PDA

View Full Version : Request for a 11b Tempest V



mynameisroland
01-22-2007, 04:21 AM
To continue the lost thread ....

Can we please get a Tempest V at 11lb boost. The one we currently have was tested and flown in 1943 and saw service around June/July 1944. The Tempest V variant that was most commonly used was the one running at 11lbs boost. This was the type which ran down V1 flying bombs and fought over France, Holland and Germany against Fw 190 D9s and Bf 109 K4s.

The change would require no 3D model alterations . We do not have complete documentation but we do have some documentation - enough to allow for an enducated guess. Using HP figures for the Sabre engine running at 11lb boost and calculating using existing Tempest V drag, lift and weights an acceptably accurate flight model could be made. We know its speed at low altitude and its initial climb could these curves not be matched to 9lb boost Tempest curves for the rest of the missing documents for higher altitude ?

The 11b boost Tempest is a must for late 1944 going in to 45 RAF combat operations. It was regarded as the RAFs best fighter and was at the forefront of fighting against the creme of the Luftwaffe. This was the plane that stood a chance of bouncing Me 262s, fighting Fw 190 D9s on an equal footing and interdicting against fast-low level Jet bomb attacks against Allied targets.

What we currently have is the earliest boost rating 7/9lb Tempest V which in IL2 cannot even achieve the continous climb or cruise settings that the real aircraft could achieve with out overheating and destroying its engine.

stanford-ukded
01-22-2007, 12:03 PM
Agree wholeheartedly.

Oleg, let's do this! I'll get the bacon.

tigertalon
01-22-2007, 12:39 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Thinking of other boosted versions Monster25lb, A5_1.65ATA, P47D_Late, MustangIII, K4_C3 etc I don't think there should be much more work with it. Absolutely no changes in 3d model.

Thinking about 109Z and the rest of the UFO bunch, bringing lack of climbing documentation up as a problem is a poor argument IMO.

arrow80
01-22-2007, 02:24 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Marcel_Albert
01-22-2007, 03:04 PM
Good idea , i fully support it , however , as it was stated in the lost topic , someone said that the lack of datas was a real obstacle to its implementation in-game .

IIJG69_Kartofe
01-22-2007, 03:41 PM
Cmooonnn!!!

Datas MUST exist somewhere!

I can't believe RAF allow 11lbs tempest to fly without tests and production of huge amounts of documents to clear the use of highest boost on a Sabre enfine !

Documents MUST exist somewhere!

crazyivan1970
01-22-2007, 03:46 PM
Faster, higher, more powerful...horray http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Probably not in IL-2...

Philipscdrw
01-22-2007, 03:51 PM
I'd love to see a 11lb Tempest - but why on earth do people keep bringing up the Me109Z and the other 'fun' what-ifs? Let me tell you, the only time I've ever seen a Me109Z outside of the QMB was when I saw one parked on the apron in Spits_vs_109s. Saying "This aircraft which is never ever used didn't have full documentation, therefore this aircraft which would become the major late-war RAF fighter doesn't need full documentation either" is not a sensible argument!

The hypothetical aircraft (109Z to Lerche) don't get much use outside of avant-garde campaigns and relaxed 'fly for fun without thinking about it too much' servers, from all I've seen. I contend that if you're flying a hypothetical aircraft, the precise accuracy of the flight dynamics don't matter too much. But flying a historical combat aircraft, the accuracy matters much more, or the other side will whine about how overmodelled your favourite aircraft is...

The Tempest, by the way, is my favourite aircraft in Il-2; the modelling and texturing of the cockpit and externals are simply suberb. I'd be quite happy to just sit on the apron and gaze around the cockpit, and I'd certainly welcome an 11lb-version to give it more of an edge against turbine-engined aircraft. But you'll need to find a better argument than '109Z'!

mynameisroland
01-22-2007, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Faster, higher, more powerful...horray http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Probably not in IL-2...

I think you misunderstand what were asking for. This isnt a request for a Bf 109 K4 C3 or a 25lb boost Spitfire IX, this is a request for a Tempest V which was the standard fare Tempest variant. The 11lb boost model was the most common variant.

If I wanted an uber RoXoR aircraft id ask for the 13lb boost one with Rotol airscrew and 3085 HP.

Instead Id like the normal 11lb variant please.

mynameisroland
01-22-2007, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by Philipscdrw:
I'd love to see a 11lb Tempest - but why on earth do people keep bringing up the Me109Z and the other 'fun' what-ifs? Let me tell you, the only time I've ever seen a Me109Z outside of the QMB was when I saw one parked on the apron in Spits_vs_109s. Saying "This aircraft which is never ever used didn't have full documentation, therefore this aircraft which would become the major late-war RAF fighter doesn't need full documentation either" is not a sensible argument!

The hypothetical aircraft (109Z to Lerche) don't get much use outside of avant-garde campaigns and relaxed 'fly for fun without thinking about it too much' servers, from all I've seen. I contend that if you're flying a hypothetical aircraft, the precise accuracy of the flight dynamics don't matter too much. But flying a historical combat aircraft, the accuracy matters much more, or the other side will whine about how overmodelled your favourite aircraft is...

The Tempest, by the way, is my favourite aircraft in Il-2; the modelling and texturing of the cockpit and externals are simply suberb. I'd be quite happy to just sit on the apron and gaze around the cockpit, and I'd certainly welcome an 11lb-version to give it more of an edge against turbine-engined aircraft. But you'll need to find a better argument than '109Z'!

Phil the argument is for the inclusion of the main variant of a hugely under rated aircraft. The Tempest is beautiful, the model we have is actually a 11lb boost model. The earlier aircraft had cannons that portruded from the wings.

The Bf 109 Z keeps getting referenced to because its performance was an educated guess made by 1C and crew.

The fact that we have elements of the required documention for the Tempest V 11lb which could act as a map for the rest of the performance figures and that this is overlooked because of its incomplete nature is hugely frustrating.

Why extrapolate data for 'useless' aircraft like the 109 Z or Lerche yet object to using the same mentality for an aircraft which saw largescale use against the Luftwaffe in WW2?

crazyivan1970
01-22-2007, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Faster, higher, more powerful...horray http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Probably not in IL-2...

I think you misunderstand what were asking for. This isnt a request for a Bf 109 K4 C3 or a 25lb boost Spitfire IX, this is a request for a Tempest V which was the standard fare Tempest variant. The 11lb boost model was the most common variant.

If I wanted an uber RoXoR aircraft id ask for the 13lb boost one with Rotol airscrew and 3085 HP.

Instead Id like the normal 11lb variant please. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I perfectly understand mate, was just making a joke...that didnt work apparently http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

mynameisroland
01-22-2007, 04:38 PM
It just takes the p*ss when you think of some of the planes we have Ivan, and some of the planes we could have http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Fw 190 A4 1.42
Tempest V 11lb

Marcel_Albert
01-22-2007, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
I perfectly understand mate, was just making a joke...that didnt work apparently http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

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

tigertalon
01-22-2007, 07:32 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Philipscdrw:
I'd love to see a 11lb Tempest - but why on earth do people keep bringing up the Me109Z and the other 'fun' what-ifs? ... I'd certainly welcome an 11lb-version to give it more of an edge against turbine-engined aircraft. But you'll need to find a better argument than '109Z'!

Why extrapolate data for 'useless' aircraft like the 109 Z or Lerche yet object to using the same mentality for an aircraft which saw largescale use against the Luftwaffe in WW2? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My point exactly. Thanks for helping me out mate!

DKoor
01-22-2007, 07:51 PM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Faster, higher, more powerful...horray http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Probably not in IL-2...

I think you misunderstand what were asking for. This isnt a request for a Bf 109 K4 C3 or a 25lb boost Spitfire IX, this is a request for a Tempest V which was the standard fare Tempest variant. The 11lb boost model was the most common variant.

If I wanted an uber RoXoR aircraft id ask for the 13lb boost one with Rotol airscrew and 3085 HP.

Instead Id like the normal 11lb variant please. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I perfectly understand mate, was just making a joke...that didnt work apparently http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE> http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Anyhow I'm signing this little petition of ours too.
I want 11lbs Tempest too, if for nothing else that for one more target drone. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif


Originally posted by tigertalon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Philipscdrw:
I'd love to see a 11lb Tempest - but why on earth do people keep bringing up the Me109Z and the other 'fun' what-ifs? ... I'd certainly welcome an 11lb-version to give it more of an edge against turbine-engined aircraft. But you'll need to find a better argument than '109Z'!

Why extrapolate data for 'useless' aircraft like the 109 Z or Lerche yet object to using the same mentality for an aircraft which saw largescale use against the Luftwaffe in WW2? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My point exactly. Thanks for helping me out mate! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree on this but... consider this.

I think that those guys who made Lerche and some other aircraft of similar type wanted to do that and not Tempest 11lbs, FW-190A4 1,42AtA, Do-17Z or something else that actually saw service in ww2 in larger numbers.
They wanted to do their way and there is nothing we can do about it.
Reasons: I guess the same reasons why my fav type is Bf-109 and yours FW-190 or some other. There is no rational xplanation.

How is that sounds?

WOLFMondo
01-23-2007, 01:06 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
the model we have is actually a 11lb boost model. The earlier aircraft had cannons that portruded from the wings.


Not quite true. The aircraft modelled is externally a Series II aircraft but the last couple of batch ones aircraft had Hispano MKV's although internally were series I's. All batch 2 and 3 aircraft were series II's but both had different engines.

Batch 2's had sabre IIA's, just the same as the batch 1's although during the winter of 1944 they all got engine modifications, mainly to supercharger parts and boost controls turning them into Sabre IIB's. Batch 3's all had Sabre IIB's and Batch 4's had the rotol prop allowing 13lbs boost. AFAIK the dehavilland prop on the previous batches would loose there blades using 13lbs boost. It just couldn't absorb the power so the rotol prop was used.

The current Tempest FM is of one of the first series II's built in batch one without a doubt.

mynameisroland
01-23-2007, 03:44 AM
Originally posted by DKoor:
I think that those guys who made Lerche and some other aircraft of similar type wanted to do that and not Tempest 11lbs, FW-190A4 1,42AtA, Do-17Z or something else that actually saw service in ww2 in larger numbers.
They wanted to do their way and there is nothing we can do about it.
Reasons: I guess the same reasons why my fav type is Bf-109 and yours FW-190 or some other. There is no rational xplanation.

How is that sounds?

Kuna, it sounds poor. It also sounds like the sim is made by people who dont really understand the main concensus amongst the community - maybe the Russian community yes but not the international one.

Of the 'hundreds' of flyables how many are useful aircraft that are usable in WW2 missions?
Even stock planes like the Spitfire Vb are off and have been since their introduction while we have lots of useless novelties like the Mig 3 U and the I-185.

mynameisroland
01-23-2007, 03:49 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
the model we have is actually a 11lb boost model. The earlier aircraft had cannons that portruded from the wings.


Not quite true. The aircraft modelled is externally a Series II aircraft but the last couple of batch ones aircraft had Hispano MKV's although internally were series I's. All batch 2 and 3 aircraft were series II's but both had different engines.

Batch 2's had sabre IIA's, just the same as the batch 1's although during the winter of 1944 they all got engine modifications, mainly to supercharger parts and boost controls turning them into Sabre IIB's. Batch 3's all had Sabre IIB's and Batch 4's had the rotol prop allowing 13lbs boost. AFAIK the dehavilland prop on the previous batches would loose there blades using 13lbs boost. It just couldn't absorb the power so the rotol prop was used.

The current Tempest FM is of one of the first series II's built in batch one without a doubt. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I knew I was sailing close to the wind with this one. Maybe it would be better to rephrase it to 11lb boost power settings would be more appropritate to tie in with the 3D model we have in game. Remember that actual production figures for the Tempest V were quite low, the 1st 100 being the long barrelled model - that is around an 8/th of the total production and a huge portion of the 9lb boost service rating numbers.

WOLFMondo
01-23-2007, 04:59 AM
I agree, although the current 3D model allows for several different variants of the batch 2 and 3 aircraft with either the IIA or IIB both at 11lbs, just different fuel.

stathem
01-23-2007, 07:44 AM
errrm.

As regards no changes to the 3-D model...

How can I say this;

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/griffnav/Gallery/TempEnginePlate.jpg

(you might need to save it, blow it up and have a close look)

Now, obviously I'm as much of a Tempest fan as the next man, and perfectly willing to ignore this tiny feature....but are the dev. team?

I been sat on this for ages, but it's got to be pointed out. I really hope it can be ignored and that we could get a fully +11lb rated Tempest.

mynameisroland
01-23-2007, 07:54 AM
give me the 3D model and I will make a new texture for that plaque. It will take 30 min tops.

Philipscdrw
01-23-2007, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Why extrapolate data for 'useless' aircraft like the 109 Z or Lerche yet object to using the same mentality for an aircraft which saw largescale use against the Luftwaffe in WW2?
The 109Z and Lerche are 'imaginary' aircraft anyway, so they can have a best-guess flight model. The Tempest V is a real aircraft, not an imaginary aircraft, so it needs a 'real' flight-model. Let me say again that I do want the 11lbs Tempest in FB; I just want to encourage you to strengthen your arguments!

(although a late-war Mosquito FB6 is far higher on my personal wish-list!)

arrow80
01-23-2007, 03:36 PM
apart the +11 lbs boost tempest, we need to have right wing tracers desynched, because hey are always synched, no matter how many times you generate a new mission.

mynameisroland
01-25-2007, 04:17 AM
Arrow the gun bug is present in other aircraft too like N1K2 - Ive heard it is to do with the FM and trying to limit wobbling.

RCAF_Irish_403
01-25-2007, 02:00 PM
+1 for the 11ilbs boost Tempest.


please...Oleg, RRG give us that love one more time for the next patch

arrow80
01-25-2007, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Arrow the gun bug is present in other aircraft too like N1K2 - Ive heard it is to do with the FM and trying to limit wobbling.
Well if that's the case, I suppose not much can be done about it.

bazzaah2
01-26-2007, 04:01 AM
please please please please please please please please please Oleg.

This sim will soon be at its final iteration and if you add one more thing please let it be this plane.

And if you could tidy up the DM of some of the earlier original Il2 planes (cough Yaks cough) and take another look at the performance of the La5 through 7 while you're at it, then that would be great too. (JK of course before I get flamed/banned but if you could well then that would be great).

Spasibo vam ogromnoye.

mynameisroland
01-26-2007, 11:26 AM
It would be good to fly IceFires excellent Storm Of War Campaigns in a Tempest V which fit the billing.

Either that or in striving for a historical performance match up we confine it to fighting V1 flying bombs and Bf 109 G6s

Brain32
01-26-2007, 11:37 AM
Either that or in striving for a historical performance match up we confine it to fighting V1 flying bombs and Bf 109 G6s
Umm is fighting 109G6 even interesting? I never fought K4 in Tempest, but other 109's were mere targets http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

mynameisroland
01-26-2007, 11:41 AM
Its clay pigeon shooting.

Which is pretty accurate as far as low to med alt performance match up suggests Tempest is faster at 2500m that G6 at any height lol Even K4s arent too tough as they have to slow down to fight and then they are dead meat.

Still, my faqvourite ride the Dora 9, has a usable performance edge which means that the Tempest goes in as late war underdog rather than best of late war tactical fighter as it chould be regarded.

FA_Whisky
01-27-2007, 04:36 AM
The way the tempest is now you can only win a fight by pure luck or if you have a lot more energy at the start. It will overheat so fast that you can hardly use the real power of the engine.

IIJG69_Kartofe
01-27-2007, 08:34 AM
Originally posted by FA_Whisky:
The way the tempest is now you can only win a fight by pure luck or if you have a lot more energy at the start. It will overheat so fast that you can hardly use the real power of the engine.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif it's a bit insulting for PPL who do wonders in that plane.

But the Tempest is a "beast" verry hard to masterise and need, like the FW 190, teamplay to win!

It's not a plane for the lone ranger! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Brain32
01-27-2007, 08:44 AM
The only plane I respect when flying a Tempest is the Dora, even then it largly depends on the situation, other German planes(especially 109's) are really good for pumping up statistics...

DKoor
01-27-2007, 10:05 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
The only plane I respect when flying a Tempest is the Dora, even then it largly depends on the situation, other German planes(especially 109's) are really good for pumping up statistics... Well said.
FW-190D is the deadliest plane in late war setup IMO not to mention really cool looking plane.

goshikisen
01-28-2007, 07:47 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Can we please get a Tempest V at 11lb boost.

An entirely reasonable request... a half useful version of the Mosquito would also be great. These two aircraft versions shouldn't be too hard to incorporate.

tigertalon
01-29-2007, 02:47 AM
Originally posted by Arrow80:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Arrow the gun bug is present in other aircraft too like N1K2 - Ive heard it is to do with the FM and trying to limit wobbling.
Well if that's the case, I suppose not much can be done about it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, but then again all cannons are desynced on HurriMkIIc or F4U-1C... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

DKoor
01-29-2007, 03:32 AM
Originally posted by tigertalon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Arrow80:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Arrow the gun bug is present in other aircraft too like N1K2 - Ive heard it is to do with the FM and trying to limit wobbling.
Well if that's the case, I suppose not much can be done about it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, but then again all cannons are desynced on HurriMkIIc or F4U-1C... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>"Ive heard it is to do with the FM and trying to limit wobbling." is there any link to this? Any background story?

Or is it another one like: ".50cal can not be desynced because that will induce more lag, game engine limitation" or whatnot started as a pure speculation from people who have 0% insight in this game development.

96th_Nightshifter
01-29-2007, 03:46 AM
Originally posted by goshikisen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Can we please get a Tempest V at 11lb boost.

An entirely reasonable request... a half useful version of the Mosquito would also be great. These two aircraft versions shouldn't be too hard to incorporate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

koivis
01-29-2007, 06:03 PM
BUMP!

11 lbs Tempest and Mosquito FB.6 with Merlin 25 would give RAF some REAL late war planes. And, not so "late war" actually, more like "mid-1944".

mynameisroland
01-30-2007, 01:19 PM
BUMP

For the most common WW2 Tempest V performance variant - the 11lb boost clearance.

WOLFMondo
01-31-2007, 02:15 AM
Sabre IIB 11lbs clearance please. Don't want any of that temporary 11lbs Sabre IIA gubbinshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

mynameisroland
01-31-2007, 04:06 AM
If we'd had a British biased development crew a Sabre VII addition to IL2 1946 would have been nice http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif - well not so nice for the Luftwaffe.
The most powerful piston engine in the world at the time at 3055 HP - on half the displacement of the P & W Wasp Major.

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

koivis
01-31-2007, 05:47 AM
In fact that's the second Hawker Fury prototype, not Tempest. But performance... amazing. 777 kph at 5640 m. Just amazing.

I would be just satisfied if it was modelled after these "estimations":
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/tempest-V.html

In fact, the Sabre IIB we're asking for produced AND WAS CLEARED FOR 2420 hp @ 11 lb boost @ 3850 rpm for 5 minutes, compared to Sabre IIA's 2080 hp @ 9 lb boost @ 3700 rpm, both at sea level.

(Quite needless to say, even it was a standard Tempest version, it would be great for air racing also http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif )

mynameisroland
01-31-2007, 07:40 AM
Sorry, I didnt mention that it was a Fury, I was more focused on the Sabre engine rather than the airframe but yes over 5000 ft/min roc and 485 mph sounds pretty good for a piston engined fighter.

But again the main focus of this thread is to ask for the inclusion of a fighter which served from mid 1944 through to VE day - 11lb boost wasnt a special fix it was the operational norm.

Xiolablu3
02-01-2007, 01:38 AM
I htink its purely from lack of data.

Look around for data and send it guys.

mynameisroland
02-01-2007, 03:40 AM
The Tempesr guys have sent all they have, it is incomplete. The complete data may or may not exist inside the national archive. Getting at it will be a researchers task as they would have top sift through thousands of like documents hoping to stumble upon what were after.

Instead of this hassle of a needle in a haystack nature - why not just give us the plane? It flew, it was the most common variant, we have significant performance data readily available which is enough to plot out the rest of the data.

Brain32
02-01-2007, 04:20 AM
Me and HR_Zunzun spent quite a few hours searching through the archives, we dug up some very interesting titles http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Check the 11lbs thread page 2 or 3 or both lol http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

arrow80
02-01-2007, 07:48 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
Me and HR_Zunzun spent quite a few hours searching through the archives, we dug up some very interesting titles http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Check the 11lbs thread page 2 or 3 or both lol http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
and aren't those data enough for Oleg??

MEGILE
02-01-2007, 08:10 AM
If Oleg can guesstimate the Lerche, then he can guesstimate the Tempest 11lbs

mynameisroland
02-01-2007, 08:14 AM
Its not a question of cant its a question of want.

If Tempest V 11lb was Russian it would be in there from start - because they wouldnt have bothered making the lower performance 9lber at all.

I do think that politics clearly have a huge say in IL2 and why should 1C waste time on the British market?

bazzaah2
02-02-2007, 07:04 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Its not a question of cant its a question of want.

If Tempest V 11lb was Russian it would be in there from start - because they wouldnt have bothered making the lower performance 9lber at all.

I do think that politics clearly have a huge say in IL2 and why should 1C waste time on the British market?

hit the nail on the head there.

1C's main market is Russia - 46 is the development of a concept for a product that was originally never intended for any other country.

TheBandit_76
02-02-2007, 07:32 PM
Be interesting to see where this goes. Because if understand you roland, you are calling 1C biased. From my experience, if a yank event remotely hints at this, a 10-ton forum sledge comes down upon his head.

Aaron_GT
02-03-2007, 03:17 AM
I do think that politics clearly have a huge say in IL2 and why should 1C waste time on the British market?

What is the next sim 1C is doing, again?

If you talk (over email) with Oleg you don't get much of an impression of nationalistic bias. I know he's been busy chasing up information on the Blenheim to make that flyable in BoB:SOW, and that's a plane that is pretty much forgotten even in the UK...

This having been said perhaps the Lerche (also not Russian last time I checked) was a fun project for Oleg to do which probably makes a difference after 8 years of development. This having been said I'd VERY much like to see a decent +11 (and even a +13 as a bonus) Tempest.

The last issue is about money. Oleg is probably in it at least partly to make money and then it comes down to the cost:return ratio of new content versus bug fixes/enhancements. There has been quite a bit of free add ons to keep up loyalty (and thus repeat sales of paid add ons and new product) but there might be a limit to this. Hopefully the +11 enhancement to the Tempest will be one that is seen as worth it.

MEGILE
02-03-2007, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I do think that politics clearly have a huge say in IL2 and why should 1C waste time on the British market?

What is the next sim 1C is doing, again?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quoted for truth. I think Roland is being ignorant on this point.

What you described isn't Politics.. it's simple market economics...
Regardless, the argument is erroneous, because


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:


What is the next sim 1C is doing, again?

zunzun
02-04-2007, 09:26 AM
We got the clearence for using the sabre IIb on Tempest MkV. We got some data from it (max speed at both supercharges gears, time to altitude, range on diferente configurations, best cruising speeds). We got some estimate data from Hawker about speed curves at 11lbs. And we got the complete set of data from 9bs version for comparing and estimating
We Know it was the main version used (from end 1944 till May 1945).
I think it wouldn´t be that wrong in getting it into the game (I bet there are many others planes with same or less data than this in the game).

mynameisroland
02-04-2007, 10:25 AM
To answer both Megile and Aaron, I would ask you to look at the primary market for IL2. The sim is focused almost entirely towards the Eastern front, the Mig 3U, the I-185, the best possible La5 FN, bullet proof I-153s. The Western Allies aircraft have been left almost exclusivley to talented 3rd party modellers and consequently have been much tougher to get implemented and corrected.

Russia is the primary market for IL2 - hence the fact that the RAF and the USASF/USN are merely tacked on to the sim. This would be fine, however the IL2 series ceased to be purely Eastern front based as soon as Pacific Fighters was a glimmer in Olegs eye. Yet now, 2 years down the line, American and British aircraft and campaigns have been left to wither on the vine.

I dont see anything wrong with saying it like it is. Sorry to upset your delicate sensibilities http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

As for BoB, who knows how it will turn out ? Its fine saying that BoB will nullify all of the old imbalances and have a healthy bias towards the MTO and Channel Front - but who knows what direction the sim will take a few patches down the line?

My concern is that the best WW2 flight sim is tetering on the edge of its final installment with countless 'easy' fixes yet to be implemented - and most of these are on British and American aircraft.

arrow80
02-04-2007, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by zunzun:
We got the clearence for using the sabre IIb on Tempest MkV. We got some data from it (max speed at both supercharges gears, time to altitude, range on diferente configurations, best cruising speeds). We got some estimate data from Hawker about speed curves at 11lbs. And we got the complete set of data from 9bs version for comparing and estimating
We Know it was the main version used (from end 1944 till May 1945).
I think it wouldn´t be that wrong in getting it into the game (I bet there are many others planes with same or less data than this in the game).
zunzun, send it to oleg as fast as possible then. Hopefully it will be enough.

FA_Whisky
02-04-2007, 10:30 AM
Sice we are talking about high boost plane, did the P51D ever fly with 150octane fuel and a boosted engine like the P51B?

mynameisroland
02-04-2007, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by FA_Whisky:
Sice we are talking about high boost plane, did the P51D ever fly with 150octane fuel and a boosted engine like the P51B?

Yes it did, start a new thread to run alongside this one mate and we can ask for late war Mustang IVs.

Aaron_GT
02-04-2007, 11:40 AM
To answer both Megile and Aaron, I would ask you to look at the primary market for IL2. The sim is focused almost entirely towards the Eastern front, the Mig 3U, the I-185, the best possible La5 FN, bullet proof I-153s. The Western Allies aircraft have been left almost exclusivley to talented 3rd party modellers and consequently have been much tougher to get implemented and corrected.

I think it would be fair to say that the inspiration was the Eastern Front, but it has gone much further than that and the I-185 was, AFAIK, 3rd party too. 1C:Maddox has a small team, and it does do the FMs for all the Allied aircraft (if it didn't we wouldn't have this thread!)

Also I wonder what the return to Oleg on each market is.

mynameisroland
02-04-2007, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">To answer both Megile and Aaron, I would ask you to look at the primary market for IL2. The sim is focused almost entirely towards the Eastern front, the Mig 3U, the I-185, the best possible La5 FN, bullet proof I-153s. The Western Allies aircraft have been left almost exclusivley to talented 3rd party modellers and consequently have been much tougher to get implemented and corrected.

I think it would be fair to say that the inspiration was the Eastern Front, but it has gone much further than that and the I-185 was, AFAIK, 3rd party too. 1C:Maddox has a small team, and it does do the FMs for all the Allied aircraft (if it didn't we wouldn't have this thread!)

Also I wonder what the return to Oleg on each market is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

WRT to return per unit sold you would think that Europe and US markets would offer more profit, however it may be different once shipping, tax, promotion ( has UBI ever promoted this sim? ) ect has been taken in to account.

While this sim at one time aspired to explore other fronts it stalled after Pacific Fighters and in the face of US litigation over the inclusion of US aircraft has retreated back towards the Eastern front ie PE2 and IL2 1946.

What prompted you and Megile in to posting at all in this thread (no bump for the Tempest) was my comment implying that if this aircraft were Russian it would be in the game. How about if I rephrase my comment? Maybe we can get back on topic then.

" If the Tempest V 11lb was important to the Eastern Front or the Russian consumer market, it would have been added utilising the data already gathered and sent to 1C."

The same can be said for the non appearence Fw 190 A4 1.42 ATA, if the game wanted to focus on the Luftwaffes fight vs the RAF this plane would be in the game. As it is we have the version which fought against the VVS as a derated Jabo.

Aaron_GT
02-05-2007, 10:32 AM
WRT to return per unit sold you would think that Europe and US markets would offer more profit, however it may be different once shipping, tax, promotion ( has UBI ever promoted this sim? ) ect has been taken in to account.

Hence my musing, but I don't think we'll get an answer to that as UBI isn't likely to reveal the inner workings of its contracts with Oleg! So who knows, Europe and the USA may represent a large slice of the overall revenue to 1C:Maddox or not depending on how much of each sale gets to Oleg and team, and what the relative sales numbers are. I don't suppose to know the answer to that one.


" If the Tempest V 11lb was important to the Eastern Front or the Russian consumer market, it would have been added utilising the data already gathered and sent to 1C."

If it had been really important then it would have been in from the outset like the Yaks and Migs, I suppose. But since the next sim is initially based on the UK-Germany fight in Western Europe then the Eastern front can't be the overriding concern and 1C:Maddox must feel that there are enough sales/revenue in all potential markets to make it worth doing, or enough residual sales of the IL2 series will tide 1C:Maddox over. Given that it might take years to return to the Eastern front with the new sim it hints at the market for Western-oriented sims being enough to keep 1C:Maddox going. Either that or Oleg is making a huge mistake and will lose a lot of money (let's hope not else we'll all have to play CFS4 or something else requiring us all to get Vista and souped up machines just to run the operating system :-) ).

mynameisroland
02-05-2007, 11:30 AM
Im looking forward to SoW but lets be fair I think the sim world could use a very good subsitute to strive Oleg and his team on with some decent competition. Sadly I dont see anything on the horizon.

Check out the Readme file for the new patch, it says Tempest overheat indicator corrected. Wonder what that means ?

IIJG69_Kartofe
02-05-2007, 03:17 PM
The 4.08 readme


-Updated the engine temperature parameters on the Tempest V; http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

A little step forward eh ?

"Alors ? Heureuse?" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

VW-IceFire
02-05-2007, 08:14 PM
Originally posted by IIJG69_Kartofe:
The 4.08 readme

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">-Updated the engine temperature parameters on the Tempest V; http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

A little step forward eh ?

"Alors ? Heureuse?" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think thats us being tossed a bone. Depending on how it turns out this would be quite alright given we're already in the 11th hour.

mynameisroland
02-06-2007, 04:45 AM
***Bone Tossed***

I have done some tests for overheat and have found the following results

conditions normal , Crimea, altitude sea level, Tempest default 100% fuel, radiators closed,prop pitch 100% WEP on throttle 110% radiators closed.

In 4.071 I could run flat out for 2:01 before the engine overheat would appear.

In 4.08 the Tempest lasts for 2:50 until overheat. The guages now read oil 95' and Rad 125' when overheat is reached.

Using the same conditions I tested how maximum climb affected overheat.

In 4.071 the message came up after 1:43

In 4.08 the message came up after 2:15 seconds new guage readings oil 95' and rad 122'


Tests were the average of 3 tests for each parameter, Tempest fully trimmed out, 12 tests conducted in all. I am not the best tester but there is at least a 45-48 second increase in overheat time in level flight and a 30-33 sec increase in maximum climb. No increase in performance but its existing performance should certainly be more usable now.

So good news http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

mynameisroland
02-09-2007, 06:58 AM
*BUMP*

arrow80
02-09-2007, 11:28 AM
well I don't see a point why Oleg couldn't estimate parameters of +11 lbs Tempest, if there are many planes which use only estimations for their performance (mostly late war Japanese planes as Ki-84, etc.)

HellToupee
02-09-2007, 12:51 PM
oil temp no longer gets very high, overheat is in the rad temp now, downside is it will overheat at lower power settings, plus side is it cools down faster and takes longer to heat up from cool.

FA_Whisky
02-12-2007, 11:32 PM
nothing mutch changed. Overheat is now when the oils is over 95*C AND/OR water/cylinder temp is over 130*C. You still have to throttle back to 95% with wep on to keep the engine under 130*C when you fly straight and level.
It does take a bit longer to overheat on oil, but the time for the water to heat up seems the same.

mynameisroland
02-16-2007, 08:28 AM
post deleted

JS312RAF
02-16-2007, 09:05 AM
im all for +11lb Tempest..

Philipscdrw
02-16-2007, 11:07 AM
Guys,

if you hold down 'alt' and type '0176' on the numpad, you get the degree symbol.

Much better than ' or * !

???????

Kira1985
02-18-2007, 08:23 AM
Bump.

IMHO it's stupid to ignore this simple request.

Black Sheep
02-19-2007, 05:36 AM
+1 for 11lb Tempest

DIRTY-MAC
02-19-2007, 02:38 PM
bump

OD_79
02-20-2007, 04:20 AM
Please make the small tweaks required...It's bad enough having the rear view like it is - having the least powerful engine possible is disapointing.
I'm converted to the Tempest whole heartedly from the Spitfire and to be honest all I want is the view fixed, but that is not going to happen - so the engine boost would be a good second.

OD.

CHDT
02-20-2007, 06:45 AM
Me too, 11b variant, please.

Diablo310th
02-20-2007, 07:12 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif please Oleg..please.

Inadaze
02-20-2007, 07:25 AM
+1 for 11lb please

bazzaah2
02-23-2007, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by OD_79:
Please make the small tweaks required...It's bad enough having the rear view like it is - having the least powerful engine possible is disapointing.
I'm converted to the Tempest whole heartedly from the Spitfire and to be honest all I want is the view fixed, but that is not going to happen - so the engine boost would be a good second.

OD.

yep the rear view is a real eff up. Shame, the cockpit otherwise is excellent.

koivis
03-07-2007, 12:16 AM
Bumpetibump.

mynameisroland
03-20-2007, 05:51 AM
Bump!

VW-IceFire
03-20-2007, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by bazzaah2:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OD_79:
Please make the small tweaks required...It's bad enough having the rear view like it is - having the least powerful engine possible is disapointing.
I'm converted to the Tempest whole heartedly from the Spitfire and to be honest all I want is the view fixed, but that is not going to happen - so the engine boost would be a good second.

OD.

yep the rear view is a real eff up. Shame, the cockpit otherwise is excellent. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
We made an attempt on Oleg about that...but I forget the response. It wasn't promising. 6D0F will solve this problem with the Storm of War engine. All we have to do is wait for the Tempest again.

TheBandit_76
03-20-2007, 04:41 PM
Bollocks! as you chaps say. They changed the cockpit for some other fighter. Can't remember which, but it was fairly recent and said so in the ReadMe.

The P51 rear view is mildly decent and it's an Oleg WAG. The Tempest plate shouldn't be nearly obstructive as it is. P47 either. The bubble top craft barely have any view advantage over the 109s.

mynameisroland
03-21-2007, 07:54 AM
I agree with you there Bandit, the P47 bubble tops and the Tempest actually have worse rear visibility than the Bf 109 imo lol, check the pic in my sig, if the pilot wanted to he could even look around his armour plate and look either side of his tail - roll on 6DOF

zyotich
03-21-2007, 08:59 AM
Yes, Yes, Yes...

mynameisroland
03-21-2007, 09:25 AM
Considering that the lack of climb data for an 11lb boost Tempest is the real stumbling block a few of us have tried to extrapolate the performance based on the 9lb boost chart. Given that we have 11lb Sabre IIa clearance, Speed charts, Engine charts, what else is needed to take the 9lb Sabre IIa we have and give us a 11lb Sabre IIa model?

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Original</span>
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/jn731climb-1.jpg

<span class="ev_code_RED">Estimated</span>
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/jn731climb_example66666.jpg

AKA_TAGERT
03-21-2007, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Considering that the lack of climb data for an 11lb boost Tempest is the real stumbling block a few of us have tried to extrapolate the performance based on the 9lb boost chart.
Do you have any time-to-climb (TTC) data for the 11lb?

In that taking the derivative of the TTC data gives you the pretty good ROC graph.

On that note, I do that in all my analysis's just as a validation check of the in-game ROC data (VAR)

mynameisroland
03-22-2007, 08:15 AM
Here are two links; 1st is for 11lb and says time to 20,000 ft is 7 min 2nd is for 9lb and says time to 15,000 ft is 5 min

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/tempest/tempest-v-ads-sabre-IIb.jpg

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/tempest/tempest-v-ads-sabre-IIa.jpg


If you look more at Mike Williams Tempest data it has more detailed time to height for the 9lb boost variant Table 1 here (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/tempest/tp.html)
which makes me wonder if the 1st two links give time to height including take off time? As the 9lb boost beats the data provided by the 1st two charts.

AKA_TAGERT
03-22-2007, 09:44 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Here are two links; 1st is for 11lb and says time to 20,000 ft is 7 min 2nd is for 9lb and says time to 15,000 ft is 5 min

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/tempest/tempest-v-ads-sabre-IIb.jpg

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/tempest/tempest-v-ads-sabre-IIa.jpg


If you look more at Mike Williams Tempest data it has more detailed time to height for the 9lb boost variant Table 1 here (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/tempest/tp.html)
which makes me wonder if the 1st two links give time to height including take off time? As the 9lb boost beats the data provided by the 1st two charts.

20kft 7.5min
20kft 6.85 mins normal
20kft 6.45 mins combat

7.5min - 6.85min = 0.65min

0.65min x 60sec/min = 39sec

Hmmm maybe? In that the take off time (time from when the plane first starts rolling to the time it's wheels come off the ground) is about 30sec!

But.. it could be some other config difference between the two? WRT the first links, what does "performance figures are for case a" mean?

Im at work so I can not dive into this too deep.. That and I have a few other irons in the fire.. So, if you find something out, PM me so I don't forget to check back on this thread! In that there looks like plenty of info (3 data points) on mikes page to come up with a good ROC graph!

mynameisroland
03-22-2007, 09:56 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Here are two links; 1st is for 11lb and says time to 20,000 ft is 7 min 2nd is for 9lb and says time to 15,000 ft is 5 min

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/tempest/tempest-v-ads-sabre-IIb.jpg

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/tempest/tempest-v-ads-sabre-IIa.jpg


If you look more at Mike Williams Tempest data it has more detailed time to height for the 9lb boost variant Table 1 here (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/tempest/tp.html)
which makes me wonder if the 1st two links give time to height including take off time? As the 9lb boost beats the data provided by the 1st two charts.

20kft 7.5min
20kft 6.85 mins normal
20kft 6.45 mins combat

7.5min - 6.85min = 0.65min

0.65min x 60sec/min = 39sec

Hmmm maybe? In that the take off time (time from when the plane first starts rolling to the time it's wheels come off the ground) is about 30sec!

But.. it could be some other config difference between the two? WRT the first links, what does "performance figures are for case a" mean?

Im at work so I can not dive into this too deep.. That and I have a few other irons in the fire.. So, if you find something out, PM me so I don't forget to check back on this thread! In that there looks like plenty of info (3 data points) on mikes page to come up with a good ROC graph! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Looks like "performance figures are for case a" is for normal fuel load, no bombs no drop tanks - The table to the left of the time to height has plane a,b,c,d fuel loads and range figures.

Maybe 39 sec for a take off is a bit optomistic, however it still could be a sort of start the stopwatch when the wheels sart rolling sort of thing? The chart on Mikes site has a mention of the test pilot changing the supercharger gear at different boost levels for the two tests "Supercharger gear changed when boost in
M.S. gear fell to +4 lb/sq.in." gave the better results to 20,000ft - 6.55min "Supercarger gear changed when boost in
M.S. gear fell to +2.9 lb/sq.in." gave 6.89min.

A closer look at the two pilots cards show that the Tempest V SabreIIb 11lb boost is still producing 2050 HP at 13,750 ft, the 9lb Sabre IIa is producing 1830 HP at 11,500ft in comparison. So the difference is quite a bit given that drag, airframe, fuel and engine weights remain relatively constant.

mynameisroland
03-23-2007, 10:00 AM
Bump for the benefit of the masses and TAGERT

arrow80
03-23-2007, 11:47 AM
bump for +11 Tempest! Any words from Oleg?

AKA_TAGERT
03-27-2007, 08:53 PM
Hey mynameisroland!

Well.. I didn't realize until I was done that the link you gave me with the TTC data was of a 9lb boost Tempest, not a 11lb Tempest.

So, the following graph is nothing new..

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/ROC/408/TEMPEST/ME_00/DXDTTTC_VS_ROC.JPG

But.. it does show how you can get a good ball park of the ROC by taking the derivative of the TTC data. Note that I plotted the derivative of the TTC data along with the actual ROC data from that link you gave me.

Not a perfect fit, but it does give you a good idea of what the ROC would be if all you had was TTC data to go by.

PS I was thinking of doing a ROC test of the Tempest.. At what altitude do you switch the supercharger? From that link it looks like 10ft.

VW-IceFire
03-27-2007, 10:23 PM
Apparently in-game the best altitude to switch at is 3900m so about 12,000 feet. Something to check on.

stathem
03-29-2007, 06:42 AM
I suppose there's a rational reason for this, but I find the blower switch at ~8000 feet if the WEP is engaged or higher ~ 12,000 feet, if it isn't. This going off the MAP gauge. (yes I do realise that the MAP gauge isn't gospel but it's all we've got)

And it'll climb all the way to 20,000 ft with 100%,WEP on, rads open without overheating. That may be quicker than running it flat out and having to throttle back.

mynameisroland
03-29-2007, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by stathem:
I suppose there's a rational reason for this, but I find the blower switch at ~8000 feet if the WEP is engaged or higher ~ 12,000 feet, if it isn't. This going off the MAP gauge. (yes I do realise that the MAP gauge isn't gospel but it's all we've got)

And it'll climb all the way to 20,000 ft with 100%,WEP on, rads open without overheating. That may be quicker than running it flat out and having to throttle back.

Me too, I engage WEP all the time, use lower settings for throttle and pitch to keep engine from overheating, and the MAP gauge benefits from switching to stage 2 at about 2800m.

FA_Whisky
03-31-2007, 03:33 AM
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/jn731climb_example66666.jpg

If i understand this correctly, from abot 3000ft to 7000ft it does not matter if you have a +7, +9 or +11 boosted engine.
The same goes from 16000 ft up. What would be interesting is to have in-game speed charts of +9lbs and +7lbs boost.

Inadaze
04-08-2007, 06:26 PM
Bumpage

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

FA_Whisky
04-18-2007, 10:13 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif bump

http://home.planet.nl/~roelo085/Pics/trimtaps1.jpg

koivis
04-19-2007, 06:02 PM
BUMP! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

NeilStirling
04-20-2007, 03:13 AM
Data from the R.A.E

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/tempest-v-rdt1a-level.jpg

Neil.

Brain32
04-20-2007, 04:46 AM
Nice, new data on ww2airperf site http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

FA_Whisky
04-22-2007, 03:29 AM
bump

http://www.prime-mover.org/Engines/Images/xr7755b.jpg

koivis
04-24-2007, 04:33 PM
BUMP! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

Daiichidoku
05-02-2007, 03:48 PM
bump for the most numerous Tempest

Ratsack
05-03-2007, 06:55 AM
Originally posted by TheBandit_76:
...The bubble top craft barely have any view advantage over the 109s.

But didn't you know? The 109 had excellent rear vision, until they put the extra armor in on the G series. Then it got the panzerglas and it was better than a bubble top...

...where's my Prozac gone...


Ratsack

AKA_TAGERT
05-03-2007, 08:10 AM
Please tell me your kidding and that your just ribbing ol Izzzy on this one!

WOLFMondo
05-04-2007, 02:33 AM
Any of you guys read the manual in IL246? We have a 11lbs Sabre IIB 2400hp Tempest, at least according to the manual.

stanford-ukded
05-04-2007, 02:50 AM
I don't believe the manual in the slightest!

BUMP!

BillyTheKid_22
05-05-2007, 04:15 PM
http://www.flyandrive.com/images/tempest02.jpg



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



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a6/486SqnVolkers1945.JPG/800px-486SqnVolkers1945.JPG

Gnasha
05-07-2007, 01:48 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

mynameisroland
05-18-2007, 05:33 AM
Bump for a Tempest V (late)

If we can get the 'M like' P47 D we can get the '11lb like' Tempest V !

KraljMatjaz
05-18-2007, 07:19 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
If we can get the 'M like' P47 D we can get the '11lb like' Tempest V !

Don't we already have it? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

another bump just in case! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

tigertalon
05-18-2007, 07:26 AM
Originally posted by KraljMatjaz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
If we can get the 'M like' P47 D we can get the '11lb like' Tempest V !

Don't we already have it? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v662/aegeeaddict/Forum%20comments/AiraManna-shhh.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v662/aegeeaddict/shades.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

EiZ0N
05-18-2007, 07:44 AM
Originally posted by BillyTheKid_22:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a6/486SqnVolkers1945.JPG/800px-486SqnVolkers1945.JPG
Damn that thing is huge!

It's hard to get a sense of the size of these things most of the time.

Ratsack
05-18-2007, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Please tell me your kidding and that your just ribbing ol Izzzy on this one!

No, no, it's true I tell you! Rechlin tested it in 1940 and the Emil has better visibility than the Spitfire! The late versions with the Erla hood and Galland head armour were the best visibility of all contemporary fighters!! They WERE. There's no place like home, there's no place like home, there's no place...

Kurfurst__
05-19-2007, 05:35 AM
Here's a classic : "You're also continuing to conflate the Battle of Britain with the last six months of 1940." - Ratsack

You may find the reason of why Ratsack's having that frustrated tone lately, here : http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/1561005835/p/7

Also do a search for 'Wasserfall' in his post. Another self-emberassment for him, he just vents it off here. Perhaps he should find a better place for this than ORR, but considering the illustrious company he worked himself into, it shouldn't come as a surprise.

Ratsack
05-19-2007, 08:04 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Here's a classic : "You're also continuing to conflate the Battle of Britain with the last six months of 1940." - Ratsack

You may find the reason of why Ratsack's having that frustrated tone lately, here : http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/1561005835/p/7

Also do a search for 'Wasserfall' in his post. Another self-emberassment for him, he just vents it off here. Perhaps he should find a better place for this than ORR, but considering the illustrious company he worked himself into, it shouldn't come as a surprise.

Oh Kurfy, you do get your panties in a bunch sometimes, don't you?

The frustration is all yours I fear. You need to get out of your trench coat and go and discover girls or something.

cheers,
Ratsack

mynameisroland
05-20-2007, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by KraljMatjaz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
If we can get the 'M like' P47 D we can get the '11lb like' Tempest V !

Don't we already have it? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

another bump just in case! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like we have a Fw 190 D9 almost 'A lader Sonder Leistung' like? Blues kept that one hush hush didnt they http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

luftluuver
05-20-2007, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Please tell me your kidding and that your just ribbing ol Izzzy on this one! Yes Tag there was a thread about cockpit visibility.

Can't remember which of his multiple nicks he was using then but he claimed the 109 had better visibility for the pilot than any of the bubble top Allied fighters. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Not sure if the thread is still around since the latest Ubi meltdown.

KraljMatjaz
05-21-2007, 02:19 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KraljMatjaz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
If we can get the 'M like' P47 D we can get the '11lb like' Tempest V !

Don't we already have it? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif,

another bump just in case! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like we have a Fw 190 D9 almost 'A lader Sonder Leistung' like? Blues kept that one hush hush didnt they http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If 11lb tempest is added, then it only seems fair to me that prop-pitch ... er, how to say... "fiddle" (intentionally avoiding phrases like 'cheat' or 'exploit') is removed/"fixed".

With it, you can already make 9lb tempest much faster than it was IRL on the deck, almost as fast (over 390 mph TAS sea level) as <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">12</span>lber(394 mph TAS sealevel) (!!!) let alone a 11lber, when historical data lists 375 mph TAS for a 9lber, exactly what is attainable without jerking the pitch.

mynameisroland
05-21-2007, 04:36 AM
Originally posted by KraljMatjaz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KraljMatjaz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
If we can get the 'M like' P47 D we can get the '11lb like' Tempest V !

Don't we already have it? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif,

another bump just in case! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like we have a Fw 190 D9 almost 'A lader Sonder Leistung' like? Blues kept that one hush hush didnt they http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If 11lb tempest is added, then it only seems fair to me that prop-pitch ... er, how to say... "fiddle" (intentionally avoiding phrases like 'cheat' or 'exploit') is removed/"fixed".

With it, you can already make 9lb tempest much faster than it was IRL on the deck, almost as fast (over 390 mph TAS sea level) as <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">12</span>lber(394 mph TAS sealevel) (!!!) let alone a 11lber, when historical data lists 375 mph TAS for a 9lber, exactly what is attainable without jerking the pitch. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dont quite follow you. Using prop pitch shuffle the Tempest V 9lb in IL2 is still <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">slower</span> than the 11lb boost Tempest.

The prop pitch shuffle effects all aircraft. I have seen tested Fw 190 D9 reaching 631 km/h then even 650 km/h. This is neither fair nor historical but I am not crying a river about it.

The Temepst V 9lb is what we have. It is representative of a 1944 April Tempest imo. Given that V1 chasers were using 11lb Sabre IIA s in <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">July 1944</span> and Sabre IIBs at 11lb were in service later in the Autum of that year I dont see what the problem is of us having a Tempest in IL2 which can <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">almost</span> but not quite hit 11lb figures at sea level.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/spit1425lbs.jpg

KraljMatjaz
05-21-2007, 07:46 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
I dont quite follow you. Using prop pitch shuffle the Tempest V 9lb in IL2 is still <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">slower</span> than the 11lb boost Tempest.


Wrong:

http://shrani.si/thumbs/tempest210txz.jpg (http://shrani.si/?tempest210txz.jpg)


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The prop pitch shuffle effects all aircraft. I have seen tested Fw 190 D9 reaching 631 km/h then even 650 km/h. This is neither fair nor historical but I am not crying a river about it.


I am more than eager to see D9 reach 650kph tested under same conditions as tempest (100% fuel, crimea, takeoff and never climb above 10m). Any way of seeing a track of this or is this just something you're fiddling with?

On the other hand, justifying an incorrect (overmodelled) plane with another overmodelled reminds me of times when we were all playing in the sandpits. If a plane is over/undermodelled, it should be corrected, no? If you wanna fix uber(wrong) doras, don't fix them with another uber(wrong) plane.


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The Temepst V 9lb is what we have. It is representative of a 1944 April Tempest imo. Given that V1 chasers were using 11lb Sabre IIA s in <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">July 1944</span> and Sabre IIBs at 11lb were in service later in the Autum of that year I dont see what the problem is of us having a Tempest in IL2 which can <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">almost</span> but not quite hit 11lb figures at sea level.

Again, it can and does hit and even surpasses 11lbs figures. Other than that, I agree with your upper words completely. But than again, we do already have, by your own words, an 'almost' 11lb tempest, and by my charts a 'super' 11lb tempest, don't we, so why beg for one here?


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/spit1425lbs.jpg

I think there is a serious question into the credibility of this chart when using it to pinpoint locate the sealevel speed. I suspect it's rather a "qualitative" tool, and not one from which an accurate data can be read (see no 'points of measure', straight ruler like lines, comparative chart of 3 planes...).

I understand there is lack of 11lb performance charts, yet anyway I find it hard to believe 11lbs tempest was able to reach over 400mph at sealevel when 12lbs one was not (as can be seen on a chart specifically dedicated to 12lb tempest, and drawn much more accurately):

http://shrani.si/thumbs/hawker12lb10ty0.jpg (http://shrani.si/?hawker12lb10ty0.jpg)

mynameisroland
05-21-2007, 09:30 AM
Would you be kind enough to show me how the Tempest V 9lb in IL2 is overmoddled?

Seeing as you are the accusor and all that.

The maximum sea level speed at 100% fuel on Crimea using the pitch exploit is 627 km/h. This is still slower than the Tempest 11lb and comes at the cost of a ruined engine. 389 mph is not 394 or 404 mph.

It is also worth reminding you that all aircraft benefit from switching between prop pitches not just one aircraft but many. I am ignoring the prop pitch data. You are not. You are complaining that the Tempest has an unfair advantage I am stating that it does not.

In WW2 which Fw 190 was faster than a contemporary Tempest during at sea level? Lets put it another way, in WW2 did any Fw 190 come as close to the Tempest's sea level speed as the D9 and Tempest V we have in game? I think that teh balance between the two aircraft in speed is closer than it ever was in WW2.

The Tests done for the Fw 190 D9 were not done by me but by someone who flies the Fw 190 D9 and proving that it CAN use the exlpoit too. While on the subject of the Fw 190 D9, do you have any data which suggests a frontline inservice D9 44 would be capable of reaching the same speeds as the one we have in game?

As for your dismissal of the speed chart I posted thats fine. Thats your perogative, however you have picked the worst data from the site. This chart I am now posting shows that the Tempest V 9lb reached 375 mph at sea level. It is also widely recognised by pilots comments that the 11lb Sabre IIA exceeded 400 mph at sea level. If you do further reading on the site I would point your attention to the performance data which gives the sea level speed and climb for the Tempest V at 9lb and then the test goes on to state that 9lb was not attained during the tests, but 375 mph was.

In IL2 I find that the Tempest 100% fuel load matches perfectly 375 mph at sea level or 604 kmh as it should do. I have yet to see anyone make a Tempest hit 400 mph or even 394 mph at 100% fuel. If you have any tracks of info please direct me towards them.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/tempest-hawkerchart.jpg

I dont know what you are tring to prove but I cant help but think you are someone who has no real interest in the Tempest other than trying to ensure that we do not get an 11lb model in IL2. If you want to quote prop pitch speeds for one plane then please do so for all. Otherwise I do not see how you are contributing to the discussion. That one plane may be overmoddeled by X% is a moot point, that all aircraft benefit from the same kind of loop hole is not.

As far as I am concerned this data shows that a 11lb boost Tempest V1 chaser( accepted that it was polished and in pristine condition and using 150 octane fuel) could exceed 400 mph at sea level. There is nothing outrageous about this considered that a manufacturors guarantee of a +/- 3% in performance would make a 385 mph plane go 400mph depending on whether it was a good example or not.


http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/spit1425lbs.jpg

KraljMatjaz
05-21-2007, 10:42 AM
This is poinless... Did you even read what I posted above?

mynameisroland
05-21-2007, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by KraljMatjaz:
This is poinless... Did you even read what I posted above?

Yes I did. You said that you didnt agree with the data I posted and then said that the Tempest V in IL2 is better than a 11lb Tempest V.

I agree it is pointless, because you use PPitch speed when quoting the IL2 Tempest, while refuting real 11lb data and then ignoring my claim that the PPitch exploit is usable on all late war aircraft.

KraljMatjaz
05-21-2007, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KraljMatjaz:
This is poinless... Did you even read what I posted above?

Yes I did. You said that you didnt agree with the data I posted and then said that the Tempest V in IL2 is better than a 11lb Tempest V.

I agree it is pointless, because you use PPitch speed when quoting the IL2 Tempest, while refuting real 11lb data and then ignoring my claim that the PPitch exploit is usable on all late war aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Refuting real 11lb data???????? WTH??? Who posted REAL DATA CHARTS, PROVING 11lb and even 12lb tempest were both SLOWER than 400kph at sea level, and who posted

"It is also widely recognised by pilots comments that the 11lb Sabre IIA exceeded 400 mph at sea level."

I only said we obviously both agree, that 390kph is achievable (as max) level speed for tempest 9lb as we have it modelled in IL2 '46. You persistantly claim 11lb tempest was faster than that. Please prove it.

Philipscdrw
05-21-2007, 12:56 PM
http://people.bath.ac.uk/jsd23/pics/omggraph.GIF

mynameisroland
05-21-2007, 12:58 PM
You disregard the chart I posted, on a suspicion. Then go on to compare it to a chart for a 12lb boost Tempest which never saw active service. You know very well that real data on the Tempest is limited you also know that aircraft manufacturors acepted there would be a +/- 3% tolerance for performance.

Thus there is every liklihood that the Tempest V 11lb COULD exceed 400 mph at sea level. Epecially when a good well maintained example is used as in the case of a V1 chaser.

The Tempest V 13lb boost flew and saw service but we dont have any data for that. Im guessing that you think our IL2 Tempest is faster than that too? Can I prove it .. no , can you prove it .. no. Hey you know what why dont you start your own thread that the Tempest is overmodelled and you can argue to your hearts content in it.

Id rather let Oleg and 1C decide about this one.

As a parting thought here are a couple of images for you should you choose to start a thread about the D9 being overmodelled too - somehow I suspect you wont.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/FWtest1.jpg

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/FWtest2-1.jpg

KraljMatjaz
05-21-2007, 04:04 PM
So, let me find out if I get this right: you claim 11lb tempest is faster than our 9lb we have in game, but you cannot prove it other than suspect that it is most likely inside the 3% error?

Yes, 12lb was never used operationally, but does this mean it was slower than 11lb?

OK, I respect your wish and am moving out of this tempest question, it's yours anyway. Sorry for spoiling the wonderland, my intention was not to burst the bubble, only to clarify facts. Everyone should have the right to have his own opinion, but not his own facts...

However, you got me entirely wrong by the luftwhiner etiquette you imply I am. Again, D9 scrshots like above prove nothing, nothing at all. PLEASE provide tracks from which upper shots were taken. This really raised my interest, probaly even more than this tempest thread. So, any way of finding this miraculous person who performed those tests, or obtaining the tracks?

Can you please list any other planes you know of that gain substantional speed boost at low level using the prop pitch shuffle? By substantional I mean at least 2% of their max speed without pp shuffle.

Brain32
05-21-2007, 06:11 PM
First of all, sorry for OT guys http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif


Can you please list any other planes you know of that gain substantional speed boost at low level using the prop pitch shuffle? By substantional I mean at least 2% of their max speed without pp shuffle.
You probably missed the grand "PP exploit" threads, yes pp shuffle works on all planes(I never managed to do it on a 109 but Oleg h8's that one so NP http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif). Almost every other plane I tested could do it, but the tehnique was different. I generally find that BS and would like it REMOVED FOR ALL PLANES.

mynameisroland
05-21-2007, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by KraljMatjaz:. Again, D9 scrshots like above prove nothing, nothing at all. PLEASE provide tracks from which upper shots were taken. This really raised my interest, probaly even more than this tempest thread. So, any way of finding this miraculous person who performed those tests, or obtaining the tracks?

Can you please list any other planes you know of that gain substantional speed boost at low level using the prop pitch shuffle? By substantional I mean at least 2% of their max speed without pp shuffle.

What part of " I did not make the screen shots " do you not understand?

Its dead easy to do this if you are genuinely interested. Take A Fw 190 D9 45 assigne a key to 0% prop pitch and 100% pitch and shuffle back and forth as the revs increase and decrease. Hey presto not even requiring trimming the D9 will break the sound barrier at sea level.

mynameisroland
05-21-2007, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
First of all, sorry for OT guys http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Can you please list any other planes you know of that gain substantional speed boost at low level using the prop pitch shuffle? By substantional I mean at least 2% of their max speed without pp shuffle.
You probably missed the grand "PP exploit" threads, yes pp shuffle works on all planes(I never managed to do it on a 109 but Oleg h8's that one so NP http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif). Almost every other plane I tested could do it, but the tehnique was different. I generally find that BS and would like it REMOVED FOR ALL PLANES. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with you mate it is BS. It is also BS that some complain about plane X using it while plane Y can use it too, to similar effect.

Give us a Tempest V 11lb - whatever the speed KraljMatjaz - and I'll be happy.

KraljMatjaz
05-22-2007, 12:35 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KraljMatjaz:. Again, D9 scrshots like above prove nothing, nothing at all. PLEASE provide tracks from which upper shots were taken. This really raised my interest, probaly even more than this tempest thread. So, any way of finding this miraculous person who performed those tests, or obtaining the tracks?

Can you please list any other planes you know of that gain substantional speed boost at low level using the prop pitch shuffle? By substantional I mean at least 2% of their max speed without pp shuffle.

What part of " I did not make the screen shots " do you not understand?

Its dead easy to do this if you are genuinely interested. Take A Fw 190 D9 45 assigne a key to 0% prop pitch and 100% pitch and shuffle back and forth as the revs increase and decrease. Hey presto not even requiring trimming the D9 will break the sound barrier at sea level. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What?? U must be living in a wonderland or discuss entirely different flightsim than I am. Why does it not surprise me you still have provided no track? Did you even ever try doing it with a D-9?? 650kph under standard conditions (same under which 627 is achieved by tempest) - overlooking ridiculous sound barrier here - is simply utterly and stupidly blown nonsense, which is not achievable by any kind of pp shuffle!! 632 is max (with shuffle of course) for D9_MW50, and a bit less for 44 model. Now claiming it being dead easy, please hear my very last plea for a track where you achieve 650kph with a dora (again, under same circumstances as tempests 627 is achieved).

Providing proofs for your claims is not something you excell at, is it?

Yes, shuffling pp affects all planes, I am very well aware of that. However, most planes do not profit more than few kph, which is not worth bothering.

Actually I'm tired of this kindergarden discussion where one side babbles all kinds of stupidities without any proofs. That 11lbs tempest was faster than 400kph at sea level IRL, or that you can get dora to 650mph with pp shuffle in IL2 being only two of these.



Look, my friend got a fiat biplane this fast!!!!

(sorry track unavailable)

http://shrani.si/files/fun10vti.jpg

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

WOLFMondo
05-22-2007, 02:59 AM
It would be a whole load easier if people stopped using the '11lbs' and '9lbs' phrase and started refering to the engine type as well. Sabre IIA's worked as both 9lbs and 11lbs where as IIB's, which were more common (first and second batch IIA's were upgraded) always ran at 11lbs (using 130 grade fuel) but at a higher RPM that the IIA at 11lbs using 150 grade.

mynameisroland
05-22-2007, 04:10 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
It would be a whole load easier if people stopped using the '11lbs' and '9lbs' phrase and started refering to the engine type as well. Sabre IIA's worked as both 9lbs and 11lbs where as IIB's, which were more common (first and second batch IIA's were upgraded) always ran at 11lbs (using 130 grade fuel) but at a higher RPM that the IIA at 11lbs using 150 grade.

WOLFMondo I am refering to a 11lb Sabre IIA and have been throughout. This engine has slightly more data lying around than the Sabre IIA and if 1C wanted to they could probably modify the existing power curve for the 9lb Sabre IIA to fit it.

mynameisroland
05-22-2007, 04:10 AM
Originally posted by KraljMatjaz:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by mynameisroland:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by KraljMatjaz:. Again, D9 scrshots like above prove nothing, nothing at all. PLEASE provide tracks from which upper shots were taken.


What happened to you starting your own thread you lame a** troll ?

If you are too lazy or too stupid to load up a QMB and press 0% pitch then 100% pitch repeatedly then its not my job to do it for you. Under normal test conditions 632 is easily attainable by D9, diveing to speed first allows you to maintain higher speeds ala 650 km/h. How many times do I need to say

I did not make these tests

for you to understand?

KraljMatjaz
05-22-2007, 04:28 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
diveing to speed first allows you to maintain higher speeds ala 650 km/h.


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

mynameisroland
05-22-2007, 05:05 AM
Originally posted by KraljMatjaz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
diveing to speed first allows you to maintain higher speeds ala 650 km/h.


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The data sheets you have linked, which are available at Spitfireperformance.com do show that the 12lb boost Tempest Sabre IIA is slower than the data chart which I posted.

I still think that 400mph sea level speed is possible, however I concede that the 11lb variant we would get whether Sabre IIA or Sabre IIB would probably not hit that given the data that is available on the subject.

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">I would be happy to have a Tempest V that meets conservative speed figures at the expense of any prop pitch exploit.</span>

I would also be happy for you to test the Fw 190 D9 your self and see how easy it is to exceed 630 km/h. I can do it, others here have experienced it. I have just done the test myself 5 min ago. Crimea Noon, 100% fuel default load out. The prop pitch bug applies to all aircraft bar the Bf 109 yet you have jumped on the Tempest because you feel it is unique amongst planes.

If you cannot accept or admit that the Dora 9 benefits as greatly as the Tempest then it shows your bias towards the subject openly. The conditions of the test have been outlined the target speed has been set all that remains is for you to carry out the test for yourself.

Bremspropeller
05-30-2007, 06:51 AM
+1

mynameisroland
05-30-2007, 06:59 AM
+2

Wonder what an 11lb SabreII A or B would do to turn performance? If there is no discernable weight or drag increase the turn rate and acceleration should improve.

Brain32
05-30-2007, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
+2

Wonder what an 11lb SabreII A or B would do to turn performance? If there is no discernable weight or drag increase the turn rate and acceleration should improve.
This is exactly why I, after several weeks of reasearch and struggle, stopped to be so enthusiastic about 11lbs Tempest, I remembered that not all things get fixed in the same time...

Glen44
06-03-2007, 01:58 AM
11lbs Tempest, I've waited for it for one year.Please add it in 4.09.

stanford-ukded
06-07-2007, 07:36 AM
Good old fashioned bump.

OD_
06-07-2007, 09:01 AM
Bumps are always good
+1!

OD.

Glen44
06-07-2007, 06:51 PM
BOB:SOW? I don't care much because there is no my favitare Tempest.I'll play Il2 until Tempest added in BOB sieres.

stathem
06-13-2007, 02:56 AM
Bump!

mynameisroland
06-13-2007, 09:42 AM
Any 11lb Tempest please and while your at it a SeaFury for the Korea Sim too please.

mynameisroland
06-22-2007, 05:04 AM
Bump ! Sign the petition

jeanba2
07-03-2007, 06:50 AM
Bump

(not +1, because with so many +1, we would have a 129444322 lbs Tempest)

Inadaze
07-24-2007, 06:39 AM
bumpage http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

WOLFMondo
07-24-2007, 07:12 AM
+1 to a true Tempest V series II.

alert_1
07-25-2007, 01:41 AM
I'm afraid that Oleg's team has't been working on IL2 Series for months...4.09 is supposed to have only 2 maps added by third party volunteers and that's all..

JG53Frankyboy
07-25-2007, 04:24 AM
Originally posted by alert_1:
I'm afraid that Oleg's team has't been working on IL2 Series for months...4.09 is supposed to have only 2 maps added by third party volunteers and that's all..

im also wondering if anyone of Olegs TEam can realy "read" still the IL2 engine code http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

anyway, it will be three maps http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Bessarabia/Odessa
MTO fake
Slovakia

Inadaze
08-09-2007, 06:25 AM
Bumpage http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

WOLFMondo
08-10-2007, 02:48 AM
It transpires we do have an Sabre IIB Tempest V. Just the speeds are right out.

mynameisroland
08-10-2007, 07:48 AM
Which is kind of ironic because the correct speeds are about the only reliable data we have for the 11lber lol.

Seriously I think what me have is another one of IL2's cocktails. Like the G2 is a blend of 1.3 and 1.42 ATA performance or the Fw 190 D9 or the Spitfire Vb ect It has bits and bobs of different pieces of flight data.

So while IL2 supposedly gives us a 2450 HP Sabre II it doesnt give us one that works at the correct rpm and it doesnt pull the Tempest along at greater than 9lb Sabre II A Speeds, but maybe the climb and turn has ben affected?

So does that mean the Tempest is modeled with greater parasitic drag ? Or an inefficient prop? How else would you match 2450 HP power to the performance of a 9lber ?

stanford-ukded
08-10-2007, 07:51 AM
I swear that if the new Tempest is added, I will send a whole crate of Jammie Dodgers to the 1C offices.

Naturally I doubt anyone in Russia will have heard of Jammie Dodgers, but I can assure you they are a prize worth having. Wikipedia article available here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jammie_Dodgers

If this doesn't bring 1C out of the woodwork, we're all doomed!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a5/Jamiedodgers.jpg/800px-Jamiedodgers.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/03/Jamiedodger.jpg/794px-Jamiedodger.jpg

stathem
08-10-2007, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
It transpires we do have an Sabre IIB Tempest V. Just the speeds are right out.

Just for my interest, when did this knowledge come to light? I've been a bit out of the loop recently.

mynameisroland
08-10-2007, 02:02 PM
Stathem IL2 Read me says the Tempest we have has a 2400 HP engine, and some browsing of the SFS files reveals that the Sabre engine with boost engaged produces horsepower equivalent to a Sabre II B 11lb version - but the speed of the plane is firmly of the 9lb Sabre II A variety.

Its strange.

Inadaze
09-04-2007, 09:33 AM
BuMpSaDaIsY http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Ratsack
09-04-2007, 10:25 AM
Weird.

Yes, that's definitely the word I'm looking for. Weird.

cheers,
Ratsack

Bremspropeller
09-14-2007, 07:35 AM
2 lbs anyone?

alert_1
09-14-2007, 08:34 AM
I believe that Tempest suffer a "FW 190 bad performance symptoms". Numbers in .SFS file are Ok, but performance in the sim doesnt corresponf well with them.

stathem
09-15-2007, 07:48 AM
Thanks Roland.

So is this good news?

If the numbers are right but the performance wrong then surely it is a fix that is needed, not a new model?

I would assume that (a fix) is a more likely thing to happen.

Kwiatos
09-15-2007, 10:00 AM
It could be good if FW109 D-9 1944 version also should be corrected in speed escpecially at high alt where is way to fast.

+1 for 11lb Tempest and normal rear view!

Brain32
09-15-2007, 11:29 AM
Yes having normal 11lbs Tempest would be great, also toning down it's turn rate and low speed manouverbility from insanely overmodelled to just a bit overmodelled would be great too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

SG2_Wasy
09-16-2007, 01:06 AM
http://www.imagehosting.com/out.php/i1144666_1.jpg

Kwiatos
09-16-2007, 07:48 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
Yes having normal 11lbs Tempest would be great, also toning down it's turn rate and low speed manouverbility from insanely overmodelled to just a bit overmodelled would be great too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Actually in game Tempest turn little better then Fw190 and worse then Bf109. I think these is resonable relative performance in turn rate.

See wing loading:
K-4 - 209 kg/m2
Tempest- 218 kg/m2
D-9 - 233 kg/m2

Also Tempest have lower stall speed then Bf109 and Fw190. Tempest manual says:
Clean config (11500lb) - 85 mph (137 km/h)!!!
Flaps ,gear down - 75 mph (121 km/h) !!!

Brain32
09-16-2007, 08:18 AM
No actually in-game Tempest turns slightly better than 190D9(at low speed it turns much better), it can match late 109's down to 260kmh and even lower while against FW190A it's not even a contest. Interestingly enough AFDU tactical trials with captured FW190A said there's little to choose between the two http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Methinks somebody got their SpitMkXIV afterall http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

HellToupee
09-21-2007, 11:10 PM
didnt allied trials of d9 find it was less manoverable than a anton?

Kwiatos
09-22-2007, 05:00 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
didnt allied trials of d9 find it was less manoverable than a anton?

I dindt saw these allied trials but what i was read in some books german pilots when get D-9 reported that D-9 had slowier roll rate then Anton and had the same turn radius as Fw 190 A-8 but keep better energy in turn.
So D-9 was faster, had better acceleration, dive, climb better, have better high altitude performance and keep energy better then Anton. Other hand D-9 had slowier roll rate, was more difficult to fly, had bigger drag in pitch movements then Anton.

Brain32
09-22-2007, 01:27 PM
didnt allied trials of d9 find it was less manoverable than a anton?
I saw it mentioned in a document on spitpefr.com(ROFLMAO - where else http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif) however you will have to do better than that as the condition of that particular example was highly questionable, I always wondered why are we ALWAYS comparing German captured equipment with latest and greatest, factory fresh Allied equipment?

D-9 had slowier roll rate then Anton
Hardly. Captured example again? Ahh yes, you can't do better than that anyway.

had the same turn radius as Fw 190 A-8
Yes according to Russian testing, D9 had same turn time as A8 in fighter configuration(lower weight then we have in game), however Russian never had 190D9's with any kind of boost installation, no MW50 no C3 injection(or what is it called anyway, I actually forgot http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif) so it ran at much less power than combat examples had available.
However, in game D9 has turn time of real Fw190A8 while in game Fw190A8 has turn time P47's should have, but ofcourse since you guys know nothing else but turn, Oleg helped you once again as usual. The P51 is "last plane standing" with realistic turn abilities, that's why it "sucks" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
In the end what all this had to do with in game Tempest flying almost like a Spitfire?

Kwiatos
09-22-2007, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> didnt allied trials of d9 find it was less manoverable than a anton?
I saw it mentioned in a document on spitpefr.com(ROFLMAO - where else http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif) however you will have to do better than that as the condition of that particular example was highly questionable, I always wondered why are we ALWAYS comparing German captured equipment with latest and greatest, factory fresh Allied equipment?

D-9 had slowier roll rate then Anton
Hardly. Captured example again? Ahh yes, you can't do better than that anyway.

had the same turn radius as Fw 190 A-8
Yes according to Russian testing, D9 had same turn time as A8 in fighter configuration(lower weight then we have in game), however Russian never had 190D9's with any kind of boost installation, no MW50 no C3 injection(or what is it called anyway, I actually forgot http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif) so it ran at much less power than combat examples had available.
However, in game D9 has turn time of real Fw190A8 while in game Fw190A8 has turn time P47's should have, but ofcourse since you guys know nothing else but turn, Oleg helped you once again as usual. The P51 is "last plane standing" with realistic turn abilities, that's why it "sucks" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
In the end what all this had to do with in game Tempest flying almost like a Spitfire? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I must dissapoint you Brain beacuse i just repeat what german pilots reported about their new toy Fw 190 D-9 comparing to Anton. I didnt mention any allied or russian test but only german pilots opinion.
BTW im wonder how many D-9s with C3 fuel were operational comparing to standart model (B4) or with Mw50 model?

VW-IceFire
09-22-2007, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by SG2_Wasy:
http://www.imagehosting.com/out.php/i1144666_1.jpg
If that is reliable then I will delay my re-release of Storm Clouds http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

(actually I probably will anyways because I want to add a counterpart campaign for the other side http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

FA_Whisky
10-14-2007, 09:27 AM
Bump to the top

AKA_TAGERT
10-14-2007, 09:59 AM
Originally posted by SG2_Wasy:
http://www.imagehosting.com/out.php/i1144666_1.jpg The end of this sim is near..

As much as I love the sound mod..
As much as I love the AI enabled planes..
Once totally new planes or tweaked current planes start showing up with 'user' defined/tweak FMs..

Well it's over!

Was fun while it lasted though!

Back to CFS3!

Woodstock_69
10-14-2007, 03:12 PM
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h241/Zapp2000/HawkerTempest_Cockpit_Poster.jpg
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

M_Gunz
10-14-2007, 05:43 PM
Originally posted by Inadaze:
BuMpSaDaIsY http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

"It's enough to make you weep."

M_Gunz
10-14-2007, 05:46 PM
Originally posted by Kwiatos:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
didnt allied trials of d9 find it was less manoverable than a anton?

I dindt saw these allied trials but what i was read in some books german pilots when get D-9 reported that D-9 had slowier roll rate then Anton and had the same turn radius as Fw 190 A-8 but keep better energy in turn.
So D-9 was faster, had better acceleration, dive, climb better, have better high altitude performance and keep energy better then Anton. Other hand D-9 had slowier roll rate, was more difficult to fly, had bigger drag in pitch movements then Anton. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A-8 at least -- the full armor Anton.