PDA

View Full Version : meteor



zecek51
09-27-2005, 05:42 AM
I would love to see a flyable meteor included in a future patch. The meteor saw active service in western europe and so is a worthy addition.

Kuna15
09-27-2005, 06:14 AM
Indeed would be good but I'm afraid it will never be in game. AFAIK no one has worked on it and besides the last date for aircraft inclusion has passed.

Stigler_9_JG52
09-30-2005, 03:29 PM
"Saw active service in Europe" is a real distortion of its record.

It did do some limited airstrike action, and some V2 buzzbomb tipping, but it was held back from the kind of action that's the scope of this sim. For one, the British were fearful that one might land in German hands. And, natural with any new technology, it had lots of teething troubles that wouldn't be sorted until after the war would be over.

The Meteor really doesn't have a viable place in this sim, because it wasn't in any shape or form "the Allied answer to the Me262". In this sim, it'd just be wrongly used as a "dogfighting rival" to 262s by Allied pilots with "jet envy".

Skycat_2
09-30-2005, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
It did do some limited airstrike action, and some V2 buzzbomb tipping ...
That's a good enough reason for me. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
The Meteor really doesn't have a viable place in this sim, because it wasn't in any shape or form "the Allied answer to the Me262". In this sim, it'd just be wrongly used as a "dogfighting rival" to 262s by Allied pilots with "jet envy.

How about if we promise to only fly it against the Go-229 then?

Hey, the He-162 -- literally only flown in combat during the last month of the war -- and the YP-80, a handful of which flew operationally but never engaged the enemy, have already set a precedence of what does (or does not) have a place in the sim. The Bi-1 rocket plane didn't get past the prototype stage. The I-185 was tested under combat conditions but was not allowed to engage enemy fighters, and while it was considered a good design it never went into production. And let's not forget the Bf-109Z.

There are plenty of "what if" planes in the sim already. Some are more obvious than others. So why is it so wrong to fantasize about what kind of dogfights would have occured if the war had continued through the summer of 1945 or longer?

ImpStarDuece
09-30-2005, 06:19 PM
Well, the only Gloster Meteors to see action were the Meteor Mk I and a few Meteor Mk IIIs. No 616 squadron started operating them in July 1944. They immediately went into action against the V1 flying bombs, downing 13 in 2 months. 616 moved to Belgium as a defense against Me-262s but never saw any aerial combat. They were mosly utilised around Antwerp to protect against V1s and attacks on Motorised Enemy Transport in Blegium and Holland.

Mk I max speed was about 415 mph at rated altitude. It was also very slow in the roll, short on fuel tankgae and had problems with buffeting around the engine nacels. Only 20 were built.

The Mk III was a more refined version with initail deliveries to the RAF beginning in December 1944. A sliding bubble canopy was fitted, fuel tankage was increased and the engine nacels were lengthened to reduce buffeting problems.

The main upgrade that the Mk III recieved was the new and more powerful Derwent engine, which produced an additional 300-400lbs of thrust, used less fuel and was lighter than the Welland engine it replaced. However, the new engines resulted in centre of gravity problems, meaning that Mk IIIs had to be balasted to maintain stability.

The MK III was a nice airplane to fly but it had quite a few problems. The new Derwents pushed top speed up to about 495 mph, but above this the fighter had a tendency to 'snake', making it a poor high speed gun platform. In a dive it was also plauged with buffeting problems, even with the refined nacels. Alieron control was also made deliberately heavy, in order to discourage acrobatics in what was (still) essentially a development airframe. As a result, the Meteor rolled very slowly, something that was recified in the Mk 4 by reworking the contorl linkages and then clipping the wings.

Daiichidoku
09-30-2005, 06:20 PM
even IF we could have it in FB, one of these...
http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SQADA8AWP1rcRtSZBUzj68E6oKHBnfJ19HlntU*PusdyoLuEk 2kPDAWIP9umfapvIWqvpMpPoZs!0pZfJCYkggk2WmalQrVn4HQ 1heQUo1y5kSydXoinnQ/Meteor.jpg?dc=4675541492106119689

would be total meat on the table for 262s, 162s, Goths, whatever else may have been flying for luftwaffe by end of 45 powered by jets

meteors are kinda like the hurricanes of the jet age

gimme a vampire ANYday...with BIG drop tanks, pleasehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

luftluuver
09-30-2005, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
"Saw active service in Europe" is a real distortion of its record.

It did do some limited airstrike action, and some V2 buzzbomb tipping, but it was held back from the kind of action that's the scope of this sim. For one, the British were fearful that one might land in German hands. And, natural with any new technology, it had lots of teething troubles that wouldn't be sorted until after the war would be over.

The Meteor really doesn't have a viable place in this sim, because it wasn't in any shape or form "the Allied answer to the Me262". In this sim, it'd just be wrongly used as a "dogfighting rival" to 262s by Allied pilots with "jet envy".

Nothing could catch a V2 buzzbomb(???). http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

The Meteor saw more action than the He162.

Skycat_2
09-30-2005, 11:55 PM
Well, the meteor was deployed to combat before the He-162. But Stigler_9_JG52 has a point that the Meteor wasn't involved in dogfights, mostly just strafing missions and guarding Antwerp from buzz bombs. On the other hand an He-162 may have shot down at least one RAF plane, and one He-162 was supposedly shot down by a Tempest. So I think "more action" is relative in this case.

VW-IceFire
10-01-2005, 07:26 AM
Originally posted by Skycat_2:
Well, the meteor was deployed to combat before the He-162. But Stigler_9_JG52 has a point that the Meteor wasn't involved in dogfights, mostly just strafing missions and guarding Antwerp from buzz bombs. On the other hand an He-162 may have shot down at least one RAF plane, and one He-162 was supposedly shot down by a Tempest. So I think "more action" is relative in this case.
Tempests have kill claims for basically all of the flying exotic Luftwaffe aircraft. A Me-163 was shot down on landing approach, a He-162 was shot down, Arados and Me262s also.

I'm sure if there was Go-229s and more Do-335s flying about Tempests would have kill claims on those too.

Because of the precedent set...a Meteor would be no less valid than the other exotic aircraft. But since it was never completed we aren't likely to see it.

zoomar
10-01-2005, 08:36 AM
Arguments that the Gloster Meteor does not "belong" in this sim because it never engaged in fighter-vs-fighter combat are ludicrous! Not only do nazifans, commieguys and yankboys have the Bf109Z, He162, Go229, I-185, and P80 to play around with, this sim is filled with subtypes of operational planes like the Yak series, LaGG series, Mig series,and FW190A-9 which were not serially produced or used operationally.

I'm not complaining mind you, but the Meteor certainly deserved to be included if the P80, He162, and Go229 were. And where are the reality nuts on the Bf109Z? The only prototype (which never flew) was planned around 2 "F" series planes and the one in the game is the conceptual production variant based on "G" models. It's a cool plane, to be be sure, but has about as much reality as Wonder Woman's glass airplane, which is why whenever I play with the zwilling, I turn the cockpit off.

luftluuver
10-01-2005, 09:18 AM
You is wrong zoomar.

The Fw190A-9 was used operationally and in numbers. There was 8-900 A-9s produced which is more than Spitfire XIVs produced before VE-Day. Many A-8s were retro fitted with the A-9's engine.

Daiichidoku
10-01-2005, 09:51 AM
Originally posted by zoomar:
And where are the reality nuts on the Bf109Z?


actually, you will find way more ppl (like me) who will gripe and moan and insult the Z in servers or on nUBIe forum than will ever support it

MEGILE
10-01-2005, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
You is wrong zoomar.

The Fw190A-9 was used operationally and in numbers. Many A-8s were retro fitted with the A-9's engine.

Care to elabourate on which engine that was? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
There is no doubt many A9s saw service..but please tell us.. what engine were most, if not all using?

luftluuver
10-01-2005, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by Megile:
Care to elabourate on which engine that was? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
There is no doubt many A9s saw service..but please enlighten us.. what engine were most, if not all using

BMW 801 TS (BMW-801F)

Satisfied?

JG52Karaya-X
10-01-2005, 11:44 AM
The FW190A9 was using the BMW-801TS engine with MW50 injection that produced 2230hp on takeoff

MEGILE
10-01-2005, 11:59 AM
Much Obliged. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Aaron_GT
10-01-2005, 12:08 PM
The Meteor didn't really get going properly until the F.4, which just missed WW2 (first flew during the war, but not delivered during it). A tweaked F.4 twice set a world speed record. The wings were clipped in the F.4, and the nacelles redesigned.

Perhaps one of the most impressive Meteors, though, was the PR. 19. That's strictly post war, though.

Badsight.
10-01-2005, 03:54 PM
who wants to fly a death trap points giveaway Meteor ? not me that's for sure - not when there is something like this being made for the Russian add-on!!!!

http://xs48.xs.to/pics/05396/Mig-9.jpg

http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/9205/mig98lp.jpg


Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
The FW190A9 was using the BMW-801TS engine with MW50 injection that produced 2230hp on takeoff yet we get 2000 Hp for the FB A9

CUJO_1970
10-01-2005, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by zoomar:
FW190A-9 which were not serially produced or used operationally.




This does seem to be a pretty enduring myth concerning the FW190A-9.


Initial deliveries of the FW190A-9 apparently began in April of 1944, and 138 FW190A-9 were delivered by August 1944.

177 more were delivered in September 1944

94 in October 1944

157 in November 1944

And a total of 566 deliveries in 1944 alone it seems according to the C-Amt Monatsmeldung and Focke-Wulf factory production books.

Historian Peter Rodekie puts the number at ~910 aircraft delivered IIRC, I'll have to check.

So yes, of course the FW190A-9 was serially produced and used operationally.

luftluuver
10-01-2005, 05:34 PM
Thanks for the backup cujo. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

zoomar, you can check on this site for units that received A-9s, http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/oob.htm

Luftwaffe FW 190s, 19.03.45

Stab J.G. 1 FW 190 A-8/FW 190 A-9
I./J.G. 1 FW 190 A-8/FW 190 A-9
II./J.G. 1 FW 190 A-8/FW 190 A-9
II.(Erg.)/J.G. 1 FW 190 A-8/FW 190 A-9
Stab J.G. 301 FW 190 A-9/R11
I./J.G. 301 FW 190 A-9/R11
II./J.G. 301 FW 190 A-9/R11
III./J.G. 301 FW 190 A-9/R11

This is another site to check, http://www.ww2.dk/ but it only goes to the end of 1944.

Some history on A-9s, http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/a-9a.htm

DangerForward
10-01-2005, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zoomar:
FW190A-9 which were not serially produced or used operationally.




This does seem to be a pretty enduring myth concerning the FW190A-9.


Initial deliveries of the FW190A-9 apparently began in April of 1944, and 138 FW190A-9 were delivered by August 1944.

177 more were delivered in September 1944

94 in October 1944

157 in November 1944

And a total of 566 deliveries in 1944 alone it seems according to the C-Amt Monatsmeldung and Focke-Wulf factory production books.

Historian Peter Rodekie puts the number at ~910 aircraft delivered IIRC, I'll have to check.

So yes, of course the FW190A-9 was serially produced and used operationally. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What's your source for the April A9 date? The 190 is my favorite plane, but I see so little info on the A9. I'm surprised by the April date, since I thought the A8 was only active in Feb 44.

Gibbage1
10-01-2005, 11:28 PM
Well someone was working in it.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v461/gibbage/meteor.jpg

Heheheh.

Hoarmurath
10-01-2005, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Well someone was working in it.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v461/gibbage/meteor.jpg

Heheheh.

As i said on the other thread where you posted this pic, it seem much more advanced than the PBY for PF...

Gibbage1
10-01-2005, 11:53 PM
Originally posted by Hoarmurath:

As i said on the other thread where you posted this pic, it seem much more advanced than the PBY for PF...

And as I showed you in the other thread, the PBY was in a VERY VERY advanced state when Oleg stopped accepting aircraft for PF. But your going to ignore that bit and pretend that I just did not own you big time troll boy.

Ow, just in case you lost you way to that "other" thread, here ya go.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/4011069263/p/2

Now what do you say? Ow ya. Nothing. Typical. Got your standard issue white flag ready?

Kurfurst__
10-02-2005, 05:39 AM
Why it isn`t here? Quite easy. It`s not uber enough for Gibbage. He has that fixation of getting as as uber as possible Allied planes into the game.

Historical accuracy is not important to him. He is an arcade player and flagwaver. If it`s likely to be as good as Axis planes or even beat them, it has all the support of Gibbage, even if it didn`t even existed or didn`t even see action in WW2. See his P-38late, YP-80 etc.

But if it`s just a good performer, not uber enough, Gibbage is against it. See the Meteor, that did see action, but unlikely to be good enough allow Gibbage to make his usual rantings about Allied superiorty etc.

The Meteor is not uber enough, but be sure we will see many of Gibbage`s never-were fantasies, to counter "Axis desperation".

luftluuver
10-02-2005, 07:04 AM
That is quite the tirade Kurfurst. Having a bad day?

Who made the Horten?

WWMaxGunz
10-02-2005, 07:07 AM
Have some compassion Gib. Their white flag factory burned down so the army had to
take extended leave till it gets rectified. Please don't take advantage of that.

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

I think a Meteor would have been good as it wasn't uber at all, but from what I do
understand it was more reliable to run than <cough> some earlier jets.

Really given the thrust to speed capabilities of those planes I would expect that a
very few turns into a dogfight and the Meteor would be meat for any late model LW
fighter with anything but a green pilot at the stick.

However used for one pass BnZ, anything that could do so well against V1's as the
Mark III would be a real kick in the sim. But WTH, we have He-162 and the Russian
Rocket I haven't flown in so long I forget the name.... even if they are both better
than the Meteor.

tomtheyak
10-02-2005, 08:12 AM
Kurfie, WTF are you on????

PBY of course RENOUND for its zoom climb and it's zero-like turn, sorry, pirouette! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

If Gibb loves his uber-planes why then make a plane that has been quoted by pilots to 'take off at 90 knots, cruise at 90 knots and land at 90knts. Oh and it has a top speed of...'

And ditto for luftluvvers point.

You really can be a bit of a blowhard sometimes....

VW-IceFire
10-02-2005, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Why it isn`t here? Quite easy. It`s not uber enough for Gibbage. He has that fixation of getting as as uber as possible Allied planes into the game.

Historical accuracy is not important to him. He is an arcade player and flagwaver. If it`s likely to be as good as Axis planes or even beat them, it has all the support of Gibbage, even if it didn`t even existed or didn`t even see action in WW2. See his P-38late, YP-80 etc.

But if it`s just a good performer, not uber enough, Gibbage is against it. See the Meteor, that did see action, but unlikely to be good enough allow Gibbage to make his usual rantings about Allied superiorty etc.

The Meteor is not uber enough, but be sure we will see many of Gibbage`s never-were fantasies, to counter "Axis desperation".
Hilarious!!! Gibbage was responsible for uber planes on both sides http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Look at his bias go...lalalalala

Stigler_9_JG52
10-02-2005, 04:36 PM
I hear what you're all saying about the other "hardlyflews" and "neverflews". They shouldn't be in the sim either, I agree.

But, do you simply use that as an excuse to exacerbate the problem further with more planes of dubious utility? We all know that the only reason a Meteor is being requested is to try and create some "balance" for Me262s that simply did NOT EXIST in the real event. If everything has to be balanced, why don't we just have a common planeset for everyone? Because that's not how it was is the correct answer. It's the differences, the tradeoffs, the comparison of different airframes and technologies that makes the matchups interesting. It's not about some mythical "fair fight". And it's funny how many who whine for a fair fight stop whining when their favorite plane has some momentary advantage; then they want every opportunity to exploit it.

Many of the online servers are serving as some form of censors for this sort of rot, but they're not exactly being very smart or historical about it: there should be limited/rare/earned appearances for 262s on late war servers, as well as for 163s (which should be a bit rarer still than Schwalbes). But the rest of that ****, the 109Zs, the Bi-1s, all six MiG-3Us, etc. etc. should just be ripped out of the set on the next patch, never again to be seen again.

UberDemon
10-02-2005, 06:24 PM
That is only one view. There is a substantial number of IL-2/FB/PF users who are primarily offline, and who prefer to set their own scenarios. The less used and never used don't bother every user either.

DF Arenas/Server are unrealistic from the get go, that is, they are unrealistic from the fundamental concept of how they were designed, and are no different from a BF1942 or Quake arena or any other "die and come alive again" in seconds arena. If the arena you go does not have plane sets you want then move to another one. If you can't find the proper one for you or your squadron, then build your own, or host your own.

For the most accurate type of online experiece (or as accurate as these things go) then Co-op scenarios are pretty much the way to go. Only in Coop you can determine exactly what planes are present... at least today.

Oleg stated he'll be adding some additional features in his future projects, including a different approach to DF Arenas, so I am sure these concerns we'll be addressed.

As far as actually removing planes that are in the Sim, I think that would be more unpopular with the majority of users than keeping the current set and adding more. No entertainment product would survive by taking away features that were already given. That would be ridiculous as a business concept.

The more the merrier. Anything added will be welcomed by the majority of the users. Bring the Meteor on...

But with BOB as No 1 priority... I doubt we'll see too many new things for a while... perhaps those planes that have been on the boards for a long time and are really near completion... who remembers the Avia and the Fokkers we were supposed to get a long time ago? Maybe in the future but probably not too soon.

D/UD

SkyChimp
10-02-2005, 08:27 PM
The F4F Wildcat is uber? I knew it!

TAGERT.
10-02-2005, 08:47 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Why it isn`t here? Quite easy. It`s not uber enough for Gibbage. He has that fixation of getting as as uber as possible Allied planes into the game. What? I think your confused again Izzy, Gibbage made the Go299, it does not get much more uber than that! And, correct me if Im wrong, but Gibbage did most of the work on the Do335 exterior. So, I'm not sure who you are confusing Gibbage with.. but I'm sure that you are confused.

CUJO_1970
10-02-2005, 09:43 PM
Originally posted by DangerForward:
What's your source for the April A9 date? The 190 is my favorite plane, but I see so little info on the A9. I'm surprised by the April date, since I thought the A8 was only active in Feb 44.


Already posted the source in my original post, just look a little closer.

Part of the production numbers in the C-Amt Monatsmeldung(production and delivery updates) was available online, I'll try to find it.

The inintial deliveries of the A-9 did not end the production run for the FW190A-8 - they ran simultaneously and A-8 serial production continued through 1944.

There is a difference between_initial deliveries_ and _serial production_

FW190A-7 serial production continued through the spring of 1944, with 625(!) delivered to April 1944, and also in March/April 430 FW190A-8s were delivered.

Badsight.
10-02-2005, 10:01 PM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
I hear what you're all saying about the other "hardlyflews" and "neverflews". They shouldn't be in the sim either, I agree. they are ? wait , no one is -------- just you ! how surprising

Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
We all know that the only reason a Meteor is being requested is to try and create some "balance" for Me262s that simply did NOT EXIST in the real event. the poor guy is just confused , becaused fingers crossed we are all going to get this :

http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/9205/mig98lp.jpg

which is what he really meant to ask for . because we all know the meteor wont balance out Me-262s , to do that we need a Mk14 Spitfire or a H Mustang - now those two will make life impossible for 262 fans (like myself) just as the p-80 does right now

heck the Meteor will just be a less manouverable fighter to pad scores with , 200 at that! lol on second thoughts , forget the Mig-9 - gimme the Meteor to waste!


Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
Many of the online servers are serving as some form of censors for this sort of rot, but they're not exactly being very smart or historical about it there you go mixing up what happend during WW2 with what goes on in a Airquake room again

Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
And it's funny how many who whine . . . . . . stop whining which is something ive NEVER seen you do online , i swear your at it from engine start till your impact . . . . . . .

Gibbage1
10-02-2005, 11:29 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
That is quite the tirade Kurfurst. Having a bad day?

Who made the Horten?

Who made the Do-335? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Who made the Ki-43 and Cw-21b?

I also did not make the P-38L Late. Oleg did.

I also made a few spitfires and some other aircraft.

I have a wide veriety of aircraft, but since Isse/Kurd has Luftwaffe blinders, he dont know about them. Truly sad.

Daiichidoku
10-03-2005, 12:29 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
I hear what you're all saying about the other "hardlyflews" and "neverflews". They shouldn't be in the sim either, I agree. they are ? wait , no one is -------- just you ! how surprising </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

a-HEM....hardyflew and neverflews just should not be in the simhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif...seriously...thats at least two http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

im all for the late war stuff...i luv it!...but not in the context of a "WWII" sim...none of this "up to 46" stuff, i dont care what oleg ways....PL-ease....built, flown, stationed at least once in a combat zone, and with more than single digit numbers by VJ day...lets be reasonable

anything else would make a great "golden" (or should that be silver?) era superplane/korea sim

Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
We all know that the only reason a Meteor is being requested is to try and create some "balance" for Me262s that simply did NOT EXIST in the real event.

cant agree with ya on that one, stig....if only to look at the Yp 80 as an "answer" to a 262...but thats the least, IMO...i believe athat anyone asking fo rthe meteor, or whatever other "u-know-what-kind-of" type is mostly pure aviation enthusiasm...perhaps overzealous,
badsight
fingers crossed we are all going to get this :

http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/9205/mig98lp.jpg
oh gawd...and im sure that thing will be typical russian plane/russian game for anything 44 and beyond...impossibly perfect...will also probably have an "uncomfortable throttle lever" or some **** like that

we need a Mk14 Spitfire or a H Mustang - now those two will make life impossible for 262 fans (like myself) just as the p-80 does right now

well...cant say in FB terms, as its too rare for actually see 262 vs anything in 99% of servers in HL....but IRL 51Ds and spit IXs took the lions share of schwalbes...and as for FB terms, the 262s ceiling of 7000m means almost all 43 and on types can concievably have their way with the 262 in perfect safetyhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
i do agree, the YP 80 is lethal to most 262 drivers...the ones that dont know how to use 262s higher airframe G tolerance to good effecthttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif




Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
Many of the online servers are serving as some form of censors for this sort of rot, but they're not exactly being very smart or historical about it there you go mixing up what happend during WW2 with what goes on in a Airquake room again

he has a point, badsight...a lot of ppl dont know that, for instance, the FB 109Z they see in a server alongside universally-known spits, stangs etc that it wasnt even built, and may and do take it as a "real WWII" type

dunno bout stig, but be sure, there are many.....too many ppl who lose the line between RL and what they see in FB...a pity



Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
And it's funny how many who whine . . . . . . stop whining which is something ive NEVER seen you do online , i swear your at it from engine start till your impact . . . . . . .[/QUOTE]

lol

p1ngu666
10-03-2005, 06:39 AM
id like the 109z if it was based on the F one, dunno why but that makes it seem nicer http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Daiichidoku
10-03-2005, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
id like the 109z if it was based on the F one, dunno why but that makes it seem nicer http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


if FB 109Z was the F, it would make it a *little* more tolerable....at least it was a solid manifestation, not just a paper proposal

still wouldnt happy about having a type that never flew at all though (save yoru reference to its "explosive flight", hehe)...any FM is suspect on that...sure, one knows how a 109 flew (although, given the back n forth patch nature of this game, it seems no-one really does), but simply doubling it up doesnt equate to 109FM=bf 109X2.....y'know what i mean...

Badsight.
10-03-2005, 10:11 PM
the idear was that once testing was finished it woul make use of the G airframe as it was in production by that stage

so its a more accurate representation of a production standard Z 109 as it is than if it was moddeled on the F airframe

Stigler_9_JG52
10-03-2005, 10:44 PM
Gibbage, I know that Meteor isn't your work...

for one thing, it's a Korean War era F8 (the tail gives it away).

Gibbage1
10-03-2005, 11:10 PM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
Gibbage, I know that Meteor isn't your work...

for one thing, it's a Korean War era F8 (the tail gives it away).

No, its NOT my work. Its from a guy named KillJoy that was once one of the modelers, but I could hardly call him that. His work was just HORRIBLE!!!! Then later it was found out that it was not even his work and he stole it from another modeler.

My matto is, if your gonna steal something, steal something GOOD! What sort of moron steals cr@p?

TAGERT.
10-04-2005, 12:08 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
My matto is, if your gonna steal something, steal something GOOD! What sort of moron steals cr@p? ROTFL

Gibbage1
10-04-2005, 12:48 AM
Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
My matto is, if your gonna steal something, steal something GOOD! What sort of moron steals cr@p? ROTFL </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not that I have stolen anything. But IF I were to steal something, at least make it worth the risk. Killjoy got burned out of the IL2 Comunity. Was it worth it? Lol.

Daiichidoku
10-04-2005, 08:56 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
the idear was that once testing was finished it woul make use of the G airframe as it was in production by that stage

so its a more accurate representation of a production standard Z 109 as it is than if it was moddeled on the F airframe


but as a more accurate representation of a production model that didnt exist, it is even further removed from (technically, has no basis in) reality, and a realistic FM

much like the uncomfortable throttle levered I-185 M-71

geez, wish Oleg had a friend whos grandfather flew a P 38 or P 47 or Ki 61

Gnasha
10-04-2005, 01:24 PM
We dont need a Meatbox ...We DO need a Typhoon! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Whilst the Meteor does have more validity than say a Go299 or the like, it all pails into insignificance where the Tiffie is concerned! FFS this plane won the Normandy battle for the allies, was produced in the thousands, is a ground attack aircraft, & I want one!


.....just cant do the model myself http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

LEXX_Luthor
10-04-2005, 04:48 PM
Badsight::
the idear was that once testing was finished it woul make use of the G airframe as it was in production by that stage

so its a more accurate representation of a production standard Z 109 as it is than if it was moddeled on the F airframe.
Good point Badsight, one I didn't think of. 109Z is useful for campaigns as high speed long range jabo and it would be a later war aircraft, so you make sense.

The "fantasy" types have one thing in common ~~> Single Seat Fighter. Having almost run out of "real" World War 2 fighters to add, the "fantasy" single seat fighters are more easy to mod and program than multi crew bombers and fighters (Me-410). From early looks, the -17, -88, and -111 may not be Flyable in BoB And Beyond. Here we go again. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif Oleg has to ease up on the requirements for ALL crew stations being modded on multi-crew aircraft.

p1ngu666
10-04-2005, 05:31 PM
true, but i like the f series, imagine 109z but with 2x 15mm or 4x http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif and 4 rifle cal machine guns

Daiichidoku
10-04-2005, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Having almost run out of "real" World War 2 fighters


guess 90% of italian, 100% of french, several british , and a couple of neat-o early war german that willy managed to politic out of the picture (flyable) arent "real"?...let us not even speak of certain german biplane dive bomber types, Lexx...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


oh, and Lexx....blow up that planet...blow it up, now!

LEXX_Luthor
10-04-2005, 06:52 PM
Italians fighters are coming. No Italian bombers.


Done Daiich! It was a dumb stupid planet anyways. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

LEXX_Luthor
10-04-2005, 07:17 PM
But yeah you are right...there are a HUGE number of very early war single seat fighters that need modding still. I am thinking more of the late war TV stuff, where the "fantasy" planes fit in with the usual 1944 Hollywood dogfighters. Early war is another story, and one still needing to be told even in single seat fighter form.

darkhorizon11
10-04-2005, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Why it isn`t here? Quite easy. It`s not uber enough for Gibbage. He has that fixation of getting as as uber as possible Allied planes into the game.

Historical accuracy is not important to him. He is an arcade player and flagwaver. If it`s likely to be as good as Axis planes or even beat them, it has all the support of Gibbage, even if it didn`t even existed or didn`t even see action in WW2. See his P-38late, YP-80 etc.

But if it`s just a good performer, not uber enough, Gibbage is against it. See the Meteor, that did see action, but unlikely to be good enough allow Gibbage to make his usual rantings about Allied superiorty etc.

The Meteor is not uber enough, but be sure we will see many of Gibbage`s never-were fantasies, to counter "Axis desperation".

Lay of the chronic man... you need to grow the hell up! I'm sick of seeing you guys going back and forth on these forums like a married couple. Its very pathetic.

As for the Meteor I'd love it I've posted asking for it and the Ar 234 Blitz. I still think its possible to have. The last add date WAS in March, but thats just for Pacific theater aircraft I think.

Luthier and Ian Boys have posted recently making suggestions that there may be more add-ons besides the Russian. Honestly I for one am confused, but the point is anything is possible.

Daiichidoku
10-04-2005, 08:17 PM
yup

but its all acedemic, anyhow, as, unless oelg opens the game, which seems as he never will, we will not be getting any more planes for FB ever, aside from the the next crop with mossie, i-ties, tempest etc, and the russian add-on (assuming it can be had for the rest of the world somehow)

i actually find it mildly shocking that there are still SO many requests for "this plane, that plane", "fix this, fix that" "add this loadout, add that loadout" threads, when its fairly clear that FB/PF is as dead as a tiger in a chinese men's impotency clinic, with O.M./1C presumably putting 99% of effort into BoB



i know your hungry, Lexx...but that was good work you did

LEXX_Luthor
10-04-2005, 08:29 PM
Daiich::
i actually find it mildly shocking that there are still SO many requests for "this plane, that plane", "fix this, fix that" "add this loadout, add that loadout" threads, when its fairly clear that FB/PF is as dead as a tiger in a chinese men's impotency clinic, with O.M./1C presumably putting 99% of effort into BoB
Child behavior should not shock you. Oleg working 99% is Out of sight, Out of mind. Wait for the BoB And Beyond webboard forum to start, and the resumption of BoBaB development update candyshots.

VW-IceFire
10-04-2005, 08:54 PM
Is it just me, or is it getting increasingly funny that certain people (who shall be unnamed) like to say lots and lots of things and they sound pretty important and sound like they know what they are talking about...and then they go and say something that is totally slanted in one direction and obviously so? With such an obvious and heavy bias (everyone has bias but to what extent?) its hard to take anything seriously...

But the guy who made the most sense here is Gnasha. The poor fellow has no idea what he's walked into here but with 9 posts he sounds a whole heck of alot more respectable (good on you, keep that up!) than some others.

IF we were talking about adding new planes (and were not because that process is over) the Meteor would be fun to have as a anti V-1 platform and as a fighter-bomber (a role it did serve) and you can bet yourselfs some money that I'd fly it historically and with a nice big smile on my face. But the Typhoon would be infinitely more useful...built in the thousands and comprising the Allies premier tank buster. Unfortunately that model was totally buggered up and never resurrected.

Fortunately the Tempest is apparently on the way... that makes me smile twice as big http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

luftluuver
10-05-2005, 02:46 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
But the Typhoon would be infinitely more useful...built in the thousands and comprising the Allies premier tank buster. Unfortunately that model was totally buggered up and never resurrected.

That is a myth. If you want to say 'vehicle buster' for the Typhoon, OK then.

p1ngu666
10-05-2005, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
But the Typhoon would be infinitely more useful...built in the thousands and comprising the Allies premier tank buster. Unfortunately that model was totally buggered up and never resurrected.

That is a myth. If you want to say 'vehicle buster' for the Typhoon, OK then. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the germans where scared of it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
probably only the il2 and ju87G, hs129 are better tank killers.

mossie with molins cannon might be good too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

DIRTY-MAC
10-05-2005, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
But the Typhoon would be infinitely more useful...built in the thousands and comprising the Allies premier tank buster. Unfortunately that model was totally buggered up and never resurrected.

That is a myth. If you want to say 'vehicle buster' for the Typhoon, OK then. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the Typhie did bust some tanks, but not many,
I think the chance of busting a tank with rockets were calculated to around 4%,
but it was a feared aircraft by ground crews

tomtheyak
10-05-2005, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
But the Typhoon would be infinitely more useful...built in the thousands and comprising the Allies premier tank buster. Unfortunately that model was totally buggered up and never resurrected.

That is a myth. If you want to say 'vehicle buster' for the Typhoon, OK then. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is precedence for luftluvvers arguement here - I've heard and read sources that say very few tanks were destroyed by rocket firing tiffies - if you've ever seen R/L gun-cam footage of tiffies attacking with RPs then it starts to look like they were probably not accurate enough. Maybe to disable/immobilise thru track damage etc, but far more important was the job they did in routing supply convoys carrying fuel and ammo. Without these a tank is just a very expensive roadblock.

As I say, I've read this from a number of viewpoints and sources that lean towards this opinion.

p1ngu666
10-05-2005, 06:46 PM
http://s45.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=0A5HIC537ZSDK1UEBD6CG8K2TA

some tiffies in action... inacurate, and stunning acuracy are both there http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

ive read both that they pwned, and that they really where effective..

from everything ive read/seen on tv the german troops felt very exposed and targated, they moved only slowly aswell. allied aircrews said they knew when over allied side cos stuff moved, nothing moved on german side..

the british ground troops thought they where effective, and so did some french civies who watched from a hedge a german column get attacked. the first rockets hit the lead tank/vechicle and lifted it into the air, it slammed down sideways, road was blocked http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

plus us fb pilots are really good compaired to ww2 ones in terms of accuracy cos its not real, and we have tons of practise http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif plus our ordinance is really consistant..

tbh i feel really bad if i waste any of my loadout

tomtheyak
10-05-2005, 07:26 PM
Nice vid pingu! great footage (& yeah thats the stuff i'd seen before that I was referring to).

Did u make that urself? If so congrats mate.
Fab music as well - UNKLE isnt it? Strangely suitable considering the 60yr time gap.

I think we are seeing the rough mid-ground here - yeah the tiffies could be effective tin-openers with a good pilot and a bit of luck, perhaps just not quite the all conquering 'Tiger Nemisis' as the reputation that they've picked up over the years would suggest...

Still want one in the game tho...! RAF need a gd late war 'Jabo', to borrow the Lufties treminology.

luftluuver
10-05-2005, 08:14 PM
p1ngu666, here is a link you should read,

The Effects of Allied Air Power

Attacks on German ground combat units in Normandy

http://web.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy/articles/airpower.html

At trials on training ground in England the probability of achieving a hit on a tank was at most 4%. On operations, when the aircraft was subjected to AA fire and the targets not stationary on an open field, hit rates must have been even lower.

VW-IceFire
10-05-2005, 09:17 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
p1ngu666, here is a link you should read,

The Effects of Allied Air Power

Attacks on German ground combat units in Normandy

http://web.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy/articles/airpower.html

At trials on training ground in England the probability of achieving a hit on a tank was at most 4%. On operations, when the aircraft was subjected to AA fire and the targets not stationary on an open field, hit rates must have been even lower.
Its a very good document but I think many take away the wrong impression from it.

The destruction of German Panzers, although overclaimed in terms of tanks destroyed, was not truly achieved by allied airpower. However, Typhoons were a constant and powerful problem. Anything lower than a tank was subjected to merciless 20mm rounds...German soldiers recalled that it sounded like rain and soliders would run for the nearest ditch or forest to take shelter.

Tanks, as indicated by the article, had to be dug out. Vehicles were flipped over, roadways were strewen about with debris, dirt, rocks, and all manners of things caused by Allied air attack.

The role of the Typhoon in causing havoc in the skies over German troops, vehicles, and tanks is well regarded on both sides as having a valuable effect. Sheer morale value for the advancing British and Canadian army as Typhoons streaked overhead unleashing rockets, bombs and cannon fire cannot be underestimated as well.

Badsight.
10-05-2005, 09:24 PM
rocket attacks , while not the best it strike rate , were fantastic at attacking morale

i defy anyone to get into a steel tub , have those things fired at you from 300ft & 150 mph & not find it scary as hell

luftluuver
10-06-2005, 03:56 AM
And now, I bring you all back to my original statement, where I said <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">vehicle buster</span>, which many have overlooked/forgotten.

Gibbage1
10-07-2005, 12:20 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
And now, I bring you all back to my original statement, where I said <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">vehicle buster</span>, which many have overlooked/forgotten.

A 7.62 LMG can be an "vehicle buster" and in fact was often used as such. Hvar's and 20MM have a "little" more kick to them.

luftluuver
10-07-2005, 03:15 AM
For sure Gib but the HVAR has to hit the target. 20mm are good for putting cars, trucks, half-tracks and light tanks out of commission but not medium and heavy AFVs.

Did not know the 7.62 was used by the Allies in WW2. Thanks for that info.

p1ngu666
10-07-2005, 08:01 AM
the big advantage for artilery, and other ground based weapons is they can sustain fire for a long time, where a aircraft has one go, maybe more if u dont fire it all off at once...

ofcourse the key advantage of aircraft is range, artilary is limited to 20miles at most?, where a aircraft can easily go beyond that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

for a given number of trys, a aircraft may well be more effective, but artilary can just plug away all day http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif