PDA

View Full Version : P47 - The n3w best?!?



Xiolablu3
10-30-2006, 04:31 AM
I am finding this plane awesome in a mission based miniwar server.

I had never payed much attention to it, thinking it too heavy/un-nimble (is that a word?). I always used to take the P51, but the wing break thing is resulting in more and more of my deaths. Once you learn properly about energy fighting the P47 is amazing!

For me its the American FW190!

Yesterday Icefires Japanese map came on the server. Its a map with airstart American planes (P51,P47,P38,Corsair,B29,B25) attacking a Japanese Island (Ki84,Late Zero,Ki61,K100) in early 1945. In the first 5 minutes of meeting the enemy I had knocked down 2 Ki84Ic's, one Raiden and a Zero. One Ki84 just blew up after a 1 second burst as he was 'hanging' when I fired. Shame the server crashed, but I had only used 1/3 of my ammo and had plenty of fuel left.

As long as you have time to get some height and fly sensibly, the P47 is fantastic! Obviously you cant fly it like a Spitfire, you have to fly her FW190 style, but do this and with a little practise you will do well http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

Whirlin_merlin
10-30-2006, 05:12 AM
And don't forgtet she makes a fine JABO.
On the same map I had great fun droping 1000 and 500lbers on a convoy of light armour.

I don't have an opinion on how effectice 50s should be on armour, all I know is a 1000lber will ruin your day Mr Tiger!

GH_Klingstroem
10-30-2006, 05:17 AM
in the P51 Xiolablu3 always have a few clicks of nose down trim and make sure ur pitch channel setting dont have too much increase the first few columns! I have reduced my pitch settings (actually all of them) to have VERY VERY low numbers in the beginning... including have the dead zone half way up and now I NEVER break the wings and my wobbles are gone! Im sure u know most of this tho since you fly online quite a bit...
This is my pitch setting

0 1 3 8 15 28 43 62 82 100 -->60<-- this is filtering!

0 1 5 9 15 21 30 43 63 100 80 This is my yaw
channel

0 3 11 20 30 40 55 69 85 100 50 My roll channel

This does wonders for the p51 at least on my computer!
Try it guys! It allows full deflection but greatly reduces wobbeling etc etc...

LStarosta
10-30-2006, 05:52 AM
No, it doesn't make a fine Jabo.

It makes a fine fighter-bomber.

We won the war for Christ sake. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________
http://badge.facebook.com/badge/2352799.521.115268350.png (http://msu.facebook.com/profile.php?id=2352799)

But another household work, the highly propagandized Me 109G, was obsolete when it was built and was aerodynamically the most inefficient fighter of its time. It was a hopeless collection of lumps, bumps, stiff controls, and placed its pilot in a cramped, squarish cockpit with poor visibility.
-- Col. Carson, USAF


<A HREF="http://www.air-source.us/operations/logbooks/LOGFLIGHTS.asp?PILNO=450" TARGET=_blank>http://www.air-source.us/images/Ribbons/AAS.gif
</A>

carguy_
10-30-2006, 06:04 AM
I find it great for `43 scenarios.Later on German planes cause much more of a problem.

I`d say the plane must be in your type of flying.Yak/Spitfire drivers won`t appreciate the safety and firepower the P47 provides.

Flying a P47 needs loads of situational awareness.If you see a gun toting 109 in time you just dive away to 950km/h nothing else than FW190 can touch you.And if you get jumped by the Wulf,get him into T&Bing,you win with relative ease.

In winter missions where visibility tends to be more realistic than in summer,a good P47 pilot gains position,selects his targets,returns home safe.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sigjzg23upgraded.jpg
Self-proclaimed dedicated Willywhiner since July 2002
: Badsight.:"increased manouverability for bf-109s was satire" :
Please bring back 3.01 dots!

TgD Thunderbolt56
10-30-2006, 06:43 AM
It's quite an effective fighter for sure. Teh new best? I don't know about that. Since more and more servers are becoming late-war servers, then it's certainly becoming more popular and for good reason.

It's DM allows the pilot to shrug off a few indecisive strikes and still fight somewhat effectively. It's speed (both dive and level) are competitive. The cockpit view is excellent, ordnance capability is second only to the P-38. It's weakness is not it's MG's because even THEY can be effective if doled out in good concentration. IMO, the DM on the engine is its glass jaw when just an mg strike from a 109 can cause its catastrophic failure forcing you life into the hands of the jug's glide ratio.

I don't think there have been any major changes to it. Nor do I think it's any better than it was a year ago. I simply think more people are finding it's toughness a lifesaver and are finally learning how to fly it effectively.


TB<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v687/Thunderbolt56/English157.jpg
================================================== ======
I.O.C.L. (International Online Competition League) (http://www.gozr.net/iocl/index.php?sid=77e1596a8421c8d6f7e717eab883f534)

Viper2005_
10-30-2006, 06:46 AM
P-47 has long been superior to the Fw-190 because of its altitude performance. But these days it also out turns the 190A at low level. This is most certainly a new thing!

If the P-47 isn't the new best, it's at least close.

I am constantly surprised by its lack of popularity. A few elements of P-47s at 7 km can bounce anything down to about 4.5 km. A few further elements at about 5 km can come in under this top cover and bounce down to 2 km or so, and a final group of fighters at about 2-3 km can then bounce down to the deck.

This stack of 3 elements may then be moved around the map, smashing all opposition, until such time as it finds the enemy airfield or target.

At this point P-38s can move in and carry out demolition work with impunity.

Of course, the lower elements don't have to be P47s - much fun may be had with Mustang IIIs and Spitfires, or Spitfires and Tempests.

But the P-47's altitude performance is fundamental to the top-down air superiority upon which this strategy is based. It is a real map winner. In fact, in the context of the warclouds planeset (no jets, no Ta-152, no K4) I can think of no countermeasure which is not reliant upon a breakdown of red team discipline.

The only weakness of this approach is that after the first 10 minutes or the fight will go low and the top group of P-47s won't get any action. As such, the urge to descend is likely to be a strong one, and therefore "top down" air superiority actually tends to fail from the top down, not because of enemy action, but because of pilot boredom...

If the temptation to descend is resisted, the top cover allows all other red fighters to engage with an altitude advantage, making the P-47 an extremely effective force multiplier.

JG53Frankyboy
10-30-2006, 06:49 AM
in a PTO Scenario its can be an untouchable killer , like the P-38 too.


and, isnt it "Kindergarten" even in english, or american english http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Whirlin_merlin
10-30-2006, 06:53 AM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
No, it doesn't make a fine Jabo.

It makes a fine fighter-bomber.

We won the war for Christ sake. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Yeah alright I just like the term jabo (also quicker to type).

By the way we didn't win any war young man, our nations and indeed relatives may have but if we're being pedantic here....... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Before anyone goes loopy I am only pulling his leg.

F19_Olli72
10-30-2006, 07:44 AM
Well, the Jug is good in the right hands. That beeing said, the fastest kill i've ever had online was a P-47 on Warclouds. And by 'fastest' i mean i was chasing him in a vertical dive in a FW-190D. 840 km/h when i shot his tail off http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif Still got the track http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v40/Olli72/rata-sig2.jpg
F19 Virtual Squadron (http://www.f19vs.se/)
Screenshotart.com (http://www.screenshotart.com/)

JtD
10-30-2006, 07:49 AM
I honestly don't think it's "new".

mynameisroland
10-30-2006, 08:36 AM
Its biggest flaw is its rate of roll. Thats why I like the Mustang a tiny bit better.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/Newsig3.jpg

Brain32
10-30-2006, 09:24 AM
Somewhere between v403 and v405, P47 recieved turn rate improvement and now not only it easily outturns Antons but even 109's struggle to outturn it. It's ridiculous, not only it turns better than P51 but also much better than P38 which is suppose to be the best US turner. Actually considering how I remember it used to be before, it seems as they took the turn from the P38 and gave it to P47....<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

This is my sig http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Kwiatos
10-30-2006, 09:50 AM
Recently in WC i was easly outturned in P-47 by Fw190 D-9. It was at 3 km alt and after 3 circles Fw190 was behind me so no way P-47 could outturn 190 D-9 no mention Bf109 at low to medium alt. Probably P-47 could outturn A-9 and A-8 but not all versions of Fw190. At high alt it is another thing due to good high alt P-47 performance. The worse thing in P-47 i found is it poor roll rate which is not accurate with RL. Some time ago i made some test and sended it To Oleg M. but i got answer that they can't make it in good way at different speeds - which is simpy not true beacuse in previous patches P-47 had better roll rate ( 3.04 as i remebmer correctly).

----------------P-47D

---------------RL------------4.02
370 mph------70deg/s --------40 deg/s (average)
--------------5sec----------8/9 sec (left/right)

--------------- A6M 2/5
---------------RL -------------4.02
------------30 deg/s----------45 deg/s
-------------12sec-------------8s

-----------------Ta152 H-1
-------------- RL--------------4.02
---------------unkown----------60 deg/s
---------------unkown----------6s

Brain32
10-30-2006, 10:34 AM
Recently in WC i was easly outturned in P-47 by Fw190 D-9. It was at 3 km alt and after 3 circles Fw190 was behind me so no way P-47 could outturn 190 D-9 no mention Bf109 at low to medium alt.
You obviously did not try hard enough(flaps?), P47D_Late and 190D9 have about the same turn-rate capatibilities, also Dora turns better than 109K4, but not other 109's and only when speed drops to very low levels. Yes it outtruns A8 and A9 on the deck with ease and this is quite incorrect as RL P47C could not outturn 190A5 with troublesome engine and badly adjusted ailerons http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
About roll-rate you are correct, it's incorrect and should be much better http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

This is my sig http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

gx-warspite
10-30-2006, 12:48 PM
The P-47 has been the best since the "P-47D" with high boost appeared.

I got schooled, hardcore, by one squad of dedicated Jug pilots. We'd keep escalating in altitude and their advantage would grow. Being in a D-9, I was used to being the fastest, but they'd out-climb me and out-run me up high. I couldn't stay low because they'd just come and pick people off from up high (a group of 4 - one went down, a few seconds later another, while two provided cover as their friends dove and then climbed back).

It was silly. I called some of my friends onto the server and even with Ta-152s and Do-335s we just could not win. We had serious heat problems that kept the 47s close, and there's no way we could turn with them, especially up high.

And the firepower! Zomg! I was never a believer in the 50 whines, but after being repeatedly de-winged, decapitated, de-engined, de-tailed by Jugs coming down in a Mach 3 vertical dive with half a second of firing time... ugh. Hence the new sig since then.

Fear. Fear is what I feel when I see a Jug up high. For I know that I am like a squirrel, simply hiding among a multitude of others like me, hoping against hope that I won't be chosen to die this day by that hawk.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://www.doranine.com/images/juggernaut.jpg
Think he's bad? He's badder when he has eight fifty-caliber Browning M2 machine guns attached.

FritzGryphon
10-30-2006, 01:04 PM
I once ran a Co-op mission on hyperlobby, a simple 8 P-47D27 versus 8 Bf-109G6. All conditions equal.

I ran the mission 5 times, and I played on both sides alternately.

My prediction was that the Bf-109 team would win easily, given they perform better in every way, and have a MK-108.

The P-47 team easily won all 5 games, and had 3 or more survivors in every one.

It showed me that performance figures cannot decide a fight at the exclusion of everything else, and that the dynamics of a multiple vs multiple engagement are drastically different than a 1 vs 1.

JG53Frankyboy
10-30-2006, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
I once ran a Co-op mission on hyperlobby, a simple 8 P-47D27 versus 8 Bf-109G6. All conditions equal.

I ran the mission 5 times, and I played on both sides alternately.

My prediction was that the Bf-109 team would win easily, given they perfrom better in every way, and have a MK-108.

The P-47 team easily won all 5 games, and had 3 or more survivors in every one.

It showed me that performance figures cannot decide a fight at the exclusion of everything else, and that the dynamics of a multiple vs multiple engagement are drastically different than a 1 vs 1.

if the Jug pilots are knowing what they are doing , Bf109G-6 have not much chances - only in lower altitudes at lower speeds in a turning fight.......
the D-27 is superiour in most other aspects.
D-22, well, the 109s have propably a better chance.

F6_Ace
10-30-2006, 01:15 PM
I'd prefer to take the Mustang for air superiority. The P47 is good but it isn't quite as good as the P51 at the altitudes that 90% of action in co-ops or 'up market' DF occurs at.

While it is tough, it also makes for a nice, big target when caught short.

For ground attack, I think the P38 is the better option as, while also easy to hit, you have the advantage of decent climb, good loadout, speed and an airbrake for shaking off bandits during last-ditch dives (L-&gthttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00004YL1M.01.MZZZZZZZ.jpg

Kwiatos
10-30-2006, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Recently in WC i was easly outturned in P-47 by Fw190 D-9. It was at 3 km alt and after 3 circles Fw190 was behind me so no way P-47 could outturn 190 D-9 no mention Bf109 at low to medium alt.
You obviously did not try hard enough(flaps?), P47D_Late and 190D9 have about the same turn-rate capatibilities, also Dora turns better than 109K4, but not other 109's and only when speed drops to very low levels. Yes it outtruns A8 and A9 on the deck with ease and this is quite incorrect as RL P47C could not outturn 190A5 with troublesome engine and badly adjusted ailerons http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
About roll-rate you are correct, it's incorrect and should be much better http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Belive me or nor but i know how to turn. I had no chance to catch these Dora in turn. D9 after every circle gained more and more adventage and i have no chance to stop it. Luckily then i outmanouvered these Dora using some vertical tricks but it was very hard time due to poor roll rate of P-47 ( D-9 had to escape after these) Im still very impressed how D-9 in these game could turn and even climb turn. I had many situations when flying Spit IX and trying to escape from D-9 in climbing turn (which should be deadly for Fw190) but i was hited. Some says that what make Spit with energy is crazy but what D-9 could do is the same level for me (if we compare it with RL conterpartes).

Xiolablu3
10-30-2006, 01:53 PM
I also preferred the Mustang, mate, but as I keep suffering from the dreaded 'wing break', I decided to use the P47 instead and now like it at least as much, if not better, because the zoom climb and dive are just amazing. It also doenst 'wobble' as much.


It wasnt the P47D 'late' I was flying, it was the P47-D27 I think, which is earlier but still great.

I agree the P47D 'late' is really good too.

Noone can complain about the 50 cals these days, they are amazing, possibly a bit too powerful. If you hit at convergence they knock wings and tails off with ease on the Japanese planes. I sawed a Zero in half today, it broke in half in the fuesalage. The cockpit and wings went one way, and the tail the other!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

Kernow
10-30-2006, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
It showed me that performance figures cannot decide a fight at the exclusion of everything else, and that the dynamics of a multiple vs multiple engagement are drastically different than a 1 vs 1.
I've always felt that firepower and durability become far more important as the size of the fight increases.

In a theoretical 1v1 with Ki-43 v Hurri II the Hurri should never be able to bring it's superior guns to bear and it's superior toughness only serves to delay the inevitable, as the Ki should eventually land enough lead to kill it - if it doesn't run out of ammo first. As the numbers involved increase you're more likely to get fleeting chances for a shot, even in the Hurri, and then the ability to dish-out - and take - damage starts to really matter.

P-47 does seem to be the best US turn-fighter now. That used to be the P-51 which could outturn 109s, but the new 'best-ever' FMs say it can't, not by a long way. Right or wrong, who knows? The point is there has been a huge change in relative turn performance of the US fighters and it's the P-47 that can sometimes win a turnfight v the LW.

Xiolablu3
10-30-2006, 01:58 PM
I am not talking about the P47 being best in a turnfight 1 on 1, but it CAN turn a bit if you really need to. The P47 is fast enough to avoid almost any 1 on 1 fight, so why take the 50:50 odds? Save your plane and come back with the odds in your favour instead!

I am talking about a squad of P47's meeting say a squad of Bf109's or Ki84's. The P47 is great in this situation. Its fast enough to disenage if outnumbered, or attacked from above. But if you are above the enemy, then god help them when you start to B&Z. Its dive and zoom climb are so good that the enemy wont get a single shot at you unless you make a mistake!

Noone can say its not strong either, I survived 4 hits with the Ki84c's 30mm cannon yesterday! (Maybe more as it fires 2 at a time!)

You need a wingman or teamate to fight Ki43's in a Hurricane, as once he is on your six, there is no way to shake him.

Better to drag him to a teamate once hes there than try to out manouvre him - its almost impossible unless he makes a mistake (Thats actually Hurri IIb vs Ki43 that I am talking about, but I am sure its the same situation as the IIc)

There is a map on Ukded called singapore with Ki43 vs Hurricane IIb and Brewster. The only way for reds to win is to use teamwork. Its cool, a real challenge flying red. WHen the 12x.303s actually hit a Ki43, they rip it up or set it on fire very easily.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

majnos64
10-30-2006, 02:08 PM
P-47 the best ? Which planet do you live on ? Dora takes it easily 109K too. According to my experience 8x.50 needs to be accurately aimed for long time. German weapons dont. OK P-47 is good for taran but for aircombat, where it should do multiple attacks? Answer is clear, NO. P-47 does have one dive attack ability nothing more. Did you try to climb with that ? I have to admit it is pretty nice plane for high altitudes say 7-10 km But I usually fight lower.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

"He,who has braver heart, more cold and full of foreseeing courage, which is born from believe in success and in righteousness of things, will smite his opponent." - Aleksandr Ivanovich Pokryshkin

TX-Gunslinger
10-30-2006, 02:14 PM
Over the 4.00 versions the P-47 has become better. This is as it should be, I think.

The problem that I continually see online is the mis-utilization by mission builders of the P-47 late in "historical" settings.

If your building an 8th AF scenario, you get the "purple gas" in late summer or early autumn 1944. If your 15th AF you get the purple stuff in late Dec or early Jan.

This Allied fuel development historically parallels arrival of production FW-190A9 (September 44) and D-9 (August 1944).

In fact the first documented A9 loss occurs on September 16th 1944 - Werk number 205 196.

So, when you place P47-lates up against G10's and A8's here's what the relative performance looks like:

FW-190 A8 vs P47-D27

P-47 max dive over 1000 kmh - A8/A9 loses wings at 850 kmh

https://webspace.utexas.edu/joem/P-47%20Il2c/47late-190A8-TAS.jpg
Well - you can outrun it in level flight at 800 meters or lower.

https://webspace.utexas.edu/joem/P-47%20Il2c/47late-190A8-climb.jpg
Can't out-climb it either

https://webspace.utexas.edu/joem/P-47%20Il2c/47late-190A8-turn.jpg
If you go REAL SLOW towards stall speed you can out-turn it, right before you die.

Me-109 G10 vs P47-D27 late
Similar dive limits to A8

https://webspace.utexas.edu/joem/P-47%20Il2c/P47late-109G10-TAS.jpg
G10 can't outrun it at any altitude

https://webspace.utexas.edu/joem/P-47%20Il2c/P47late-109G10-climb.jpg
Wow - G10 can out-climb P47 late up to 7500 meters

https://webspace.utexas.edu/joem/P-47%20Il2c/47late-109G10-turn.jpg
G10 has turn advantage below about 400 kmh

Realistic, historically relevant late war match-ups
FW190-A9 vs P47-D27 late

https://webspace.utexas.edu/joem/P-47%20Il2c/P47late-FW190A9-TAS.jpg
Wow - I can outrun a D27 late if I can drag him down below 2000 meters in level flight.

https://webspace.utexas.edu/joem/P-47%20Il2c/P47late-FW190A9-climb.jpg
At least climb rate is the same below 800 meters

https://webspace.utexas.edu/joem/P-47%20Il2c/P47late-FW190A9-turn.jpg
Closest belligerent turning curves in the sim

While the D27 late dominates the airspace above 1000 meteres - the A9 is at least more competitive

FW190-D9 vs P47-D27 late

Max Dive D9 900 Kmh - D27 - 1000 kmh

Dora is the great equalizer. P-47 D27 late dominates the air above 7 km. Late P-47 should not even attempt to turn with D9.

https://webspace.utexas.edu/joem/P-47%20Il2c/P47late-D9-TAS.jpg
https://webspace.utexas.edu/joem/P-47%20Il2c/P47late-D9-climb.jpg
https://webspace.utexas.edu/joem/P-47%20Il2c/P47late-D9-turn.jpg


Now, with regard to the initial post - the P-47 late is an excellent aircraft which will perform well in it's correct time period. If placed up against early 1944 and older Luftwaffe aircraft, it will dominate and is in fact uber.

I'm totally ok with servers who don't attempt to be historical. These servers will offer most blue aircraft against most red aircraft. That's fair and I enjoy that kind of server.

I also enjoy historical, limited aircraft servers if correct. Unfortunately, they are often not correct. You'll find maps in this community that pit late D27's against 109-G6late, G14, G10 only with FW-190A6/A8. These are the maps which are terribly unbalanced to fly as blue and are not historical.

Anyway, I love the P47 and think the late P47 rocks and is correct in historical accuracy. I can't seem to get any flying time in it, because so many folks jump in the Red side when it's available someone has to stay and fly blue.

S~

Gunny

F6_Ace
10-30-2006, 02:25 PM
Interesting that you mention the .50s because, in recently posted guncam sequences, there were quite a few Japanese planes shown which were being hit by sustained 50 cal fire and not disintegrating.

Compare with Zeros etc in this game where a short burst into a wing will easily take it off.
It's also quite easy to saw 109s in half even with 6x .50s from 300m+

I wonder whether DMs in the game sometimes represent "customer perception" rather than any particular reality?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00004YL1M.01.MZZZZZZZ.jpg

Xiolablu3
10-30-2006, 02:56 PM
They certainly seem to be incredibly powerful for Mg's nowadays.

The only plane I find takes a lot of punishment from 50cals is the FW190, but thats historical. In the British tests they found that the plane was almost impervous to any machine gun fire from dead 6. This is evident in the game also. Unless you take out his controls then he can take a lot of hammer.

Majnos is saying that you only get one dive attack from the P47...If you cannot B&Z properly in the P47, then you wont be able to do it in any plane. The dive and zoom climb are incredible. If you are a reasonable pilot you can dive down, attack, and zoom back up totally out of reach easily becasue of the amazing zoom climb. I can really 'feel' the weight helping as I zoom back up, thats cool. What servers do you fly on? SHe wont do well on the Airquake servers because thats just arcade, nothing like real missions/situations. Try some semi-historical mission servers with objectives, which are at least something like real life war.

If you fly her TnB like a SPitfire then obviously the P47 isnt going to do well. (Although she can still turn quite well for a big heavy plane) But use energy fighting and shes a beauty.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

VFA-195 Snacky
10-30-2006, 03:25 PM
I like the P47. The P51, however is a piece of junk in this game. Nowhere near the fighter it was in real life.

Oleg has these planes spin, flip, and wobble all over the place. It's pretty sad

No, I'm not bitter. lol<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://us.st11.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/airplanepictures_1918_16003860

VW-IceFire
10-30-2006, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by GH_Klingstroem:
in the P51 Xiolablu3 always have a few clicks of nose down trim and make sure ur pitch channel setting dont have too much increase the first few columns! I have reduced my pitch settings (actually all of them) to have VERY VERY low numbers in the beginning... including have the dead zone half way up and now I NEVER break the wings and my wobbles are gone! Im sure u know most of this tho since you fly online quite a bit...
This is my pitch setting

0 1 3 8 15 28 43 62 82 100 -->60<-- this is filtering!

0 1 5 9 15 21 30 43 63 100 80 This is my yaw
channel

0 3 11 20 30 40 55 69 85 100 50 My roll channel

This does wonders for the p51 at least on my computer!
Try it guys! It allows full deflection but greatly reduces wobbeling etc etc...
Interesting values...I'm not sure I 100% understand however. Could you post that part of your config.ini so I can have a full look at it?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/icefire-tempestv.jpg
Find my missions at Flying Legends (http://www.flying-legends.net/php/downloads/downloads.php?cat_id=19) and Mission4Today.com (http://www.mission4today.com).

VW-IceFire
10-30-2006, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by F6_Ace:
Interesting that you mention the .50s because, in recently posted guncam sequences, there were quite a few Japanese planes shown which were being hit by sustained 50 cal fire and not disintegrating.

Compare with Zeros etc in this game where a short burst into a wing will easily take it off.
It's also quite easy to saw 109s in half even with 6x .50s from 300m+

I wonder whether DMs in the game sometimes represent "customer perception" rather than any particular reality?
You do have to quality that F6 Ace...there are many occasions where I do chop Zero's up and other times where I'm hitting them with damage but they aren't disintegrating.

By the same token, I've seen gun camera footage where a Zero is hit by Hellcats and almost immediately flames up and breaks apart.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/icefire-tempestv.jpg
Find my missions at Flying Legends (http://www.flying-legends.net/php/downloads/downloads.php?cat_id=19) and Mission4Today.com (http://www.mission4today.com).

F6_Ace
10-30-2006, 03:51 PM
^ This is true. I've also seen the same footage but most of what I've seen didn't involve aircraft disintegrating and, as discussed many a time before, guncam sequences are likely to portray the best you could expect to happen as they'd be mostly used for newsreels (propaganda) and training.

In terms of qualification, what would you like? Perhaps it would have been better for me to say that Zeros "flame easily" and 109s "less so" and that "wings can be sawn off more often than not." I'd say that, admittedly subjectively, approximately 6/10 of the time that I could saw a wing off a Zero whilst 9/10s of the time I will kill it via causing a fire whereas I might have seen < 9/10s of the guncam sequences resulting in fire and certainly less than 6/10s of the sequences showing disintegration.

And no, I don't have a chart for that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I did pose a question, though, rather than making a statement. In my opinion, the .50s appear to be powerful especially in comparison with other rifle calibre weaponry. Interestingly, the Japanese rifle calibre
weapons appear to be a lot more potent than those of the LW or RAF, for example. And, while I have no absolute figures to back that up, I think it's fair to say that it is a reasonable perception to have.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00004YL1M.01.MZZZZZZZ.jpg

HellToupee
10-30-2006, 05:04 PM
.50 is not rifle calibre, even 12 303s struggle with a zero, the differnce is about that between .50s and cannons, raf planes hmgs are the same .50s, blue planes use a much weaker gun firing thru a prop, russian planes have an even better gun but only mounts 2 at the most in any one plane.

fordfan25
10-30-2006, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
Somewhere between v403 and v405, P47 recieved turn rate improvement and now not only it easily outturns Antons but even 109's struggle to outturn it. It's ridiculous, not only it turns better than P51 but also much better than P38 which is suppose to be the best US turner. Actually considering how I remember it used to be before, it seems as they took the turn from the P38 and gave it to P47.... BS unless the piolet in the 109 has two broken arms the 47 is not even compaible.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Bah-weep-Graaaaagnah wheep ni ni bong.

-----------------------------
http://www.magnum-pc.com/
"your order will ship in under 2 weeks, be sure"

fordfan25
10-30-2006, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by F6_Ace:
Interesting that you mention the .50s because, in recently posted guncam sequences, there were quite a few Japanese planes shown which were being hit by sustained 50 cal fire and not disintegrating.

Compare with Zeros etc in this game where a short burst into a wing will easily take it off.
It's also quite easy to saw 109s in half even with 6x .50s from 300m+

I wonder whether DMs in the game sometimes represent "customer perception" rather than any particular reality? yea like the way the tail end of the 47 or 38 comes off with just a few 20mm hits http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Bah-weep-Graaaaagnah wheep ni ni bong.

-----------------------------
http://www.magnum-pc.com/
"your order will ship in under 2 weeks, be sure"

VW-IceFire
10-30-2006, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by F6_Ace:
^ This is true. I've also seen the same footage but most of what I've seen didn't involve aircraft disintegrating and, as discussed many a time before, guncam sequences are likely to portray the best you could expect to happen as they'd be mostly used for newsreels (propaganda) and training.

In terms of qualification, what would you like? Perhaps it would have been better for me to say that Zeros "flame easily" and 109s "less so" and that "wings can be sawn off more often than not." I'd say that, admittedly subjectively, approximately 6/10 of the time that I could saw a wing off a Zero whilst 9/10s of the time I will kill it via causing a fire whereas I might have seen < 9/10s of the guncam sequences resulting in fire and certainly less than 6/10s of the sequences showing disintegration.

And no, I don't have a chart for that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I did pose a question, though, rather than making a statement. In my opinion, the .50s appear to be powerful especially in comparison with other rifle calibre weaponry. Interestingly, the Japanese rifle calibre
weapons appear to be a lot more potent than those of the LW or RAF, for example. And, while I have no absolute figures to back that up, I think it's fair to say that it is a reasonable perception to have.
Fair and reasonable for sure.

Nonetheless, the .50cal is not even the most powerful HMG in the game and years past the community was arguing about the weapons ineffectiveness. When you say that there are examples of Zeros not disintegrating in the gun camera footage there's just as many examples that do show that. Definitely the footage shows the most spectacular events, but I've seen far too much now to assume that what we're seeing is so spectacular that its also irregular.

A pilot with a good shot in a .50cal will do a good number on the target most of the time. But sometimes not.

The Berezin UB machine gun still outdoes the .50cal a fair bit and the .50cal is a modest second. The German HMG and Japanese HMG's don't seem to be generally regarded as being as effective. Even then, I question how useless both of these weapons are. With a 109 I can get in behind a La-5FN and occasionally saw the tail off with a short burst. With the Ki-61 Otsu, once I got good at making shots with the lower muzzle velocity, I was taking them down. If you aim well you can down two or three Mustangs or Hellcats with a single Ki-61 Otsu ammo load (easier offline without the lag). So they aren't that useless either...I don't think too many people give them a fair shake. Or they use them in desperation at long ranges.

Just some more of my 0.02 cents http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/icefire-tempestv.jpg
Find my missions at Flying Legends (http://www.flying-legends.net/php/downloads/downloads.php?cat_id=19) and Mission4Today.com (http://www.mission4today.com).

carguy_
10-30-2006, 07:22 PM
Originally posted by VFA-195 Snacky:
I like the P47. The P51, however is a piece of junk in this game. Nowhere near the fighter it was in real life.


Yesterday I was to participate in a typical USAAF vs LW scenario.

16xB25 12xP51C @ 4000m

12x109G6late 4xFW190A6 @4000m

Both parties 40km apart at the start.

Outcome:

6xB25 survived
2x109 survived
7xP51C survived

I got one 109 and one 190.Landed safely.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sigjzg23upgraded.jpg
Self-proclaimed dedicated Willywhiner since July 2002
: Badsight.:"increased manouverability for bf-109s was satire" :
Please bring back 3.01 dots!

GR142-Pipper
10-30-2006, 09:55 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
Somewhere between v403 and v405, P47 recieved turn rate improvement and now not only it easily outturns Antons but even 109's struggle to outturn it. It's ridiculous, not only it turns better than P51 but also much better than P38 which is suppose to be the best US turner. Actually considering how I remember it used to be before, it seems as they took the turn from the P38 and gave it to P47.... Seems so. Don't take the P-38 too seriously as currently modeled (4.05) in this game. At the 4.03/4.04 release, Maddox re-screwed it up taking away both turn capabilities (which were improved in 4.02) and allowing the completely wrong low/mid altitude compressibility characteristics to remain.

GR142-Pipper

PBNA-Boosher
10-30-2006, 10:12 PM
What do you mean Yak drivers won't appreciate the safety of the P-47? Are you kidding me? P-47's have gotten me through some of the toughest situations I've seen in IL2, situations that would have made me turn tail and run or bail! I once took massive damage at the hand of a 190 in WC, shot him down, lost my engine, and then proceeded to glide 20 miles until I safely touched down on the runway at the British island without a hitch. My Yak-1, 1b, 7, or 9 couldn't do that!

I've also got the same compliment for the P-40. That bird has gotten me through some rough holes!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://xs34.xs.to/pics/05251/Booshersig2.jpg

"So do all who live to see such times, but that is not for them to decide. All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you..."
-Gandalf

GR142-Pipper
10-30-2006, 10:15 PM
Originally posted by VFA-195 Snacky:
I like the P47. The P51, however is a piece of junk in this game. Nowhere near the fighter it was in real life.

Oleg has these planes spin, flip, and wobble all over the place. It's pretty sad.... Agreed. The P-47 (as modeled in this game) is the best performer of the mid/late war U.S. fighters. The P-38 is next best but suffers from the ******ed "Maddox compressibility effect" even at low/mid altitudes. The P-51 is just about as you describe...on a good day. The F4U and F6F are a half-notch above the junk the P-51 is.

GR142-Pipper

Badsight-
10-30-2006, 10:55 PM
the P-47 remains the above-7K King , only the Ta-152 has performance that matches

even from 4K it becomes useable<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/1741/shindendrawflight66os.jpg

BillyTheKid_22
10-30-2006, 10:58 PM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VFA-195 Snacky:
I like the P47. The P51, however is a piece of junk in this game. Nowhere near the fighter it was in real life.

Oleg has these planes spin, flip, and wobble all over the place. It's pretty sad.... Agreed. The P-47 (as modeled in this game) is the best performer of the mid/late war U.S. fighters. The P-38 is next best but suffers from the ******ed "Maddox compressibility effect" even at low/mid altitudes. The P-51 is just about as you describe...on a good day. The F4U and F6F are a half-notch above the junk the P-51 is.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://members.cox.net/bkid/pacificfighters/PacificFightersSignature.JPG

.................................................. ..............

"All I got was a bellyful of English Channel."

TheGozr
10-31-2006, 12:45 AM
Well i did stop to argue with all the FM data etc.. It's All wrong, slow speed turns, stall, dead stick, flaps, sounds, speed retention, weights, mass, move weather, air etc .. all, It hard maybe for you to Understand but the engine is way too limited to give some close accuracy to speudo real flights data physics. It will get better with BOB mostly with what is lacking the most and it's the worlds physics that affect all planes. The heavier planes will have more dive speed etc.. and this is where the US planes shine for example. The most of you fly on easy mode navigation or with labels on, map icons no what so ever turbulences, air mass etc.. Well the il2 engine as been strech to a max and it can't give more details physics caracteristic to each plane. all the planes.. Too much to write this here.
What i see it's a air quake IMO . What i see online sometime just make me nuts.
Everything need a rework so this is why the next generation of the serie will be better and closer to a simulator status and you will get much better result for your plane even if they have the same data FM, the world physics will get everything better at list we hope so. So enjoy and have fun for now..<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://www.gozr.net/iocl/images/NN/NNserverlogo.jpg http://www.gozr.net/iocl/images/NN/Historiaserverlogo.jpg
NormandieNiemen & HISTORIA available on HL
Stats for both servers http://www.gozr.net/fbdstats

I.O.C.L | International Online Competition League (http://www.gozr.net/iocl/)
Oleg_Maddox:
"In terms of Sexy looking aircraft I like very much Mustang and less Yak-9U post war production. In the last case it doesn't means that I will model Yak-9U to the trials before manufacture speciafications. We model it with all the problems of aircraft of the first series."

Xiolablu3
10-31-2006, 01:27 AM
Originally posted by VFA-195 Snacky:
I like the P47. The P51, however is a piece of junk in this game. Nowhere near the fighter it was in real life.

Oleg has these planes spin, flip, and wobble all over the place.

Thats just your opinion (And Pipper's very vocal thoughts and personal reviews of pilots stories). No matter how many real life tests are posted of the planes which actually shows the model to be very close, they are disregarded by the 'fans' who prefer to read 'The P51 was amazing, it saved my life and got me 3 kills etc' quotes from pilots who possibly never flew any other types to compare them to.

Read the report on the P51 in the Joint fighter conference. Especially the 'Poor instability' part. The sudden 'snap roll' was a problem with the real P51.

I am afraid that the report describes the ingame P51 very well. You could argue that the instability MAY be overdone, but thats a matter of opinion as unless you have flown a P51 then you cannot comment with anything but an opinion.

The wing break however is bad, and seems to be a bug.

Lots of Battle Of Britain pilots loved the Hurricane and raved about it, does this mean it was better than the 109E4? There is a newsreel from 1941 showing a Hurricane IIc and it says its superior to the 109F4......I guess oyu guys think this true too?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

GH_Klingstroem
10-31-2006, 01:51 AM
Here ya go Ice fire
[rts_joystick]
X=0 1 4 9 16 25 36 49 64 81 100 0
Y=0 1 4 9 16 25 36 49 64 81 100 0
Z=0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0
RZ=0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0
FF=1
U=0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0
V=0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0
1X=12 0 3 11 20 30 40 55 69 85 100 50
1Y=17 0 1 3 8 15 28 43 62 82 100 60
1RZ=26 0 1 5 9 15 21 30 43 63 100 80
1U=0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0
1V=0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0

with these settings for My Microsoft sidewinder I get alsmost no wobble at all! I realized most of my wobble came from large deflections being the result of very very small deflections on the joystick. With these settings you can make very very small deflections on the joystick and also get only very small deflections on the AC. This is vital for the P51 at least. But since it ends with large numbers I can also get ful deflection if say pull all they way on the joystick... Browns "real" settings are good but they dont allow full deflection, however hitting ur target is easier since you wont be overcorrecting all the time! Try these Out Ice Fire and let me know... Might not work for ur joystick but did wonders for mine!

slipBall
10-31-2006, 01:59 AM
Originally posted by GH_Klingstroem:
Here ya go Ice fire
[rts_joystick]
X=0 1 4 9 16 25 36 49 64 81 100 0
Y=0 1 4 9 16 25 36 49 64 81 100 0
Z=0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0
RZ=0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0
FF=1
U=0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0
V=0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0
1X=12 0 3 11 20 30 40 55 69 85 100 50
1Y=17 0 1 3 8 15 28 43 62 82 100 60
1RZ=26 0 1 5 9 15 21 30 43 63 100 80
1U=0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0
1V=0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0

with these settings for My Microsoft sidewinder I get alsmost no wobble at all!


Hi Klingstroem
I was just wondering if you keep these settings for all the different aircraft that you may fly.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f394/SlipBall/orders.jpg

Xiolablu3
10-31-2006, 02:06 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Somewhere between v403 and v405, P47 recieved turn rate improvement and now not only it easily outturns Antons but even 109's struggle to outturn it. It's ridiculous, not only it turns better than P51 but also much better than P38 which is suppose to be the best US turner. Actually considering how I remember it used to be before, it seems as they took the turn from the P38 and gave it to P47.... Seems so. Don't take the P-38 too seriously as currently modeled (4.05) in this game. At the 4.03/4.04 release, Maddox re-screwed it up taking away both turn capabilities (which were improved in 4.02) and allowing the completely wrong low/mid altitude compressibility characteristics to remain.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Joint Fighter Conference report on the P38 :-


Good - 3
Fair - 0
Poor - 1
Other - 15
Blank - 9 (No comment)

Bad visibility to sides down. Would rather have F4U or F6F for Pacific -1. I would not consider this a modern fighting aircraft. Poor coordination of control forces and effectiveness, combined with very weak directional stability make it a poor gun platform, and its manueverability rating is so low as to preclude its use in modern combat - 1. As a fighter bomber - good; for fighter sweep-just fair; as escort - poor - 1.

Good due to 1) Twin engine reliability; 2) altitude performance; 3) good accelerated stall; 4) versatility; 5) dive recovery flaps which make prolonged zero lift possible - 1.

Apart from very queer aelerons, the aircraft is quite pleasant to fly, and would probably make a very good strike fighter. There is, however, an objectionable wobble in bumpy air- 1. An excellent escort fighter. Speed should be sufficient for most present day Jap fighters. View is poor - too many struts in the way. Rudder makes aircraft very hard to manuever on first flight - 1. Too complicated and full of gadgets - would make unserviceability rate very high - 1. Query on maintenance and operational problems with liquid cooled engines in hot climates - 1. Too much mechanical equipment for one man to operate in combat - 1. Record speaks for itself - 1.

Best elevator:

Most votes - F4U-1
P-38 voted 12th place

Best rudder:

Most votes - F7F
P-38 voted 6th place

Fighter exhibiting nicest all-around stability:

Most votes - F6F
P-38 voted last place

Fighter appearing to have best control and stability in a dive:

Most votes - F4U-1
P-38 voted last place

Best characteristics at 5mph above stall:

Most votes - F6F
P-38 voted 3rd place

Best all-around fighter above 25,000 feet:

Most votes - P-47
P-38 voted last place

Best all-around fighter below 25,000 feet:

Most votes - F8F
P-38 received no votes

Best fighter bomber:

Most votes - F4U-1
P-38 voted last place

Best strafer:

Most votes - P-47
P-38 voted 6th place<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

WOLFMondo
10-31-2006, 03:01 AM
So basically Americas top fliers didn't rate the P38....<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Capt Eric Brown says: "I found in general the default joystick settings tended to be oversensitive. With my recommended settings it will give people a real feeling of how they actually flew."

GR142-Pipper
10-31-2006, 03:11 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by VFA-195 Snacky:
I like the P47. The P51, however is a piece of junk in this game. Nowhere near the fighter it was in real life.

Oleg has these planes spin, flip, and wobble all over the place.


Thats just your opinion (And Pipper's very vocal thoughts and personal reviews of pilots stories). No matter how many real life tests are posted of the planes which actually shows the model to be very close, they are disregarded by the 'fans' who prefer to read 'The P51 was amazing, it saved my life and got me 3 kills etc' quotes from pilots who possibly never flew any other types to compare them to. Here we go down this lame road again. Xio, if you bother to do even the most cursory search of P-51 engagement account narratives you'll find that the mid/late war U.S. aircraft simply don't perform like their real world counterparts. It's been well documented, the information has been tabled here and still we have people believing that Oleg-the-programmer knows more than the real life pilots who actually flew and prevailed in REAL combat.


Read the report on the P51 in the Joint fighter conference. Especially the 'Poor instability' part. The sudden 'snap roll' was a problem with the real P51. Isn't it interesting that the real life instability had to do with the P-51's yaw axis and not in its pitch axis as is modeled in the game? If you're going to quote the report, at least know what it says.


I am afraid that the report describes the ingame P51 very well. Not so. See above.
You could argue that the instability MAY be overdone, but thats a matter of opinion as unless you have flown a P51 then you cannot comment with anything but an opinion. Well, I've flown military prop and jet aircraft as have others here (BSS Vidar certainly has as well and even has P-51 time. Ask him what he thinks of the P-51 flight model.). What have you flown? Respectfully, who are you to tell ANYONE else that they can't comment? Furthermore, what's been discussed regarding the P-51 are accounts from REAL people who flew REAL combat in the aircraft and these accounts differ from what is being presented in this game.


The wing break however is bad, and seems to be a bug. But even though the instability is in the incorrect axis and its wings happen to fly off at rather strange times, the P-51 is nevertheless, modeled right, eh? Riiiight.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
10-31-2006, 03:13 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Somewhere between v403 and v405, P47 recieved turn rate improvement and now not only it easily outturns Antons but even 109's struggle to outturn it. It's ridiculous, not only it turns better than P51 but also much better than P38 which is suppose to be the best US turner. Actually considering how I remember it used to be before, it seems as they took the turn from the P38 and gave it to P47.... Seems so. Don't take the P-38 too seriously as currently modeled (4.05) in this game. At the 4.03/4.04 release, Maddox re-screwed it up taking away both turn capabilities (which were improved in 4.02) and allowing the completely wrong low/mid altitude compressibility characteristics to remain.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Joint Fighter Conference report on the P38 :-


Good - 3
Fair - 0
Poor - 1
Other - 15
Blank - 9 (No comment)

Bad visibility to sides down. Would rather have F4U or F6F for Pacific -1. I would not consider this a modern fighting aircraft. Poor coordination of control forces and effectiveness, combined with very weak directional stability make it a poor gun platform, and its manueverability rating is so low as to preclude its use in modern combat - 1. As a fighter bomber - good; for fighter sweep-just fair; as escort - poor - 1.

Good due to 1) Twin engine reliability; 2) altitude performance; 3) good accelerated stall; 4) versatility; 5) dive recovery flaps which make prolonged zero lift possible - 1.

Apart from very queer aelerons, the aircraft is quite pleasant to fly, and would probably make a very good strike fighter. There is, however, an objectionable wobble in bumpy air- 1. An excellent escort fighter. Speed should be sufficient for most present day Jap fighters. View is poor - too many struts in the way. Rudder makes aircraft very hard to manuever on first flight - 1. Too complicated and full of gadgets - would make unserviceability rate very high - 1. Query on maintenance and operational problems with liquid cooled engines in hot climates - 1. Too much mechanical equipment for one man to operate in combat - 1. Record speaks for itself - 1.

Best elevator:

Most votes - F4U-1
P-38 voted 12th place

Best rudder:

Most votes - F7F
P-38 voted 6th place

Fighter exhibiting nicest all-around stability:

Most votes - F6F
P-38 voted last place

Fighter appearing to have best control and stability in a dive:

Most votes - F4U-1
P-38 voted last place

Best characteristics at 5mph above stall:

Most votes - F6F
P-38 voted 3rd place

Best all-around fighter above 25,000 feet:

Most votes - P-47
P-38 voted last place

Best all-around fighter below 25,000 feet:

Most votes - F8F
P-38 received no votes

Best fighter bomber:

Most votes - F4U-1
P-38 voted last place

Best strafer:

Most votes - P-47
P-38 voted 6th place </div></BLOCKQUOTE>That's great and it's certainly an interesting read but I'm more interested in how the REAL pilots performed against REAL adversaries...not in a lab environment. BIG difference.

GR142-Pipper

Ratsack
10-31-2006, 04:21 AM
What, you???re saying the pilots who made these judgments were imaginary? I didn???t know the U.S. had computers to generate virtual pilots with virtual opinions back then. Cool.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Ratsack

mynameisroland
10-31-2006, 05:08 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
That's great and it's certainly an interesting read but I'm more interested in how the REAL pilots performed against REAL adversaries...not in a lab environment. BIG difference.

GR142-Pipper

Dont you mean thats great that REAL combat pilots when comparing P38 to other top US fighters which they actually flew didnt rate it?

The fact that you discount these real WW2 pilots opinions because they dont fit with what you want to hear is lame.

Only real life advantage - which is noted in the document by the real pilots no less - is that two engines are good for overwater operations.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/Newsig3.jpg

Blutarski2004
10-31-2006, 06:10 AM
The Fighter Conference results are interesting, but some thoughts come to mind:

(1) Without interviewing some of the pilots who did the evaluations, we cannot know what the increments of difference were. Was the spread between good and bad a matter of impressions, percentage point, or orders of magnitude.

(2) How many of these pilots had been properly trained in flying the P38? Judging from the combat experience in Tunisia versus that in the ETO, pilots trained in single engine fighter did not seem to do as well with the P38 as those specifically trained to fly it.

(3) Votes regarding overall stability and near stall handling should be read with great care. USN fighters developed for carrier operations had special emphasis placed upon those handling characteristics, which were of considerably less importance for conventional land-based fighter designs.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

BLUTARSKI

GH_Klingstroem
10-31-2006, 08:34 AM
Originally posted by slipBall:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GH_Klingstroem:
Here ya go Ice fire
[rts_joystick]
X=0 1 4 9 16 25 36 49 64 81 100 0
Y=0 1 4 9 16 25 36 49 64 81 100 0
Z=0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0
RZ=0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0
FF=1
U=0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0
V=0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0
1X=12 0 3 11 20 30 40 55 69 85 100 50
1Y=17 0 1 3 8 15 28 43 62 82 100 60
1RZ=26 0 1 5 9 15 21 30 43 63 100 80
1U=0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0
1V=0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0

with these settings for My Microsoft sidewinder I get alsmost no wobble at all!


Hi Klingstroem
I was just wondering if you keep these settings for all the different aircraft that you may fly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes I use them for all AC in the game as there realli is no way to change from AC to AC... Anyway I feel that this works for all AC. Let me know how it works out for you!
cheers

Viper2005_
10-31-2006, 09:10 AM
Pipper, the P-51 is not unstable in game. One of my pet hates is the way in which people confuse poor damping with instability. They are very different things. If the P-51 were actually unstable in game people wouldn't complain that they couldn't score kills with it - they'd complain that they couldn't fly it at all. True instability results in divergent oscillations. I have yet to see any divergent oscillations from the in-game P-51 (or indeed any other aeroplane in the game for that matter). You may find this link of interest:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_period

majnos64
10-31-2006, 02:22 PM
OK, to the flight characteristics. There was a thread long time ago which was describing. P-47 dive was not accelerating at speeds more than 800kph. It had huge drag imho compensated only by short wings.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

"He,who has braver heart, more cold and full of foreseeing courage, which is born from believe in success and in righteousness of things, will smite his opponent." - Aleksandr Ivanovich Pokryshkin

HellToupee
10-31-2006, 05:44 PM
I think the worst thing with the 51 other than wing break and crappy guns is the climb, compared to all other allied planes its pretty much the worst 47late and even just plain d27 easily outclimbs it by a large margine as does the p38late, its at most alts worse than the 190a8 it cant even beat a plain old g6 early at any heights. So on planesets where it must face alot d9s for example its just completly outclassed with no real redeeming features.

Weird tho because i always thought the 51 was considered a better climber than 47.

Copperhead310th
10-31-2006, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by majnos64:
OK, to the flight characteristics. There was a thread long time ago which was describing. P-47 dive was not accelerating at speeds more than 800kph. It had huge drag imho compensated only by short wings.

At full dive acceleration there shold be no prop driven aiorcraft in this sim that should be able to cath the p-47 in a full dive. Sadly that's not the case.

After loging over 700 hrs ( best est.) in the
p-47 in this sim (prior to flying blue)i can tell you that , patch by patch it's vastly improved from the flying garbage heap it was at realease. However, there still remains a few issues. I'll list those that come to mind here.

1. Engine reliability.
PW R-2800-R Engines were well known for thier durability. Even returning from missions with tops of cylnders blown off by flak fire. And they still ran well enough to get the pilot and airframe home safely. My Grandfather durring his carrer worked on the R-2800 on ocation. He swares by them for dependability. but Cusses them and claims they were a" Son of a B*tch to work on" So i'll take his word on that.

In the presant patch light MG fire will usually do in this engine with little trouble. in most cases less than 5 rounds directly to the engine will kill it.

2. Poor rate of roll.
Already stated in this thread eralier so no need to repeat that.

3. Dive exeleration.
Good but not good enough. Should be the king. but is easy chased down in a dive by fw-190's with little effort. Anyone can argure this point till the cows come home and the sun sets. but i've seen it. i've done it. On BOTH sides. So i know WTF i'm talking about here. End of discution.

4.Rate of Climb.
Historically the Jug was a lumbering climber.
And in this latest patch it's IMO pretty close to what it should be. But it still needs to be 10% FASTER IN RATE OF CLIMB than it is currently modeled.

5. Airframe damage model.
The dam Tail section is still falling off. WTF????!!! Need i post pictures again of Bob Johnsons P-47 after being shot to hell and back with 20mm fire. one patch it's fine, nest it's porked. go figure. At anyrate this is not historically correct, or structually accurate.

Those are just the ones that are on my list of major flaws with the P-47 in this sim. there a few more, and some have already been stated by others so i'll leave it at that. At any rate this stuff will most likly NEVER get fixed.
Which sux bad for jug lovers.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://home.cogeco.ca/~jkinley/ubisig.jpg
Former CO of 310thVFS, (Retired) now part time
190 jock & full time target drone for JG27
Flying on line as JG27_Copperhead

|^^^^^^^^^^^^|
| JG27_Copperhead | '|""";.., ___.
|_..._...______===|= _|__|..., ] |
"(@ )'(@ )""""*|(@ )(@ )*****(@
"Keep on Truck'n!"

fordfan25
10-31-2006, 09:39 PM
Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by majnos64:
OK, to the flight characteristics. There was a thread long time ago which was describing. P-47 dive was not accelerating at speeds more than 800kph. It had huge drag imho compensated only by short wings.

At full dive acceleration there shold be no prop driven aiorcraft in this sim that should be able to cath the p-47 in a full dive. Sadly that's not the case.

After loging over 700 hrs ( best est.) in the
p-47 in this sim (prior to flying blue)i can tell you that , patch by patch it's vastly improved from the flying garbage heap it was at realease. However, there still remains a few issues. I'll list those that come to mind here.

1. Engine reliability.
PW R-2800-R Engines were well known for thier durability. Even returning from missions with tops of cylnders blown off by flak fire. And they still ran well enough to get the pilot and airframe home safely. My Grandfather durring his carrer worked on the R-2800 on ocation. He swares by them for dependability. but Cusses them and claims they were a" Son of a B*tch to work on" So i'll take his word on that.

In the presant patch light MG fire will usually do in this engine with little trouble. in most cases less than 5 rounds directly to the engine will kill it.

2. Poor rate of roll.
Already stated in this thread eralier so no need to repeat that.

3. Dive exeleration.
Good but not good enough. Should be the king. but is easy chased down in a dive by fw-190's with little effort. Anyone can argure this point till the cows come home and the sun sets. but i've seen it. i've done it. On BOTH sides. So i know WTF i'm talking about here. End of discution.

4.Rate of Climb.
Historically the Jug was a lumbering climber.
And in this latest patch it's IMO pretty close to what it should be. But it still needs to be 10% FASTER IN RATE OF CLIMB than it is currently modeled.

5. Airframe damage model.
The dam Tail section is still falling off. WTF????!!! Need i post pictures again of Bob Johnsons P-47 after being shot to hell and back with 20mm fire. one patch it's fine, nest it's porked. go figure. At anyrate this is not historically correct, or structually accurate.

Those are just the ones that are on my list of major flaws with the P-47 in this sim. there a few more, and some have already been stated by others so i'll leave it at that. At any rate this stuff will most likly NEVER get fixed.
Which sux bad for jug lovers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>agreed<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Bah-weep-Graaaaagnah wheep ni ni bong.

-----------------------------
http://www.magnum-pc.com/
"your order will ship in under 2 weeks, be sure"

Daiichidoku
10-31-2006, 09:51 PM
100% agreed

except maybe the tail comin off stuff, many other planes do, i think its a global DM thing, tho i could be wrong, natch<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/visibleathf.jpg

Badsight-
10-31-2006, 10:44 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Dont you mean thats great that REAL combat pilots when comparing P38 to other top US fighters which they actually flew didnt rate it?
no

he means he loves reading the "we kicked butt HOO_RAH!" stories as opposed to specific tests

they fit his mentality more<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/1741/shindendrawflight66os.jpg

Fork-N-spoon
10-31-2006, 11:37 PM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Somewhere between v403 and v405, P47 recieved turn rate improvement and now not only it easily outturns Antons but even 109's struggle to outturn it. It's ridiculous, not only it turns better than P51 but also much better than P38 which is suppose to be the best US turner. Actually considering how I remember it used to be before, it seems as they took the turn from the P38 and gave it to P47.... Seems so. Don't take the P-38 too seriously as currently modeled (4.05) in this game. At the 4.03/4.04 release, Maddox re-screwed it up taking away both turn capabilities (which were improved in 4.02) and allowing the completely wrong low/mid altitude compressibility characteristics to remain.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Joint Fighter Conference report on the P38 :-


Good - 3
Fair - 0
Poor - 1
Other - 15
Blank - 9 (No comment)

Bad visibility to sides down. Would rather have F4U or F6F for Pacific -1. I would not consider this a modern fighting aircraft. Poor coordination of control forces and effectiveness, combined with very weak directional stability make it a poor gun platform, and its manueverability rating is so low as to preclude its use in modern combat - 1. As a fighter bomber - good; for fighter sweep-just fair; as escort - poor - 1.

Good due to 1) Twin engine reliability; 2) altitude performance; 3) good accelerated stall; 4) versatility; 5) dive recovery flaps which make prolonged zero lift possible - 1.

Apart from very queer aelerons, the aircraft is quite pleasant to fly, and would probably make a very good strike fighter. There is, however, an objectionable wobble in bumpy air- 1. An excellent escort fighter. Speed should be sufficient for most present day Jap fighters. View is poor - too many struts in the way. Rudder makes aircraft very hard to manuever on first flight - 1. Too complicated and full of gadgets - would make unserviceability rate very high - 1. Query on maintenance and operational problems with liquid cooled engines in hot climates - 1. Too much mechanical equipment for one man to operate in combat - 1. Record speaks for itself - 1.

Best elevator:

Most votes - F4U-1
P-38 voted 12th place

Best rudder:

Most votes - F7F
P-38 voted 6th place

Fighter exhibiting nicest all-around stability:

Most votes - F6F
P-38 voted last place

Fighter appearing to have best control and stability in a dive:

Most votes - F4U-1
P-38 voted last place

Best characteristics at 5mph above stall:

Most votes - F6F
P-38 voted 3rd place

Best all-around fighter above 25,000 feet:

Most votes - P-47
P-38 voted last place

Best all-around fighter below 25,000 feet:

Most votes - F8F
P-38 received no votes

Best fighter bomber:

Most votes - F4U-1
P-38 voted last place

Best strafer:

Most votes - P-47
P-38 voted 6th place </div></BLOCKQUOTE>That's great and it's certainly an interesting read but I'm more interested in how the REAL pilots performed against REAL adversaries...not in a lab environment. BIG difference.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Moreover, if one takes the time to look at where the pilots were from, it???s no wonder they rated the aircraft so poorly. Most of the test pilots weren???t independent free from obligations to certain corporations and or branches of the service and they rated the aircraft accordingly. It reminds me of the Naval/Vought pilots that pitted the Corsair against the Mustang for carrier trials. The Navy/Vought pilots said that the Mustang???s vision to the front was too restricted for carrier landings??? This after flying the ???hose nose??? Corsair??? Another problem with any aircraft???s rating from the Joint Fighter Conference is that many pilots didn???t even bother to vote. In fact, only a small percentage bothered to vote at all. The book is full of useful information, but by no means the last word be it good, bad, or indifferent. One quick example of a problem I see with the votes for those pilots that even bothered is the ???Best rudder??? category. I???ve seen a few modern day evaluations of the P-38. Each pilot reports the exact same thing and said that the P-38???s rudders were excellent. They state that even during low speed taxi the rudders are both light and very responsive. Like I???ve said, the information in this book is spotty and subject to understandable prejudice.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Blondes are for nancy boys. Stop the cruelty adopt a brunette today

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v358/bolillo_quemado/brunette.jpg

Blutarski2004
11-01-2006, 05:26 AM
Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:

Moreover, if one takes the time to look at where the pilots were from, it???s no wonder they rated the aircraft so poorly. Most of the test pilots weren???t independent free from obligations to certain corporations and or branches of the service and they rated the aircraft accordingly. It reminds me of the Naval/Vought pilots that pitted the Corsair against the Mustang for carrier trials. The Navy/Vought pilots said that the Mustang???s vision to the front was too restricted for carrier landings??? This after flying the ???hose nose??? Corsair??? Another problem with any aircraft???s rating from the Joint Fighter Conference is that many pilots didn???t even bother to vote. In fact, only a small percentage bothered to vote at all. The book is full of useful information, but by no means the last word be it good, bad, or indifferent. One quick example of a problem I see with the votes for those pilots that even bothered is the ???Best rudder??? category. I???ve seen a few modern day evaluations of the P-38. Each pilot reports the exact same thing and said that the P-38???s rudders were excellent. They state that even during low speed taxi the rudders are both light and very responsive. Like I???ve said, the information in this book is spotty and subject to understandable prejudice.


..... I wonder if they asked **** Bong his opinion.

"****" Gotta love it.


Make that "Richard Bong"<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

BLUTARSKI

Hoarmurath
11-01-2006, 05:30 AM
well, someone having the book could answer, but i know lindberg and lanphier were among the participants.

Copperhead310th
11-01-2006, 05:31 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:

Moreover, if one takes the time to look at where the pilots were from, it???s no wonder they rated the aircraft so poorly. Most of the test pilots weren???t independent free from obligations to certain corporations and or branches of the service and they rated the aircraft accordingly. It reminds me of the Naval/Vought pilots that pitted the Corsair against the Mustang for carrier trials. The Navy/Vought pilots said that the Mustang???s vision to the front was too restricted for carrier landings??? This after flying the ???hose nose??? Corsair??? Another problem with any aircraft???s rating from the Joint Fighter Conference is that many pilots didn???t even bother to vote. In fact, only a small percentage bothered to vote at all. The book is full of useful information, but by no means the last word be it good, bad, or indifferent. One quick example of a problem I see with the votes for those pilots that even bothered is the ???Best rudder??? category. I???ve seen a few modern day evaluations of the P-38. Each pilot reports the exact same thing and said that the P-38???s rudders were excellent. They state that even during low speed taxi the rudders are both light and very responsive. Like I???ve said, the information in this book is spotty and subject to understandable prejudice.


..... I wonder if they asked **** Bong his opinion.

"****" Gotta love it.


Make that "Richard Bong" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

lol yeah i had a quote from a gauy named "****" in my sig. but i took it out.

I guess i'll just have to start telling ppl to suck my RICHARD if they don't like my posts now instead of the **** you get when you type the word ****!

lol rolf.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://home.cogeco.ca/~jkinley/ubisig.jpg
Former CO of 310thVFS, (Retired) now part time
190 jock & full time target drone for JG27
Flying on line as JG27_Copperhead

|^^^^^^^^^^^^|
| JG27_Copperhead | '|""";.., ___.
|_..._...______===|= _|__|..., ] |
"(@ )'(@ )""""*|(@ )(@ )*****(@
"Keep on Truck'n!"

TgD Thunderbolt56
11-01-2006, 05:44 AM
Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
I guess i'll just have to start telling ppl to suck my RICHARD if they don't like my posts now....


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v687/Thunderbolt56/English157.jpg
================================================== ======
I.O.C.L. (International Online Competition League) (http://www.gozr.net/iocl/index.php?sid=77e1596a8421c8d6f7e717eab883f534)

Ratsack
11-01-2006, 06:36 AM
This is precisely why rhyming slang was invented. For example, you may frequently hear people in semi-polite company refer to somebody else as a berk,. Most people don???t know that ???berk??? is actually truncated rhyming slang, from Berkley Hunt. So, saying that somebody is a ???berk??? is merely a surreptitious way of using the colloquial synonym for pudenda that rhymes with the word ???stunt???.

Drop kick is another example. Drop kick is from ???drop kick and punt???. I???m sure you can work out the rest???

There are lots of others, of course. The poms are best at this stuff. They invented it, after all. In fact, I sometimes think they???re the only ones that really understand it.

cheers,
Ratsack

mynameisroland
11-01-2006, 06:44 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
I think the worst thing with the 51 other than wing break and crappy guns is the climb, compared to all other allied planes its pretty much the worst 47late and even just plain d27 easily outclimbs it by a large margine as does the p38late, its at most alts worse than the 190a8 it cant even beat a plain old g6 early at any heights. So on planesets where it must face alot d9s for example its just completly outclassed with no real redeeming features.

Weird tho because i always thought the 51 was considered a better climber than 47.

If you added good climb rate and 20mm guns and fixed wing break bug what would you have ? You would have by far the best plane in the game.

The crappy guns are good I dont care who says the arent - learn to shoot.

The crappy climb is fine, I dont expect an ac with a PW ratio like the Mustang to climb at 4500 fpm. Plan in advance and get some height before you enter combat zone.

G6 and A8 had better climb rates that most P51s at most fuel states. P51 at 25% fuel climbs well and Mustang III can almost hold 23m/sec at sea level. That is awesome for an energy fighter.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/Newsig3.jpg

R_Target
11-01-2006, 03:28 PM
One thing I think should be noted about JFC is that Army planes were predominantly tested by Navy pilots, and vice-versa; with contractors getting to check out the competition.

The pilots that flew and filled out cards for the P-38L break down like so:

Army-1; Navy-9; British-3; Contractors-13

P-51D:

Army-1; Navy-19; British-3; Contractors-15

P-47D:

Army-1; Navy-14; British-4; Contractors-10

The trend reverses on Navy planes:

F4U-1C,D:

Army-13; Navy-4; British-3; Contractors-8

F7F-1:

Army-12; Navy-3; British-4; Contractors-20<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

*+
http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/2318/sovsigke1.jpg

Aaron_GT
11-01-2006, 04:06 PM
At full dive acceleration there shold be no prop driven aiorcraft in this sim that should be able to cath the p-47 in a full dive.


At high altitudes this is the case. At medium to low altitudes the Tempest V should catch and possibly pass it according to RAF ratings at least (I believe Neil Stirling has the details, if he is still around on these boards).

NeilStirling
11-02-2006, 02:23 AM
lurking,

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/tempest-II-cfe.html

Neil

HellToupee
11-02-2006, 03:29 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The crappy guns are good I dont care who says the arent - learn to shoot.


im sorry but if they require many times more accuracy to be atleast as effective as planes even mounting a single 20mm they are crappy.

gx-warspite
11-02-2006, 03:48 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The crappy guns are good I dont care who says the arent - learn to shoot.


im sorry but if they require many times more accuracy to be atleast as effective as planes even mounting a single 20mm they are crappy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Good, because they're far more effective than a single 20mm. I'd trade 109F/109G armament for 6 50s any day of the week.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://www.doranine.com/images/juggernaut.jpg
Think he's bad? He's badder when he has eight fifty-caliber Browning M2 machine guns attached.

mynameisroland
11-02-2006, 04:30 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The crappy guns are good I dont care who says the arent - learn to shoot.


im sorry but if they require many times more accuracy to be atleast as effective as planes even mounting a single 20mm they are crappy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

With the .50 cal you have high rof and straight trajectory. You shold be able to land more hits with this weapon than any of the 20mm cannons. Remember the mantra 1 20mm gun equals 3 x .50 cals I thinks thats a accurate assesment. If you had only one .50 cal to down planes with then I agree that'd be tough but the idea is to hit at convergence against an unsuspecting target with all of your guns. If you do that planes go down.

Even the vaunted Fw 190 goes down to 6 x .50 cal two 1 sec bursts at 250m. Got two yetserday one went on fire and the other one dove uncontrolably in to the ground. Day before I got two Macchis 205s in the P51 B with 4 x .50 cal.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/Newsig3.jpg

Blutarski2004
11-02-2006, 05:20 AM
Originally posted by R_Target:
One thing I think should be noted about JFC is that Army planes were predominantly tested by Navy pilots, and vice-versa; with contractors getting to check out the competition.

The pilots that flew and filled out cards for the P-38L break down like so:

Army-1; Navy-9; British-3; Contractors-13

P-51D:

Army-1; Navy-19; British-3; Contractors-15

P-47D:

Army-1; Navy-14; British-4; Contractors-10

The trend reverses on Navy planes:

F4U-1C,D:

Army-13; Navy-4; British-3; Contractors-8

F7F-1:

Army-12; Navy-3; British-4; Contractors-20



..... Interesting. For whatever it's worth, these figures total up as follows -

28 Army Pilots

49 Navy Pilots

17 British Pilots

66 Contractor Pilots



Out of a total of 160 pilots (or pilot reports):

41 pct were by Contractor Pilots

31 pct were by Navy Pilots

17 pct were by Army Pilots

11 pct were by British Pilots



The makeup of the Contractor and British pilot contingents is unclear. We do not know whether the Contractor pilots were civilian, Army, Navy, or some mix; we do not know whether the British pilots were all RAF or some mix of RAF and FAA.

In that sense we do not know to what degree pilot pre-dispositions and/or bias might have influenced votes. Navy pilots might have been horrified by the low speed handling characteristics of a/c designed for land-based use. They were accustomed to the exceptionally good (and necessary) low speed handling of their Navy a/c designed for operation from carriers.

A thought .....<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

BLUTARSKI

horseback
11-02-2006, 09:01 AM
Cockpit ergonomics (instrument & control layout)would count for a lot in that setting too. At that point in aeronautical advancement, instrument layout varied quite a bit from manufacturer to manufacturer, and flying an unfamiliar plane (...hmm, now where'd they put the elevator trim? Engine sounds a bit distressed...where's that friggin' boost indicator?) could be a real challenge.

The Hellcat and the Mustang, notable for the ease with which combat pilots were able to convert to them from other types, can be assumed to be blessed with an intuitive & easy to master cockpit layout.

To a lesser degree, the Corsair and P-47 were good in this regard, although my reading of pilot memoirs indicates that these two had more complicated cockpit controls and some oddly placed dials. Compared to the Mustang or Hellcat, these would be 'harder' to fly.

The P-38 cockpit, by contrast, was supposed to be an ergonomic nightmare, making it much harder to fly to its strengths. If the majority of the pilots rating it were British or Navy, they would be horrified that the Army Air Force actually sent men out in combat in that overcomplicated kluge.

cheers

horseback<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

Blutarski2004
11-02-2006, 09:34 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
Cockpit ergonomics (instrument & control layout)would count for a lot in that setting too. At that point in aeronautical advancement, instrument layout varied quite a bit from manufacturer to manufacturer, and flying an unfamiliar plane (...hmm, now where'd they put the elevator trim? Engine sounds a bit distressed...where's that friggin' boost indicator?) could be a real challenge.

The Hellcat and the Mustang, notable for the ease with which combat pilots were able to convert to them from other types, can be assumed to be blessed with an intuitive & easy to master cockpit layout.

To a lesser degree, the Corsair and P-47 were good in this regard, although my reading of pilot memoirs indicates that these two had more complicated cockpit controls and some oddly placed dials. Compared to the Mustang or Hellcat, these would be 'harder' to fly.

The P-38 cockpit, by contrast, was supposed to be an ergonomic nightmare, making it much harder to fly to its strengths. If the majority of the pilots rating it were British or Navy, they would be horrified that the Army Air Force actually sent men out in combat in that overcomplicated kluge.

cheers

horseback


..... Excellent point HB. Brings to mind the unusual yoke and wheel controls of the P38. That must have seemed quite alien to nearly all single-engine trained pilots.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

BLUTARSKI

Viper2005_
11-02-2006, 11:35 AM
Most scarily, when boosted the P-38's ailerons had no feel, and did not self centre, which must have made it an absolute nightmare to fly on instruments!

Fork-N-spoon
11-02-2006, 12:52 PM
On the note about the ailerons of the P-38, I???ve read well over forty books written exclusively on pilots and units that used this aircraft. When the boosted ailerons were added, several books note that pilots found the aircraft jittery in comparison to the P-38s that didn???t have this feature. This was during low speed take offs and landings. I remember reading in at least one book that pilots learned to turn off the boost while they were taking off and landing. I remember this striking me as odd because I wouldn???t think that the boosted ailerons would add any advantage to the aircraft while flying at low to medium speeds, but apparently I???m wrong about this. I believe one pilot from the Joint Fighter Conference even noted, ???Pleasant aircraft to fly except for queer ailerons.???

horseback has already pointed out the obvious problems a pilot who is strange to the P-38 would encounter. One story that sticks out in my mind is about a P-38 unit that fought in the PTO. This unit changed the buttons that were pressed to release drop tanks and to activate the microphone in order to talk on the radio. The unit may have changed a few more buttons than this, but it was done to make the P-38 more pilot friendly. At first, it caused a bit of confusion. Pilots would press the button for the microphone and instead they dropped their belly tanks. Pilots quickly grew accustomed to the new set up and liked it.

WWMaxGunz
11-02-2006, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by gx-warspite:
And the firepower! Zomg! I was never a believer in the 50 whines, but after being repeatedly de-winged, decapitated, de-engined, de-tailed by Jugs coming down in a Mach 3 vertical dive with half a second of firing time... ugh. Hence the new sig since then.

EIGHT 50 CALS firing 750 rpm and you have trouble with what?
The firepower of 3 20mm's spread into a much higher total rate of fire there.

Do you know that 4 50 cals mounted on a halftrack made a very effective AA vehicle?

HellToupee
11-02-2006, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by gx-warspite:
Good, because they're far more effective than a single 20mm. I'd trade 109F/109G armament for 6 50s any day of the week.

i wouldnt



Originally posted by mynameisroland:
With the .50 cal you have high rof and straight trajectory.

no more straight than most other 20mm


You shold be able to land more hits with this weapon than any of the 20mm cannons.

you probly can land more hits, but you simply have to land more hits, single 20mm on 109 for instance can blow tail off a 47 in just a few hits.


Even the vaunted Fw 190 goes down to 6 x .50 cal two 1 sec bursts at 250m

occasionally they do, at times they can survive over a hundred hits, even had one still flying with over 40 recorded 20mm hits online once.

funny how when the mg151 was using alot of AP rounds that it was constantly whine about being porked.

F6_Ace
11-02-2006, 04:42 PM
Mr Carson on the FW190:


On another occasion, I jumped one directly over the city of Paris and fired all my ammo, but he was only smoking heavily after a long chase over the town. Assuming I was getting 10 percent hits, that airplane must have had 200 holes in it. It was a rugged machine.

and


...at times they can survive over a hundred hits...

Sounds about right then.

And let's face it - nothing has quite been whined about (and changed) as much as the .50s.

I don't know how they should be because I've never fired .50s at another WW2 aircraft in real life but I don't have much trouble putting anything out of the fight that I hit at convergence (or further away)<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00004YL1M.01.MZZZZZZZ.jpg

WWMaxGunz
11-02-2006, 05:05 PM
I can chop down trees at 100's of meters with one 30 cal MG and not a whole lot of ammo.
With MG42 I understand the cut could be made twice as fast.
And those are guns very junior to 50 cal. Try cubing the ratio of sizes, 50 cal is over 4x.
Take ratio of 20mm ~ 80 cal, cube the ratio to 50 cal is just about the same.
Compares of 20mm to 50 cal give effective 2 or 3 50's to 1 20mm include ROF, velocity and
explosive effect. 20mm hit should be as to 50 cal as 50 cal is to 30 cal, IMHO.

Now, pile up 4 to 8 of those and compare just fire rates to twin 20mm and figure out the
difference between a few 50 hits just by having enough guns and none of 20mm from two cannon
because you can't get half a 20mm hit but you can get half as many 50 cal hits as it takes to
equal that one 20mm if not 90%.

HellToupee
11-02-2006, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by F6_Ace:
Sounds about right then.


by that logic p47s tail should stay on then after 200 hits :P

Thanatos833
11-02-2006, 06:14 PM
Can someone explain to a newbie the basic differences b/w zoom and boom as opposed to the usual dogfighting style?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/9285/do17in9.jpg

The Dornier Do-17, another brilliant example of German engineering, a ???Schnellbomber" which could just outrun all fighters, this plane led to the German victory in the Battle of Britain and indeed, the Second World War.

Copperhead310th
11-02-2006, 06:34 PM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F6_Ace:
Sounds about right then.


by that logic p47s tail should stay on then after 200 hits :P </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why not. Robert Johnsons did! do i have to huntup the photo's of Bob's P-47 and show you. But I'm sure you've already seen them.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://home.cogeco.ca/~jkinley/ubisig.jpg
Former CO of 310thVFS, (Retired) now part time
190 jock & full time target drone for JG27
Flying on line as JG27_Copperhead

|^^^^^^^^^^^^|
| JG27_Copperhead | '|""";.., ___.
|_..._...______===|= _|__|..., ] |
"(@ )'(@ )""""*|(@ )(@ )*****(@
"Keep on Truck'n!"

HayateAce
11-02-2006, 09:41 PM
If I were a blue-tainted online player, I wouldn't want these US birds up to spec either.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://aerofiles.com/lock-p38j.jpg

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sloganizer.net/en/image,Luftwhiners,black,white.png (http://www.sloganizer.net/en/)

Giganoni
11-02-2006, 10:57 PM
Wow, we sure do like to whine about our favorite planes don't we? I hardly fly US Planes in the game (I'm biased so that means the Ki-43 should be king in everything). I hopped into an early 47 recently and just started attacking some bettys. The 8 cals were doing great and I was just playing around, but I took a lot of 20mm hits yet still kept flying.

Still, what makes a plane in this game the best? When I used to play online, I was killing spitfires and p40s with ease in a Ki-43. I am good with the telescopic gunsight. Put me in a plane with a reflector gunsight and watch me waste my ammo. Planes in this game suit the player. You practice, you get better. You may get a streak of luck online where you bag many enemies in a plane you normally don't fly. Does that make the plane the best? No, there are too many variables.

Just like pilot opinions in real life. Pilots in the Pacific seemed to have hated the P39 (for the most part) so when given the P-38 for instance, who wouldn't be happy? The fastest aircraft Japan could throw at them when they first entered was the Ki61 (Later on I'm sure P-38s ran into the fast Ki-44 II in CBI). Does that make the P-38 the best too? No, it had many problems too. Pilots complained about compressability, poor turn and the like still it was great in the Pacific.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img74.photobucket.com/albums/v225/giganoni/IL2/giganoni2.jpg

StellarRat
11-02-2006, 11:46 PM
Originally posted by Thanatos833:
Can someone explain to a newbie the basic differences b/w zoom and boom as opposed to the usual dogfighting style? B and Z is when you dive at really high speed (after diving down for a couple thousand meters or more) on an opponent below and try to line for one good gun shot from just about any angle and then climb back up to altitude (whether or not you hit him.) There is little or no turning involved and you never try to reduce your speed to turn inside the opponent. No turning in circles and fancy manuevering to get right on their tail. It requires a height advantage and patience since you often don't kill on the first pass. Sometimes it takes a lot of tries. The advantage of this type of attack is that there is little chance you target will be able to do much harm to you because of your huge speed advantage. You'll be high above him before he can really get his guns pointed at you. Plus you don't have to worry too much about someone else getting behind you while you're going around in circles like in a typical turn and burn dogfight.

The disadvantage is that you have to be a pretty good shot and have good timing to be effective at B and Z. Even then it takes a lot of patience and you have to resist the temptation to try to stay with the target. You also need to pick your targets carefully had try to figure out if any enemy planes can follow you down and catch you on the climb out.

I'm sure I'll get some disagreeement from someone, but I'd be willing to say B and Z was by far the most common type of fighter attack in WW II.

F6_Ace
11-03-2006, 01:00 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F6_Ace:
Sounds about right then.


by that logic p47s tail should stay on then after 200 hits :P </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dare say it should and I'm certainly not saying that it shouldn't unlike you who thinks the FW should be an "easy kill."<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00004YL1M.01.MZZZZZZZ.jpg

HellToupee
11-03-2006, 03:03 AM
Originally posted by F6_Ace:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F6_Ace:
Sounds about right then.


by that logic p47s tail should stay on then after 200 hits :P </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dare say it should and I'm certainly not saying that it shouldn't unlike you who thinks the FW should be an "easy kill." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

no i just think it should take dammage more inline with the p47 for example, not take far more hits than everything else, eg p47s engine can be killed by mg fire 190s can take direct cannon fire, what about the wing magazines blowing up like the gun cam vids etc... hayateace sums it up bluntly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BigKahuna_GS
11-03-2006, 03:07 AM
Giganoni-- Does that make the P-38 the best too? No, it had many problems too. Pilots complained about compressability, poor turn and the like still it was great in the Pacific.


Captain John Tilley flew all major USAAF fighter types in combat.
Secrets of a P-38 Ace. John Tilley's electrifying story :
http://www.kilroywashere.org/003-Pages/Tilley-John/03-Harm-Tilley-story.html
http://www.acepilots.com/usaaf_bong.html
http://www.acepilots.com/usaaf_mcguire.html

http://www.aviationartprints.com/images/dhm2589.jpg
Tilley was an ace with the 49th. Officially they did not dogfight with zekes, but unofficially the 49th FG aces liked to dogfight with zekes including slow speed 90mph stall turns in which Tilley flamed a Ki43 Oscar while turning a full circle with this nimble japanese fighter. A power on stall of 53mph at 3000rpm 54Hg with flaps was recorded for a combat loaded P38J model. You wont see the actual real life low stall speeds the P38 had in this sim which varied between 53mph-65mph depending on weight and power settings.

http://www.afwing.com/art/wwii/p-38-3.jpg

According to Tilley who flew P51s, P47s, P40s, P39; considered the P38L the greatest fighting machine of the war". Tilley in high speed chases ran down both a Ki84 Frank & George and flammed them both in his P38L. Try catching a Ki84 in level flight even with a P38L Late in this sim cant be done especially on the deck.

What did Tilley dislike most about the P38 ? Cockpit layout--"godawful"


http://www.afwing.com/art/wwii/lightning.jpg
"All good fighter pilots were aggressive. Some were exceptionally so. My dear friend Bob Faurot was like that. ... Tommy Lynch was our leading ace. He was cold-blooded. I think he was the best fighter pilot in the Pacific. In combat he was calculating. ... I preferred flying Tommy's wing compared to Bob's because when Faurot saw the enemy he'd say "Tally Ho! There they are, let's get 'em." <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">He'd climb up straight underneath them and try to attack. Now that's risky against a Zero. </span> You want to maneuver and find a good position to begin your attack before closing. Skill and cunning had to be combined with aggressiveness."
Capt. Curran L. 'Jack' Jones P38 Ace<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://airplanesandmore.com/prodimages/largeSting%20of%20the%20Yellow%20Jackets.jpg
The Yo-Yo is very difficult to explain. It was first perfected by the well-known Chinese fighter pilot Yo-Yo Noritake. He also found it difficult to explain, being quite devoid of English.
??? Squadron Leader K. G. Holland, RAF.


It is generally inadvisable to eject directly over the area you just bomb

rnzoli
11-03-2006, 03:32 AM
Originally posted by Thanatos833:
Can someone explain to a newbie the basic differences b/w zoom and boom as opposed to the usual dogfighting style?

No explanation works as good as trying it yourself.

IMO the best B&Z practice mission for beginners is this:
- your P-47 (alone, no friendlies)
- 4 average I-16 enemy
- 3000 m
- clear wether
- Moscow map (winter)
- icons on (for range info).

The point of this mission is to highlight the huge contrast between the heavy and powerful P-47 and the manouverable but slow I-16s.

The only way to win that fight is through B&Z tactics. Set it up in QMB and when you win,, you will know THAT'S what we call B&Z http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

A "world's first": fully automatic, dedicated COOP server controller. Features and available servers here (http://web.t-online.hu/rnzoli/IL2DSC/intro-coop.html).
http://web.t-online.hu/rnzoli/IL2DSC/the_full_difficulty_COOP_server_2.JPG (http://web.t-online.hu/rnzoli/IL2DSC/intro-coop.html)

rnzoli
11-03-2006, 03:39 AM
Originally posted by StellarRat:
I'm sure I'll get some disagreeement from someone, but I'd be willing to say B and Z was by far the most common type of fighter attack in WW II.

Maybe it was the most preferred type of attack, sure, but in case you didn't have the necessary advantages (surprise, speed, height), you had to go along with what you had at your hand, including deck-level turning combat, deploying flaps, chopping throttles to force overshoots etc. The P51 pilot encounter reports are a good source for this, because it's the average pilots describing their successful encounters, not just the big aces or the 'media-frendly' types http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

A "world's first": fully automatic, dedicated COOP server controller. Features and available servers here (http://web.t-online.hu/rnzoli/IL2DSC/intro-coop.html).
http://web.t-online.hu/rnzoli/IL2DSC/the_full_difficulty_COOP_server_2.JPG (http://web.t-online.hu/rnzoli/IL2DSC/intro-coop.html)

mynameisroland
11-03-2006, 05:01 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gx-warspite:
Good, because they're far more effective than a single 20mm. I'd trade 109F/109G armament for 6 50s any day of the week.

i wouldnt



Originally posted by mynameisroland:
With the .50 cal you have high rof and straight trajectory.

no more straight than most other 20mm


You shold be able to land more hits with this weapon than any of the 20mm cannons.

you probly can land more hits, but you simply have to land more hits, single 20mm on 109 for instance can blow tail off a 47 in just a few hits.


Even the vaunted Fw 190 goes down to 6 x .50 cal two 1 sec bursts at 250m

occasionally they do, at times they can survive over a hundred hits, even had one still flying with over 40 recorded 20mm hits online once.

funny how when the mg151 was using alot of AP rounds that it was constantly whine about being porked. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What do you want from a machine gun?
Its very common to score 2/3 kills online in a P51 or a P47. Do you have a problem with this capability? Should it be more like 5/8 kills ? or just 10 kills a mission?

The .50 cal is the easiest gun in game for me to hit a target with. It is a powerful weapon that just requires the aimer to hit a target with a sustained burst at whatever convergence they have set it to. If you are looking for snapshot ability where you hit the target with one or two rounds and expect a wing to fall off or it to burst in to flames you wont get that with .50 cal armed plane because of the nature of the rounds.

If you feel its so underpowered how are other people like me who dont specialise exclusively in US birds able to do well with such useless guns?

I can see how in some circumstances .50 cals are even preferable to Mg 151. Ever tried pulling lead in a Fw 190 when it a high G turn? The rounds curve to the point where you are just firing blindly hoping to score a random hit. In a P51 D or a F4U1 you have a gunsight which offers some deflection capability and you have rounds which fire 'straight' enough for you to gauge your deflection accurately. Also the maximum effective range of the .50 cal is well over double the 300m range stated by the USAAF.

No one ever seems to complain about that?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/Newsig3.jpg

Recon_609IAP
11-03-2006, 05:32 AM
Come try out Forgotten Skies - we are soon to start our Normandy campaign - p38, p51, p47, spits vs. 109, 190 etc...

If you love to fly these US birds, FS can use some good Allied pilots!

http://www.forgottenskies.com

We fly 3 missions a week - 90 minutes long DF server with deathkick, etc.. with all pilots on TS2<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

S!
609IAP_Recon

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

HellToupee
11-03-2006, 05:32 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
What do you want from a machine gun?
Its very common to score 2/3 kills online in a P51 or a P47. Do you have a problem with this capability? Should it be more like 5/8 kills ? or just 10 kills a mission?


what i want from 6-8 machine guns is atleast the hitting power of a single cannon. 2/3 kills yea if your facing japanese planes or 109s, vs 190s if your very lucky.



The .50 cal is the easiest gun in game for me to hit a target with. It is a powerful weapon that just requires the aimer to hit a target with a sustained burst at whatever convergence they have set it to. If you are looking for snapshot ability where you hit the target with one or two rounds and expect a wing to fall off or it to burst in to flames you wont get that with .50 cal armed plane because of the nature of the rounds.


i find hitting with mg151s and hispanos much easyer generally due to the tracer rounds being suffiently visable. No im not looking for snap shot ability even tho .50s are exceptionally poor at it, im talking coming up behind someone hitting them sustained and having bugger all to show for it.



If you feel its so underpowered how are other people like me who dont specialise exclusively in US birds able to do well with such useless guns?


maybee you should spend more time specialising because no of the people that specialise in the types seem to think they are that great.

I can do well with them at times two, but it requires many many times more skill and accuracy than 20mm arments to the extent a single 20mm is perferable, it simply kills targets faster and easyer and has no need to be within precise convergance.



I can see how in some circumstances .50 cals are even preferable to Mg 151. Ever tried pulling lead in a Fw 190 when it a high G turn? The rounds curve to the point where you are just firing blindly hoping to score a random hit. In a P51 D or a F4U1 you have a gunsight which offers some deflection capability and you have rounds which fire 'straight' enough for you to gauge your deflection accurately. Also the maximum effective range of the .50 cal is well over double the 300m range stated by the USAAF.


pulling diflection the majorty of the time puts a bandit under the nose of a p51, i myself have a much easyer time in the 190 because instead of having to sustain a long burst of sustained in convergence fire u can just fire hit and something explodes.



No one ever seems to complain about that?

maybee because they are not effective over 300 meters, over 300 meters the disperson is so much that few rounds will hit and since it relys on AP rounds(rember porked mg151 whine here) they have little effect.

yet with hispanos and mg151 i can still hit planes out to 600 meters in alot of situations.

F6_Ace
11-03-2006, 06:16 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F6_Ace:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F6_Ace:
Sounds about right then.


by that logic p47s tail should stay on then after 200 hits :P </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dare say it should and I'm certainly not saying that it shouldn't unlike you who thinks the FW should be an "easy kill." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

no i just think it should take dammage more inline with the p47 for example, not take far more hits than everything else, eg p47s engine can be killed by mg fire 190s can take direct cannon fire, what about the wing magazines blowing up like the gun cam vids etc... hayateace sums it up bluntly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


HayateAce, putting it bluntly, is talking out of his brown eye as per usual but it's a open forum so even he is entitled to his blinkered opinion.

Now to yours...the 190 does not take direct cannon hits to the engine and survive (or none that I have been in have) and attacking bombers is treacherous because of the engine easily being damaged (just like the P47) or pilot kills.

The wings don't 'come off' when the cannon rounds explode most likely because damage isn't modeled to that level and, besides, the 190 is relatively old and may have some kind of intermediate DM. What *is* true of the 190 is that even minute mg damage to the wings makes it slow and unflyable.

Besides, you will really need to test all the aircraft in the game with some kind of scientific, repeatable experiment of hits vs 'some measure of saying the plane is destroyed' before you can make blanket statements such as 'it takes far more hits than anything else' if you actually want anyone to truthfully believe a claim like that.

Also, the .50s are effective at more than 300m. Rolandwalker shot my 190 controls up from 800m in a P47 once (remember that one - the normandy map? You were laughing about it at the time). I've shot Flying Finn's elevator controls out in an 'indestructable' FW190D9 at 650m before and I've been damaged numerous times at over 500m by some spray and pray "specialist." I even blew a 109 in half at 450m with the P51. Hardly ineffective.

Plus, do you seriously expect 6x50.s to perform the same as _4x20mm cannons_ (+ 2 mgs) in dishing the same amount of destruction in the same amount of time?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00004YL1M.01.MZZZZZZZ.jpg

mynameisroland
11-03-2006, 06:20 AM
You want the .50 cal to be like a 20mm that basically is your argument.

The .50 cal in this sim, as F6Ace has said, has been changed pretty much every patch and still people complain. With its current incarnation I think its as accurate as it is going to get.

As I said 3 x .50 cal is meant to equate to 1 x 20mm. Id say in this sim the destructive effect of 6x .50cal roughly equates to two 20mm.

We all know that the .50 cal relies on AP in IL2, these rounds are the ones that kill pilots and travel through engine blocks. If I hit a Bf 109 or a Fw 190 with a 1 sec burst they have a fuel leak or a smoked engine, this is the visible damage. What often goes unseen is the deterioration in performance and the damaged controls and the wounded pilot.

As for range effectiveness your having a laugh. The Hispanno round actually disapeers after a certian distance. The Mg 151 has such a low trajectory in this sim (not according to RL specs I may add) that you have to use it like its a mortar. The .50 cal can be fired off at ranges exceeding 500m easily and it hits the target with good effect. Again pilot kills and controls taken out are bread and butter with this gun.

Where are the rest of the .50 cal whiners? Maybe they are online shooting down people http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/Newsig3.jpg

Kwiatos
11-03-2006, 07:11 AM
The biggest problem with P-47 is not maby 0,50 cal effectivness but more its poor manouverbility at all speed range. If you dont suprise your enemy you have small chance to effective hit target expecialy at high speed. Roll rate P-47 in game at high speed is near 2 times worse then in RL. So fighting with Fw190 which see you is bigger problem then should be. So great speed when you B&Z your target help you only in these that target dont hit you but you also have big problem to hit your target which see you. Fw190 just make some rollturn and you could only watch these no chance to point your nose to him.
Other hand Fw190 are very tough plane in these game expecially from rear side not only on 0,50 cal fire but also 20mm cannons.
With P-51 problem is similar - not with its manouverbility but with wooble which make very difficult to aim and hit your target.
Thats whay I dont fly P51 beacuse its only waste of ammo when you shoting to Fw190 and do nothing. I liked to fly P-51 in 3.04 when wooble didnt exist and 0,50 could normally shot down enemy palnes.

F6_Ace
11-03-2006, 07:18 AM
If you'd seen Tagert's graphs, you'd know that the FW190 roll rate was far too low at high speed, also.

It appears to be a problem that afflicts all aircraft.

IIRC, low speed roll was mostly far too high and high speed roll was mostly far too low.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00004YL1M.01.MZZZZZZZ.jpg

msalama
11-03-2006, 07:38 AM
Well, I honestly don't think there's anything wrong with the .50s. And yes, I fly Red only!

As has been said before, just hit at convergence and they do the job pretty well IMHO.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

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

Yhyy... olenhan vain k??nninen sivarihippi jolla on sturmofetissi. Ruiskis!

mynameisroland
11-03-2006, 07:41 AM
Originally posted by msalama:
Well, I honestly don't think there's anything wrong with the .50s. And yes, I fly Red only!

As has been said before, just hit at convergence and they do the job pretty well IMHO.

To quote BillyTheKid

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/Newsig3.jpg

Kwiatos
11-03-2006, 07:49 AM
Fw190 in game have very good roll rate at high speed and if i remeber corectly have just little to slow roll at slow speed. P47 have poor roll rate at slow speed (like should be) but also very bad roll rate at high speed (is comparable with A6M in game) which is wrong. Fw190 is dream to fly comparing to it. So fighting with Fw190 in P-47 is very very hard work. Fw190 could make crazy rolls like in circus and in P-47 you could only watch and cry. Of course at slower speeds Fw190 should be much better but at high speed difference should be such great like in game is.
At now Fw190 driver could only laught watching like Tempest cant catch it, P47 cant aim it and P51 sprying and crying that nothing happend. Now Fw190 D-9 is like wolf in group of sheep.

F6_Ace
11-03-2006, 07:55 AM
I suggest you revisit those graphs. They were at the ORR.

From my recollection, it wasn't 'a little too slow' at all.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00004YL1M.01.MZZZZZZZ.jpg

Diablo310th
11-03-2006, 08:46 AM
One thing that might help the 50's which I don't mind as they are would be a loadout of API-API-API-API-APIT. This would hopefully give the 50's more punch in igniting fuel as well as the AP effect. Oleg has an HE round in the mix as well as pure AP rounds. The new loadout would be an improvement in my opinion.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img54.photobucket.com/albums/v166/310thDiablo/DiabloSig.gif

mynameisroland
11-03-2006, 08:51 AM
IIRC this is the main reason we are getting that option in BoB. So all of the .50 cal guys who dont like the current loadout can choose MG shells and pretend they are firing Mk 108 miniguns. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/Newsig3.jpg

Diablo310th
11-03-2006, 08:53 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
IIRC this is the main reason we are getting that option in BoB. So all of the .50 cal guys who dont like the current loadout can choose MG shells and pretend they are firing Mk 108 miniguns. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

LOL that would be nice. Oleg did say that BoB will allow custom loadouts....for all ac not just us mini-gun 50's. LOL<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img54.photobucket.com/albums/v166/310thDiablo/DiabloSig.gif

msalama
11-03-2006, 09:25 AM
Yep, just re-tested the buggers in a QMB Jug vs. 110 match. Result: flamed both his engines within 5 mins. and it took me exactly two shortish bursts to achieve that.

So nope, nothing wrong with them that I can see.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

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

Yhyy... olenhan vain k??nninen sivarihippi jolla on sturmofetissi. Ruiskis!

AKA_TAGERT
11-03-2006, 09:32 AM
Originally posted by F6_Ace:
Mr Carson on the FW190:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">On another occasion, I jumped one directly over the city of Paris and fired all my ammo, but he was only smoking heavily after a long chase over the town. Assuming I was getting 10 percent hits, that airplane must have had 200 holes in it. It was a rugged machine.

and


...at times they can survive over a hundred hits...

Sounds about right then.

And let's face it - nothing has quite been whined about (and changed) as much as the .50s.

I don't know how they should be because I've never fired .50s at another WW2 aircraft in real life but I don't have much trouble putting anything out of the fight that I hit at convergence (or further away) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>So now Carson is expert.. but when talking about the 109 he is a fool?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

F6_Ace
11-03-2006, 09:39 AM
So now Carson is expert.. but when talking about the 109 he is a fool?

What are you asking me for? I've never said such a thing.

I've only said that pilot accounts should generally be treated with a pinch of salt.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00004YL1M.01.MZZZZZZZ.jpg

AKA_TAGERT
11-03-2006, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by F6_Ace:
If you'd seen Tagert's graphs, you'd know that the FW190 roll rate was far too low at high speed, also.

It appears to be a problem that afflicts all aircraft.

IIRC, low speed roll was mostly far too high and high speed roll was mostly far too low.
Exactly! Most if not all of the planes roll rates were..

1) HIGHER than they should be an LO speeds
2) LOWER than they should be at HI speeds

The Fw190's roll rate is so high at slow speeds that it actually becomes a negative not a positive IMHO, in that it makes the plane hyper sensitive and twitchy. But, most people never notice in that 99% of the online DF stuff is all low alt TnB fights that were the exception to the rule during WWII which was predominantly a high alt high speed BnZ fight.. That is the fight the Fw190 was meant for and did well at.. but you wouldn???t know it from this game.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

AKA_TAGERT
11-03-2006, 09:46 AM
Originally posted by F6_Ace:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So now Carson is expert.. but when talking about the 109 he is a fool?

What are you asking me for? I've never said such a thing.

I've only said that pilot accounts should generally be treated with a pinch of salt. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Not directed at you as much as the "ones" that typically respond to a Carson quote! In that I find it comical that when anyone quotes Carson wrt the 109 Lufties line up to to say what a fool Carson is.. But when anyone quotes Carson wrt to the 190 the "same" Lufties dont make a peep.

That is to say, note the total lack of anyone questing your Carson quote.. Why? Because it he had something positive to say about a Lw plane. Only when he has something negative to say do they chime in. It would be funny if it was not so sad how they can flip flop and think that no one notices.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

F6_Ace
11-03-2006, 09:56 AM
I agree to some extent but, then again, I was a 'Luftie' (or was, when I used to care enough to bother about this game) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I dare say that another pilot may have bagged a 190 with just a few .50 hits. And it's the same in this game - sometimes you hit a plane and think 'WTF is that made of? Concrete?' and another time you hit it and think 'WTF? That was too easy'

Trouble is, it's a bit like people who say that they only _ever_ get a phone call when they just got into the bath etc...they only really remember the extremes of situations rather than the norm and so myths perpetuate.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00004YL1M.01.MZZZZZZZ.jpg

joeap
11-03-2006, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by F6_Ace:
I agree to some extent but, then again, I was a 'Luftie' (or was, when I used to care enough to bother about this game) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I dare say that another pilot may have bagged a 190 with just a few .50 hits. And it's the same in this game - sometimes you hit a plane and think 'WTF is that made of? Concrete?' and another time you hit it and think 'WTF? That was too easy'

Trouble is, it's a bit like people who say that they only _ever_ get a phone call when they just got into the bath etc...they only really remember the extremes of situations rather than the norm and so myths perpetuate.

To quote Billy the Kid 22 again.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Badsight-
11-03-2006, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Not directed at you as much as the "ones" that typically respond to a Carson quote! In that I find it comical that when anyone quotes Carson wrt the 109 Lufties line up to to say what a fool Carson is.. But when anyone quotes Carson wrt to the 190 the "same" Lufties dont make a peep.. & if you actually read the criticsim of kit carsons comments you would know why

the things he denigrates the Bf-109 over are the same things the Spitfire suffered from (a plane he praises)

Giganoni
11-03-2006, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:



Tilley was an ace with the 49th. Officially they did not dogfight with zekes, but unofficially the 49th FG aces liked to dogfight with zekes including slow speed 90mph stall turns in which Tilley flamed a Ki43 Oscar while turning a full circle with this nimble japanese fighter. A power on stall of 53mph at 3000rpm 54Hg with flaps was recorded for a combat loaded P38J model. You wont see the actual real life low stall speeds the P38 had in this sim which varied between 53mph-65mph depending on weight and power settings.



According to Tilley who flew P51s, P47s, P40s, P39; considered the P38L the greatest fighting machine of the war". Tilley in high speed chases ran down both a Ki84 Frank & George and flammed them both in his P38L. Try catching a Ki84 in level flight even with a P38L Late in this sim cant be done especially on the deck.

What did Tilley dislike most about the P38 ? Cockpit layout--"godawful"




I really don't know what your trying to prove here. A P38 managed to get inside an oscar on a turn? Okay, by the account it was a lone oscar and Tilley had support and was close to stall anyway. In any other situation that seems to me like an idiotic move. If you can't do it in this game, okay, but would you? Would you risk slowing to 90mph if there were more oscars about?

Also, Tilley said nothing about chasing down a Frank in level flight. He mentions a Frank was extremely fast and tried to outrun him. Tilley caught him, but I highly doubt they both started at the same altitude.

I was just mentioning that it was a great plane for the Pacific, but was not perfect. Pilots did complain about the compressibility which hurt its diving ability. Robert DeHaven said that the P-40 could outturn a P-38 at many altitudes. I just used that example because an aircraft's real life history is based upon many factors.

Which is why I doubt that the P-47 is suddenly the new best thing. Being good in a plane also depends upon who your facing.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img74.photobucket.com/albums/v225/giganoni/IL2/giganoni2.jpg

Blutarski2004
11-03-2006, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
We all know that the .50 cal relies on AP in IL2, these rounds are the ones that kill pilots and travel through engine blocks. If I hit a Bf 109 or a Fw 190 with a 1 sec burst they have a fuel leak or a smoked engine, this is the visible damage. What often goes unseen is the deterioration in performance and the damaged controls and the wounded pilot.

..... After going through about 150 8AF after action reports, I concur. The most common visual evidence of target damage was a large plume of smok a/o fire.

Dramatic target disintegration (break up of air frame, loss of a wing, etc) was historically very rare and was usually related to a large overall explosion.




As for range effectiveness your having a laugh. The Hispanno round actually disapeers after a certian distance.

..... Maybe a representation of projectile self destruction? This was not altogether uncommon in HE ammunition.



The Mg 151 has such a low trajectory in this sim (not according to RL specs I may add) that you have to use it like its a mortar. The .50 cal can be fired off at ranges exceeding 500m easily and it hits the target with good effect. Again pilot kills and controls taken out are bread and butter with this gun.

..... We have official exterior ballistic performance data for both the M250cal and the MG151/20. The M2 definitely has better performance than the MG151 beyond 200-300 yards. This is surprising, since the normal rule of thumb is that the larger the caliber the better the ballistics.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

BLUTARSKI

AKA_TAGERT
11-03-2006, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by Badsight-:
& if you actually read the criticsim of kit carsons comments you would know why
I have several times, even got his book


Originally posted by Badsight-:
the things he denigrates the Bf-109 over are the same things the Spitfire suffered from (a plane he praises)
Not true, that and he is comparing the 109 to the Fw190 at times and the P51 at other times and the Spit at other times. It is not all about the spit, and as I told you last time we spoke about this, he did not spend alot of time talking about the short commings they both had, he focused on how they both changed over time and how the Spit did a better job on some of those changes. Which is not to be confused with him thinking the Spit had a beter landing gear layout, they both sucked! But at that point he did point out how the P51 has better landing gear. SAVVY?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

mynameisroland
11-03-2006, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
We all know that the .50 cal relies on AP in IL2, these rounds are the ones that kill pilots and travel through engine blocks. If I hit a Bf 109 or a Fw 190 with a 1 sec burst they have a fuel leak or a smoked engine, this is the visible damage. What often goes unseen is the deterioration in performance and the damaged controls and the wounded pilot.

..... After going through about 150 8AF after action reports, I concur. The most common visual evidence of target damage was a large plume of smok a/o fire.

Dramatic target disintegration (break up of air frame, loss of a wing, etc) was historically very rare and was usually related to a large overall explosion.




As for range effectiveness your having a laugh. The Hispanno round actually disapeers after a certian distance.

..... Maybe a representation of projectile self destruction? This was not altogether uncommon in HE ammunition.



The Mg 151 has such a low trajectory in this sim (not according to RL specs I may add) that you have to use it like its a mortar. The .50 cal can be fired off at ranges exceeding 500m easily and it hits the target with good effect. Again pilot kills and controls taken out are bread and butter with this gun.

..... We have official exterior ballistic performance data for both the M250cal and the MG151/20. The M2 definitely has better performance than the MG151 beyond 200-300 yards. This is surprising, since the normal rule of thumb is that the larger the caliber the better the ballistics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Blutarski, my thoughts on the MG 151 / M2 comparison is that when firing blunt nosed MinenGeschloss shells which have a low projectile weight and also a poor aero dynamic form the trajectory does fall off after a certain range. When firing AP rounds or regular HE rounds I see no reason for the trajectory not to be significantly improved being that the rounds would be more aerodynamic and be heavier thus keeping their KE better.

I have read this somewhere but have forgotten where?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/Newsig3.jpg

Ratsack
11-03-2006, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by Kwiatos:
The biggest problem with P-47 is not maby 0,50 cal effectivness but more its poor manouverbility at all speed range. If you dont suprise your enemy you have small chance to effective hit target expecialy at high speed. Roll rate P-47 in game at high speed is near 2 times worse then in RL. So fighting with Fw190 which see you is bigger problem then should be. So great speed when you B&Z your target help you only in these that target dont hit you but you also have big problem to hit your target which see you. Fw190 just make some rollturn and you could only watch these no chance to point your nose to him.
Other hand Fw190 are very tough plane in these game expecially from rear side not only on 0,50 cal fire but also 20mm cannons.
With P-51 problem is similar - not with its manouverbility but with wooble which make very difficult to aim and hit your target.
Thats whay I dont fly P51 beacuse its only waste of ammo when you shoting to Fw190 and do nothing. I liked to fly P-51 in 3.04 when wooble didnt exist and 0,50 could normally shot down enemy palnes.

Who are you and what have you done with Kwiatos?! I know you're not him, because he usually complains that the FW 190 is porked.

Ratsack

Blutarski2004
11-04-2006, 06:17 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Blutarski, my thoughts on the MG 151 / M2 comparison is that when firing blunt nosed MinenGeschloss shells which have a low projectile weight and also a poor aero dynamic form the trajectory does fall off after a certain range. When firing AP rounds or regular HE rounds I see no reason for the trajectory not to be significantly improved being that the rounds would be more aerodynamic and be heavier thus keeping their KE better.

I have read this somewhere but have forgotten where?



..... You are correct re the Minengeschoss round. Its high HE capacity made it a very light projectile for its caliber and its overall form was not optimal. Put that together with a moderate MV and it suffers in comparison to the higher velocity M2 50cal round which had an extremely efficient ballistic shape (even a boat-tail).

In fairness, there would not be much difference within 200-300 yards. The superior characteristics of the M2 50cal round would manifest themselves at ranges beyond 300 yards. With appropriate gunsight systems, the M2 remained useful to 700-800 yards.

I can't speak to the ballistics of the MG151/20 AP round. Insufficient data.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

BLUTARSKI

Brain32
11-04-2006, 06:29 AM
Who are you and what have you done with Kwiatos?! I know you're not him, because he usually complains that the FW 190 is porked.
Really? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif I'm sure the evil Red's on WarClouds got trough to him http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

This is my sig http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Monguse
11-04-2006, 07:49 AM
The P47 when flown in a cohesive team and on comms at high altitude is very very dangerous. But the same can be said about many other aircraft in this game. It all boils down to the guys behind the keyboard.

The only gripe I have is the Allied ammo load out on late model aircraft, mainly the P51D and P47. There are countless photos, text and descriptions noting a full load of API on P51's and P47's. Also, the idea that the P47 can not take a full load out of ammo and bombs is just plain ludicrous. On a similar note, the P47's carried napalm in Normandy. Before anyone gets carried away may I suggest you research the 406th FG and their use of napalm.

As far as the P47 the new best, I think that most people have found that high altitude enagements rather than low turn and burn more rewarding and challenging.

Just my 2 cents<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

<A HREF="http://www.gozr.net/iocl/viewforum.php?f=20" TARGET=_blank>
http://www.warwingsart.com/images/HISTORIAlogo_52ndFG_VFV.jpg
</A>
12th AF, 57th BW MTO Skins (http://www.warwingsart.com)

Xiolablu3
11-04-2006, 01:59 PM
I should have clarified 'My n3w best' http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Obviously its not new, but its a new discovery for me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I still prefer the FW190, and would take a Spitfire if I was on Allied team and the situation was defensive, maybe the base was being attacked, or the team is being overwhelmed by Axis and I may have to fight 2 or 3 bandits at a disadvantage. The Spitfire is better in the defensive battle than a B&Z aircraft.

But if I have time to get high once I take off, and the battle is even/going reds way, then I love the P47!

Thanks for those joystick settings by the way, I will tyr them out sometime. I wish we could have different settings for different planes.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire