PDA

View Full Version : Oleg Please Finish What You Started and Fix The P47 Right!



XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 11:22 PM
S! All,


Oleg thank you for the partial improvements with the P47 but several areas still need fixing. Please lets complete the job :


* Roll Rate is still woefully undermodeled.You have seen
data showing the correct roll rate from many different
posters here. The "Vector Roll" is a historically
accurate manuever -- P47 fighter pilots utilized their
roll rate to be able to turn with a 109 or 190. Maybe the
leftover extra degrees given to the 190D9's excessive
roll rate can be given back to the P47.

* Damage Modeling-The P47 is simply not tough enough. I can
explode a P47 from 1 pass of a 190D9. Robert S. Johnson a
leading P47 Ace took 21-20mm cannon hits and over 200MG
hits and landed his plane at his base. The 47's engine
is knocked out rather fast in FB also.

* 8-.50 cal's vs 6-.50cal's.I do not see any difference
between the P47's guns and the P40's guns. Two extra
.50cal's should add quite a bit of firepower for the
P47. There is a story of Russian pilots taking out the
wing mounted .50's on their P40's and only having 2
nose mounted .50's. The Russains did this because they
thought 2 .50cal's were enough--try eight.50's.

________


Conversations with N. G. Golodnikov:

N. G. Of course, the P-40s were better than the I-16 and the Hurricane. After the first flight, I said to myself, "Well, Kolya, finally they have given you a modern fighter."

A. S. Nikolay Gerasimovich, what kind of armaments did the P-40 have?

N. G. Our Tomahawks and Kittyhawks had machine gun armaments only, the same on both models. Only large-caliber machine guns. Two synchronized [in the nose] and two in the wings. Browning 12.7mm. Powerful, reliable, good machine guns. In time, relatively soon after we received these aircraft, we began to remove the wing-mounted weapons in order to lighten the aircraft, leaving only the two synchronized guns.

A. S. Were two machine guns enough?

N. G. Yes, more than enough. I already told you how powerful they were.


*Now think of 8-.50cal's

__________________



Thanks for Listening and making a great sim. We are all after the same thing--historical accuracy.



____________________

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 11:22 PM
S! All,


Oleg thank you for the partial improvements with the P47 but several areas still need fixing. Please lets complete the job :


* Roll Rate is still woefully undermodeled.You have seen
data showing the correct roll rate from many different
posters here. The "Vector Roll" is a historically
accurate manuever -- P47 fighter pilots utilized their
roll rate to be able to turn with a 109 or 190. Maybe the
leftover extra degrees given to the 190D9's excessive
roll rate can be given back to the P47.

* Damage Modeling-The P47 is simply not tough enough. I can
explode a P47 from 1 pass of a 190D9. Robert S. Johnson a
leading P47 Ace took 21-20mm cannon hits and over 200MG
hits and landed his plane at his base. The 47's engine
is knocked out rather fast in FB also.

* 8-.50 cal's vs 6-.50cal's.I do not see any difference
between the P47's guns and the P40's guns. Two extra
.50cal's should add quite a bit of firepower for the
P47. There is a story of Russian pilots taking out the
wing mounted .50's on their P40's and only having 2
nose mounted .50's. The Russains did this because they
thought 2 .50cal's were enough--try eight.50's.

________


Conversations with N. G. Golodnikov:

N. G. Of course, the P-40s were better than the I-16 and the Hurricane. After the first flight, I said to myself, "Well, Kolya, finally they have given you a modern fighter."

A. S. Nikolay Gerasimovich, what kind of armaments did the P-40 have?

N. G. Our Tomahawks and Kittyhawks had machine gun armaments only, the same on both models. Only large-caliber machine guns. Two synchronized [in the nose] and two in the wings. Browning 12.7mm. Powerful, reliable, good machine guns. In time, relatively soon after we received these aircraft, we began to remove the wing-mounted weapons in order to lighten the aircraft, leaving only the two synchronized guns.

A. S. Were two machine guns enough?

N. G. Yes, more than enough. I already told you how powerful they were.


*Now think of 8-.50cal's

__________________



Thanks for Listening and making a great sim. We are all after the same thing--historical accuracy.



____________________

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 01:47 PM
... and how many of these aeroplanes have you flown to justify your opinions?

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 02:50 PM
You don't have to fly an aircraft to read reports Thief.

How many have you flown?

S!
609IAP_Recon

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

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

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

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 02:56 PM
IMHO Problem is not effectiviness of The P-47 MGs, but its how she Spreat them.. ridiculously imo.. Like Try P-40 or Brewster, much easier to hit with those planes.. their guns don't spread in the same as P-47.. And I do believe P-47 should be very stable gun platform, as the Jug is so heavy... and durable..

P-47 damage model is OK, EXCEPT for the destroyed gunsight (ridiculous),and she has the same problem getting oils in the cockpit, like BF-109.. the only planes with this problem (and IL-2 sometimes, not so often though).. Usually I have to bumb up to 100 MG151/20 hits to down a P-47.. now I'm sure you hit more than 20 20 mm hits in your Dora.. unless you hit the engine or damaged the controls.. Controls maybe are bit too vulnerable to damage too imo..

And on that report they probably fight BF-109s, but having only 2 .50calls it might had been hard to down a FW-190 in real life too, as she was much more durable..

____________________________________



Official Sig:



<center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/shots/Vipez4.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 04:06 PM
Reports are no good, especially the stuff you're likely to see on the net because many of the facts or notions tend to contradict each other and contain personal opinions. You have to make sure your information is from a reputable sauce and just not somebody voicing their views.

You can gaurantee much research was done on the flight characteristics for IL2 was done. Only after much research (perhaps years) can something positive begin to emerge and, even then, this is very patchy information put together by so called experts ... or are they experts? The idea is to take commonalities from these in an attempt to model something like the real thing but this assumes that all aeroplanes of a specific model handle the same.

As I keep saying, the game is ok as it is. You will never get a realistic flight sim but this one may the best available at the moment, but this again is only an opinion.

I've noticed that the P47 tends to list to the left when dead sticking, is this correct behaviour? perhaps some P47s did and others didn't? Having never flown a P47, I have no idea but I don't always assume that something is correct because other people say it is.

ZG77_Nagual
08-15-2003, 05:41 PM
Theif - we need SOME criteria for judging accuracy - all we have is data and pilot accounts. Many planes in the simm don't even exist anymore and taking actually flying the plane as the only acceptable criteria is absurd. Beside that much of what is being sited are - in addition to test accounts - are actual pilot accounts - these must meet your definition then since these guys did actually fly it - how do you dismiss these? It seems to me the combination of pilot accounts and flights tests - when they both point to the same conclusions - make a pretty convincing picture - what else are you going to use?

Take the P40, I16 and Hurricane. The relative performance of these birds now coincides exactly with the recollections of golodnikov sited here. http://airforce.users.ru/lend-lease/english/articles/golodnikov/

Oleg and crew use a combination of pilot recollection, factory and test data from a variety of sources. He has himself stated that he does not necessarily weigh pilot accounts over test data because they are subjective - If I took up a p47 and said it rolled almost as fast as a 190 should, I'd then have to fly a 190. Moreover I'd have to have some way of objectively measureing roll rate at speed/alt - this has been done and published. It is probably that the p47s roll issue is a fairly complex thing to fix in FB.

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/p47janes.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 05:56 PM
BigKahuna_GS wrote:

- * Damage Modeling-The P47 is simply not tough
- enough. I can
- explode a P47 from 1 pass of a 190D9. Robert S.
- Johnson a
-
- leading P47 Ace took 21-20mm cannon hits and over
- 200MG
-
- hits and landed his plane at his base. The 47's
- engine
-
- is knocked out rather fast in FB also.


You can't argue from one instance. SkyChimp's stats
were a bit more useful, although they were aggregated
so it is hard to allow for different mission parameters.

Basically name a plane, and you can find stories of
an example making it back with extreme combat damage.
What matters is the overall statistics of survival.

Currently I am collecting stories on Hurricanes that
survived severe damage. One survived a collision with
a Hudson recce bomber that downed the Hudson!

But I wouldn't argue that on the basis of a few exceptional
events the Hurricane was super tough. It takes more than that.


- * 8-.50 cal's vs 6-.50cal's.I do not see any
- difference
- between the P47's guns and the P40's guns. Two
- extra
-
- .50cal's should add quite a bit of firepower for
- the
-
- P47.

Not really. There are a lot of other factors involved,
the largest of which is aim. If you are spraying about
then the number of hits on target will be low with 8 guns
as with 6. If you are aiming at convergence, then you
will be hitting with quite a number, and it could be
that 6 guns are enough to do the damage.

Look at it another way, if you compare the Fw190A (4
20mm cannon) with the Fw190D, you don't see a halving
of firepower, even though the firepower is almost halved.
Subjectively it seems like about 2/3 of the firepower,
as if you are on target, then even a fewer number of
rounds will do plenty of damage. If you are off target
it doesn't really matter what you are firing.

The quote you made of the Russian pilots actually
proves my point - reducing the number of guns doesn't
reduce the hitting power linearly - two .50s still
did damage. In the same way, increasing the number of guns
won't linearly improve the hitting power.

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 08:09 PM
That's what I mean - there are so many inconsistencies in personal thoughts and reports about aircraft characteristics it's practically impossible to model anything accurately. Just be happy with what we have. Why spend ages trying to get things perfect when people are unsure about what being perfect is?

Do you think the developers are prepared to listen to certain people whine on about the same thing every verse end? If there are any faults, they are likely to know about them. They may wish to act upon them or they may not. We, as users, could help game improvement by suggesting new ideas for gameplay and by accurately reporting technical errors etc.

Oleg and his people could spend their time more effectively developing the game in other areas rather than trying to perfect something over and over again, especially considering the patch is free and was a big demand on time. This is not safety critical software, it is only a game and a good one at that. People will not die if a P47 doesn't fly as what is perceived to be correct. It is not, and never will be, exactly as real life flying. Gawwd what on Earth is it going to be like if the P51 is ever made flyable? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif I remember seeing a post about somebody moaning about the flight model of the P51 because the were flying it externally and expected it to handle like a flyable version.

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 08:54 PM
KG26_Thief wrote:
- That's what I mean - there are so many
- inconsistencies in personal thoughts and reports
- about aircraft characteristics it's practically
- impossible to model anything accurately. Just be
- happy with what we have.


I think we should strive to get the best modelling
we can, based on the best evidence we can find. I'd
be wary of reports saying that a plane was tought,
fast, whatever, without more objective data to back
it up, as personal opinions are variable and memories
are fallible. You need sources as close to primary
as possible, and even then cast a critical eye on
them to make sure that there isn't data pooling or
circumstances that hide the actual facts.

AFDU reports, NACA reports, etc., are good primary
evidence, for example.

However, it's hard to argue from exceptional circumstances
(some is luck and their plane comes back with lots of holes)
or if there are other circumstances (arguing on kill:loss
ratios over 1945 Germany, for example).

Interestingly there is a report from the RAF on battle
damage (I'd love to find a copy - I need to write to
HMSO or something) that seemed to indicate that the
main reason for loss of aircraft was the loss of pilots.
If pilot protection was good in the P47, this would mean
that more badly damaged planes could be brought home,
even if the rest of the plane's structure was no tougher
than other aircraft. The reason being that the pilot in
another badly shot up plane would be more likely to have
been killed, and thus would not have brought the plane
back. (Another reason might be if you are defending your
homeland, then you can afford to bail out and land on
friendly territory - if you are flying escort deep in
enemy territory, then you might be more prepared to
attempt to fly home).

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 09:40 PM
Then if you know nothing about it Thief, you don't need to reply -right?

Saying you think it's all ok - how is that any different http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I've read many account of the p47 and it's ability to take damage.

Especially are when p47 crashes and the pilot gets out alive http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



S!
609IAP_Recon

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

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

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



Message Edited on 08/15/0308:41PM by Recon_609IAP

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 10:15 PM
Please!
Stop the polemic of P47!

Oleg will correct this plane and one will not start again to rot the forum as for the FW190??

There are subjects more significant than this fight/bomber plane like the P51D flyiable or other planes like B17, the spitfire and all the planes of japaneses conflict like Mitsubishi, F4U4 and more which had a place much more significant in the conflict!

A+ Bassmaniac

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 11:58 PM
Ok, I've done extensive testing of damage to the P-47's engine, with tracks, and I believe I have figured out what is happening.

Any hit to the lower fuselage, in the ducting area for the turbocharger stage of the turbo-supercharger, causes fatal engine damage, even if only from a 0.30 calibre round.

You can test this by simply entering the Quick mission builder, and flying a dogfight against an enemy P.11c, or other ligthly armed aircraft, set at Veteran or higher skill level, engaging in a head on attack, not firing, and pulling up slightly as he opens fire. This will almost guarantee a perfect hit to the critical area. Then simply disengage, and wait for five to ten minutes, and the engine will cease to provide power.

My supposition is that the turbocharger is what is being destroyed, and it is, according to the game's damage model, causing catastrophic engine damage.

This is, of course, completely wrong for a turbocharger. Turbo chargers are powered only by engine exhaust gas, and have no mechanical linkage to the aircraft's engine. Destroying the turbocharger stage only reduces the compression of incoming air, and hence the manifold pressure at higher altitudes. Reducing the air going into the engine *only* reduces the power output. This is exactly what the engine throttle does, and the throttle causes no harm to the engine while in use. Neither does stopping the turbocharger starve the engine. It is simply a fan used to compress the incoming air, and allows air through even when halted.

Additionally, the P-47 had an integral Supercharger mounted directly behind the engine. This Supercharger provided much of the compression needed at low altitudes, so the turbo charger was not even used for compression until higher altitudes were reached.

In short, destroying the Turbo charger will only change the altitude power curve of the engine. It will not cause catastrophic damage to the engine, and I am of the understanding that the turbocharger stage was actually the most vulnerable part of the aircraft, and was routinely shot out when the plane engaged in ground attack missions, and the aircraft routinely returned to base, without engine failure, with return flight times exceeding ten minutes, regularly.

I have posted about this numerous times, in great detail, and offered tracks nearly every single time I have posted, and I have yet to recieve any developer responce, merely a few players posting snide remarks to, "Shwo me the tracks." PM me the email address and I will email anyone who wants as many different tracks as they want, against nearly any planes that they want*. Here are reproducable results. Test it yourselves if you do not believe me. I have posted the instructions. It is not difficult at all.

Harry Voyager

*Note: Due to a quirk in the AI, I am unable to reproduce this against the MiG-3. For some peculiar reason, the MiG-3 always aims to high to hit my aircrat in a head-on pass. The lowest I have ever managed to get it to hit was the canopy, actually.

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

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 12:13 AM
I think I mentioned in another thread (not sure where it got off to - so many P47 threads) that any real solid number info and FB track data should be sent, in a complete package, to Oleg and team and presented in as scientific a way as possible (the recreation of the catastrophic damage is an excellent example).

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

RichardI
08-16-2003, 12:16 AM
Good post Harry, but I suspect that as usual, it will receive no response. There isn't any doubt in my mind that the Jug could take a lot of damage in RL and keep flying. But, it appears the mighty Oleg doesn't agree. Ergo, sadly nothing will be done.

Rich /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif


<Center>http://www.ghosts.com/images/postimages/THUNDERBOLT.jpg <Center>I've got 140 109's cornered over Berlin!

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 01:56 AM
VW-IceFire wrote:
- I think I mentioned in another thread (not sure
- where it got off to - so many P47 threads) that any
- real solid number info and FB track data should be
- sent, in a complete package, to Oleg and team and
- presented in as scientific a way as possible (the
- recreation of the catastrophic damage is an
- excellent example).
-

So where, pray tell, do I send it?

Harry Voyager

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

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 02:07 AM
This might be very tough for you to hear, but the FW-190(A's and F's) was just as damage resistant as the P-47. It just didn't get as much Hollywood attention as the P-47. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<center>
---------------------------------------
"Atleast I'll go down in style!"
http://www.elleemmeshop.com/model1/aero/re4341.jpg
</center>

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 02:58 AM
We are not arguing about the Fw-190's damage model here. We are arguing about the P-47's.

Please attempt to stay on topic.

Harry Voyager

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

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 03:39 AM
Howdy

IRT the P-47 Bullet spread. IMO the P47's guns are just
as effective if not more so than the P-40's. And much
more than the B239. The problem is recoil and view over
the nose. The B239 view is at least a bazillion times
better over the nose than the D10 and 22. P-40 view
is about 1/2 that. I find myself going for the snap
shot with my target out of sight in the Razor backs,,
Just like 190's more than in the P-40's or Brewsters.

1 pass is all you need in a P47.

Re the ruggedness of the P-47... Sometimes it takes
one bullet sometimes many... Aim for the cockpit or
engine and it won't take so many.

Most of the time you end up shooting at the 47's tail..
You'll hurt it but it's going to take alot of ammo.

Thats what happend to Johnson..

S!
Weasel

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 08:36 AM
Recon_609IAP wrote:
- Then if you know nothing about it Thief, you don't
- need to reply -right?
-
- Saying you think it's all ok - how is that any
- different http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


I don't remember saying anything about how the P47 should be. However, I do know quite a lot about software engineering and project manangement. You will never be able to produce software than everyone is completely happy with. You can spend ages trying to perfect things and the likelyhood is that you will never suceed, so why continually waste time and money. You just have to know what the satisfactory level is, though, this is likely to be different for everyone.

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 09:34 AM
Salute

HarryVoyager check your PM's.

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 12:13 PM
Salute to all those who added constructive insight into making the P47 as historically accurate as possible in FB.

To all those who obviously have never cracked a history book, NACA report or war time operational log-please don't waste our time---Just shut your pie hole and go your ignorant way.


* Roll Rate---NACA reports have been listed by Skychimp,
HarryVoyager and many others clearly
demonstrating the correct roll rate before
the patch was even out. USAAC reports too.
In Shaws Fighter Combat book, Operational
Combat logs & RAF Test Pilot Capt.Eric Brown
all concur with the ability of the P47 to
perform a "Vector Roll". In a mock dogfight
a P47 was able to out roll a Spitfire under
certain conditions.
Please correct the roll rate !



* P47 Damage Modeling---Every USAAF Operational book & US
Aviation History books point to the
P47 as the toughest fighter in the
USAAF inventory. Robert S. Johnson's
story was not an isolated incident.
There was hundreds of simlilar
stories pushing the P47 to legendary
status of being able to take damage
and keep on flying.



MH: Pilots generally swear by their aircraft. GĂŒnther Rall and Erich Hartmann praised the Messerschmitt Bf-109, Erich Rudorffer and Johannes Steinhoff the Me-262, and Buddy Haydon the P-51 Mustang. I have to say after seeing all of the old photos of the various Thunderbolts and others that were shot up, I can't imagine any other plane absorbing that much damage and still flying. What is your opinion of your aircraft?

Johnson: This is very similar to the German debate. As far as the 109, all of the German pilots loved that plane, but the FW-190 was harder to shoot down. Just like the controversy over the P-51 and P-47.

The P-47 was faster; it just did not have the climb and range the Mustang did. But it had speed, roll, dive and the necessary ruggedness that allowed it to do such a great job in the Ninth Air Force. As far as aerial kills go, we met and beat the best the Luftwaffe had when we first got there. It was the P-47 groups that pushed them back, as I said before.

The P-51s had the advantage of longer range, and they were able to hit even the training schools, hitting boys just learning to fly. As the war dragged on, many of the old German veterans had been killed--so much of the experience was gone. As far as the 109 versus 190 argument, the 109 had the liquid-cooled engine whereas the 190 had an air-cooled radial engine, much like ours. One hit in the cooling system of a Messerschmitt and he was going down.

Also, none of the German fighters were as rugged as a P-47. When I was badly shot up on June 26, 1943, I had twenty-one 20mm cannon shells in that airplane, and more than 200 7.92mm machine-gun bullets. One nicked my nose and another entered my right leg, where the bullet split in half. I still have those two little pieces, by the way; they went in just under the skin. I had been hurt worse playing football and boxing.

However, I had never been that scared, I'll tell you that. I was always scared--that was what made me move quick. "Hub" Zemke liked the P-51 because it had great range, but he put one in a dive and when he pulled out he ripped the wings off that airplane--that was how he became a POW. Adolf Galland, who was a very good friend of mine and who I had known since 1949, flew the Me-262 and loved it, but he still swore by the 109, although it was still easier to shoot down.


>>To the guy who tried to compare a wooden airplane-the Hurricane to a 19,000lb all metal fighter the P47--bad analagy and bad form. I hope you see the folly in your thought process.



*P47--a very stable gun platform. Several posters here have
done test with the 47 guns dispersion. That might be
problem why the P47's guns are not more powerful than
the P40's guns--- 8 vs 6 .50cal.



Please Oleg we are not asking for much here. Lets complete the modeling of the P47 to historical accuracy.

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 01:31 PM
The empty weight of the P-47 was not 19,000lb(10,700 pounds). The P-47D-25-RE had a maximum loaded weight of 17,500 pounds. Try not to exagerate will you./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

You should also expand your knowledge of the a/c from other nations. The Hurricane was not of wooden construction.


BigKahuna_GS wrote:

-
- >>To the guy who tried to compare a wooden
- airplane-the Hurricane to a 19,000lb all metal
- fighter the P47--bad analagy and bad form. I hope
- you see the folly in your thought process.
-
-

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

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 03:20 PM
He's likely thinking of the P-47N, which had a maximum gross take-off wieght on the order of 20,000 lbs. It's an oft quoted figure when people are discussing the weight of the aircraft.

Harry Voyager

Thanks for the PM Buzzsaw, I'll do that. I admit I've been getting rather irritated over this of late. As I stated earlier, I've been posting on this since only a few weeks after FB was released, with yelling, without flaming, and I still have heard of no developer responce to this, not even so much as a, "No you are wrong." Meanwhile other groups seem to be getting their way simply, up to and including historical innacuracies favoring their aircraft, just by whining so much. This doesn't look so good from an otsider's perspective.

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

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 08:37 PM
S!

What is a thread without Milo telling you are wrong about something !

The book I took the weight from was :

The Complete Book of WWII Combat Aircraft pg273.

It listed the P47D as having a weight of 19,426lbs. I did not exagerate as you have done on so many of your posts /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif . I only quoted what was on the page-look for yourself.


Also Milo you should read your history books a little more because the Hurricane was part wood and part metal when originally designed and manufactured. The majority of the plane was fabric covered and it even had a wooden prop !

Later models became all metal and the prop was changed to metal also.


Your Welcome

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 09:03 PM
BigKahuna_GS wrote:
- S! All,
-
-
- Oleg thank you for the partial improvements with the
- P47 but several areas still need fixing. Please lets
- complete the job :
-
-
- * Roll Rate is still woefully undermodeled.You have
- seen
- data showing the correct roll rate from many
- different
-
- posters here. The "Vector Roll" is a historically
-
-
- accurate manuever -- P47 fighter pilots utilized
- their
-
- roll rate to be able to turn with a 109 or 190.
- Maybe the
-
- leftover extra degrees given to the 190D9's
- excessive
-
- roll rate can be given back to the P47.
-
-
- * Damage Modeling-The P47 is simply not tough
- enough. I can
- explode a P47 from 1 pass of a 190D9. Robert S.
- Johnson a
-
- leading P47 Ace took 21-20mm cannon hits and over
- 200MG
-
- hits and landed his plane at his base. The 47's
- engine
-
- is knocked out rather fast in FB also.
-
-
- * 8-.50 cal's vs 6-.50cal's.I do not see any
- difference
- between the P47's guns and the P40's guns. Two
- extra
-
- .50cal's should add quite a bit of firepower for
- the
-
- P47. There is a story of Russian pilots taking
- out the
-
- wing mounted .50's on their P40's and only having
- 2
-
- nose mounted .50's. The Russains did this because
- they
-
- thought 2 .50cal's were enough--try eight.50's.
-
-
- ________
-
-
- Conversations with N. G. Golodnikov:
-
- N. G. Of course, the P-40s were better than the I-16
- and the Hurricane. After the first flight, I said to
- myself, "Well, Kolya, finally they have given you a
- modern fighter."
-
- A. S. Nikolay Gerasimovich, what kind of armaments
- did the P-40 have?
-
- N. G. Our Tomahawks and Kittyhawks had machine gun
- armaments only, the same on both models. Only
- large-caliber machine guns. Two synchronized [in the
- nose] and two in the wings. Browning 12.7mm.
- Powerful, reliable, good machine guns. In time,
- relatively soon after we received these aircraft, we
- began to remove the wing-mounted weapons in order to
- lighten the aircraft, leaving only the two
- synchronized guns.
-
- A. S. Were two machine guns enough?
-
- N. G. Yes, more than enough. I already told you how
- powerful they were.
-
-
- *Now think of 8-.50cal's
-
- __________________
-
-
-
- Thanks for Listening and making a great sim. We are
- all after the same thing--historical accuracy.
-
-
-
- ____________________
-
-
-
-

Oleg needs to know your sources, post where di u get your info please

"Never forget the past so we dont make the same mistakes in the future"

MicroSoft Most Wanted
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/the-aztek-eagles/oleg.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 09:43 PM
S!


Aztec--the sources are from NACA, USAAC, Combat Operational Logs, Shaws Fighter Combat book, History of the Ninth Air Force and pilot testimoney.

People who are better at it than me have sent this information to Oleg several times when the 47 first appeared in FB. Then again shortly before the patch was released.


It was interesting to note how many people said dont worry---Oleg has heard you and he will take care of it !
Just Quit your USAAF whining ! Well look what happened.

I think that anyone who flys the FB P47 would agree that the roll rate is way off---it is way to slow.

I also think there are other issues also to be fixed-see above.

With the P51 & Spitfire yet to be released, we can only wonder how their flight model will turn out.



_________________

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 09:55 PM
A little off topic . but maybe not too much. As stated in another thread and email P-47D-10 Attitude indicater is displaying backwards - i.e. It indicates "pitched up" when nose is pointing down and "pitch down" when nose is pointing up. ALso for the life of me I have not been able to get 3000 RPM on tachometer reading even though this is supposed to be it's combat setting (never gets that high), Maybe that's making it underpowered?

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 03:10 AM
BigKahuna_BS

What ever you say goat dung./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif LOL, they let anybody join the Goats now and it used to be such a good squad - so sad./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif


read - http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p47.html

"Complete Book of Fighters" > 17,500lb

"Famous Fighters of WW2 #1" > 17,500lb

data in the drawings by GR Duval > 17,500lb for the D-35

"A/C of WW2" B Gunston > 17,500lb


So now we see an new 'story' of the materials used in the construction of the Hurrie.

Saw no mention of metal, only wood, for the Hurrie mentioned in your post./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif The Hurricane used in WW2 was not just wood construction as to tried to imply in your other post. dah!!

Since you want first edition a/c, the P-47B max. gross 13,360lb. A 'little' short of your 19,000 or so pounds./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


Obw, the Pony had wood in its list of construction materials./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

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


Message Edited on 08/16/0310:19PM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 01:24 PM
S!


Milo, its good to see that your so mentally stable over something so simple as a listed quote on a page. I only put what the book listed - ease up. There is no conspiracy theory here.

And I guess you couldn't handle being wrong about the Hurricane-so you blah blah blah on and got your panties in a bind.

Call your shrink & double your medication dude /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


I come here to maturely discuss interesting aviation stories and facts, not to try and insult people. But I guess you missed the mature part.


By the way try to stay focused on the P47 if you can. Some people here would like to see it improved if possible.

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 05:24 PM
BigKahuna_GS wrote:
-
- Milo, its good to see that your so mentally stable
- over something so simple as a listed quote on a
- page. I only put what the book listed - ease up.
- There is no conspiracy theory here.
-

Me seeing things that are not there? Where did I even hint at a conspiracy theory? LOL, WHAT are you paranoid about?

Do you have a memory problem? You started with the insults and did not like being corrected, so don't yap to me about being mentally stable.

I listed 5 sources that had 17,500lb for the max weight - so you ease up./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Never have only one source./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

- And I guess you couldn't handle being wrong about
- the Hurricane-so you blah blah blah on and got your
- panties in a bind.
-

LOL, you were the one that said the Hurrie was of "wooden construction". Is that the memory problem you have? You then went off the deep end when corrected. So, who has their "panties in a bind"?


- Call your shrink & double your medication dude
-
- I come here to maturely discuss interesting aviation
- stories and facts, not to try and insult people. But
- I guess you missed the mature part.
-

Mature discussion?/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif You were one with the snide remarks, so take your own advice "Call your shrink &" triple "your medication dude".

-
- By the way try to stay focused on the P47 if you
- can. Some people here would like to see it improved
- if possible.
-
-

Have you missed all the P-47 threads? Are glasses required by you? Again take your own advice, don't mention other a/c especially when the facts are so false.

The mods should lock all P-47 threads just as they did for all the other Fw view threads. That includes this 'Johnny come lately' P-47 thread.



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

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 06:35 AM
S!

Easy Milo, sorry I must have hit a nerve eh ? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

You must have a full wedgie now from the other computer geeks. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Milo, I made no snide remarks to you. Your reactions to anyone here at this forum that dare disagree with you usually results in an irrational emotional outburst--See your last post.

No-P47 threads do not need to be locked like the 190 threads. Oleg has been more than kind to the 190 jocks out there, still some of them act disrespectful and constantly want more.

As far as your 5 sources for the P47D weight, they seem consistant and I would go with them. My book might have made a general weight between the different models including payloads. It did list the weight as a P47D model. It was late and I did not have time to check other sources. My point is how you come across---just lighten up francis !

As far as the Hurricane, I thought I originally said metal & wood construction--If I did not that is what I meant. The point is who would ever compare the Hurricane to the Thunderbolt for plane ruggedness. There is no comparison between these 2 planes get it !

Take a chill pill Milo, and try not to get so emotional. You got your fallopian tubes all tied up in a knot /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I think in the end we all want the same thing, a historically accurate & fantastic flight sim for all to enjoy.

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 07:54 AM
HarryVoyager wrote:
-

--
-
- So where, pray tell, do I send it?
-
- Harry Voyager
-


I believe this is what your looking for(you can also find it in the v1.1 readme): il2beta@1c.ru

http://www.dive-bombers.co.uk/At%20War%201st%20UK%20&%20USA.jpg

StG77_Stuka

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 02:09 PM
Note. Can't quote since someplace in your text Ubi says you have the word 's' 'h' 'i' 't.

Hit a nerve, nope but it is you that has the full fledged wedgie and that was right from your first post in responce to the thread I corrected to you in./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif You now accept that your 19,000lb weight is wrong. Why could you not do that in the first place? dah!! Instead, you come out of the corner with the dukes up,<rolleyes> being aggressive and obnoxious in your first sentence.


LOL, definately a memory problem by you. You have me confused with someone else. An irrational, emotional outburst?/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif You want to read an emotional post, read yours. You are dillusional as well. You been into some of that wacky tobbacie or is it some of that sickadilick stuff? I see you are still making the snide remarks. You sure that space between your ears does not have some hollows, because you don't seem 'all there'.



Out of frustration some have, a very small minority, yes. There has been simular posts for the P-47. And what do they(fw) want more of? Oh yes, reduce the roll rate at high speed.



If you had bothered to check the weights of the P-47 and not made such a blatant lie about Hurrie construction you would not have seen my civil post correcting you./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif You are the arrigant, obnoxious, loud mouthed Yank that give the rest of the nice Americans such a bad name.

You did not even check with other sources for the P-47's weight when you had time, after being told of another weight.

Dah, so take you own advice goat.



Yup, your willnots were giving you trouble. It was mentioned that you ONLY said wood originally but you never went back and checked did you, even now? Are you sure English is you Mother tongue? You seem to have some trouble, as well as that short term memory.

The Hurricane was a better tank buster than the P-47./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Or, are you one of those that believes .50"s can take out Tigers. Would not doubt it./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



Still with more snide remarks./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif When will you start taking your own advice? The Goats must be really going downhill since they will take any Tom, **** or Jane from the gutter.


Kill the excess P-47 threads. Oleg is well awhere there is a problem with the P-47's roll at high speeds.

Mods, keep RAF_Buzzsaw's post open, lock all others.





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


Message Edited on 08/18/0310:10AM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 11:13 PM
S!

With a name like Milo you must of got thrown in the dumpster allot at school eh ? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif . I've never seen somebody write so much and say so little.

I guess your still mad about the Hurricane when you said it was all metal and you have yet to be able to admit you were wrong. Sometime in your life try to have an original thought and just dont repeat the words someone has already written to you.

And where do you get off in telling moderators what threads to close or leave open. Obviously you have a Napoleon complex and think you are much more important than you actually are /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I have seen you go on and on about the 190's forward view and your disrespect to Oleg and anyone who disagrees with you. You need to get a grip dude and move on. Dont try to ruin what chances we have with the P47 becuase you are still retaining water over the 190.

Reguardless of your childish approach here, we will work on in making the P47 the best it can be.

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 02:18 AM
LOL, more dung for the manure pile from the goat./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

BigKahuna_GS wrote:
- S!
-
- With a name like Milo you must of got thrown in the
- dumpster allot at school eh ? I've never seen somebody - write so much and say so little.
-

Still with the insults, eh dung producer. Glad you like to insult people with the name Milo. One of the best American test pilots was named Milo./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Now the one with the inflated ego has to be you, with a nick of BigKahuna. A grandure wannabe??/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


- I guess your still mad about the Hurricane when you
- said it was all metal and you have yet to be able to
- admit you were wrong. Sometime in your life try to
- have an original thought and just dont repeat the
- words someone has already written to you.
-

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Again with the reading problem, eh dung producer. Never said the Hurricane was all metal. So why admit to something I did not say? You were the one that said it was a wooden a/c. You really should try to improve you reading and memory skills, for they are trully lacking.

-
- And where do you get off in telling moderators what
- threads to close or leave open. Obviously you have a
- Napoleon complex and think you are much more
- important than you actually are
- I have seen you go on and on about the 190's forward
- view and your disrespect to Oleg and anyone who
- disagrees with you. You need to get a grip dude and
- move on. Dont try to ruin what chances we have with
- the P47 becuase you are still retaining water over
- the 190.
-

Buzzsaw's thread is much better than this dung heap thread of yours. What dream world you in? Oleg is wrong and won't admit it(Fw190). There were many others who made many more posts than I did. If you had any sort of intelligence you could see that he is wrong. But having some intelligence is asking too much of you for sure, as can be clearly seen in your posts in this thread.

Oleg also has more than enough data to model the P-47's FM correctly. Why does he need your thread, especially when you can't even get your facts straight (when you try to say I said something I never did), so why believe anything else you say. LOL, we don't need the P-47 buggered any more than it is./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif So Mods, lock this thread down before the P-47 turns into a real disaster because of the dung producer.

- Reguardless of your childish approach here, we will
- work on in making the P47 the best it can be.
-

The only child around is you dung producer. But that is to be expected since you can't read and have no memory. That has been proven in your numerous posts.



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


Message Edited on 08/18/0309:20PM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 02:58 AM
Im a bit suprised some of you want the '47 to be even tougher I had a DF against one online and hit it with 5 30mm before it exploded 2 of those wer right on the engine and one to the cockpit, also had a few flights in it and it took plenty of damage.

I like the way it feels heavy, but if reports are correct then yes its roll rate could be upped a little.

JG4_Tiger

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 05:35 AM
Salute

Big Kahuna and Milo:

Don't mean to be harsh, but you guys should calm down a bit. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Oleg carefully considers all materials presented to him which are documented and researched.

You fellas also have the wrong weights for the P-47, with the exception of the weight quoted for the P-47B.

You are listing the maximum loaded weight, ie. with bombs, rockets, drop tanks etc.

P-47D10 Fully loaded Internal fuel and ammo: 13,582 lbs

P-47D22 Fully loaded Internal fuel and ammo: approx. 100-150 lbs over D10 weight for Bomb Pylons.

P-47D27 Fully loaded Internal fuel and ammo: 14,441 lbs (most of the extra weight comes from added 65 U.S. Gallon Fuel tank.


Cheers RAF74 Buzzsaw



Message Edited on 08/19/0304:35AM by RAF74BuzzsawXO

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 01:26 PM
-
-What an idiot:

Big KahunaGS wrote:
-
- >>To the guy who tried to compare a wooden
- airplane-the Hurricane to a 19,000lb all metal
- fighter the P47--bad analagy and bad form. I hope
- you see the folly in your thought process.
-
- Please Oleg we are not asking for much here. Lets
- complete the modeling of the P47 to historical
- accuracy.
-
-
-

I can't believe this guy! Wooden Hurricanes! It was Britain's first all metal monoplane fighter for crying out loud, then he calls for historical accuracy!!

Boosher-PBNA
----------------
<center>Heaven is a place where the French are the cooks, the British are the butlers, the Germans are the mechanics, and the Swiss are the politicians. Hell is a place where the British are the cooks, the French are the butlers, the Swiss are the mechanics and the Germans are the politicians.<center>
<center>Boosher-ProudBirds-VFW<center>
http://proudbirdswing.tripod.com/proudbirds.htm

http://www.escadrila54.com/logo_sm.jpg

<center><marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"The ProudBirds..Fly High and Proud..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee>

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 03:59 PM
Boosher-PBNA wrote:
- I can't believe this guy! Wooden Hurricanes! It was
- Britain's first all metal monoplane fighter for
- crying out loud, then he calls for historical
- accuracy!!

All metal _frame_ - but certainly not all metal. The
wings were originally covered in plywood, and the
fuselage covering was fabric. By the Battle of Britain
almost all production had converted to building metal
wings, and metal wings were reterofitted on many aircraft.
The aft fuselage remained fabric covered.

I'd consider an all metal monoplane fighter to include
metal wing and fuselage covering, which probably makes
the first all metal RAF fighter the Spitfire. (The first
versions had fabric covered airlerons, etc, but that's
a fairly minor amount of non-metal parts, even if it
does affect control adversely at high speed).

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 05:00 PM
- I'd consider an all metal monoplane fighter to
- include
- metal wing and fuselage covering, which probably
- makes
- the first all metal RAF fighter the Spitfire. (The
- first
- versions had fabric covered airlerons, etc, but
- that's
- a fairly minor amount of non-metal parts, even if it
- does affect control adversely at high speed).


No. The desigantion all-metal means the construction type of fuselage and wing and has nothing to do with the a/c skin. BTW the Hurricane was an all-metal cunstruction from beginning on. The Mk.Ia wings were fabric covered, same as the rear fuselage.

http://www.geocities.com/kimurakai/SIG/sig2.jpg


"Kimura, tu as une tĂÂȘte carrĂ©e comme un sale boche!"

EJGr.Ost Kimura

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 05:17 PM
JG4_Tiger, hitting it from behind - like the 190 is typically not the problem

What I've seen is a high rate of engine shots - is this normal?

S!
609IAP_Recon

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

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

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

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 05:21 PM
S!

Buzz you are right on both accounts.

Thank you for the work on the P47 and the good news is Oleg will change the roll rate. The weight I had listed was a fully outfitted Jug - a P47D is what the book had listed.

Milo is still retaining water from his obnoxious 190 rants and does not know when to stop his pre-menstrual drabble. I want to thank Milo for continuing to bump this post in his own twisted way.

These same type of people try to ruin any chance of fixing problems on USAAF aircraft and usually have nothing positive to add to the discussion. They try to twist your words, hijack the thread and change the focus back to a Luftwaffe plane-amazing. I would have to say with the recent patch that Oleg has been more than kind to the 190 jocks---but still they complain and want more-unbelievable.

One of the points of contention--On the Discovery Channel is a series called the 'Color of War" and the segment was called "Thunderbolt". They showed colored gun camera footage of Jugs in aerial fights and ground attack missions. The interviewed P47 Pilots would attack German Tiger & Panther tanks from the rear ricocheting the bullets off the street up into the under side of the tank's engine compartment causing a fire. It's kinda hard to argue with actual gun camera footage showing the strafing run and the Tiger tank on fire in the engine compartment.......but milo aint buying it, that dude can rant. With a name like milo he must of got thrown in the dumpster allot at school-that probably explains allot of things-lol.

_________________



* Boosher see AronGT's post (below your post) about the Hurricane for some clarity about constrution componets--Metal & Wood/fabric covered. I hope you weren't the guy trying to compare the Hurricane to the P47 for aircraft ruggedness. There isn't any comparison.

Boosher-PBNA wrote:
- I can't believe this guy! Wooden Hurricanes! It was
- Britain's first all metal monoplane fighter for
- crying out loud, then he calls for historical
- accuracy!!

>>>All metal _frame_ - but certainly not all metal. The
wings were originally covered in plywood, and the
fuselage covering was fabric. By the Battle of Britain
almost all production had converted to building metal
wings, and metal wings were reterofitted on many aircraft.
The aft fuselage remained fabric covered.



_____________________

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 05:36 PM
S!


I agree with Recon about the engine damage modeling.

HarryVoyager has tracks where small caliber gun fire stops the engine dead everytime. It seems to do with the turbocharger being damaged and affecting the whole engine-which in real life would do nothing except no longer feed compressed air into the intake manifold.

Damage to the turbocharger should not stop the whole engine.

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 06:04 PM
KIMURA wrote:
- No. The desigantion all-metal means the construction
- type of fuselage and wing and has nothing to do with
- the a/c skin.

Fair enough.

- BTW the Hurricane was an all-metal
- cunstruction from beginning on. The Mk.Ia wings were
- fabric covered, same as the rear fuselage.

Right you are. For some reason I thought they were
plywood covered, but you are correct - fabric too.

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 07:50 PM
Well, here is another bump dung producer to your totally useless thread. Your 'Johnny-come-lately' thread had NO influence on having the P-47 being modelled historically correct./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


BigKahuna_GS wrote:
.
-
- Milo is still retaining water from his obnoxious 190
- rants and does not know when to stop his
- pre-menstrual drabble. I want to thank Milo for
- continuing to bump this post in his own twisted way.
-
- These same type of people try to ruin any chance of
- fixing problems on USAAF aircraft and usually have
- nothing positive to add to the discussion. They try
- to twist your words, hijack the thread and change
- the focus back to a Luftwaffe plane-amazing. I would
- have to say with the recent patch that Oleg has been
- more than kind to the 190 jocks---but still they
- complain and want more-unbelievable.
-
-

If only you would learn to read and improve your memory dung producer. The only rant and dribble has come from you. Are you constipated? Would seem so. As for side tracking YOUR thread, you did a very good job of that all by yourself, taking a benign correction and blowing it out of all proportion./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

It only seems the words are twisted because you have such a reading problem.

You are so totally clueless. Since when now do the Fw 'boys' want more improvements to the Fw. Most are saying it now is historically correct, except for the rollrate at high speed is too fast. Yah, they want it toned down - unbelievable./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif The only other error is the forward view, which Oleg is too stubborn to change, but you don't have the intelligence to see that error in the 3D modelling.

I am curious about where I exagerate and made obnoxious posts, even on the Fw. But then that is understandable why you say such since you have such a reading problem.

Obw, you were WRONG when you said the Hurrie was of wood construction. Even WRONG when you said it later became all metal. Why could you not be a man (that would be difficult, for sure) and admit you had no clue with regard to the construction materials used in the Hurrie in you posts. It took another to enlighten you.

You even believe that the .50s could knock out Tigers as seen on the HC./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Enough said./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

This has been debunked in a long thread here at Ubi. But, since you are so intelligent, tell me how a .50 striking the 1" thick belly of a Tiger/Panther at a VERY acute angle could penitrate. Can a damaged .50" go through 4" of armour steel? This should be an interesting, intelligent(??) reply from you.

Are you sure they were Tigers? GIs (and Tommies) claimed every German tank they encountered was a Tiger./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


Do you have the intelligence to understand what this expert says?

Quoting Tony Williams

> Well, it obviously depends on where exactly the shell detonates, and on the type of structure. From 'Flying Guns WW2' again, concerning the effectiveness of M-Geschoss:

"Stressed-skin alloy monococque structures were most vulnerable to being blown apart. Steel structures clad with thin aluminium were less affected as the cladding quickly split, releasing the pressure before it had much time to damage the structure, and fabric-covered structures were damaged least of all."<


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

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 10:28 PM
BigKahuna_GS wrote:

- have to say with the recent patch that Oleg has been
- more than kind to the 190 jocks---but still they
- complain and want more-unbelievable.


Bull$hit!

NOBODY asked for the overmodelled high-speed roll-rate. Roll-rate was NEVER an issue until FB 1.1b!

Most people who fly the FW190 reported it immediately.


<center><img src= "http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-A0-52.jpg" height=215 width=365>

<center>"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 07:28 AM
S!


Dont kill the messenger milo, but thats what you do best. I know you think your smarter than the researchers, historians, pilots and the Gun Camera Footage from the History Channel. But when your not the sharpest tool in the shed you have to compensate more by ranting. Really your only playing a fool in a fools game. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Comback when you have an original thought. The only thing you have shown is how use a vocabulary and lexicon not of your own and above your comprehension. I wonder how many of my own words will I see again, but mutated to fit your tiny minded ways.

Despite your cynicism, I am thankful and pleased with the many people who have contributed in a positive way to make the P47 more accurate. Thanks to Oleg for acknowledging the problem and fixing it.

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 01:18 PM
LOL you realy are something else dung producer. There are many myths in WW2 and .50s 'killing' Tigers through the belly is one of those. The EXPERTS who did battlefield evaluation of tank kills did not find Tigers 'killed' by .50s./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Many other lighter vehicles though, were. Now where did your so-called experts and historians get their info from?

Answer this question dung producer. If the ,50 was so good at killing Tigers, why did the Sherman with a gun MUCH larger have such a hard time killing Tigers? It should have been using its .50. Or answer this queston. Why were 37mm, 40mm HV cannons attached to a/c for killing tanks. Other nations are just so stupid, are they not, they should have been using the American Browning M2HB instead.

When the messenger shows no intelligence, at all, then it is best if one shoots the messenger. I did not see any sign of intelligence in your posts.

As for ranting, your posts were a prime example of such. Going off the deep end, as you did, because of simple benign correction to what you said. Anyone who uses the HC as their main educational source, well to use your own words,/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif is not the "sharpest tool in the shed"./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

You are trully an embarrissment for the great GS squad.


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

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 02:12 PM
I see the usual forum reprobates have reduced this discussion to the usual mud slinging match. If you want to thump your chests and generally bore everybody to death take it to General Discussion.

ORR is not the forum for ego inflation.

As for the P47 ts FM is being updated, now kindly wait for the final patch before complaining further.

<p align="center">
<A HREF="http://mudmovers.com/sturmovik_101/FAQ.htm" TARGET=_blank>
Unofficial IL-2 Community FAQ</font></A>

<fontsize=2>Hunter82's Tech Pages (http://mudmovers.com/tech/tech_pages.htm)
â Forgotten Battles Reality Check (http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_065a.html)
</font></p>


Message Edited on 08/20/0302:13PM by EURO_Snoopy