PDA

View Full Version : *sniff sniff, 109 is overmodelled, sniff,sniff boohoo



FW190fan
12-27-2003, 08:51 AM
Sniff,sniff, boo-hoo-hoo-hoo, the 109 is overmodelled, boo-hoo sniff sniff.

It climbs too fast waaaaahhhhh haaahh.

*sniffle, snort* gulp.

It's elevator response is too good, boo-hoo-hoo.

It's roll-rate is too fast, bwaah -haaah.

*Snort, cough*

Nice job, however on the P-39.

*sniff,sniff.


http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-G2-33s_small.jpg

FW190fan
12-27-2003, 08:51 AM
Sniff,sniff, boo-hoo-hoo-hoo, the 109 is overmodelled, boo-hoo sniff sniff.

It climbs too fast waaaaahhhhh haaahh.

*sniffle, snort* gulp.

It's elevator response is too good, boo-hoo-hoo.

It's roll-rate is too fast, bwaah -haaah.

*Snort, cough*

Nice job, however on the P-39.

*sniff,sniff.


http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-G2-33s_small.jpg

SkyChimp
12-27-2003, 09:28 AM
That Fw-190 still rolling at 180 degrees per second at 800 km/h? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

FW190fan
12-27-2003, 09:43 AM
Who needs to roll at 180deg/sec at 800kph?


http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-G2-33s_small.jpg

Willey
12-27-2003, 10:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
That Fw-190 still rolling at 180 degrees per second at 800 km/h? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're damn right here. It's ROLL rate was perfectly matching what one would expect in 1.0. But then they corrected the elevators, which was good. But somehow they also pushed the ailerons, which is crap. They could give the P-47D-27 some more roll. It's silly. The D-22 rolls significantly better in FB with the same wing racks for bombs. The D-10 even is a tad better than the D-22 whioch is correct. Also the P-39 rolls too well... I wonder what they did to the Zero BTW. It rolls like crap now. It had a high roll rate - but it got crap at high speeds. It should roll like in the RC patch at <350-400kph and like in 1.21 above that speed. Huge ailerons grant a high rate of roll, but at higher speeds they show a larger area when beeing deflected, so more power is needed to deflect them which results in a rather poor roll rate. So it actually should stiffen up like the 109's elevators and ailerons. Even more.

CARBONFREEZE
12-27-2003, 02:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FW190fan:
Sniff,sniff, boo-hoo-hoo-hoo, the 109 is overmodelled, boo-hoo sniff sniff.

It climbs too fast waaaaahhhhh haaahh.

*sniffle, snort* gulp.

It's elevator response is too good, boo-hoo-hoo.

It's roll-rate is too fast, bwaah -haaah.

*Snort, cough*

Nice job, however on the P-39.

*sniff,sniff.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lol

P-39 especially needs to be looked at, is it using a P-63 FM with only 15 gallons of fuel and no armerment? =)

I think when the P-63 arrives alot of people are going to be dissapointed because it will be just like the P-39 we have right now. I used to fly the P-39 (in IL-2) because it seemed realtively accurate as far as the flight model is concerened; but not in FB. Overmodeled a bit much (although I have not see the test data for the Russian "stripped" D and Ns, the in game performance does not match the "object viewer"). It was especially prone to spins in manuvers below 180 mph when the cannon was out of ammunition, due to the center of gravity shift (IRL).

I have read accounts of P-39s attempting to turn with an early model Zero (I can't remeber model at the moment) and the Zero was capable of turning two times in the amount of time it took the P-39 to make one 360 degree turn. These are American P-39s (unsure if any modifications).

Some times it seems like this sim is revisionist history, other times it seems like all of the aircraft are on the same liniar FM table, and when Oleg's team changes one aircraft, they all change. I am glad Oleg's team is willing to make changes to the sim but it would be nice to be told what exactly is done to each changed flight model in a patch.

Russian aircraft require skill to fly.
German aircraft require ten times that skill, and one hundred times the patience!

WUAF_CO_CRBNFRZ on HyperLobby

robban75
12-27-2003, 03:21 PM
The high rollrate of the Fw 190 has never been to an advantage to me. It makes the plane highly unstable making aming difficult. I really wish it got lowered to what it was in the 1.0 version.

SkyChimp
12-27-2003, 07:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CARBONFREEZE:
I have read accounts of P-39s attempting to turn with an early model Zero (I can't remeber model at the moment) and the Zero was capable of turning two times in the amount of time it took the P-39 to make one 360 degree turn. These are American P-39s (unsure if any modifications).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree the P-39 should not be able to out turn the Zero at low speed. It doesn't in FB - not by a long shot. But it should be able to out turn any of the Bf-109s. Simple fact is is that the P-39 was more agile. Right now the G-2 can easily turn with the P-39 - even down to stall speeds. That should not be the case.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

FW190fan
12-27-2003, 08:00 PM
Right now you can yank and bank to your heart's content with the P-39 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

THAT should not be the case.

<center>http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-G2-33s_small.jpg

FW190fan
12-27-2003, 08:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
The high rollrate of the Fw 190 has never been to an advantage to me. It makes the plane highly unstable making aming difficult. I really wish it got lowered to what it was in the 1.0 version.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I agree, I think the 3D engine is stretched to it's limit and that's the problem.

Either that or the great "increase the roll-rate in FW190" campaign that was waged here relentlessly in ORR by all the Luftwhiners http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Oh wait, there wasn't one was there?

Still, it cracks me up when people bring the "FW190 rolls at 180deg/sec at 800kph" *sniff-sniff* stuff in. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

<center>http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-G2-33s_small.jpg

SkyChimp
12-27-2003, 08:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FW190fan:
Right now you can yank and bank to your heart's content with the P-39 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

THAT should not be the case.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know what P-39 you are flying. Maybe you are just really, really, really good. But I have no problem stalling out http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But there is no question, the P-39 should excel in a level turning fight with the Bf-109. Right now, the Bf-109 can easily follow the P-39 in turns. If the P-39 is overmodelled in this regard, then the Bf-109 is much more so.

I do agree it rolls too fast. Way too fast. But so does every Soviet plane in the game. Funny how that works. If the Fw was famous for any one aspect of its performance, it was roll. Yet just about every Soviet plane can easily roll with it, including the MiG-3 - with thios long, thick wings.

By the way, I going to post a roll chart on the P-39 in a new P-47 roll rate thread I am going to start. Check it out.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

SkyChimp
12-27-2003, 08:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FW190fan:
Still, it cracks me up when people bring the "FW190 rolls at 180deg/sec at 800kph" *sniff-sniff* stuff in. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wait a minute, you were just complaining about the P-39 roll rate. But it's perfectly fine that the Fw-190 roll rate is over modelled? You're not being hypocritical, are you? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

FW190fan
12-27-2003, 08:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

I don't know what P-39 you are flying. Maybe you are just really, really, really good. But I have no problem stalling out http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


No, it's just that I've been flying the Focke for 2 years so it's really difficult for me to stall ANYTHING http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Oh, that and the fact that I'm really, really,really good doesn't hurt either http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-G2-33s_small.jpg

FW190fan
12-27-2003, 08:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:

Wait a minute, you were just complaining about the P-39 roll rate. But it's perfectly fine that the Fw-190 roll rate is over modelled? You're not being hypocritical, are you? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I was complaining about it's turn-rate, but you can throw the roll-rate in there as well I guess.

About the FW190 roll-rate, I've boo-hoo'd about it quite a bit myself - for the same reasons Robban75 stated. It really is more of a nusance than a help.

Why would anyone want the FW190 roll-rate increased over what it was historically?

http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-G2-33s_small.jpg

BBB_Hyperion
12-27-2003, 08:43 PM
From FB experience.
Not so sure about the g2 vs p39 issue.
I had always the impression that
the g2 only outturns p39 at slow speeds cause of the slats. As it isnt the optimum cornerspeed for p39 and with the slats the stallspeed for the g2 is lowered and most p39 drivers dont fly at cornerspeed. However it needs some time to get on a p39 tail and as most experienced p39 drivers dont use strict turn as long they have options they use this roll turn halfroll until
they get into this low alt turn situation. Same goes for too high speeds but that is little tricky with 109 cause of cemented rudder.

Il2Database gives following optimum cornerspeed Data

Turntime 1k 360
P39N1 19s
P39Q1 19,5s
P39Q10 18-19s
109G2 20-22,6

From this values we see it is evenly matched with slight advantage in turn for P39 at Cornerspeed . And that is my experience in FB 1.21 too.

Ingame turntimes my be little lower but the relative difference will be the same.

Regards,
Hyperion

SkyChimp
12-27-2003, 08:47 PM
Well I agree, a "too high" roll rate is a pain and not really an advantage. It makes the plane "flitty" and hard to control. The B-239 and the P-39 both suffer from this. I don't have a good roll chart on the B-239, but I do on the P-39D-1. And if that chart is any indication, the P-39 in FB is rolling too fast. Although the P-40 is rolling just fine now http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

But I disagree with you about the turn. The P-39 was an excellent aircraft in this regard. It should be able to handily outturn the Bf-109, but it doesn't - especially the G-2. That's why I maintain that if the P-39 is wrong, the Bf-109 is even more so.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

BBB_Hyperion
12-27-2003, 09:44 PM
As i dont see the p39 overmodeled maybe in some small things like e keeping but with its slim design can be possible at least. Do you have a online track about that g2 issue in pure turn and what p39 model was used (alt,speed,fuelstate,etc)?

I did some circles with both Planes and i think i can stay in the air for a while with both maybe a online test would clear out some things.

I have a old online track testing this issue clearly shows superior slow speed handling of 109 and superior turn performance of p39 at medium speeds.

Will soon redo this test in new version.
Will need a new webhost for this my old one got killed by il2fb rc1 .)

Regards,
Hyperion

faustnik
12-27-2003, 10:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The P-39 was an excellent aircraft in this regard. It should be able to handily outturn the Bf-109, but it doesn't - especially the G-2.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where is your data on this SC? At what speeds are you talking about. The 109 should also have a a lower stall speed than the Cobra making continuous turning at low speeds very dangerous for the Cobra, right. Also, does the superior powerloading of the Bf109G2 benefit it in turning and looping fights? Lastly, on the turn, are you sure that the G2 can out-turn the Cobra in FB?

As to P-39 roll rate, does the P-39D in your chart have wing tanks? The Soviets removed many of the wing tanks on their Cobras and some models did not have them. Perhaps this could explain some of the roll issues.

Edit: Almost forgot. Please fix the P-47D-27 roll rate! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig

S77th-brooks
12-27-2003, 10:17 PM
real bf,s should fly 5 mph and take i hour to turn and never never be albe to shoot down any thing

SkyChimp
12-27-2003, 10:47 PM
Faustik, I'm not talking about "loop fighting." I'm talking about turn fighting.

I don't think the Bf-109 had a lower stall speed. The stall speed for the P-39Q-1 was 90 mph with flaps, around 105 without. IIRC the Bf-109G-2 was around 108-110 mph.

While power loading will favor the Bf-109, wing loading will favor the P-39.

I have results of a Bell turn test from a weight reduction study ("Reduction of Gross Weight" Bell Aircraft Corporation # 15-943-014, 7 July 1942) The stock P-39D-1 at 7,779 (which is heavier than the P-39N, Q-1 or Q-10 -and with less power) could turn a circle in 780 feet. Stall speed was 98 mph.

Could the Bf-109G-2 turn a circle in 780 feet?

That's a very tight turn. But from what I've experienced, the Bf-109G-2 can follow it with no problem. I've gone round and round on the verge of stall only the have the planes stay in the 12 o'clock - 6 o'clock position.

Now, I will say I do not play on-line and this may be unique to AI planes. But from what I'm seeing, the Bf-109 in FB is simply turning very tightly with planes it could not historically turn with.

===

Wing "tanks?"

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

SkyChimp
12-27-2003, 11:03 PM
And btw, another undermodelled aspect of the P-39 is the destructive power of the 37mm gun.

In FB, a single round of 37mm x 145R of the P-39 has nowhere near the destructive power of a single round of Mk108 30mm x 90RB.

The 37mm had a higher muzzle velocity than the 30mm: 610 m/s vs 505 m/s.

The 37mm had more energy than the 30mm: 113,000 joules vs 42,100 joules.

And according to the book "Flying Guns WWII" by Anthony Williams (which goes into an in-depth comparitive analysis of the destructiveness of rounds) the 37mm was a signifcantly more destructive round than the 30mm.



I set up a QMB mission against 4 unarmed B-17s. I flew directly behind the each B-17 and carefully squeezed off one round at a time into the tail/fuselage and then wings and found it takes just a few fuselage or wing hits with the 30mm from dead astern to set fire and bring down the bomber. But the 37mm required significantly more hits to both areas to bring it down. In fact, hits from dead astern don't appear to have much effect at all.

Now, in real life the Mk108 fired faster. But round for round, the 37mm was more destructive. That's not modelled in FB at all.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

S77th-brooks
12-27-2003, 11:46 PM
in real life 3 shots would kill a b17 and one shot for any fighter with 108mk not in fb

kyrule2
12-28-2003, 12:14 AM
This time I have to agree with Skychimp. The 108 is devastaing in FB, and I rarely only hit with one round so whatever I hit usually dies.

I hadn't flown the P-39 in awhile so I decided to take her up for a spin. To make a long story short I found the 37mm cannon to be a bit disappointing from what I remembered. It should be hard to hit with, but it should be more destructive than it is when you do score hits IMHO.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors" by Nicolas Trudgian

BBB_Hyperion
12-28-2003, 12:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Faustik, I'm not talking about "loop fighting." I'm talking about turn fighting.

I don't think the Bf-109 had a lower stall speed. The stall speed for the P-39Q-1 was 90 mph with flaps, around 105 without. IIRC the Bf-109G-2 was around 108-110 mph.

While power loading will favor the Bf-109, wing loading will favor the P-39.

I have results of a Bell turn test from a weight reduction study ("Reduction of Gross Weight" Bell Aircraft Corporation # 15-943-014, 7 July 1942) The stock P-39D-1 at 7,779 (which is heavier than the P-39N, Q-1 or Q-10 -and with less power) could turn a circle in 780 feet. Stall speed was 98 mph.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stalling speeds on the glide are 1000 m No Flaps/Full Flaps 95/85mph on g6 g2 might be a bit better but as you use p39d it might be ok

I think this is in both cases without banking angle and there come the slats in. It allows better close Stall handling as the p39 can offer without . They deploy only asymetrical with a sidedrift.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Could the Bf-109G-2 turn a circle in 780 feet?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I come on a sunstained turnspeed of 155 mph resulting in about 780 feet. With full flaps 126 mph
Full Flaps Radius: 586 ft with banking also i did little high guess from g6 data so real values may be lower.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
That's a very tight turn. But from what I've experienced, the Bf-109G-2 can follow it with no problem. I've gone round and round on the verge of stall only the have the planes stay in the 12 o'clock - 6 o'clock position.

Now, I will say I do not play on-line and this may be unique to AI planes. But from what I'm seeing, the Bf-109 in FB is simply turning very tightly with planes it could not historically turn with.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

AI Planes dont fly to Physical Laws they are out of normal complex player flying model and there are lists what they can do and normal player cant.

My favorite is the dive and they dont break at their own max dive speed.
They can control badly damaged planes like nothing had happen.
They are very accurate with the first shoot then shooting about 3 degrees behind without correcting.
etc

This AI cant be be taken as real FM since the "We want harder AI Planes issue" AI Cheats where it can.

Regards,
Hyperion

Boandlgramer
12-28-2003, 03:03 AM
well FW190fan,
i like the plane too, among many other aircrafts, but i see no need to open such an useless thread in Olegs Ready Room.
really

RED_Boandl
http://www.707tkbn.org/members/sites/schmidt05.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
12-28-2003, 03:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>well FW190fan, i like the plane too, among many other aircrafts, but i see no need to open such an useless thread in Olegs Ready Room. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Given the FINAL PATCH is coming and we need to SPAM Oleg about real problems (as if we haven't been http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif )

__________________
RUSSIAN lexx website http://www.lexx.ufo.ru/members.shtml
Stanly is a moron, kai is a walking dead beet, Xev just want sex.

clint-ruin
12-28-2003, 04:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kyrule2:
This time I have to agree with Skychimp. The 108 is devastaing in FB, and I rarely only hit with one round so whatever I hit usually dies.

I hadn't flown the P-39 in awhile so I decided to take her up for a spin. To make a long story short I found the 37mm cannon to be a bit disappointing from what I remembered. It should be hard to hit with, but it should be more destructive than it is when you do score hits IMHO.

"Ice Warriors" by Nicolas Trudgian<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you think the 37mm T9 is underpowered, try taking on a formation of B-17s with the NS45 and NS37. The MK108 and MK103 are truly the most effective anti-bomber weapons in FB right now.

After my house move next week I should have the preliminary tests on various ammo/hit locations all done, results might surprise some people who've been beating the "LW guns are underpowered" drum for the last few years.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

Ruy Horta
12-28-2003, 05:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
The high rollrate of the Fw 190 has never been to an advantage to me. It makes the plane highly unstable making aming difficult. I really wish it got lowered to what it was in the 1.0 version.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with this observation, the Fw190 is oversensitive to the extreme and difficult to really aim accurately when maneuvering (this is somewhat compensated by the firepower and ammo load). I find it currently handicapped because of this. Maybe if combined with more dampened controls (joystick setup) it balances out, but that would make the other types sluggish.

Since there has been an abundance of number shoving, I think that its clear that the role has been overdone, probably the elevator as well...

Ruy "SPADES" Horta

Huckebein_FW
12-28-2003, 05:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:

If you think the 37mm T9 is underpowered, try taking on a formation of B-17s with the NS45 and NS37. The MK108 and MK103 are truly the most effective anti-bomber weapons in FB right now.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

T9 is underpowered??? This is the new VVS whine?

The HE mixture weight in M54 round (fired by T9) had 45g * 1.39 (Tetryl factor) = 62.55g TNT.

Mk108 round had 85g * 2.21 (PETN factor) = 187.85g TNT

That means that the explosive power of Mk108 round is 3 times more powerful than of M54 round!!! Which of course is not reflected in FB. Look at the number of arrows (arcade = 1) after both type of projectile hits and tell me what you see. Are there 3 times more arrows for Mk108 hit? NO. So why not whine Mk108 is undermodelled, or T9 is overmodelled.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

clint-ruin
12-28-2003, 05:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:

If you think the 37mm T9 is underpowered, try taking on a formation of B-17s with the NS45 and NS37. The MK108 and MK103 are truly the most effective anti-bomber weapons in FB right now.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

T9 is underpowered??? This is the new VVS whine?

The HE mixture weight in M54 round (fired by T9) had 45g * 1.39 (Tetryl factor) = 62.55g TNT.

Mk108 round had 85g * 2.21 (PETN factor) = 187.85g TNT

That means that the explosive power of Mk108 round is 3 times more powerful than of M54 round!!! Which of course is not reflected in FB. Look at the number of arrows (arcade = 1) after both type of projectile hits and tell me what you see. Are there 3 times more arrows for Mk108 hit? NO. So why not whine Mk108 is undermodelled, or T9 is overmodelled.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Huckles,

If you're assessing damage based solely on the number of arrows you are indeed going to be mislead on how much damage each round causes. However, to stir the pot a little - not knowing the exact amount of shrapnel produced by each round - I can only speculate that a thin-walled 30mm projectile might spew out less shrapnel than a more solid 37mm one.

In any case I would recommend another read of my post, and the one it was written in response to. In fact .. given your posting history here, how about you give it two or three reads.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

Willey
12-28-2003, 06:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
As to P-39 roll rate, does the P-39D in your chart have wing tanks? The Soviets removed many of the wing tanks on their Cobras and some models did not have them. Perhaps this could explain some of the roll issues. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Try shooting at P-39s in FB. They aren't stripped at all. I got fuel leaking out of the wings already and it's quite hard to score PKs against P-39 drivers.

Jippo01
12-28-2003, 06:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
If you're assessing damage based solely on the number of arrows you are indeed going to be mislead on how much damage each round causes. However, to stir the pot a little - not knowing the exact amount of shrapnel produced by each round - I can only speculate that a thin-walled 30mm projectile might spew out less shrapnel than a more solid 37mm one. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But nevertheless he is right about the relative effectiveness of a single round.

T9 uses less explosive and even that explosive is significantly weaker. Allied 37mm had less destructive power.

Kinetic energy really has effect on AP rounds. but T9 lags behind on HE rounds. 30mm MG was very advanced ammunition and has been the forefather of many later ammunition variants. T9 used old technology.


-jippo

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
www.ju88.de.tf (http://www.ju88.de.tf)

clint-ruin
12-28-2003, 07:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jippo01:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
If you're assessing damage based solely on the number of arrows you are indeed going to be mislead on how much damage each round causes. However, to stir the pot a little - not knowing the exact amount of shrapnel produced by each round - I can only speculate that a thin-walled 30mm projectile might spew out less shrapnel than a more solid 37mm one. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But nevertheless he is right about the relative effectiveness of a single round.

T9 uses less explosive and even that explosive is significantly weaker. Allied 37mm had less destructive power.

Kinetic energy really has effect on AP rounds. but T9 lags behind on HE rounds. 30mm MG was very advanced ammunition and has been the forefather of many later ammunition variants. T9 used old technology.


-jippo

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
http://www.ju88.de.tf<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup, I'm well aware of the influence the MK108 design had on later weapons, and the age of the T9.

In case you missed it - here is what I wrote:


If you think the 37mm T9 is underpowered, try taking on a formation of B-17s with the NS45 and NS37. The MK108 and MK103 are truly the most effective anti-bomber weapons in FB right now.


I realise that english is not the first language for many people here, and within the limits of my writing ability I try to be as unambiguous as possible.

But.

However many times I read what I wrote, I just can't turn "If you think the T9 is underpowered..." into "I think the T9 is underpowered.", or turn "the MK108 and MK103 are truly the most effective anti-bomber weapons in FB right now" into "(...) but they shouldn't be".

What interests me in my testing is how the NS37 and NS45 stack up against the MK108 and MK103. Getting some interesting comparative results from the NS HE shells.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

Jippo01
12-28-2003, 07:08 AM
Yes I wrote a reply to many of the posters in this thread, but quoted only you. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Which was a bit of accident. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


-jippo

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
www.ju88.de.tf (http://www.ju88.de.tf)

SkyChimp
12-28-2003, 07:50 AM
I'd suggest any of you that seem to think the 37mm was less destructive than the 30mm buy the book "Flying Guns of WWII." It simply does not support the position that the 37mm was "weaker" than the 30mm.

As stated, the 37mm was bigger. Had a higher muzzle velocity. Had more muzzle energy. And while the HE content was a less, it had more destructive power. What it lacked in HE content in comparison to the 30mm, it made up for in fragment.

Huck's numbers are misleading. The 37mm had a lesser HE content, but it produced more fragments on detontation. And fragments are the cause of damage.

Round for round, the 37mm was more destructive than the 30mm.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

Jippo01
12-28-2003, 08:05 AM
30mm MG destroys on pressure difference, not fragments, and I think you know that.

KE playas very small role in HE destruction, chemical energy is the force doing the damaging in HE rounds.

30mm MG carries over far more chemical energy than T9 37mmm. It doesn't matter that much how the energy is transferred to the receiving body, be it KE of the shrapnell or the pressure differences, but the amount of energy available. 30mm MG delivers far more energy to the target than does 37mm HE.


-jippo

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
www.ju88.de.tf (http://www.ju88.de.tf)

aGunfighter
12-28-2003, 08:14 AM
Shrapnel may be critical if exploded outside of an airplane, but explosive charge is more critical if exploded inside.

kyrule2
12-28-2003, 10:48 AM
I can't believe I am siding with the Alliedwhiners on this one (actually I do alot of the time but they never seem to agree with me http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )but someone should post a link to that interview with the Soviet pilot who flew the I-16, P-40, and P-39. He talks about how devastating the 37mm cannon was, even destroying ships with it. He stated something to the effect that if you hit a fighter with it (even a single round), there was pretty much nothing left. It was a great read if anyone can find it or knows what I am talking about.

Anyway, the bottom line is that both guns are very powerful. Kill and be happy!

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors" by Nicolas Trudgian

JG14_Josf
12-28-2003, 11:12 AM
Is it possible to get some source specific information on comparative powerloading, wingloading, and turn performance capabilities for the 109G2 vs the P-39N1, Q1, Q10?

The UBisite shows:

190G2:
Take-off: 3,100 kg.
Wing area: 17.3 sq. m.
Indicated: 1,355 HP
Take-off: 1,475 HP

P-39N1, Q1, Q10:
Take-off: 3,714 kg.
Wing area: 19.9 Sq. M.
Indicated: 1,200 HP;
Take-off: 1,420 HP


It has been pointed out that the 109 wing area is wrong at the UBi site. Typo or source error?

http://www.bf109.com/frameset.html

The wing area of all 109 models is listed above as 16.165 sq.m (E and F models are the same?)

Do leading edge slats effectivly increase wing area when deployed?

P-39s
3714/19.9 = 186.63
3714/1420 = 2.62

109G2
3100/16.17 = 191.71
3100/1475 = 2.1

The above shows the P-39 to have a 5.08 kg per square meter wingloading advantage. The 109 is showing a .52 kg per hp advantage.

191.71/186.63 = .97
3% difference in wingloading.

2.1/2.62 = .80
20% difference in powerloading

I find anecdotal evidence to be helpful in comparing planes that have similar specifications.

The Luftwaffe Fighter Force
The View from the Cockpit
by
Adolf Galland, et al
Edited by David C. Isby

ISBN 1-85367-327-7

Chapter 30
GAF Opinions of Allied Aircraft

Interrogation of Generalleutnant Galland, Generalfeldmarshall Milch, Oberstleutnant Bar, Generalmajor Hitschhold, and Leutnant Neumann
At Kaufbeuren, Germany, 2 September 1945

4. The Airacobra (P.39) This was a very inferior fighter aircraft at all times during the war. Its maneuverability, speed, dive and climbing qualities were were poor. It was one of the easiest of the Allied fighters to shoot down.


Golodnikov article:

http://www.airforce.users.ru/lend-lease/english/articles/golodnikov/part1.htm

[This message was edited by JG14_Josf on Sun December 28 2003 at 10:20 AM.]

faustnik
12-28-2003, 11:14 AM
There is no way a aircraft of any size, is going to be combat ready after being hit by a 37mm round. There is a lot of force on the surface skin of an aircraft at combat speeds. The destruction caused by such a big HE round would cause huge sections of the aluminum or wooden skin to be ripped away. A 190 or Yak should never survive a 37mm hit.


SkyChimp,

I assure you, online, a good P-39 pilot has the deck stacked in his favor if he can pull any 109 into a loop/turn fight. Offline always has wacky results as AI is allowed to pull strange maneuvers without fear of blackout or overheat.

When I go "red", I'll always jump in the old Cobra and feel the P-39 is second to no a/c in a low altitude DF. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BTW, did you find any figures on P-39 roll rate without wing tanks?

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig

Jippo01
12-28-2003, 11:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
A 190 or Yak should never survive a 37mm hit.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wouldn't be so strict.

Sure one hit could blow such a plane when in the right place, but I have posted several times a series of photos of a Finnish Morane-Saulnier fighter which sustained several hits from an Airacobra and made it back to base. And I wouldn't consider M.S. an exceptionally durable plane.


-jippo

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
www.ju88.de.tf (http://www.ju88.de.tf)

SkyChimp
12-28-2003, 12:57 PM
Jippo, the 30mm also explodes on impact. The 37mm has a delayed fuse that causes detonation after penetration of whatever it strikes - an advantage over the 30mm. Additionally, it has better armor pentration.

Again, I'd urge you to buy the book I referenced. Your position is not supported by it.

And yes, Kyrule is correct. Both American and Soviet pilots felt a single hit with the 37mm was devestating on both fighters and on the light bombers flown by the Germans and Japanese.

And you can gome up with picture of French fighters hit by 37mm that made it back to base. So what. I can show you pictures of P-47s hit by 40mm flak that did the same thing, or 88mm hits on B-17s that flew back to base. Or even an F4U that had a 20mm that exploded inside the fuel tank that flew back.

[This message was edited by SkyChimp on Sun December 28 2003 at 12:07 PM.]

Jippo01
12-28-2003, 01:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Jippo, the 30mm also explodes on impact. The 37mm has a delayed fuse that causes detonation after penetration of whatever it strikes - an advantage over the 30mm. Additionally, it has better armor pentration.

Again, I'd urge you to buy the book I referenced. Your position is not supported by it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I must admit I've been tempted to buy the book eversdnce you posted your recommendation in a thread some days back. Seems like an excellent read.

I think we can peacefully disagree over the matter. I would just like to point out that one thing where Germans held an significant edge was AA ammunition design. And also I would like to point out that the MG rounds DEPENDED on their delayed fuses. And about armor penetration we never disagreed. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


-jippo

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
www.ju88.de.tf (http://www.ju88.de.tf)

Boandlgramer
12-28-2003, 01:52 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by SkyChimp:
or 88mm hits on B-17s that flew back to base. Or even an F4U that had a 20mm that exploded inside the fuel tank that flew back.

Yes Please, Skychimp , do it .

RED_Boandl
http://www.707tkbn.org/members/sites/schmidt05.jpg

Fehler
12-28-2003, 02:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:

Interrogation of Generalleutnant Galland, Generalfeldmarshall Milch, Oberstleutnant Bar, Generalmajor Hitschhold, and Leutnant Neumann
At Kaufbeuren, Germany, 2 September 1945

4. The Airacobra (P.39) This was a very inferior fighter aircraft at all times during the war. Its maneuverability, speed, dive and climbing qualities were were poor. It was one of the easiest of the Allied fighters to shoot down.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But that cant be true.. I bet if Kit Carson would have said that it would have been gospel. But alas, it was said by one of those loser Nazi pilots.. Cant trust them at all... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

So in conclusion, the P-39 was excellent! Silly Americans.. gave those nice planes away...

More Urban Legend stuff if ya ask me.

http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/Fehlersig.jpg
http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/9JG54.html

Bremspropeller
12-28-2003, 02:36 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif the old AP vs. Mienengeschoss story ??



http://www.cwissig.com/CONCEPTS/FW-190%20Blue%20Pencil.jpg
"Once upon the time..there was an aircraft that ruled the skies of Europe..."
http://www.virtual-jabog32.de
http://www.jg68.de.vu

SkyChimp
12-28-2003, 04:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Boandlgramer:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by SkyChimp:
or 88mm hits on B-17s that flew back to base. Or even an F4U that had a 20mm that exploded inside the fuel tank that flew back.

Yes Please, Skychimp , do it .

RED_Boandl
http://www.707tkbn.org/members/sites/schmidt05.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

F4U-1 "White 114" 20mm hit in fuel tank
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/20mm.jpg

P-47D multiple flak hit
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/flak_1.jpg

B-17 88mm hit
http://www.star-games.com/exhibits/b17/b17hole.gif

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

faustnik
12-28-2003, 04:08 PM
All of those a/c might have limped back to base but, none of them were "airworthy". My gripe in FB is getting 4 Mk108 hits on a P-51 or Yak, or a 37mm hit on a 190, and having the thing still fight and maneuver!!!

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig

SkyChimp
12-28-2003, 04:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jippo01:
I think we can peacefully disagree over the matter. I would just like to point out that one thing where Germans held an significant edge was AA ammunition design. And also I would like to point out that the MG rounds DEPENDED on their delayed fuses. And about armor penetration we never disagreed. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


-jippo
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, for once we'll peacefully disagree. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I do agree the Germans developed advanced aircraft ammunition. In part, because of the rugged nature of American aircraft. The book I mentioned goes over that point as well.

But the difference between the Americans and the Germans is that the Germans really needed it. The American .50 Browning heavy machine gun proved adequate against any aircraft encountered by the Americans. The encounters with Lancasters, Liberators and Flying Fortresses, including the fear of having to meet Superfortresses was a catalyst for the developement of very powerful aircraft ammo by the Germans. Fortunately, the Americans had much less of a need.

If we are discussing "ground-to-air" AAA, then the American guns were as good as any, and with the promixity fuse which the Germans did not have, more effective. The American 90mm was just as good (although I'm sure many would disagree http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ) as the German 88 in the AA role. While it had a lower velocity, it had a greater range (ceiling) and fired a heavier shell. It just didn't get used as much, for obvious reasons, thus it is less well known.

The best American AAA guns, like the 120mm M1, were reserved for US homeland defense. I believe some were deployed to the Panama Canal zone as well.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

SkyChimp
12-28-2003, 04:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
All of those a/c might have limped back to base but, none of them were "airworthy".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That wasn't the criteria. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> My gripe in FB is getting 4 Mk108 hits on a P-51 or Yak, or a 37mm hit on a 190, and having the thing still fight and maneuver!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. But the 37mm is even worse than the 30mm in this regard.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

clint-ruin
12-28-2003, 04:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> My gripe in FB is getting 4 Mk108 hits on a P-51 or Yak, or a 37mm hit on a 190, and having the thing still fight and maneuver!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. But the 37mm is even worse than the 30mm in this regard.

_Regards,_
_SkyChimp_
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Glancing hits from the large fused cannon rounds will occasionally do bugger all damage to fighters in FB. The MK108 hit picture I took to illustrate this in the last 'gun damage' thread is a nice example:

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/mk108disperse.jpg

In high speed / high firing angle dogfights these types of shots are surprisingly common, probably something that again contributes to the reputation of the more agile planes being too tough. Delayed action no doubt helps for attacking a nice big bomber or an armored ground target, but it seems to hurt more than it helps for fighters.

Fusing for rounds does seem to be modelled - this is good when a round punches through the skin and the round explodes in the fuel tank, but bad when it causes the explosion to occur outside of the plane entirely. People are fond of mentioning the number of hits a plane can take from a MK108, but seem not to post many details like how many of the hits were mineshells, or where the hits were placed.

If anyone has the link to that soviet P-39 pilots accounts that keeps getting posted [from the "I remember" site?] I believe he makes mention of a solid single 37mm hit causing a FW190 to suffer severe engine damage, but survived well enough for the plane to RTB.

Odd things will always happen in combat - whether you want to call it luck or fate or simple physics - as unreliable as they can be made to be, statistics are probably the only real way to determine what should happen. Should is different to "will", of course...

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

SkyChimp
12-28-2003, 05:11 PM
Clint:

Here's the link to the interview:

http://www.airforce.users.ru/lend-lease/english/articles/golodnikov/part1.htm

I think its on page 2 or 3.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

roachclip
12-28-2003, 05:29 PM
Depends on which 88 SkyChimp.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The Flak 18 and 37 could reach 8000m, while the Flak 41 could reach 14,700m. The 90mm M1 could reach 10,500m.

The Flak 41 did have some problems though and only saw limited service (only about 320 compared to ~10,700 produced for the other 88s).

kyrule2
12-28-2003, 06:16 PM
Yes chimp, that is the article.

Clint, I don't have time to read it again but I think the 190 that returned to base had it's cylinders shot out by two .50 cals in nose of a P-39.

Anyway, that is the article I was referring to, it is a good read and I recommend it to anyone.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors" by Nicolas Trudgian

SkyChimp
12-28-2003, 06:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by roachclip:
Flak 41 could reach 14,700m. The 90mm M1 could reach 10,500m.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The M1 was replaced by the M1A1 in 1941. The M1A1 was the US standard throughout the war. The M1A1 and the M2 all had ceilings of 12,040 meters.

And there were only a handful of Flak 41s converted from Flak 37s.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

roachclip
12-28-2003, 06:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:

And there were only a handful of Flak 41s converted from Flak 37s. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, less than 3%, compared to the number of other 88s produced, is only a handful.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The Gerat 37 is not a Flak 18/37 though. The Flak 41 was a new gun integrating lessons learned with the 18/37s.

clint-ruin
12-29-2003, 07:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kyrule2:
Yes chimp, that is the article.

Clint, I don't have time to read it again but I think the 190 that returned to base had it's cylinders shot out by two .50 cals in nose of a P-39.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup - must have remembered it wrong, the account does seem to suggest it was a hit from 2x .50 cal rounds that took the FW190 out of the fight.

Works just as well as an example of 'weird things that happen in combat' though, I think. There's no real shortage of people on the forums who can't believe a couple of .50 hits could down a FW190 :>

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

Jippo01
12-29-2003, 09:16 AM
Damage is a complicated matter. At one occasion 3 .30 cal hits were enough to down a Ju-88, at other cases planes took couple of hundred hits and returned to base. I even know one occasion from 1945 when German Flak Vierlink (4x20mm) landed a long burst squarely on a Finnish 88 ripping the underside of wing and fuselage side open but failing to damage anything vital - aeroplane went on it's recon mission as if nothing had happened and returned to base as normal. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


-jippo

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
www.ju88.de.tf (http://www.ju88.de.tf)

Korolov
12-29-2003, 11:38 AM
The 37mm has tons of power, and most of the time, will take a 109 or 190 down with one hit. However, there are cases where they can take that big cannon round and keep on going, albeit with a bunch of big holes.

The mk108 on the other hand, is excellent on everything except the lighter yaks and Las.

Theres a reason I prefer the 50 cals on the P-39 and 13mms on the 109.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg

kubanloewe
12-29-2003, 12:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
And btw, another undermodelled aspect of the P-39 is the destructive power of the 37mm gun.

In FB, a single round of 37mm x 145R of the P-39 has nowhere near the destructive power of a single round of Mk108 30mm x 90RB.

The 37mm had a higher muzzle velocity than the 30mm: 610 m/s vs 505 m/s.

The 37mm had more energy than the 30mm: 113,000 joules vs 42,100 joules.

And according to the book "Flying Guns WWII" by Anthony Williams (which goes into an in-depth comparitive analysis of the destructiveness of rounds) the 37mm was a signifcantly more destructive round than the 30mm.



I set up a QMB mission against 4 unarmed B-17s. I flew directly behind the each B-17 and carefully squeezed off one round at a time into the tail/fuselage and then wings and found it takes just a few fuselage or wing hits with the 30mm from dead astern to set fire and bring down the bomber. But the 37mm required significantly more hits to both areas to bring it down. In fact, hits from dead astern don't appear to have much effect at all.

Now, in real life the Mk108 fired faster. But round for round, the 37mm was more destructive. That's not modelled in FB at all.

_Regards,_
_SkyChimp_
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


This 37mm canon was so slow (one shot per second or so http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif) that the soviets take it out very fast for their own 20 or 23mm canon which was more effective !
Another point is the Problem of shooting in G forces with big guns; they jammed very often !

Did this 37mm shot mineshells as the 30mm MK108 which was specially developed for destroy Bombers ? NO !

Skyape you should read some other Books than these american propagandaware; the world is bigger than USA http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://mitglied.lycos.de/kubanskiloewe/loveponysig.jpg

http://mitglied.lycos.de/kubanskiloewe/loveponysig.jpg
"Finde den Feind und schiesse ihn ab alles andere ist Unsinn"
Rittmeister Freiherrr Manfred von Richthofen

faustnik
12-29-2003, 01:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kubanloewe:
This 37mm canon was so slow (one shot per second or so http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif) that the soviets take it out very fast for their own 20 or 23mm canon which was more effective !<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where did you find evidence of this??? I have looked hard for it and found none.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig

BigganD
12-29-2003, 03:11 PM
Bf 109 isnt overmodelled, look at the yak3 it takes altitude until it reaches 99km/h ..hm hmm..and can take 5-6 mk108 shots, some times the bullet bounce away, no damage..so stop talking about german planes they suck allready..

No one is an ace!

kyrule2
12-29-2003, 09:16 PM
Clint ruin wrote;

"Yup - must have remembered it wrong, the account does seem to suggest it was a hit from 2x .50 cal rounds that took the FW190 out of the fight.

Works just as well as an example of 'weird things that happen in combat' though, I think. There's no real shortage of people on the forums who can't believe a couple of .50 hits could down a FW190 :>"

I agree with you there to some extent, though I still feel the 190 getting its wings torn off from 2 rounds at 600 meters is certainly wrong and a limitation of the 190s simplified DM.

To others in regards to changing the 37mm to a 20mm cannon like the British did also. The 20mm had a higher rate of fire and a better trajectory/higher velocity, therefore making it much easier to hit with than the 37mm "grapefruit" gun. But that has nothing to do with the destructive power of its 37mm round, which by all accounts was considerable.



http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors" by Nicolas Trudgian

Fehler
12-30-2003, 03:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
People are fond of mentioning the number of hits a plane can take from a MK108, but seem not to post many details like how many of the hits were mineshells, or where the hits were placed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd love to tell you where my hits were placed, but unfortunately, the Mk108 muzzle flash is so bad, I can only tell IF I hit.. LOL

By the way Clint... I have a personal question for you. How many times do you think you have typed the word "Prove" since you have been a member of this forum? LOL! I like you, dont get me wrong, but I have a few friends much like you. I end up pulling my hair out most of the time when they say that "P" word. My answer for them is always something like this. If it looks like, walks like, and smells like a duck, do I really need a DNA test to prove it IS a duck? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Have a nice New Year M8. Oh, I cant prove it's really a new year come January 1st. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/Fehlersig.jpg
http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/9JG54.html

clint-ruin
12-30-2003, 07:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
People are fond of mentioning the number of hits a plane can take from a MK108, but seem not to post many details like how many of the hits were mineshells, or where the hits were placed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd love to tell you where my hits were placed, but unfortunately, the Mk108 muzzle flash is so bad, I can only tell IF I hit.. LOL

By the way Clint... I have a personal question for you. How many times do you think you have typed the word "Prove" since you have been a member of this forum? LOL! I like you, dont get me wrong, but I have a few friends much like you. I end up pulling my hair out most of the time when they say that "P" word. My answer for them is always something like this. If it looks like, walks like, and smells like a duck, do I really need a DNA test to prove it IS a duck? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Have a nice New Year M8. Oh, I cant prove it's really a new year come January 1st. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/Fehlersig.jpg
http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/9JG54.html<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Fehler,

I would tend to put more stock in something like JtDs or Cubes tests than A Post Some Random Guy Made On The Internet.

Oleg seems to have a fairly similar attitude to things, with his constant requests for .trks and original documents. The last time I looked this forum was called "Oleg Maddox's Ready Room", though perhaps at times it should be more fittingly called "Oleg Maddox's Ready To Pull His ****ing hair out". Oleg does tend to have a genuine interest in fixing genuine problems - but for something to be treated as a genuine issue it needs to be repeatable and recordable. An anecdote - even a very detailed and well written one - doesn't always help much if you're a developer trying to track down a specific possible bug in a multimillion line program.

The thought process for a lot of people here seems to be along the lines of: "I hit a plane and it should have blown up. I'm off to post in ORR and see who wants to join up for the chorus of people who think planes should blow up when I hit them!". Which is all very well and probably good stress relief, but it concerns me how little it appears to cross peoples mind that they might not have seen quite what they thought they saw. Or that they might want to record a track and watch it in arcade mode themselves before starting such a thread, just to be on the safe side.


Something like "Both engines switch off in the Me-262 when you only shut one off" is an easy thing to make a track to demonstrate either way. Something like "The Yak3 is an invincible super plane!" is harder to work with - I can make a track of me taking down 8 in a row with room for more from my D9, but I have no idea if there's an actual bug there or not. Just that it doesn't seem to occur all of the time, or at least, when I play the game.

I think most threads in here that don't have a trackfile posted by page one - "bug" reporting ones at least - are a total waste of time. From experience, there's quite often a reason why there isn't a trackfile to go with the claim, and not a very complimentary reason either.

I tend to quite enjoy your posts here so please don't take any of the above as some kind of personal rebuke. I just find it amazing how credulous people can be here, given the amount of outright bullcrap claims that get flung around. I also play a sceptic in real life, though I tend to do more laughing under my breath than demanding of proof.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

WUAF_Badsight
12-30-2003, 08:24 AM
d00d the AI shouldnt be used to see plane comparison when its a human in the seat of the bandit

they do UNBELIEVEABLE manuervers

like stopping in a climb nose-up to avoid you , then carrying on in the climb

the P-39 is a killer online & single turns can get away from BF-109s

if anything the F4 should outperform the G2 in TnB but as it isnow the G2 with its power can stick with the F4 Bf-109



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Now, I will say I do not play on-line and this may be unique to AI planes. But from what I'm seeing, the Bf-109 in FB is simply turning very tightly with planes it could not historically turn with.

_Regards,_
_SkyChimp_
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

JG14_Josf
12-30-2003, 09:13 AM
Hail,

I also tend to be the sceptic.

What concerns me is simply trying to find out how these WWII planes actual did stack up against each other in history.

I can find out how these planes stack up in the game. This is a chore to be done with each new patch, or with each new game.

In a short time on-line it becomes clear which planes hold an advantage.

The need for proof, and the usefullness of scepticizm arises when people claim to know how these planes actual did perform relative to each other in history.

It is comical to me. Someone who states with the air of absolute authority how one plane does in fact compare to another plane, as if they have flown these planes in combat, is rediculous, and it demands proof, otherwise when compared to contrary evidence recorded by someone who has flown the plane in combat the poster with airs of authority is simply blowing hot air.

There is nothing wrong with blowing hot air.

Everyone does it.

But if the concern is to find out how these planes did actually stack up against each other in history and therefore how they should be modeled (if accuracy is important) then hot air must be identified for what it is and the facts need to also be identified.

Scepticizm helps catagorize the laughable stuff on one end and on the other end is usable information for purposes of defining accuracy.

The more I look into the aspect of defining accuracy the more it seems obvious that during the war the span of performance capabilities for any two planes in combat is large enough to encompass a range of true statements as to which plane could have dominated in any performance variable.

MiloMorai
12-30-2003, 10:20 AM
"Something like "Both engines switch off in the Me-262 when you only shut one off" is an easy thing to make a track to demonstrate either way."

And it is very easy for other people to test to see if they get such a result. If enough people get this, then there is a problem, somewhere.

Just because someone posts a so-called bug does not necessarily he/she is saying it is a bug. If other people confirm his/her 'problem', then it can be called a bug.

On other words, the person is asking for others to confirm or not, if this is a 'bug'.

clint-ruin
12-30-2003, 05:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MiloMorai:
"_Something like "Both engines switch off in the Me-262 when you only shut one off" is an easy thing to make a track to demonstrate either way_."

And it is very easy for other people to test to see if they get such a result. If enough people get this, then there is a problem, somewhere.

Just because someone posts a so-called bug does not necessarily he/she is saying it is a bug. If other people confirm his/her 'problem', then it can be called a bug.

On other words, the person is asking for others to confirm or not, if this is a 'bug'.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course, what actually happened was depressingly typical.

User made a [I]declaration that it was so.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

Ring-
01-06-2004, 12:19 AM
http://www.axishq.wwiionline.com/~ring/info/ammo/ww2ol-weapons.htm


stats


http://www.axishq.wwiionline.com/~ring/info/ammo/37vs30.jpg

Vipez-
01-06-2004, 04:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FW190fan:
Right now you can yank and bank to your heart's content with the P-39 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

THAT should not be the case.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know what P-39 you are flying. Maybe you are just really, really, really good. But I have no problem stalling out http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But there is no question, the P-39 should excel in a level turning fight with the Bf-109. Right now, the Bf-109 can easily follow the P-39 in turns. If the P-39 is overmodelled in this regard, then the Bf-109 is much more so.

_Regards,_
_SkyChimp_
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is funny since, Americans mostly said P-39 turned like crap.. only the soviet versions with all the wing guns and removed wing guns could outturn 109s. And ofcourse the later P-39Qs which were delivered to USSR without the extra armor and without wing guns turned better.. But not the P-39Ds with all the armor and wing guns. Still even with the removed armor P-39 absorbs amazing amount of 20mm fire..


__________________________


http://www.leosk.org/tiedostot/sig-pieni.jpg