be a free intercept, at altitudes where FB is reasonable accurate. At 7500m no plane has historically accurate performance. I already tested and all planes at high altitudes turn TWO TIMES BETTER!! How can you pretend accuracy in this situation??


Besides, I proposed to Skychimp both to fly the same plane, two times the plane chosen by him, two times the plane chosen by me. Can't he do that?


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 10/04/0307:13PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 01:22 AM
Huck says: "I'll fly a historically accurate mission, so long as it's a K-4 versus a heavily laden P-47 on a bombing mission."

What a hero.


BTW Huckles, iif all planes turn too good at high altitude, where is your disadvantage?

Nevermind Huckles, in adition to bing woefully inaccurate and unable to debate the merits of aircraft without resorting to your inane and more often than not intentionally wrong calculations, you won't even fly against me when YOU offered the challenge.

I'm done with you in this regard.





Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 01:28 AM
Why don't you pick your aircrafts, start off tail-to-tail in the middle of a runway using full real, with or without pad-lock (guess one of you have TrackIR) That must be fair?!

rgds

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 04:06 AM
there were spit 2* models with 6 20mm haspano cannons tho they went with 4 20mms for most planes, lucky for the luft they wernt in time :P, theres also planes like the do 229 and gotha flyin wing thingy the ta 152 series tempest 2 and so on.

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg


Message Edited on 10/05/0304:11PM by HellToupee

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 04:32 AM
for Huckleberry, you is one of these

http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/poultry/chickens/faverolles/SALFAV1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 04:34 AM
roachclip wrote:
- for Huckleberry, you is one of these


I'm no poultry expert, but that's not a chicken, it's a ****.

You can tell by the spurs on its legs.



Regards,

SkyChimp

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


Message Edited on 10/05/0307:35AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 04:39 AM
Yes a ****, but with all his posturing and strutting he does...../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif They are chickens, a hen and a ****./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Is this better then SkyChimp?/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/poultry/chickens/faverolles/SALFAV2.jpg

Faverolles

Or is this him?

http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/poultry/chickens/houdan/HOUDAN2.jpg

Houdan



Message Edited on 10/04/03 10:54PM by roachclip

Message Edited on 10/04/0310:56PM by roachclip

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 04:53 AM
roachclip wrote:
http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/poultry/chickens/houdan/HOUDAN2.jpg

WAZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ UP!



<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

Message Edited on 10/04/03 09:28PM by tagert

Message Edited on 10/04/0309:29PM by tagert

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 04:58 AM
http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/poultry/chickens/faverolles/SALFAV1.jpg



LOL HERE WE HAVE IT!... THE fAMOUS LUFT~CHICKEN IN IT'S NATIVE INVORMENT!

lol it's becoming obvious to me that Huck & Issy are just a couple of striaght up Nazi fan boys. If it was 1942 i bet they'd even be members of the Hitler youth.

why dont you to jerks grow up? Let go of it. Germany lost the war and there is nothing you can do to change that. the good guys won and the bad guys...Germany LOST.
Stop trying to re-write history using a video game. lol
what a joke you 2 are. lol

and this BS you 2 always spout off about how much better LW aircraft were that what the allies had...is just that Bull Sh*t.

Dont go away mad..just go away.

<CENTER>http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p837.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
http://www.brunching.com/images/hellweather.gif (http://www.brunching.com/toys/hellweather.html)
<FONT COLOR="Green">Slainte Mhath- Good Health to you!

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 05:46 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
- roachclip wrote:
-- for Huckleberry, you is one of these
-
-
- I'm no poultry expert, but that's not a chicken,
- it's a ****.
-
- You can tell by the spurs on its legs.
-
-
-
-
- Regards,
-
- SkyChimp

Well Ill be dang.. Who knew that web sight would have what I have been looking for... A Me109K with flettner tabs!

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/109kwithflettnertab.jpg

<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 06:07 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
- Huck says: "I'll fly a historically accurate
- mission, so long as it's a K-4 versus a heavily
- laden P-47 on a bombing mission."
-
- What a hero.


Won't you the guy who wanted to be at 7500m the moment I take-off? That's what real hero means.



- BTW Huckles, iif all planes turn too good at high
- altitude, where is your disadvantage?


No disavantage, I just don't fly UFOs.
And when it comes to overmodelling in FB nothing comes even close to P47. On military power has an initial climb of 3500fpm instead of 2300fpm, 4000fpm at max power/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif twice the roll rate and 4 sec less on turn time. Quite a rig you got.
More details soon on ORR.




- Nevermind Huckles, in adition to bing woefully
- inaccurate and unable to debate the merits of
- aircraft without resorting to your inane and more
- often than not intentionally wrong calculations, you
- won't even fly against me when YOU offered the
- challenge.
-
- I'm done with you in this regard.


I never met in my life such a coward. I said let's fly the same planes. Skychimp says: no mammy I'm scared.

Go fly with your little chickens, tagert, roachlicp. Compliment each other.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 07:28 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- I never met in my life such a coward.

Got a mirror?

- Go fly with your little chickens, tagert, roachlicp.
- Compliment each other.

Translated says "Baaaaaak.. Baak Baak Baak"





<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion