PDA

View Full Version : Top RAF plane is 1943...everyone else is 1945...why?



Pages : [1] 2

MB_Avro_UK
09-09-2005, 05:25 PM
It seems as though the RAF have the short end of the stick in this sim.

The Mk1 0.303 mg Hurricane is underpowered by 100 hp and the FM does not add up to pilot's accounts against the bf109E during the Battle of Britain in 1940.There were many Hurricane pilots who preferred the Hurricane to the Spifire Mk 2.

We are limited to a Spitfire Mk 9 which is a 1943 version where as the Luftwaffe, USA, Japan and Russia have 1944 and 1945 versions of their aircraft.

Oh I forgot, the RAF have their 1930s biplane Gladiators (J8A)....that should make it equal!!

Sorry to whine (but an Australian Merlot would be welcome)

MB_Avro

JG53Frankyboy
09-09-2005, 05:35 PM
oh , yes, and the Regia Aeronautica is stick in 1940 ..........

and pls dont forget , this game started as an Eastern fornt game.
oleg would have done better ( for game qualitiy , not for sales http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ) to stay at the ORIGINAL theater !

not that i like the eastern front much - it was just the beginning http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

my personal preferences are:
1.PTO/CBI
2.MTO
3.Eastern Front
4.ETO west

JG53Frankyboy
09-09-2005, 05:37 PM
not to forget:
Mustang Mk.III

JG53Frankyboy
09-09-2005, 05:42 PM
and hell, the french havent even ONE of their 1940 planes flyable ............ OH LORD !

F19_Olli72
09-09-2005, 05:43 PM
You is all wrong.

Poland surely got the shortest stick. P.11C....production started mid 1930's. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

JG53Frankyboy
09-09-2005, 05:44 PM
sometimes it realy seems that this beautifull game crashed from a "airwarfare theater simulation" to a nationalist "airquake" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

p1ngu666
09-09-2005, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
sometimes it realy seems that this beautifull game crashed from a "airwarfare theater simulation" to a nationalist "airquake" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

nah, we just itchin tobe heros in our mossies
(heros of the cinema,public at home AND occupied europe, the resistance, the bombers, the army and navy too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif)

and we wanna be closterman and beaumont in our tempests.

and lastly, we wanna pwn elitest k4 drivers in XIV/IX 25lb boost http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

i want the other planes too ofcourse, alot http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

mole_boy
09-09-2005, 06:15 PM
Yes I agree, Luftwaffe get things like http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

262 with big gun OF WHICH ONLY ONE WAS BUILT, GO 229-A Prototype,
TA 152-200 built
ME 163-370 ODD BUILT
HE 162-OF WHICH ONLY 150 WERE ACCEPTED BY THE lUFTWAFFE
BF 109Z-A PROTOTYPE

Yet the RAAF cant get a Spit XIV http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif and the reason according to some who shall remain nameless is that "it was to late, not enough were built http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

JG53Frankyboy
09-09-2005, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by mole_boy:
Yes I agree, Luftwaffe get things like http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

262 with big gun OF WHICH ONLY ONE WAS BUILT, GO 229-A Prototype,
TA 152-200 built
ME 163-370 ODD BUILT
HE 162-OF WHICH ONLY 150 WERE ACCEPTED BY THE lUFTWAFFE
BF 109Z-A PROTOTYPE



totaly agree, it was a huge waste of manpower and time to ad this historicaly (mostly) useless crates to the game...

even every 3.party modeller is free in what he is putting his time - maddox game has still a lot of work to put their work in game . they should have refused to do so....

Monty_Thrud
09-09-2005, 06:23 PM
MMMMM!....Tempest..."25bs Mk IX...MkXIV with jetpack...MMMM! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

OH!..and a Ruddy Gert! Mossie http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Ankanor
09-09-2005, 06:31 PM
But you have the RHPS(Royal homing pidgeon service) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif "I just watched Valiant"

LEXX_Luthor
09-09-2005, 07:23 PM
When we get Italian planes (Blue planes), they will have Top Plane 1943. So all is Balanced again.

VW-IceFire
09-09-2005, 09:13 PM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
It seems as though the RAF have the short end of the stick in this sim.

The Mk1 0.303 mg Hurricane is underpowered by 100 hp and the FM does not add up to pilot's accounts against the bf109E during the Battle of Britain in 1940.There were many Hurricane pilots who preferred the Hurricane to the Spifire Mk 2.

We are limited to a Spitfire Mk 9 which is a 1943 version where as the Luftwaffe, USA, Japan and Russia have 1944 and 1945 versions of their aircraft.

Oh I forgot, the RAF have their 1930s biplane Gladiators (J8A)....that should make it equal!!

Sorry to whine (but an Australian Merlot would be welcome)

MB_Avro
Well if the next addon is what it is...then we'll have a flyable Mosqutio FB.IV, Tempest Mark V, and maybe a Spitfire IX with +25lbs of boost pressure. All three will give us RAF/RCAF/RAAF/RNZAF pilots plenty of newfound dominance http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I'm hoping and waiting for the whines when the Tempest V chases down and outguns all but a small number of Luftwaffe fighters.

HotelBushranger
09-10-2005, 12:11 AM
IIRC, after just reading a biography on Clive Caldwell, the RAAF only got up to Spit MK VIII's!

Badsight.
09-10-2005, 12:25 AM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
totaly agree, it was a huge waste of manpower and time to ad this historicaly (mostly) useless crates to the game...

even every 3.party modeller is free in what he is putting his time - maddox game has still a lot of work to put their work in game . they should have refused to do so.... why is it that we have the "fantasy" planes & not the beloved Spit Mk14 ?

because the Spit mk14 modeler was too lazy & didnt get the plane finished . Maddox Games cant work with what it doesnt have

theres a reason why we have the Bf-Z & GO & no Mk14

& it has zero to do with bias

the person to be annoyed with here is the guy who posted 3D model shots bck in 2003 ! . . . . .

. . . . . . & then failed to finish !

after FB was released , Maddox Games stopped making plane models , they didnt even work on the much-needed Pe-2 after they recieved some cockpit data

they relied on 3rd party modlers & the Spit Mk14 modeler let everyone down

Kuna15
09-10-2005, 12:34 AM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mole_boy:
Yes I agree, Luftwaffe get things like http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

262 with big gun OF WHICH ONLY ONE WAS BUILT, GO 229-A Prototype,
TA 152-200 built
ME 163-370 ODD BUILT
HE 162-OF WHICH ONLY 150 WERE ACCEPTED BY THE lUFTWAFFE
BF 109Z-A PROTOTYPE



totaly agree, it was a huge waste of manpower and time to ad this historicaly (mostly) useless crates to the game...

even every 3.party modeller is free in what he is putting his time - maddox game has still a lot of work to put their work in game . they should have refused to do so.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree (in spite of slight chance of you being a bit ironic there Franky http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif).
No I don't want to sound ungrateful or stuff but there should be some kind of priorities.

For instance it is no brainer that majority will vote for Mosquito instead for Gotha 229. For more versions of the FW-190 (armed rammjagers, panzerblitz's, other variants loadouts etc.) than ME-163. P-47 variants P-51 variants or Spitfire variants than YP-80 and so on.

Unfortunately it isn't all Maddox Games call, so they can not be blamed there. They could do only as Franky suggested accepted the situation and planes or refused it.

Badsight.
09-10-2005, 12:34 AM
of course they could be staying mum on the Mk14 & surprise everyone with it in v4.02m !

Kuna15
09-10-2005, 12:52 AM
If that happens, it would be one awesome surprise.http://free-vk.t-com.hr/domagoj/smileys/thumsbup.gif

carguy_
09-10-2005, 01:22 AM
Tsk Tsk Tsk

Poor you little RAF hero doesn`t have anything EQUAL booohooo.

Better just step away from your pc and walk right back to the store for a refund,you might get a heart attack because of the HUGE lack of fairness from 1C.They did this(didn`t) just to piss you off.

Big deal `45 LW planes are flyable but you actually can`t fly them against humans because they`re simply banned.

Blame the modeler not 1C.

Xiolablu3
09-10-2005, 01:27 AM
Carguy, u sound like a real tool. They are asking for parity with the planes that ARE used like the 190D and 109K4 NOT the 262 and HE162.

Anyway, idiots aside...

Like Badsight says it is NOTHING to with anything more than the fact that the people modelling the planes that are in got them finished.

Gibbage was the one who did the most models I think, and we should be grateful for his work. Its not his fault that the person modelling the mk14 and other planes never finished them.

He finished what he said he would and therefore they are in the game.

Plus I dont think we would have ANY spitfire if he hadnt modelled the ones that are in now?? Is that correct??

ImpStarDuece
09-10-2005, 02:06 AM
At the current boost levels (+18 lbs, Merlin 66/70) the Spitfire IS a 1944 aircraft.

The authorisation for +25lbs boost levels only came through in June of 1944, and even after that there was a long period of transition to the new boost levels and the use of 150 octane avitation spirit that it required.

Put simply, the current Spitfire XIs and XIIIs ARE representative of the majority of models that flew in the 1944 period. Most squadrons transitioned to 150 octane in the autum/winter of 1944.

The Spitfire tops out at about 404 mph, thats no slouch in anyones book. It matches its reasonable opponents; Bf-109G2 and 190G6s as well as the 190 A5/A6 series. +25lbs boost is not going to improve that maximum speed, it will only boost speeds significantly below about 18,000 feet. In fact the most significant gains are felt under 10,000 feet, probably not somewhere a Spitfire should be hanging around.

The unbalance is not a modeling issue, it's a server design issue. If hosts paid attention to the entry dates of various marks of 109, Spitfire, P-51, 190 ect then these issues wouldn't occur. It is more about doing a little research and understanding that a historically realistic plane set will create a more 'balanced' server.

For example, it is a little ridicilous to have a Me-109K fighting a current Spitfire IX in a D-Day scenario. Why? Simple. The 109K didn't see service until late October 1944. However, time and time again we see the late war birds cropping up in all kinds of strange places where they don't belong.

A lot of the community is longing for a Spitfire XIV, but as soon as it is it is going to flood servers left right and centre. The current RAF plane set is excellent for battles from January 1941 all the way through to late 1944, representing a massive chunk of the war. In fact, if you include the Mustang Mk III and *fingers crossed* the eeventual arrivcal of the Tempest V then there are sufficient planes to go to the end of the war. What is really missing is the 'late war, fastes with the mostest planes' that really represent such a small fraction of the war, but seem to be so popular online.

So remember

109K service entry; October 1944
190D9 service entry; August/September 1944
190A8 service entry; February 1944
P-47D-27 service entry; May/June 1944
P-51B/C service entry; December 1943/January 1944
P-51D service entry; June 1944 (although no P-51D groups flew D-Day missions)
Mustang Mk III (+25lbs) service entry; June 1944 (although it primarily chased V1s for approx. 3 months)
Tempest Mk V service entry; March/April 1944 (first action was May 7)

Badsight.
09-10-2005, 02:35 AM
personally i dont know why Maddox Games didnt carry on & make certian cockpits & planes after FB got released , the only plane that was a complete MG work after FB was released is the fantasy I-185

i have seen it said that they(?) reworked certian planes that were submitted to them because the 3rd party person didnt do a good enough job , even Gibbage said that , i dont recall if he said any of his work had that happen

but if this plane below dont make it to FB , you whose not to blame . . . .

http://xs45.xs.to/pics/05366/spit14a.jpg

i hope the IL-10 is as good as it should be & yet still allowed into servers . by all rights it should kick a$$ big time

JG53Frankyboy
09-10-2005, 03:02 AM
yes , Fievel MkXIV is long time dead http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

but Nyme modified its MkVIII model to an early F.Mk.XIVe without bubbletop!

http://www.netwings.org/dcforum/DCForumID43/1360.html

therefore i was VERY surprised that this project is also dead ?


perhaps it lacks the cockpit, ore it was to late and maddox said not anymore.
few could tell the truth.
i personally thougfht Nymes Mk.XIV was far above the Tempest in development - thinking about the time how long ot was now for the Tempest http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

F19_Olli72
09-10-2005, 03:07 AM
Whatever plane is missing we just have to accept it as they werent made/finished in time. So no blame on the the 3d party modellers or Oleg & Co.

But, i hope for BoB series that Oleg makes a priority aircraft list for 3d party models, so that we'll get planes that were in service instead of obscure prototypes/'fantasy' planes.

And i'd like a better system for 'reserving' aircraft/resource managing and dialogue between the developers/3d party modellers. I remember for instance a long time ago a guy who was presenting his intentions on netwings to model the Ki-44 (iirc he had already started a bit). But he was told that the aircraft was already reserved by someone, so i guess he didnt bother to continue then. And now, we're told by Saqson that: "Ki-44 was worked on, but stopped due to unknown to me reason. Last time I heard from it's author was December, when I sent him a large bug-report on his model on Luthier's request."

So i guess instead of potentially two different models of Ki-44 to work with...the devs have none. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif But i guess **** happens.

Luftwaffe_109
09-10-2005, 03:16 AM
Originally posted by mole_boy:
Yes I agree, Luftwaffe get things like http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

262 with big gun OF WHICH ONLY ONE WAS BUILT

According to Messerschmitt: Aircraft Designer, Armanda van Ishoven, there were three Me-262 A-1as experimentally fitted with the BK5 cannon.

Monty_Thrud
09-10-2005, 03:34 AM
Spitfire MkIX was approved earlier than June '44 for 25lbs boost

http://premium1.uploadit.org/bsamania//25lbs_approval.jpg

F19_Olli72, its still a shame such a well made model of the MkXIV isnt going to be in, i cant for the life of me understand why someone would go to all the trouble of building such a good model...completing the external and almost 99% of the CP...and then just drop the whole project... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif....all that work, time and effort for what?...still if we RAF fans can get the Tempest, 25lb Mk IX, Mosquito..i'll be happy indeed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

SeaNorris
09-10-2005, 03:41 AM
Originally posted by carguy_:
Tsk Tsk Tsk

Poor you little RAF hero doesn`t have anything EQUAL booohooo.


And if it were the Luftwaffe stuck in 1943, you would say the exact same thing right?

WOLFMondo
09-10-2005, 04:02 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:


I'm hoping and waiting for the whines when the Tempest V chases down and outguns all but a small number of Luftwaffe fighters.

Thats chases down and outguns all luftwaffe fighters http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Von_Rat
09-10-2005, 04:16 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 VW-IceFire:


I'm hoping and waiting for the whines when the Tempest V chases down and outguns all but a small number of Luftwaffe fighters.

Thats chases down and outguns all luftwaffe fighters http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Thats chases down and outguns all luftwaffe fighters, but doesn't out turn them.

how much you wanna bet alot of tempests are going to get pwned tnbing on the deck.

JG53Frankyboy
09-10-2005, 04:34 AM
Originally posted by SeaNorris:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
Tsk Tsk Tsk

Poor you little RAF hero doesn`t have anything EQUAL booohooo.


And if it were the Luftwaffe stuck in 1943, you would say the exact same thing right? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

if this game would have started as a PTO/CBI sim , it realy would be ok http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

carguy_
09-10-2005, 04:50 AM
Originally posted by SeaNorris:
And if it were the Luftwaffe stuck in 1943, you would say the exact same thing right?


Wrong.Been there done that.The plane in which I flew most sorties ever is Bf109G6/late then F2 then G6early.Also flew VEF1 which was IL2 online war where LW was pwned starting from `42.The Balaton map in Czech War was the first I flew so many late war sorties in a G14/G10.Never flew a online war sortie in Me262/He162/Me163/Ta152/D9`45 and flew two Dora`44 sorties.

In VOW2 western front started for RAF with Gladiators and Hurri`38 and I haven`t heard a peep from red side.

pourshot
09-10-2005, 05:31 AM
Originally posted by HotelBushranger:
IIRC, after just reading a biography on Clive Caldwell, the RAAF only got up to Spit MK VIII's!

The VIII came after the IX.

NorrisMcWhirter
09-10-2005, 05:53 AM
Hmm. Funny how the LW fliers get the blame for the lack of aircraft; it's the modellers and Oleg who decide.

Besides, most of 1C's effort of late will have been in adding certain 'dubious' late war allied aircraft of a non-RAF persuation. And, as said, you'll be getting your own 190 soon in the form of the Tempest.

Ta,
Norris

F19_Olli72
09-10-2005, 06:07 AM
Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Besides, most of 1C's effort of late will have been in adding certain 'dubious' late war allied aircraft of a non-RAF persuation. And, as said, you'll be getting your own 190 soon in the form of the Tempest.

Ta,
Norris

Eh? Whats 'dubious' about them?

NorrisMcWhirter
09-10-2005, 06:12 AM
Originally posted by F19_Olli72:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Besides, most of 1C's effort of late will have been in adding certain 'dubious' late war allied aircraft of a non-RAF persuation. And, as said, you'll be getting your own 190 soon in the form of the Tempest.

Ta,
Norris

Eh? Whats 'dubious' about them? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've not seen any documentation regarding them. But let's not go OT - PM me if you want to carry it on.

Ta,
Norris

huggy87
09-10-2005, 08:38 AM
I'd gladly take a spitfire mk1 over a mk XIV. It was far more important in the big picture.

p1ngu666
09-10-2005, 09:04 AM
Originally posted by carguy_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaNorris:
And if it were the Luftwaffe stuck in 1943, you would say the exact same thing right?


Wrong.Been there done that.The plane in which I flew most sorties ever is Bf109G6/late then F2 then G6early.Also flew VEF1 which was IL2 online war where LW was pwned starting from `42.The Balaton map in Czech War was the first I flew so many late war sorties in a G14/G10.Never flew a online war sortie in Me262/He162/Me163/Ta152/D9`45 and flew two Dora`44 sorties.

In VOW2 western front started for RAF with Gladiators and Hurri`38 and I haven`t heard a peep from red side. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

not our fault u dont get to fly late war stuff in those onwhine wars, but u could easily pop on warclouds, or pretty much any server and jump in a late war 109. plenty of coops with the alcholic 109s in aswell

Vipez-
09-10-2005, 09:19 AM
If it was up to me, I wish Oleg never had left the eastern front .. keep the game "forgotten Battles", after all air battles of the eastern front is still the most the most important of the "forgotten battles".. We are missing the most important ground attack planes .. JU88, JU188, PE-2, PE-3, IL-10, DB3, IL-4, DO-17, Early polikarpovs, and most last but not least, HS-129.. Imagine, how much more interesting EF could be with these planes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif Imagine, this is still probably the first serious flight sim concentrating on eastern front.. or so it used to, imho after ever since Pacific Fighters everything took a step back..

p1ngu666
09-10-2005, 09:58 AM
people forget burma aswell http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

MEGILE
09-10-2005, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by carguy_:
Tsk Tsk Tsk

Poor you little Luftwaffe hero doesn`t have anything EQUAL booohooo.



And you didn't post this reply to the thread in ORR asking for new 109s because...?

jeroen_R90S
09-10-2005, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by Vipez-:
If it was up to me, I wish Oleg never had left the eastern front .. keep the game "forgotten Battles", after all air battles of the eastern front is still the most the most important of the "forgotten battles".. We are missing the most important ground attack planes .. JU88, JU188, PE-2, PE-3, IL-10, DB3, IL-4, DO-17, Early polikarpovs, and most last but not least, HS-129.. Imagine, how much more interesting EF could be with these planes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif Imagine, this is still probably the first serious flight sim concentrating on eastern front.. or so it used to, imho after ever since Pacific Fighters everything took a step back..

EF rules, and let's not forget HS-123 too! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Vipez-
09-10-2005, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
It seems as though the RAF have the short end of the stick in this sim.

The Mk1 0.303 mg Hurricane is underpowered by 100 hp and the FM does not add up to pilot's accounts against the bf109E during the Battle of Britain in 1940.There were many Hurricane pilots who preferred the Hurricane to the Spifire Mk 2.

We are limited to a Spitfire Mk 9 which is a 1943 version where as the Luftwaffe, USA, Japan and Russia have 1944 and 1945 versions of their aircraft.

MB_Avro

Hurricane MK1 in game is a Finnish hurricane, which were flown to Finland before BoB (in 1938 or 1939, don't remember http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ).. British Hurricane Mk1s were operating at slightly higher boost levels by the time BoB started.. or they were updated during BoB.

I think you are greatly underrestimating Spit 9.. esspecially the HF version. It's still one of the most deadly plane in the arsenal, usually when I fly spit 9 HF i fear no other axis planes.. but one have to have the patience to fly high, where the Spit9HF excels..offcourse you get eaten alive, if you get in a ******** down low with Fockewulfs..

Vipez-
09-10-2005, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by jeroen_R90S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Vipez-:
If it was up to me, I wish Oleg never had left the eastern front .. keep the game "forgotten Battles", after all air battles of the eastern front is still the most the most important of the "forgotten battles".. We are missing the most important ground attack planes .. JU88, JU188, PE-2, PE-3, IL-10, DB3, IL-4, DO-17, Early polikarpovs, and most last but not least, HS-129.. Imagine, how much more interesting EF could be with these planes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif Imagine, this is still probably the first serious flight sim concentrating on eastern front.. or so it used to, imho after ever since Pacific Fighters everything took a step back..

EF rules, and let's not forget HS-123 too! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep.. TU-2, UV-2, SB-2, SU-2, R-10, SB-2bis, Italian planes (MC-202 atleast), Iar 81A,C transformed into fighters (no bombrack, standard IAR 80 is simply ineffective due to pea guns).. I could go on forever http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif all i can do is pray, that Oleg will some day return to eastern front after BoB, perhaps bringing us these planes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

carguy_
09-10-2005, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by Megile:
And you didn't post this reply to the thread in ORR asking for new 109s because...?

So you really take it for a red vs blue war.You`re a laugh.

Platypus_1.JaVA
09-10-2005, 04:25 PM
http://www.taytsphoto.com/Images/kids3.jpg

Aw Oleg, please include my favorite aircraft.

JG53Frankyboy
09-11-2005, 05:21 AM
just an idea how a planeset of the game could loke like if maddixfgames would have stayed strictly at the easter front http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Blue

- flyable

Bf109E4
Bf109E4/B
Bf109E7
Bf109E7/N
Bf109F2
Bf109F4
Bf109G2 (1.3ata)
Bf109G4 (1.42ata)
Bf109G6
Bf109G6Late
Bf109G6/AS (without MW50)
Bf109G14
Bf109G10
Bf109K4

Fw190A4
Fw190A5
Fw190A6
Fw190A8
Fw190A9
Fw190D9€44
Fw190D9€45

Fw190F-1
Fw190F-3
Fw190F-8
Fw190F-9/PtzBltz

Me262A-1
Me262A-2

Bf110E
Bf110F
Bf110G

Me210Ca
Me410A

He112B

Hs123
Hs129

He111H-2
He111H-6
He111H-16

Ju87B-2
Ju87D-3
Ju87D-5
Ju87G-2

Ju88A-4
Ju88A-14
Ju88A-17
Ju88C-6
Ju188A

IAR80
IAR80a
IAR80c
IAR81a
IAR81c

Hurricane Mk.I
Hawk 75
MS406
J8A
B-239
P-11f
Fokker XXI

BlenheimMkIV

Cr.42
G.50
Mc200
Mc202
Re2000 (Heja)

-AI

BlenheimMk.I
Do17Z
Do217E
Fi156
Hs126
Fw189
Ju52
Me323
Ar196


Red

-flyable

I-153
I-153 2xSchvak

I-16-10
I-16-18
I-16-24
I-16-29

MiG3ud
MiG3 2 UBS
MiG3 2xSchvak
MiG3 AM38

LaGG3ser4
LaGG3ser29
LaGG3ser35
LaGG3ser66
LaGG3 IT

La5
La5F
La5FN
La7
La7 3xB-20

Yak1
Yak1B
Yak7A
Yak7B€41
Yak7B€42
Yak9
Yak9D
Yak9T
Yak9K
Yak9B
Yak9M
Yak9U
Yak9UT
Yak3
Yak3P

P-400
P-39D-1
P-39D-2
P-39N-1
P-39Q-1
P-39Q-10
P-63C

P-40C
P-40E
P-40M
P-40E fieldmod

P-47D-22
P-47D-27

Hurricane Mk.IIb
Hurricane Mk.IIc
Hurricane Mk.II fieldmod

Spitfire Mk.Vb
Spitfire LF.Mk.Vb (CW)
Spitfire LF.Mk.XIc

Su-2

IL2 all series
IL10

A-20C
A-20G

B-25C
B-25J

Pe-2 all series
Pe-3

Tu-2S

TB-3 all series

DB3 all series, at least IL4


-AI

Pe-8
U-2
SB2 all series
MBR2
PBN
Li-2


Additional for Murmansk map the RN FAA from Carriers

Flyable
SeaHurricane Mk.Ib
Fulmar
Swordfish

Friendly_flyer
09-11-2005, 11:34 AM
Actaually, I'd rather have another cr*p-plane. Who want the '45 stuff anyway?

Xiolablu3
09-11-2005, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by carguy_:
Tsk Tsk Tsk

Poor you little RAF hero doesn`t have anything EQUAL booohooo.

.


Remember the Whining when the MG151 wasnt 'EQUAL'?

Who was chief moaner then?

Poor little Luftwaffe heros guns dont work, boohoo... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif How he whined and whined..

MEGILE
09-11-2005, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by carguy_:


So you really take it for a red vs blue war.You`re a laugh.

Its a simple question with a ludicrously simple answer.

A guy asks for a Spitfire XIV and gets mobbed... go figure.

Low_Flyer_MkII
09-11-2005, 02:15 PM
Good job no-one asked for a de Havilland Vampire for the RAF'46 project. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

MEGILE
09-11-2005, 02:23 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

A Meteor would be interesting though, for sure.

Low_Flyer_MkII
09-11-2005, 02:26 PM
True.

MB_Avro_UK
09-11-2005, 02:46 PM
hey Megile!

Don't mention the RAF Meteor jet for inclusion...a can of worms waiting to be opened http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif The only allied jet to see operational service...shot down V1s on their way to London and ground attack in Europe.

Ooops..I'm opening the can of worms... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro

MEGILE
09-11-2005, 02:53 PM
Maybe in BoB addons we will see it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

LEXX_Luthor
09-11-2005, 05:09 PM
jeroen_R90S::
Vipez-:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> If it was up to me, I wish Oleg never had left the eastern front .. keep the game "forgotten Battles", after all air battles of the eastern front is still the most the most important of the "forgotten battles".. We are missing the most important ground attack planes .. JU88, JU188, PE-2, PE-3, IL-10, DB3, IL-4, DO-17, Early polikarpovs, and most last but not least, HS-129.. Imagine, how much more interesting EF could be with these planes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif Imagine, this is still probably the first serious flight sim concentrating on eastern front.. or so it used to, imho after ever since Pacific Fighters everything took a step back..
EF rules, and let's not forget HS-123 too! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Easter Front Rules! Let's not forget SB too! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.sodatkuvina.cjb.net/images/Jatkosota/Rintama/43V%E4riLent%E4j%E4Koneessaan.jpg
~ http://www.netwings.org/dcforum/DCForumID43/1038.html

SB was like a large fast fighter especially with the Vee windscreen. Lockheed P-38(tm) had Racing Wheel too.

p1ngu666
09-11-2005, 05:47 PM
czech ur pms my friend http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Hastatus
09-11-2005, 09:05 PM
Nothing wrong with the Hurricane IA in IL-2, it seems very capable in 1940 missions.

Your complaint had no specifics.

ImpStarDuece
09-11-2005, 11:18 PM
The Hurricane Mk I that we have in IL2 is the export version that the Finnish recieved, which was down about 100hp on the British models, possibly up to 400 hp down at low level if you consider that Hurricane squadrons were first in line for 100 octane grade fuel during the Battle of Britain period.

The Merlin II/III was cleared for +12lbs boost (up from the previous 6 1/4lbs) for limited periods on November 6th, 1939. The 'emergency overboost' was standard for British fighter during the Battle of Britain period, provided that the squadrons had appropriate modifications to the cylinder top joints.

Here are some links to the approproate documents;

A.P. 1590B/J.2-W Merlin II & III modifications for +12lbs boost. (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/ap1590b.jpg)

Spitifre + Hurricane performance on +12lbs boost (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1-12lbs.jpg)

F19_Olli72
09-11-2005, 11:36 PM
This Hurri is what EF scenario needs! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
http://www.il2center.com/Allied/UK/05/41.jpg

Xiolablu3
09-12-2005, 01:26 AM
Dang , I bet its cold in that thing!


I have actually found out that the Mk9 LF is pretty fast after all, not as slow as I had thought. You can get 600 out of her in almost level flight. (maybe very slightly diving)

p1ngu666
09-12-2005, 04:32 AM
topspeed of over 400mph http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

zan_bzk
09-12-2005, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by F19_Olli72:
You is all wrong.

Poland surely got the shortest stick. P.11C....production started mid 1930's. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
well,Yugoslavia go the shortest stick!!!they had a couple of old biplanes and some old Bf-109....oh! and a couple of Caproni bombers....not to mention that the Yugoslavian pilots didn't have enough fuel or ammo.....

F19_Olli72
09-12-2005, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by zan_bzk:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F19_Olli72:
You is all wrong.

Poland surely got the shortest stick. P.11C....production started mid 1930's. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
well,Yugoslavia go the shortest stick!!!they had a couple of old biplanes and some old Bf-109....oh! and a couple of Caproni bombers....not to mention that the Yugoslavian pilots didn't have enough fuel or ammo..... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, i was actually referring to what the original poster was talking about. Not real short sticks. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

NextBarbaPapa
09-12-2005, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Top RAF plane is 1943...everyone else is 1945...


You poor guy... you only have SpitIXeCW and SpitVIII -CW... I can understand you are in blue mood...

NextBarbaPapa
09-12-2005, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by zan_bzk:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F19_Olli72:
You is all wrong.

Poland surely got the shortest stick. P.11C....production started mid 1930's. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
well,Yugoslavia go the shortest stick!!!they had a couple of old biplanes and some old Bf-109....oh! and a couple of Caproni bombers....not to mention that the Yugoslavian pilots didn't have enough fuel or ammo..... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, Yugoslavian air force had 147 relatively modern bombers (60 Dornier Do17s, 47 Bristol Blenheims and 40 Savoia Marchetti SM79s) and 102 relatively modern fighters (61 Messerschmitt Bf109Es, 35 Hawker Hurricanes and six Rogozarski IK-3) plus some older designs, like Hawker Furys or Rogozarski IK-2.

anarchy52
09-12-2005, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by NextBarbaPapa:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zan_bzk:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F19_Olli72:
You is all wrong.

Poland surely got the shortest stick. P.11C....production started mid 1930's. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
well,Yugoslavia go the shortest stick!!!they had a couple of old biplanes and some old Bf-109....oh! and a couple of Caproni bombers....not to mention that the Yugoslavian pilots didn't have enough fuel or ammo..... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, Yugoslavian air force had 147 relatively modern bombers (60 Dornier Do17s, 47 Bristol Blenheims and 40 Savoia Marchetti SM79s) and 102 relatively modern fighters (61 Messerschmitt Bf109Es, 35 Hawker Hurricanes and six Rogozarski IK-3) plus some older designs, like Hawker Furys or Rogozarski IK-2. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct. Bf-109s were of E3 variant IIRC. Yugoslavia was just beginning to build Hurricanes they obtained a license for from the British. IK-3 was a very promising design unfortunatelly there were so few of then that they did not have any impact on the air battle. Finally, the No.1 reason for lightning defeat was quick desintegration of command and communication structure, that is why despite Yugoslav airforce having a number of relativelly modern aircraft germans suffered only minor casualties.

carguy_
09-12-2005, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Remember the Whining when the MG151 wasnt 'EQUAL'?

Who was chief moaner then?

Poor little Luftwaffe heros guns dont work, boohoo... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif How he whined and whined..

Yes,the whine was certainly legitimate because the ammobelt was unhistorical,end of story.If MG151/20 had no equal or better in some cases effectiveness than say Hispano I wouldn`t say a thing.

The guy whines for `45 RAF planes.He doesn`t know a thing about which planes are being made or which will finally make it and why not.He states that the Hurricane is 100hp underpowered and should be better,by pilots accounts,over Spit II.The guy blames the FM and Hurricane specs without a shed of evidence yet he takes his info and says RAF is being ignored.

As for this quote

Oh I forgot, the RAF have their 1930s biplane Gladiators (J8A)....that should make it equal!!

It clearly says that current planeset is not equal whatever that means.VVS online pilots have got over this issue 2 years ago.Ever heard of I153 vs Bf109 duels?
So what?Anyone can come up with a plane that is absent in IL2 stating that because of this absence it is unequal for RAF/USAAF/LW/IJN whatever.

The problem with these people is they want the planesets to be equal.Whatever the year,whatever the theatre of operations.So because of this **** we end up with YP80 to make planesets equal to Me262.Pathetic.

Ah yes if he has objections regarding the planeset why don`t he just take over the SpitXIV project and finish it?

p1ngu666
09-12-2005, 04:37 PM
XIV is a 44 plane.
missed being a "43" only by a month or two.

MEGILE
09-12-2005, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by carguy_:

So because of this **** we end up with YP80 to make planesets equal to Me262.Pathetic.


Wrong. The YP-80 was included because Gibbage was interested in the plane, created a model and submitted it to oleg.

HellToupee
09-12-2005, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by carguy_:
Yes,the whine was certainly legitimate because the ammobelt was unhistorical,end of story.If MG151/20 had no equal or better in some cases effectiveness than say Hispano I wouldn`t say a thing.

The guy whines for `45 RAF planes.He doesn`t know a thing about which planes are being made or which will finally make it and why not.He states that the Hurricane is 100hp underpowered and should be better,by pilots accounts,over Spit II.The guy blames the FM and Hurricane specs without a shed of evidence yet he takes his info and says RAF is being ignored.


Hurricane mk1 ingame is not the same as bob hurries, and he dosnt not say it should outperform a spit II, just that some pilots perferred it, and that is true some stubborn pilots perferred the hurricane to the spitfire.

RAF has been kind of ignored, we got the first spitfire in the game a vb model after us had p51d p47s and p40 aircraft even tho spitfire was on the east front in numbers. There is only 1 raf bomber that is ai and some 1930s one blenhem. Out of all the big players RAF probly has the least amount of its stuff included not ignored just a bit neglected, only hurricane and spitfire models no bombers and no latewar planes. Even with the tempest and mossie comming still pretty much last of the bigplayers in planes moddled.

p1ngu666
09-12-2005, 06:40 PM
indeed,
theres the italians too, but they wherent as big as the RAF..

KGr.HH-Sunburst
09-12-2005, 10:06 PM
you know its all about keeping ALL those allied flyers happy..so many allied sides to keep happy
i dont get it why people complain and want x.y.z plane, why cant people be happy whats in the game d@mm!t.... like there arnt enough allied planes
who cares about what country a plane comes from
you dont hear me complaining for a Fokker G1 or something

its impossible for Oleg to make all planes and keep a high standard, ill be happy with whatever oleg gives us..regardless of country http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

PS this was not directed only to the poster of this thread but towards all gimme gimme gimme guys around here

Von_Rat
09-12-2005, 10:51 PM
its pretty simple actually.

the red side wants a plane that'll catch and then out turn any lw plane, since jets are banned.

since i play red also so i wouldn't mind a uber plane to pwned all the blue ones.

Xiolablu3
09-13-2005, 12:11 AM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
its pretty simple actually.

the red side wants a plane that'll catch and then out turn any lw plane, since jets are banned.

since i play red also so i wouldn't mind a uber plane to pwned all the blue ones.

I dont agree with this statement VR.

I just want parity to create a good game. Not a pwn all fighter, just one which has a chance.

If the luftwaffe and VVS gets late planes of which only around 1000 are built, then so should the US and UK, so they can compete in late war maps.

The only planes I can see left making htis happen are maybe the Tempest (althought I dont know a lot about it to be honest) or a faster/later war Spitfire which means basically a +25booster or Mk14.

This would create very good games in which neither side would have a big advantage on the Western Front maps.

As it stands I think the LW have too bigger advantage ad the moment, owing to the FW190D 44 and 45 and the 109 late G's and 109K (plus TA152 at alt.) which are always there on 1944- 45 maps.

Carguy, pls shut up, you sound stupid (with your 'its ok when I whine but noone else can' kind of attitude). You are just being a tool for the sake of it.

carguy_
09-13-2005, 03:49 AM
Too big advantage?!What a joke!The P47M is coming and there are already P51 in the game DUH!What about the latewar Mustang?Can`t shoot anything with it either?Overboosted P38L late?!

LOL guys like you try to make RAF 'competitive' in any way possible.The .50cal problem is partly solved but somene decided to make sure .50cal pwns everything so just throw in a 'M2 is too weak' thread http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Demanding new flyables for every air force separately is daydreaming.

As for me I never wanted stuff like Ta152,Me163,Me109Z.They might aswell get rid of them because their role in the war was next to none.Before you ask YES,I do not like the idea of Do335 coming instead of more variants of Ju88 or better yet a Mosquito.

Saying 'you got your stuff so stfu and let us get some' is admitting that you`re way too serious about the game.

Stop pestering your little heads with such thoughts,it will only make you hurt http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Xiolablu3
09-13-2005, 04:13 AM
What a w*nker.

WOLFMondo
09-13-2005, 04:30 AM
carguy_, the .50 is only on 1 Spitty and the Mustang MkIII. Don't confuse the RAF and USAAF. The RAF use real guns...Hispano's!http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The P47D with M like performance is also not an RAF plane. For people who want to fly RAF late war with any sort of historical correctness are limited to essentially 1 aircraft and 1 bomber right now unless its PTO where the UK forces used a substantial amount of the same equipment.


Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
As it stands I think the LW have too bigger advantage ad the moment, owing to the FW190D 44 and 45 and the 109 late G's and 109K (plus TA152 at alt.) which are always there on 1944- 45 maps.

Thats not that greater advantage. The Mustang MkIII is faster than all but the Ta152 when there in the stratosphere but below that its the fastest thing going. I like it so much online I'm trading in my Dorahttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. The P38L late is also fantastic and the P51D, P47 and P63 are also very competative. When flying blue I fear that P63 more than any other plane.

Agreed the RAF needs a couple of late war planes but its not like its not equal. A 25lbs Spit would be nice, the Tempest is coming and that outguns everything and the Mustang MkIII is only faster than the Tempest right on the deck and then at 25,000ft. As for a Spit XIV, its performance only really shines when its very high, you might as well take the IX when flying low cause its lighter. Maybe if you flew at 20,000-40,000ft it would rule but no one online flies that high.

Von_Rat
09-13-2005, 04:59 AM
nice post mondo

whats the top sl speed of spit14, i was under the impression it could catch any lw plane even down low.

as for it really shining up hi, red already rules hi alt. the ta152 is a joke up hi. its barely competes with p47, and the mustang3 is totally superior, as far as manuverability goes, over it up hi. as far as speed goes up hi, the ta is crippled like always by overheating.

as someone who flys both sides, i agree plane sets are pretty balanced now for late war.lw is slighty superior low down, thats where tempest is going to help.
red is superior up hi, nothing going to help blue on that, unless ta152 is improved or some of the hi alt 09s that were produced are introduced to game.

since jets that were produced in significant numbers, meaning me262 are banned, in the name of balance. i beleive that if red gets all the hi boosted planes that they are constantly crying for,late war spits fall into this catigory, the blue side should get at least one hi boost prop plane. even if only small numbers flew, in order to keep it balanced down low.

stathem
09-13-2005, 05:03 AM
About 358 mph VR, iirc. I'd quite appreiciate an extra 30 mph on the deck, could keep the sights on for another 30sec before the Dora disappears over the horizon.

Alas, not to be...

MEGILE
09-13-2005, 06:14 AM
358 at sea level using +18 boost, around 370 using +21 boost.. neither are spectacular.

KGr.HH-Sunburst
09-13-2005, 06:20 AM
ok lets see,

allies got some new planes remember?
Mustang mkIII (RAF)
P-38L-Late

soon to come
P-47D overboosted (almost M)
Tempest V? (RAF)

I dont see any problem...all of these planes are right up there with the D9, A9, K4's etc
if not better, you can cry all you want about LW fantasy stuff but there is no need for because they arnt allowed in online servers, not even a 262...go figure

Besides when was the last time any LW (late war)prop plane was included although they are the single biggest Axis airforce in the ETO, if anything the LW should get more planes to keep up with all VVS USAAF RAF models
and dont get me started on the IJN IJA or italians because they got almost nothing

And im sorry to say but allies=allies they all shared and fought together so you better get rid of that nationalistic nonsense

im not saying a late spitfire wouldnt be nice
because i like all sides and planes, i love warbirds in general and dont care for the onwhine airquake balanced planesets

its better to give us a mossie, tiffy, Ju-88, Pe2/3
and a load of IJN IJA and Italian planes
what axis and VVS needs most is multi engine planes to get some payload to the front something that matters most

WOLFMondo
09-13-2005, 06:26 AM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:


as for it really shining up hi, red already rules hi alt. the ta152 is a joke up hi. its barely competes with p47, and the mustang3 is totally superior, as far as manuverability goes, over it up hi. as far as speed goes up hi, the ta is crippled like always by overheating.


The D9 gets that too but all out the Ta152 outstrips the P47 and P51 above 30,000ft in sheer speed. I think the overheat is actually correct to a point as its something I've read about but its quite extreme.


Originally posted by Von_Rat:
as someone who flys both sides, i agree plane sets are pretty balanced now for late war.lw is slighty superior low down, thats where tempest is going to help.
red is superior up hi, nothing going to help blue on that, unless ta152 is improved or some of the hi alt 09s that were produced are introduced to game.


The K4 does well at high altitude doesn't it? The Dora's not to bad either apart from the overheat and those stubby wings can't grip the air at all so your limited to going straight.

I think the Tempest will be an oddity. I think people look at its peformance and armament and don't realise it was an experts plane flown by RAF pilots with years of combat experiance. It won't be easy to fly let alone master.

MEGILE
09-13-2005, 06:40 AM
, you can cry all you want about LW fantasy stuff but there is no need for because they arnt allowed in online servers, not even a 262...go figure

Whos crying? Not here... 262s aren't banned, just servers YOU choose to fly on don't have them.


Besides when was the last time any LW (late war)prop plane was included although they are the single biggest Axis airforce in the ETO, if anything the LW should get more planes to keep up with all VVS USAAF RAF models

So what happened to being against balancing? I thought you didn't like the idea.. its ok when its the LW who should be balanced though?


and dont get me started on the IJN IJA or italians because they got almost nothing

Agree 100 %... but remember...


allies=allies they all shared and fought together so you better get rid of that nationalistic nonsense

Aswell Axis are axis... so get rid of this nationalist nonsense.. eh?


because i like all sides and planes, i love warbirds in general and dont care for the onwhine airquake balanced planesets

Me either.. haven't flown on a dogfight server for a while, and I don't plan to.


its better to give us a mossie, tiffy, Ju-88, Pe2/3 et al

Agree

ImpStarDuece
09-13-2005, 06:52 AM
RAF fans would just like to see some (any) of their 1944 or later war birds represented in the sim.

Sure they have the Mustang III, but even with the Merlin up front its not a 'proper' British bird. We crave Spitfires, Tempests, Typhoons and Mosquitos.

Late war variants of the Spitfire IX are an obvious choice; there is plentiful information, the existing model doesn't need to be modified and it fills out a gap in the RAF plane-set rather nicely. Call it a XVI (which was an IX with a Packard Merlin 266) boost it to +25lbs, give it an E type wing, increase the internal fuel capacity up to 162 imperial gallons and all of a sudden you have a brand new Spitfire that we can all enjoy, without adding the dreaded 'late' tag to anything.

Tempest V Series I were in squadron service by March 1944. Deliveries of the series II began in the same month and were finished by September. We already have the model in the game, most of us are just begging for a cockpit.

Spitfire XIV began service in January 1944, first missions in May of the same year. The type saw 12 months of solid action over Europe, being particularly active over Belgium, France and Germany.

For me, its not a Red vs Blue thing, you can keep your internet dogfighting, I really couldn't give a stuff. I know some people cry for balance and playability and this and that, but really they are either sick of bad server set-ups or just want to fly the right planes.

Just give me the tools to properly represent the Tactical arm of the RAF as it enters the final 12 months of the war. I can deal with Tempests standing in for Typhoons, and Spitfire H.F. IXs standing in for XIVs but I'd really rather not have too. All I want is to be able to fly the planes that I love.

Von_Rat
09-13-2005, 06:55 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 Von_Rat:


as for it really shining up hi, red already rules hi alt. the ta152 is a joke up hi. its barely competes with p47, and the mustang3 is totally superior, as far as manuverability goes, over it up hi. as far as speed goes up hi, the ta is crippled like always by overheating.


The D9 gets that too but all out the Ta152 outstrips the P47 and P51 above 30,000ft in sheer speed. I think the overheat is actually correct to a point as its something I've read about but its quite extreme.


Originally posted by Von_Rat:
as someone who flys both sides, i agree plane sets are pretty balanced now for late war.lw is slighty superior low down, thats where tempest is going to help.
red is superior up hi, nothing going to help blue on that, unless ta152 is improved or some of the hi alt 09s that were produced are introduced to game.


The K4 does well at high altitude doesn't it? The Dora's not to bad either apart from the overheat and those stubby wings can't grip the air at all so your limited to going straight.

I think the Tempest will be an oddity. I think people look at its peformance and armament and don't realise it was an experts plane flown by RAF pilots with years of combat experiance. It won't be easy to fly let alone master. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

neither the k4 or the d9 operate well over 8k, this i beleive is historical.

the ta would have a speed advantage over mustang3 or p47 hi up, but like i said it cant be used because of overheat.

before 4.01 the ta was ok hi up, except for overheat. but now it handles at 9k like it used to handle at 13k,,,,bad.

the mustang3 on the other hand, handles nice at 9k.

i haven't flown a 4.01 p47 up hi, maybe its not what it used to be either.

my memory might be wrong, but i seem to remember a number of other planes that had uber hi alt performence when 1st introduced, that weas later corrected.

MEGILE
09-13-2005, 07:02 AM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:


Just give me the tools to properly represent the Tactical arm of the RAF as it enters the final 12 months of the war. I can deal with Tempests standing in for Typhoons, and Spitfire H.F. IXs standing in for XIVs but I'd really rather not have too. All I want is to be able to fly the planes that I love.

Agreed.
The Tempest V is quite essential to 2nd TAF coop missions. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

KGr.HH-Sunburst
09-13-2005, 07:03 AM
Originally posted by Megile:
Whos crying? Not here... 262s aren't banned, just servers YOU choose to fly on don't have them.

yes your right ive seen them on arcade servers
and on greatergreen against Yp-80s http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif


So what happened to being against balancing? I thought you didn't like the idea.. its ok when its the LW who should be balanced though?

he i didnt asked for another 109,190 variant or whatever nor a Do-335 besides i said IF anything ...


Aswell Axis are axis... so get rid of this nationalist nonsense.. eh?

ehm to be historical its kinda hard to fly IJN IJA planes for teh LW in the ETO and vica versa
so no axis isnt axis when looking at theather
i was talking about a certain aircraft for a certain country

so you nice? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

MEGILE
09-13-2005, 07:09 AM
italy didn't fly BF-109s? First I've heard of that.

Von_Rat
09-13-2005, 07:14 AM
Originally posted by Megile:
358 at sea level using +18 boost, around 370 using +21 boost.. neither are spectacular.

is that ias or tas.

if its 370 ias its going to catch any lw fighter.

MEGILE
09-13-2005, 07:16 AM
TAS. However at sea level TAS is almost exactly the same as IAS.

If it will catch the German fighters then that is WIlli's and Kurts problem.. not mine. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

luftluuver
09-13-2005, 07:21 AM
Originally posted by Megile:
italy didn't fly BF-109s? First I've heard of that.

Well they did.

Early 1943 the Italian Air Force received its first 109's when 109's were supplied. Shortly before the Italian surrender in 1943 the Air Force received a number of G-6's. After the split of Italy the Northern ANR flew two units with the Me-109 G-6 and G-10.

The aircraft of the Italian Air Force prior to 1943 carried a white circle with three fasces in black on the wings and a white cross on the tail. The ANR carried a square version of the fasces simbol on the wings and an Italian flag on the fuselage.

photos and profiles: http://www.xs4all.nl/~tozu/me109/foreign/109-italy.htm

KGr.HH-Sunburst
09-13-2005, 07:24 AM
Originally posted by Megile:
italy didn't fly BF-109s? First I've heard of that.

lol oh common sure they did, but i think the Italians are a little shorter on plane types as the RAF...sure they had a smaller airforce but that doesnt make them less needed or better said wanted

what they got from their own now is 1938-39? planes a whole 2 of em
RAF is stuck in 1943, the italians are stuck in 1940....... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

MEGILE
09-13-2005, 07:39 AM
Agreed!
I just like to pedantically point out where you were wrong.

Besides.. If I wanted a 1945 Spitfire to beat the luftwaffe, I'd ask for a Spifire MK21.

Spitfire MK21 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif
Luftwaffe http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

KGr.HH-Sunburst
09-13-2005, 07:55 AM
Originally posted by Megile:
Spitfire MK21 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif
Luftwaffe http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

RAF spitfire MK21 shoots down K4....he's hero of the RAF now http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

262 comes along shoots down spit mk21
spit pilot dead hero of the RAF http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

MEGILE
09-13-2005, 08:12 AM
Spitfire MK21 shoots down theoritcal-maybewasthere-notsure K4 @ 1.98ATA and he is a hero http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
Me-262 attempts to turn with Spitfire21, has a compressor stall, and crashes. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Von_Rat
09-13-2005, 08:21 AM
Originally posted by Megile:
TAS. However at sea level TAS is almost exactly the same as IAS.

If it will catch the German fighters then that is WIlli's and Kurts problem.. not mine. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

as i said before, its seems some just want a spit that;ll catch and outturn any lw fighter.

actually it shouldn't catch d9 in real life, but our d9s are a tad slow.

MEGILE
09-13-2005, 08:22 AM
And some people don't want the allies to have a Spit that will catch and outturn any lw fighter.

go figure.

Von_Rat
09-13-2005, 08:25 AM
Originally posted by Megile:
And some people don't want the allies to have a Spit that will catch and outturn any lw fighter.

go figure.

i guess some people think they need a uber spit to compete,,lol. your turn.

carguy_
09-13-2005, 08:27 AM
Originally posted by Megile:
And some people don't want the allies to have a Spit that will catch and outturn any lw fighter.

go figure.

Doesn`t matter because SpitXIV won`t make it into IL2 anyway http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Bearcat99
09-13-2005, 09:14 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif.......... 5 pages no less....

p1ngu666
09-13-2005, 10:23 AM
hm
XIV Jan-feb 44
tempest march 44 (series II around d day?)
mustang III april 44

D9 is september 44 if i remmber correctly
k4 is october 44 ?
TA152, first flight late december 44 i think, so rushed into production quickly after that.
g10-14 where post d day?
g6as, would not have had mw50 to start with..

so these fearsome late allied planes, are actully predecessors or contempories to the current LW fighters.

spit mk21 was late 44, but we arent getting that, the mk22 that was worked on just missed the war, but same as mk21, just 22 had a bubble canopy.

there was the hornet (single seat aircraft, based on mossie with smaller lower drag merlins, handed props, and 4 cannons. faster than a late spitfire, and climbed better too)

tempest mark 2, and mark VI?

and IMP, the XIV would be much better than the HF IX even up high, in speed/climb anyways http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

MEGILE
09-13-2005, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by carguy_:

Doesn`t matter because SpitXIV won`t make it into IL2 anyway http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

The Luftwaffes' modesty is saved for a few years yet. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

p1ngu give up posting facts... these guys have no interest in history.

stathem
09-13-2005, 10:51 AM
http://www.rafcommands.currantbun.com/Fighter/91F.html

HeinzBar
09-13-2005, 11:07 AM
S!,
I'm probably mistaken, but don't all of the IXe versions use the later merlin engines from 44? Again, I may be mistaken, but isn't the XIV only 30kph faster at all altitudes than the IXe HF? If so, how much difference is that really going to make? Currently, the HF is superior to all LW planes at altitude once a good pilot gets behind the yoke. I've been driven out of my comfort zone (5km+) many, many times by some really good HF pilots. Then again, it could be my poor handling of the FW at those higher altitudes.

Just to contradict them before someone says it; Yes, there are DFs above 5km and they happen on a regular basis. The myth around here that all the fighting is below 2km is just false. You just have to be on the right server. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

HB

jimDG
09-13-2005, 11:17 AM
I read a story from a german ta152 pilot (in Airplane mag I think) where he went into a treetop turning fight with a Tempest. And they turned and turned and the tempest was "slipping" (that word I remembered, whatever he meant) and at the end it stalled and crashed.
The Ta152 may not be the fastest at low level, but with such a long leading edge one would expect it to outturn most airplanes its size.

Low_Flyer_MkII
09-13-2005, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by jimDG:
I read a story from a german ta152 pilot (in Airplane mag I think) where he went into a treetop turning fight with a Tempest. And they turned and turned and the tempest was "slipping" (that word I remembered, whatever he meant) and at the end it stalled and crashed.
The Ta152 may not be the fastest at low level, but with such a long leading edge one would expect it to outturn most airplanes its size.

So why did they clip the Spitfire's wings to increase low altitude performance and extend it's wings to improve high altitude performance?
Just curious...

carguy_
09-13-2005, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by Megile:
The Luftwaffes' modesty is saved for a few years yet. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif


You better learn to fly what you got now,n00b.


p1ngu give up posting facts... these guys have no interest in history.


On the contrary.History should determine the sim.Ask pingu why no Me262 in `44 servers.Is it historical?

HeinzBar
09-13-2005, 11:27 AM
S!,
Regarding the Tempest, it's my understanding that, while exceeding fast at medium to low altitudes, its performance in turn and roll rate were poor. So, I wouldn't base it's turn performance against a Ta152, a plane w/ a lot of wing area optimized to fly at high altitude.

BTW, the wings of the spit were clipped to improve roll rate IIRC and not to improve turn performance.

HB

Low_Flyer_MkII
09-13-2005, 11:45 AM
Ah...I see, thank you.

p1ngu666
09-13-2005, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by HeinzBar:
S!,
I'm probably mistaken, but don't all of the IXe versions use the later merlin engines from 44? Again, I may be mistaken, but isn't the XIV only 30kph faster at all altitudes than the IXe HF? If so, how much difference is that really going to make? Currently, the HF is superior to all LW planes at altitude once a good pilot gets behind the yoke. I've been driven out of my comfort zone (5km+) many, many times by some really good HF pilots. Then again, it could be my poor handling of the FW at those higher altitudes.

Just to contradict them before someone says it; Yes, there are DFs above 5km and they happen on a regular basis. The myth around here that all the fighting is below 2km is just false. You just have to be on the right server. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

HB

right number, wrong unit
30mph, 50~kph
on air displays, like at duxford the griffon ones seem effortless.

the roll performance of the tempest was decent i think, the typhoon it was poor.

typhoon is like the bit in a movie where the hero gets mad http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif and really aggressive. tempest is when he calms down, and pwns the bad guys http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

carguy theres no 262 for a few reasons, it caused lag in the past (fixed) also mostly balance cos of the 4 30mm cannons. no one likes my idea of using only the 2a...

it was also a rareity in terms of sortie numbers, a wing of spits would nearly do same number of sorties on a average, in a morning as 262 did on there best day (max sorties)

it was largely ineffective as well, stunnin performance, but A2A kills it really wasnt that special.

stunning potential, poor results tho

stathem
09-13-2005, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by carguy_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
The Luftwaffes' modesty is saved for a few years yet. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif


You better learn to fly what you got now,n00b.


p1ngu give up posting facts... these guys have no interest in history.


On the contrary.History should determine the sim.Ask pingu why no Me262 in `44 servers.Is it historical? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Possibly because we've yet to see a server where the object is to shoot down B-17's flying in large numbers at altitude.

Or perhaps you want to fly low level solo Jabo or recce missions and ON NO ACCOUNT engage any e/a.

Largest number of 262's ever to take to the skies at one time was 40 in April? 1945. Sortie loss rate was approx 50%.

SlickStick
09-13-2005, 12:07 PM
Oh yes!!!! Gimme, gimme, gimme. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/5931/spitmkxivback7ch.jpg

Although, I'm very happy with Mk. VIIIs and Mk IX HFs for dealing with late-war LW planes, if we got the Mk XIV....ooh la la. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I love to B and Z in a highly-maneuverable plane. The best of both worlds. Good enough speed on the dive, quick hitting guns and the maneuverability to still out turn the LW if you get caught low with one. Even the ridiculously overmodelled turn of the 109s in V4.01m. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

luftluuver
09-13-2005, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by HeinzBar:
S!,
Regarding the Tempest, it's my understanding that, while exceeding fast at medium to low altitudes, its performance in turn and roll rate were poor. So, I wouldn't base it's turn performance against a Ta152, a plane w/ a lot of wing area optimized to fly at high altitude.

BTW, the wings of the spit were clipped to improve roll rate IIRC and not to improve turn performance.

HB

The Ta152 got a few Yaks so its low level performance could not have been that bad.

Compared to the 190's roll it was not as good, but then under 400mph nothing could touch the 190. So really how much did the long wings effect roll rate?

Also remember those long span gliders can stay inside a thermal colume.

WOLFMondo
09-13-2005, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by HeinzBar:
S!,
Regarding the Tempest, it's my understanding that, while exceeding fast at medium to low altitudes, its performance in turn and roll rate were poor. So, I wouldn't base it's turn performance against a Ta152, a plane w/ a lot of wing area optimized to fly at high altitude.

BTW, the wings of the spit were clipped to improve roll rate IIRC and not to improve turn performance.

HB

The Tempests roll was good at 350+ mph when comparing it to other aircraft. All its controls where designed for high speed flight, at low speeds it was supposed to be a very dangerous plane to fly because of this but at high speeds it supposed to be pretty manouverable. On the Tempest DVD I have 1 pilot comments on the very sensitive ailerons.

p1ngu666
09-13-2005, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HeinzBar:
S!,
Regarding the Tempest, it's my understanding that, while exceeding fast at medium to low altitudes, its performance in turn and roll rate were poor. So, I wouldn't base it's turn performance against a Ta152, a plane w/ a lot of wing area optimized to fly at high altitude.

BTW, the wings of the spit were clipped to improve roll rate IIRC and not to improve turn performance.

HB

The Ta152 got a few Yaks so its low level performance could not have been that bad.

Compared to the 190's roll it was not as good, but then under 400mph nothing could touch the 190. So really how much did the long wings effect roll rate?

Also remember those long span gliders can stay inside a thermal colume. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

think it was worse at low level than a dora...
also front to rear length of wing would probably stop it skidding so much in a turn, best turning monoplanes tended to have deeper wings. zero,ki43,27,i16 etc
longer wings help at turning over say the same wing but longer, which is what ta152, 190 wing but longer..

Low_Flyer_MkII
09-13-2005, 06:07 PM
Thank you.

ImpStarDuece
09-13-2005, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:

spit mk21 was late 44, but we arent getting that, the mk22 that was worked on just missed the war, but same as mk21, just 22 had a bubble canopy

and IMP, the XIV would be much better than the HF IX even up high, in speed/climb anyways http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The Spitfire 21 was first delivered to the RAF in August of 1944, strictly for evaluation purposes. However, it was plauged with handling problems and, as a result, a very low rate of production. Once the handling problems were resolved, the war was essentially over. It was March, 1945, almost 7 months after the initial hand over, before the Mk 21 began combat operations. Even though it was designated as a high altitude type, all production examples flew without the extended wing tip.

The Mk 22 was actually a somewhat revised Mk 21, not a simple cut and copy with a bubble hood. They changed the electrical system to 24 volt, enlarged the vertical and horizontal stabilisers, rearranged the tailbracings and made numerous other improvements. The Mk 22 didn't see squadron service until 1946, flying with 73 squadron out of Malta.

And I know that the H.F. IX is a poor substitute for the XIV, even up high. I'm still trying to get a N/W Europe ampaign finished, and its working a a stand-in at the moment. I would commit bodily harm (to someone else, naturally) if there was the slightest chance of getting the Tyffie in the game http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif .

ImpStarDuece
09-13-2005, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by HeinzBar:
S!,
Regarding the Tempest, it's my understanding that, while exceeding fast at medium to low altitudes, its performance in turn and roll rate were poor. So, I wouldn't base it's turn performance against a Ta152, a plane w/ a lot of wing area optimized to fly at high altitude.

BTW, the wings of the spit were clipped to improve roll rate IIRC and not to improve turn performance.

HB

In its ADFU trials the Tempest just lost out in the turn to the Mustang III and was just better than the 190. It was clearly outturned by the Spitfire XIV though.

The 1st serise of Tempests were sluggish in the roll, but these only account for the first 100 produced. The rest of Tempest production was fitted with spring tab alierons, which significantly increased the rate of roll. These were also retrofitted onto existing Serise I aircraft throughout the autumn/winter of 1944.

In its ADFU trials a Tempset Serise I (no spring tab alierons) was noted as outrolling both the Spitfire and the 109 beyond the 350 mph mark, but being worse below about 300mph. The 190 and the Mustang III were both superior to the Tempest, although it is noted that "this attribute (roll) may be improved upon in later aircraft with re-designed alierons". By the end of the January ADFU trials, spring tab alierons were already being trialed, deliveries starting in March 1944.

Peak rate of roll for the Tempest Series I appears to be about 97 degrees/sec at 290-300 mph, wiht 50lbs stickforce.

Badsight.
09-13-2005, 10:35 PM
Originally posted by SlickStick:
Even the ridiculously overmodelled turn of the 109s in V4.01m. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif v4.01 is no different to v3.04 for the 109 turn rate

Badsight.
09-13-2005, 10:37 PM
Originally posted by stathem:
Possibly because we've yet to see a server where the object is to shoot down B-17's flying in large numbers at altitude.

Or perhaps you want to fly low level solo Jabo or recce missions and ON NO ACCOUNT engage any e/a.

Largest number of 262's ever to take to the skies at one time was 40 in April? 1945. Sortie loss rate was approx 50%. while it might be nice to believe that , the real reason theres virtually zero 262's available in the online airquake DF rooms is because used properly the Me-262 very hard to catch & destroy & has awesome , awesome firepower

jimDG
09-13-2005, 11:32 PM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
Possibly because we've yet to see a server where the object is to shoot down B-17's flying in large numbers at altitude.

Or perhaps you want to fly low level solo Jabo or recce missions and ON NO ACCOUNT engage any e/a.

Largest number of 262's ever to take to the skies at one time was 40 in April? 1945. Sortie loss rate was approx 50%. while it might be nice to believe that , the real reason theres virtually zero 262's available in the online airquake DF rooms is because used properly the Me-262 very hard to catch & destroy & has awesome , awesome firepower </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How about a map with lots of ground targtes for reds/il2s and continuous cloud cover from 1000 to 1500 m?

F19_Olli72
09-13-2005, 11:39 PM
A question to the guys who crave 262s online for 'historical' reasons. I guess you want to fly with 'historical' team ratios too? On a 30 player server lets say 26 red 4 blue. One 262 rest FWs and 109s. If you want it historical, be my guest....nobody's stopping you from creating your own server.

Badsight.
09-13-2005, 11:39 PM
Originally posted by jimDG:
How about a map with lots of ground targtes for reds/il2s and continuous cloud cover from 1000 to 1500 m? sounds cool !

some online AirQuake DF rooms already run this

hardly any run me-262's , for the reasons i out-lined

Badsight.
09-13-2005, 11:42 PM
Originally posted by F19_Olli72:
I guess you want to fly with 'historical' team ratios too? . its got nothing to do with historical ratios

its about shouting down Allied history whiners

people dont want to fly against me-262's , it defeats the fun of AirQuaking TnB

suddenly you you are facing mega firepower that you cant catch , its boring with the addition bummer of being completely blowen to peices from just one accurate shot

F19_Olli72
09-14-2005, 12:07 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F19_Olli72:
I guess you want to fly with 'historical' team ratios too? . its got nothing to do with historical ratios

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well i guess that blows the 'its historical' argument right out of the water then. Why dont they just come out and say: "look, i just want easy kills nothing else. Therefore i need a much better plane than everyone else cos thats the only way im going to get them."

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

And as i mentioned, nobody is stopping anyone from setting up their own server.

Kuna15
09-14-2005, 12:25 AM
Originally posted by F19_Olli72:
A question to the guys who crave 262s online for 'historical' reasons. I guess you want to fly with 'historical' team ratios too? On a 30 player server lets say 26 red 4 blue. One 262 rest FWs and 109s. If you want it historical, be my guest....nobody's stopping you from creating your own server.

That is true.

Also I think it would be still unfair fight, since that one ME-262 will outperform everyone and pick targets out easily. For that one pilot it will be easy to fight unlike other guys in FWs and Bfs.

Most DM servers with all do respect have nothing to do with ww2 type combat.

Badsight.
09-14-2005, 12:44 AM
Originally posted by F19_Olli72:
Well i guess that blows the 'its historical' argument right out of the water then. Why dont they just come out and say: "look, i just want easy kills nothing else. Therefore i need a much better plane than everyone else cos thats the only way im going to get them."

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

And as i mentioned, nobody is stopping anyone from setting up their own server. now dont get me wrong - i understand this point you make but i think you have this situation backwards . you really think DF rooms are anything but AirQuake ? they represent a big fat ZERO about History

you get some people come into this forum whining about the lack of 1945 Allied A/C & then you get the replys of "well you aint even facing the best LW plane" (the Me-262)

then some tard pipes up with "sure lets have it , if we can limit its number to represent histoy" . & that about sums up the "wheres my 262" cry

gay

DF rooms have nothing to do with history , what they are is the chance to compare Maddox Games developed performance against each other + (if your lucky) Teamwork

& the experienced guys can make the 262s advantages pay off to the point of total domination

^ that , & the fact that fighting the properly flowen 262 with a Prop fighter is a PITA as well as boring is why you dont see them online

i liked the P-80 more before this patch , now in v4.01 its a total waste of time flying the 262 against the P-80 if winning is all you care about . if you cant tell , i enjoy the what-ifs a lot , they are big big fun to fly
the Bf-109Z , awesome fun
the P-80 , awesome fun
the I-185 , stunning as well as awesome fun
but early is where i fly the most , its what FB does the best

WOLFMondo
09-14-2005, 12:47 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:

people dont want to fly against me-262's , it defeats the fun of AirQuaking TnB


Bah! I played online vs 262's yesterday and bagged one by diving on it from 6000m and caught it at 1000m in a Mustang MkIII. Was allot of fun!

Bring 'em on!

carguy_
09-14-2005, 01:43 AM
Originally posted by F19_Olli72:
A question to the guys who crave 262s online for 'historical' reasons. I guess you want to fly with 'historical' team ratios too? On a 30 player server lets say 26 red 4 blue. One 262 rest FWs and 109s. If you want it historical, be my guest....nobody's stopping you from creating your own server.

Nice proof of being two-faced here.When people point out that LW had n00b pilots and been ounumbered 5 to 1 the other people point out that LW often managed to gather big numbers in one zone so they weren`t outnumbered 5:1,rather 2:1.

Yeah,historical DF server....25 P51 or P47 vs 9Me262.Uum yes we would have to pt some distance between the bases to give time for USAAF to climb to actually have some kind of a chance.

WOLFMondo
09-14-2005, 01:54 AM
Originally posted by carguy_:


Yeah,historical DF server....25 P51 or P47 vs 9Me262.Uum yes we would have to pt some distance between the bases to give time for USAAF to climb to actually have some kind of a chance.

How about 800 miles away starting in Kent or East Sussex? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

F19_Olli72
09-14-2005, 02:15 AM
Lol i was merely giving an example, for that im beeing called "tard", "twofaced" and whatnot. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Carguy, i never claimed i submitted any 'proof' or anything..."On a 30 player server lets say 26 red 4 blue" if you read that sentence properly its a generalisation and an example.

I dont recall any real instance when LW was outnumbered 2:1 in 262s....but again noones stopping you from having that on your server.

Badsight.
09-14-2005, 02:21 AM
ok , poor word selection , i wasnt meaning you specifically

just that . . . . . that excuse is given for not including the 262 when we all know the real reason ,& it has nothing to do with history

"historical accuracy , a online DF room"

dont you see how this is a joke ? 2 contradictory things man!

ive fought properly flowen 262s before , & at low alt using the La-7 it was a hassel - total opposite of normal DF room fun . sure the MkIII pony should be a tad less hard , but meh so what , if i have to fight 262s give me a P-80

MEGILE
09-14-2005, 04:14 AM
Hey badsight you should fly one of my coops!
Myself, Fish, Leadspitter and Hristo flew 4 Me-262s against 20 Mustang IIIs http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

It was pretty uber http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

We all ramjagerd excpet for Hristo... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

mynameisroland
09-14-2005, 07:47 AM
Originally posted by SlickStick:
Oh yes!!!! Gimme, gimme, gimme. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/5931/spitmkxivback7ch.jpg

Although, I'm very happy with Mk. VIIIs and Mk IX HFs for dealing with late-war LW planes, if we got the Mk XIV....ooh la la. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I love to B and Z in a highly-maneuverable plane. The best of both worlds. Good enough speed on the dive, quick hitting guns and the maneuverability to still out turn the LW if you get caught low with one. Even the ridiculously overmodelled turn of the 109s in V4.01m. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

The prob with Spit is its not a manuverable fighter at high speeds unlike Mustang, Fw 190 or Tempest. I love Spitfire IX for this reason it has best balance for speed and capacity. Some Spitfire pilots regarded the Mk 14 as not as good a dogfighter. Kind of like the 109 jumping from the F4 to the G series - faster but not necessarily better fighter.

So a Mk 14 will still not follow a Fw 190 in high speed manuvers. It will keep up with one spped wise but it will need to slow it down first to out fight it.

p1ngu666
09-14-2005, 09:49 AM
didnt the spit vb outturn 190 at all speeds?

geetarman
09-14-2005, 10:05 AM
Originally posted by F19_Olli72:
A question to the guys who crave 262s online for 'historical' reasons. I guess you want to fly with 'historical' team ratios too? On a 30 player server lets say 26 red 4 blue. One 262 rest FWs and 109s. If you want it historical, be my guest....nobody's stopping you from creating your own server.

Bingo!

geetarman
09-14-2005, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by Kuna15:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F19_Olli72:
A question to the guys who crave 262s online for 'historical' reasons. I guess you want to fly with 'historical' team ratios too? On a 30 player server lets say 26 red 4 blue. One 262 rest FWs and 109s. If you want it historical, be my guest....nobody's stopping you from creating your own server.

It (and the rest of the blues planes) wouldn't get off the runway before being destroyed.

That is true.

Also I think it would be still unfair fight, since that one ME-262 will outperform everyone and pick targets out easily. For that one pilot it will be easy to fight unlike other guys in FWs and Bfs.

Most DM servers with all do respect have nothing to do with ww2 type combat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

gkll
09-14-2005, 10:40 AM
Everytime anyone mentions getting the XIV or a 25ib IX, one of the standard responses is that the 262 is banned from most/all DF servers. Huh?

It feels like €œWell I€ll trump your XIV with my 262...€ when probably the vast majority of the people agitating for the XIV could care less about the *******s... don€t fly them and really just want to fight WW2 'classic' aircombat. I mean consider if in WW1 somebody (in RL) had started using small numbers of 250 mph stressed skin 4 gun monoplanes... who here thinks everybody would want to fly this oddity and not the camels se5s d7s (if there were a WW1 sim...)

The essence for a lot of us is that we are ww2 style prop jockeys. Maybe we are not so much scared of the 262 as merely indifferent. So enough with all the 262 squawking everytime the XIV is mentioned...

Refighting the war, gentlemen?... maybe, just maybe, the brits got that modified meteor III up in the air for a short hop, just before the war ended...? So can we have that please? 580 mph speed, improved roll, reduced compressability etc... hey! I know... lets add g-suits to the brit planes and to US in early 45... how about that? The last series meteor with the improved roll and extended engine nacelles, with a g-suit! That€ll match your 262... Good grief already...

The point that there isn€t a spit (or any other brit plane) post 43, is hardly answered by talking about 262s, that is a separate issue...

MB_Avro_UK
09-14-2005, 11:40 AM
Hey gkll

Nice response and on topic...cheers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Regards,
MB_Avro

waffen-79
09-14-2005, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
its about shouting down Allied history whiners


LOL


Originally posted by F19_Olli72:Well i guess that blows the 'its historical' argument right out of the water then. Why dont they just come out and say: "look, i just want easy kills nothing else. Therefore i need a much better plane than everyone else cos thats the only way im going to get them."

er...SpitFire series, La-7 anyone?

JG53Frankyboy
09-14-2005, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by gkll:
...........The point that there isn€t a spit (or any other brit plane) post 43, is hardly answered by talking about 262s, that is a separate issue...

you can only get a realy serious answer from here:

PF@1C.ru


all other comments made here on UBIzoo is just spam for fun !

HeinzBar
09-14-2005, 12:27 PM
S!,
I did a quick scan of the posting and I didn't see where anyone posted that FB has 1944 RAF aircraft in the sim. Given that all of the IXe versions are listed as 1944 AC, the point of this thread is actually to get the XIV in the sim?

I'm not saying that I don't want the XIV or Tempest in the sim, but were there actually any 1945 RAF planes? I say this because the XIV & Tempest are actually 1944 AC. Perhaps, the mk XXI could fill the 1945 void? Then again, what modeler is going to accept this challenge or that of the XIV?

HB

p1ngu666
09-14-2005, 12:36 PM
mark21 (changed to normal numbers, rather than roman style) wasnt that good, 4 cannons and abit faster than XIV and better roll because of different wing. didnt turn or handle that well until the bugs where ironed out.

IXe has 2 50cals instead of 4 303, thats the only difference between it and the c, so still 43 performance.

45 aircraft are a sabreIIc tempest, the bristol radial one, hornet, plus some spit/seafires marks i cant remmber

WOLFMondo
09-14-2005, 01:09 PM
Originally posted by HeinzBar:

I'm not saying that I don't want the XIV or Tempest in the sim, but were there actually any 1945 RAF planes? I say this because the XIV & Tempest are actually 1944 AC. Perhaps, the mk XXI could fill the 1945 void? Then again, what modeler is going to accept this challenge or that of the XIV?
HB

Both are 43 designs and started in frontline service in 44.

Someone started modelling the Mk22 but stopped, the XIV was modelled and the cockpit is the same as the VIII but with a different throttle and the K14 gunsight so not sure what happened there but I thought the work was complete.

Really though, the Tempest, Spitfire IX and XIV are the RAF's main fighters in 1945 that saw active service. They VIII was used in the Pacific extensivly as was the P47D, the FAA Corsair and Hellcat but planes like the Tempest MKII (first production model rolled of the lines in April 1944) never saw active service despite being in the far east and could have been flown before VE day but didn't.

Kocur_
09-14-2005, 01:22 PM
Hmm...1943? Well Spitfire Mk.IXc had its first combat on 30 june 1942 (two).
I know it was different boosting, but arent current Spits with 1944, not 1943, boosting?

faustnik
09-14-2005, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
Hmm...1943? Well Spitfire Mk.IXc had its first combat on 30 june 1942 (two).
I know it was different boosting, but arent current Spits with 1944, not 1943, boosting?

The MkIXc in the sim has a Merlin 66 running +18 maximum boost. This was first introduced in the Summer of '43 and was a common boost pressure through 1944. So, the current model is pretty much good up to '45. In November/December 1944 the RAF units operating on the continent switched to 150 grade and MkIXs operated at +25 boost.

p1ngu666
09-14-2005, 02:04 PM
the first IX's had merlin 61, and possibly 16lb boost, but i think they had 18lbs.

main difference is supercharger height, think its between the LF and HF engines

faustnik
09-14-2005, 02:22 PM
The Merlin 66 seems to have had a much migher peak horsepower of 1720 compared to 1565 hp for the Merlin 61.

Spit IX Performance (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit9.html)

HeinzBar
09-14-2005, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
The MkIXc in the sim has a Merlin 66 running +18 maximum boost. This was first introduced in the Summer of '43 and was a common boost pressure through 1944. So, the current model is pretty much good up to '45. In November/December 1944 the RAF units operating on the continent switched to 150 grade and MkIXs operated at +25 boost.

S!,
This was exactly what I was trying to get across. So, the latest RAF plane isn't 1943 version, but goes 1945 also. The design improvements follow along the same lines as the Anton 6-9 series.

I guess we should also mention the beaufighter and VIII designs as a 1944 AC too since they also use the latest engine mods?

HB

WOLFMondo
09-14-2005, 04:23 PM
The VIII is but wasn't really used to much in the ETO apart from Italy, the Beaufighter is the Austrialian built version of the MkX (I think) which is a little different but I don't think it will be to much different in performance from the versions used in the ETO.

The Beaufighter was used until the wars end but mainly as anti shipping, over dry land the Typhoon was the main assault/antitank/ground pounder along with the Spitfire IX's and V's of the 2nd Tactical Airforce.

p1ngu666
09-14-2005, 04:28 PM
well the aussi beu is a 44 aircraft, but it performs like marks that had been around for a while.
plus its got a half ammo load, no armoured glass, rear view or gunner

HeinzBar
09-14-2005, 04:40 PM
S!,
So, does this mean that the original post is misleading and the RAF actually do include 1944/45 AC? From what I've seen posted here and in the past, the RAF do have late war AC.

HB

WOLFMondo
09-14-2005, 04:53 PM
In a way yes, in another not at all.

What we have is the 2nd rate aircraft, the gap fillers when theres a hole in the line, other than the Mustang MkIII, not the front line planes like the 25lbs Spit IX, XIV, Typhoon and Tempest which where the front line aircraft.

Basically saying we have 44/45 a/c is almost true but in the same way if we remove the 109K4, G10, G14, 190D9, A6, A9 and Ta152 and just had the G6/AS and A6 we would still say the Luftwaffe has 44/45 planes represented in this sim, if you see what I mean.

p1ngu666
09-14-2005, 04:57 PM
in terms of native designs with a significant difference, no.

there isnt a RAF aircraft that was introduced in 44 which was significantly different ingame.

we have mustangIII, and p47 and p51b/c/d b25 and havoc, but lend lease...

the spit IXe just has 50cals instead of 303s.

btw hurris, blehiems and other "outdated" served until the end aswell, but u wouldnt call them 44 aircraft..

faustnik
09-14-2005, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:

What we have is the 2nd rate aircraft

That is not really accurate either. The Spit IX +18 was a front line fighter through 1944.

Not that I don't want to see the later RAF a/c, the sim needs them!

lrrp22
09-14-2005, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:

Really though, the Tempest, Spitfire IX and XIV are the RAF's main fighters in 1945 that saw active service.


Don't forget the Mustang III/IV. In terms of 1945 total numbers and active squadrons, the order of precedence would go:

1. Spit IX/XVI
2. Mustang III/IV (22 squadrons)
3. Tempest V (8 squadrons)
4. Spit XIV (7 squadrons)


.

HeinzBar
09-14-2005, 05:52 PM
S!,
Hmm, I guess I'm not getting my thoughts across properly. The readme has the IXc as 1943, the IXe, IXeclp & IXe HF as 1944 planes. Additionally, these planes are using much later engine improvements, right? This is very much like A6(1943) going to the A8 & A9 (1944). Essentially, they're the same plane w/ some engine tweaks and weapon improvements just like the IX & VIII design. I know what you're saying about about original designs, but the top RAF planes are 1944 planes rather than 1943 according to the viewme and contrary to the original post. And I guess the others are correct too when posting about the Mustang III being a 1944+ plane.

Honestly, I want to see the Tempest & mkXIV in here too. But,these planes are 1944 also. As for 2nd rate, IMO, the IXe, IXeclp, and IXe HF are anything but 2nd rate gap fillers.

HB

lrrp22
09-14-2005, 06:00 PM
Originally posted by HeinzBar:
S!,
Hmm, I guess I'm not getting my thoughts across properly. The readme has the IXc as 1943, the IXe, IXeclp & IXe HF as 1944 planes. Additionally, these planes are using much later engine improvements, right?

Heinz,

All the Spit IX's in-game are using mid-1943 engines and engine boost settings. They are all unquestionably 1943 fighters.


.

faustnik
09-14-2005, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by lrrp22:

Heinz,

All the Spit IX's in-game are using mid-1943 engines and engine boost settings. They are all unquestionably 1943 fighters.


.


Right, but, they were the RAF's frontline fighter at those settings through 1944.

The Spit IX versions we have in the sim are perfectly appropriate to create missions from June 1943 through December 1944.

ImpStarDuece
09-14-2005, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by HeinzBar:
S!,
Hmm, I guess I'm not getting my thoughts across properly. The readme has the IXc as 1943, the IXe, IXeclp & IXe HF as 1944 planes. Additionally, these planes are using much later engine improvements, right? This is very much like A6(1943) going to the A8 & A9 (1944). Essentially, they're the same plane w/ some engine tweaks and weapon improvements just like the IX & VIII design. I know what you're saying about about original designs, but the top RAF planes are 1944 planes rather than 1943 according to the viewme and contrary to the original post. And I guess the others are correct too when posting about the Mustang III being a 1944+ plane.

Honestly, I want to see the Tempest & mkXIV in here too. But,these planes are 1944 also. As for 2nd rate, IMO, the IXe, IXeclp, and IXe HF are anything but 2nd rate gap fillers.

HB

Not really Heinz. The IXe, IXeCLP, and H.F. IXe are all operating with circa mid 1943 boost levels. What makes them a 1944 airframe is the 'E' Type wing armament. The RAF decided to switch to the Browning because of its better ballistic match to the Hispano and the better armour piercing qualities of the M2.

Yes, they operated through to the middle to end of 1944 with the +18lbs boost level. However, RAF squadrons began to transition to 150 octane and +25lbs boost around June 1944.

SO you can look at it a few ways;

1. Britwhiner/redwhiner tinted glasses (aka ME! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif )

"We only have 1943 aircraft (because the Mustang was lend lease it doesn't count http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif ). None of the airplanes we are flying were introduced later than 1943. What we need is some REAl 1944 aircrat i.e. Spitfire XIV (January 1944) Tempest (March 1944) and a +25lbs boost Spitfire IX (June 1944). Afterall, our opponents are flying 1944-1945 introduced aircraft; 109K4 (September 1944), 190A8 (January 1944), 190D9 (October 1944), Ta-152 (December 1944-January 1945). Rue Britannia and pass the tea Cecil http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ."

2. Luftwhiner tinted glasses;

"You already have 1944 aircraft, stupid. The Mustang III is the fastest aircraft in the game down low. The IXe, HF IXe and CLP IXe were all introduced in 1944. They operated at +18lbs until around the middle to end of 1944. What you have represents the typical and historical frontline Spitfires of the 1944 period. Oh, and no-one lets us use our best 1944 aircraft anyway. I think I'll go and sulk now http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif "

3. Internet dogfighter tinted glasses

"I want the fastest, gunniest, climbiest, shootiest, most turniest plane eva, with boost, and racing stripes! Or maybe flames coming out the sides, dont worry about a cockpit, I only fly wonderwoman anyway. And if I don't get it I'll complain to Oleg. Give us our Spitfire XIV and Tempest V and +25lbs Spitfire and Mosquito and a Mk 21/22 and a Mk 18. Then we will have some real mens aircraft to pound those cowardly, B'n'Zing luftpussies."

p1ngu666
09-14-2005, 07:00 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

SlickStick
09-14-2005, 08:05 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 SlickStick:
Oh yes!!!! Gimme, gimme, gimme. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/5931/spitmkxivback7ch.jpg

Although, I'm very happy with Mk. VIIIs and Mk IX HFs for dealing with late-war LW planes, if we got the Mk XIV....ooh la la. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I love to B and Z in a highly-maneuverable plane. The best of both worlds. Good enough speed on the dive, quick hitting guns and the maneuverability to still out turn the LW if you get caught low with one. Even the ridiculously overmodelled turn of the 109s in V4.01m. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

The prob with Spit is its not a manuverable fighter at high speeds unlike Mustang, Fw 190 or Tempest. I love Spitfire IX for this reason it has best balance for speed and capacity. Some Spitfire pilots regarded the Mk 14 as not as good a dogfighter. Kind of like the 109 jumping from the F4 to the G series - faster but not necessarily better fighter.

So a Mk 14 will still not follow a Fw 190 in high speed manuvers. It will keep up with one spped wise but it will need to slow it down first to out fight it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Performance-wise, the Mk. XIV is a faster VIII or IX, with slightly less turning radius. I can B and Z effectively in VIII or IX and DF 109s and FWs up to 4000m, but can also turn it well and if I had a faster VIII or IX, that was actually designed to perform better at a higher altitude than a IX or VIII, I'd be really, really happy. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I like to chase 109s and FWs up to 3-4000m or so and dogfight up there. If I stay out of the FW's scissors and the 109s air brake strengths, the extra speed will sure come in handy for zoom-climbing up after wayward 109s and FWs. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

http://www3.plala.or.jp/takepom/illust/20001219a.jpg

Badsight.
09-14-2005, 10:54 PM
you got anymore pictures like that Slick , you just go ahead & post them : )

personally , id rather see a genuinely awesome performer rather than a boosted current model

if its 100% true the Mk14 is kaput , well that sucks , especially moreso if the 25Lb boost Mk9 isnt any better over 6K than our current Mk9

btw , you should try more hi-alt fights , that 4K low alt stuff is fun , but the Spits just get better & better comparativly as you ascend

Badsight.
09-14-2005, 11:08 PM
hello gkll
Originally posted by gkll:
Everytime anyone mentions getting the XIV or a 25ib IX, one of the standard responses is that the 262 is banned from most/all DF servers. Huh?

It feels like €œWell I€ll trump your XIV with my 262...€ when probably the vast majority of the people agitating for the XIV could care less about the *******s... don€t fly them and really just want to fight WW2 'classic' aircombat. I mean consider if in WW1 somebody (in RL) had started using small numbers of 250 mph stressed skin 4 gun monoplanes... who here thinks everybody would want to fly this oddity and not the camels se5s d7s (if there were a WW1 sim...)

The essence for a lot of us is that we are ww2 style prop jockeys. Maybe we are not so much scared of the 262 as merely indifferent. So enough with all the 262 squawking everytime the XIV is mentioned...

Refighting the war, gentlemen?... maybe, just maybe, the brits got that modified meteor III up in the air for a short hop, just before the war ended...? So can we have that please? 580 mph speed, improved roll, reduced compressability etc... hey! I know... lets add g-suits to the brit planes and to US in early 45... how about that? The last series meteor with the improved roll and extended engine nacelles, with a g-suit! That€ll match your 262... Good grief already...

The point that there isn€t a spit (or any other brit plane) post 43, is hardly answered by talking about 262s, that is a separate issue... hey you dont like the fact that theres no Mk14 in FB , thats ok

the biased LW players know EXACTLY how you feel about not being able to fly the best *insert nationality here* superplane , fact is , the Me-262 flew aircombat missions during WW2 , its as ww2 as anything the British flew . if you dont like to fight properly flowen jets you must have a ball because they aint seen in the serious AirQuake rooms

history works both ways eh ? how would you like the Spitfire Mk14 to be banned from these same highly populated servers

no i didnt think so & neither would i , but as far as game balance goes , the Spitfire Mk8 & 9's compete with the 1944 Bf-109s we have right now

you see the non-approved P-38 Late fighting Bf-109Z's as well do you ? no its just the 38 Late you see allowed . when it comes to Fantasy moddeled planes allowed online , the Allied side of FB have it made wouldnt you agree ?

gkll
09-15-2005, 12:39 AM
Hello Badsight,

My sim enjoyment comes from the 'sport' of aircombat... and in 'sport' there is rules. In racing you don't pit a F1 car against a lesser class, what would be the fun in that? In the same way a 262 is just so much <more> BnZ, it simply becomes boring, you said so yourself. My son and I tried it out and found the prop guy just hangs around gaining altitude, keeping the motor cool, and staying at 400. Yawn. Eventually the 262 tries a pass, and the La (whatever something pretty fast)tries to do a diving spiral or what have you looking to get a snapshot on the pass... and then the slow climb back to altitude.... yawn.... and online it would be more like a streak passing through the furball, like an act of God or something, you know, lightning, or bad luck... ("So I was having a great muck in with a couple of Ki100s, and then the screen went black." "262?" "Yeah...")

I like the 109s, Las, Yaks, Mustangs, spits and the 39 especially. I find the 262 ponderous, boring, and belonging to a different class altogether.

And all this sneering about airquake servers, the term always linked with fps, I've never played a fps in my life, hardcore sim all the way, cars mainly, recently planes.

Just that for me its always 'single mission' not 'career'. Always. However as for the physics, they better be right or Im complaining or sneering...

WW2 I study as history out of books and pictures... not the game. But I do see the other side.

<Edit Badsight this 'blue' vs 'red' thing is not real to me. And I enjoy writing and do it a lot otherwise, so I post. But you know, I don't get a spit XIV, whatever, I'll still go racing on the weekend anyways, little in my life will change much.... just typing is cheap and this little il2 world and the characters in it are pretty neat, a gas..... no harm no foul... S!>

WOLFMondo
09-15-2005, 12:51 AM
Originally posted by lrrp22:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:

Really though, the Tempest, Spitfire IX and XIV are the RAF's main fighters in 1945 that saw active service.


Don't forget the Mustang III/IV. In terms of 1945 total numbers and active squadrons, the order of precedence would go:

1. Spit IX/XVI
2. Mustang III/IV (22 squadrons)
3. Tempest V (8 squadrons)
4. Spit XIV (7 squadrons)


. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You forgot Typhoons!

F19_Olli72
09-15-2005, 02:01 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
You forgot Typhoons!

And Mosquitos!

Well technically neither Typhoon and Mosquito were fighters (except for the NF Mossies). But still, the original poster asked for RAF planes (not fighters)...so id like to throw in the Mossie.

WOLFMondo
09-15-2005, 03:44 AM
Typhoons would sometimes be escorted by Tempests or Spits but in reality Typhoon squadrons were happy to go out on patrol by themselves, there first 2 years of active service was in the fighter role and not as ground attack aircraft. Many Typhoon Squadron and wing C/O's were experianced fighter pilots from the battle of britain era who helped develop the Tiffy from the very beginning.

MEGILE
09-15-2005, 07:17 AM
When considering new planes for FB, dogfight room "balance" should have absoltuly nothing to do with it
The historical use of them should.

There are many post-D day scenarios we cannot fly due to the lack of some very important RAF planes... including the Tempest V and Spit XIV.
The fact that the Spitfire IX also saw combat durig 1944, and can still be competitive against LW 1945 fighters should not supersede the previous point.

For the guys who are wondering about what effect this will have on your dogfight room balance.. you guys have no interest in historical flight sims, and are a hinderance to them.

I also see some difference in how planes are referenced to by year... should they be referenced when they first came into service.. or when they also saw combat.
Eg. Spitfire XIV - January 1944, Spitfire IX +25 boost - March 1944, Tempest V March 1944?

SPitfire IX is a 1943 plane.. saw combat in 1943, also saw combat in 1944, and 1945... but does this make it a 1945 fighter?

There is no question all of these planes first came into service in 1944, and all of them saw combat during that year... but they were becoming the 2nd TAF's main fighters at the end of 1944 and through to the end of the war. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

p1ngu666
09-15-2005, 08:50 AM
typhoon was a fighter, just famous for scaring germans silly with rocket and cannon fire http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

much like p51 was low alt intuder/recon aircraft, and b17 was a anti shipping aircraft http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

2nd TAF had a FB VI mossies btw http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

WOLFMondo
09-15-2005, 09:25 AM
Megile, you hit the nail on the head there.

Must be your first sensible post in months! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

faustnik
09-15-2005, 09:59 AM
Originally posted by Megile:

There are many post-D day scenarios we cannot fly due to the lack of some very important RAF planes.

Well, I'd take that even further and say that there is no way to recreate historical 2nd TAF scenarios past November 1944 using the existing planeset. So, we just don't have the RAF in '45 in PF. (Mustang IIIs were primarily used in the recon role by the 2nd TAF, right?)

Von_Rat
09-15-2005, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by Megile:
When considering new planes for FB, dogfight room "balance" should have absoltuly nothing to do with it
The historical use of them should.

There are many post-D day scenarios we cannot fly due to the lack of some very important RAF planes... including the Tempest V and Spit XIV.
The fact that the Spitfire IX also saw combat durig 1944, and can still be competitive against LW 1945 fighters should not supersede the previous point.

For the guys who are wondering about what effect this will have on your dogfight room balance.. you guys have no interest in historical flight sims, and are a hinderance to them.

I also see some difference in how planes are referenced to by year... should they be referenced when they first came into service.. or when they also saw combat.
Eg. Spitfire XIV - January 1944, Spitfire IX +25 boost - March 1944, Tempest V March 1944?

SPitfire IX is a 1943 plane.. saw combat in 1943, also saw combat in 1944, and 1945... but does this make it a 1945 fighter?

There is no question all of these planes first came into service in 1944, and all of them saw combat during that year... but they were becoming the 2nd TAF's main fighters at the end of 1944 and through to the end of the war. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

while i agree with alot of this, i find it funny that with many other important early brit planes missing, all i usually see are posts wanting the uber late ones.

somthing tells me that most who post here want them not for flying historically correct missions, but to be instantly uber in the dogfight rooms, since the best german fighter is banned in every historical room.

Kocur_
09-15-2005, 10:10 AM
(Mustang IIIs were primarily used in the recon role by the 2nd TAF, right?)

Well at least in Polish squadrons they were used for both fighter and ground attack duties.

carguy_
09-15-2005, 10:24 AM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
while i agree with alot of this, i find it funny that with many other important early brit planes missing, all i usually see are posts wanting the uber late ones.

Yup,mite strage. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif


somthing tells me that most who post here want them not for flying historically correct missions, but to be instantly uber in the dogfight rooms, since the best german fighter is banned in every historical room.

So true,even if I never fly in DF servers.As for coops(as in COOP1/2/3) I fly them when taking break from wars and I find nothing but n00bness there.People using their planes very badly.Also generic scenarios where you find P38l late instead of any other P38 and only MustangIII instead of say P51C.

You can have your generic scenarios.I fly with real planesets,where staying alive counts the most.

WOLFMondo
09-15-2005, 10:28 AM
We do have some of the most important early planes vonrat. The Beaufighter was one of the backbone planes of both in the ground attack, night fighter, anti shipping long range fighter roles before the Mosquito, and even after that it was extensivly used in many roles until wars end. We have the 3 main versions of the Hurricane, missing some ordanance however. We also have the 3 main representations of the Spitfire other than the MkI and MkII. Only those Mk's and the XIV are missing from the main production models. Asking for the XIV is just like asking for the late G's or K4 if they where not there which 99% of the luftwhiners would ask for.

Other than those, early and mid war types that are needed are is the wellington and Swordfish. Assuming the Mossie is on its way its only the big 4 engined bombers that are needed but we know we will never get and support and aircraft that played a minor role, aircraft like the Lysander, Anson, Hudson, Hampdon, Manchester, Stirling, Barracuda (the Defiant definatly doesn't count) etc.

If you think the Tempest is uber and it will make medoacre pilots do well in DF your totally utterly wrong and need to read up on the Tempest, not hearsay or glorified speil. Its an experts plane, flown by only pilots who had at least one complete tour on Spits or Typhoons, most pilots had at least 2 years service or a long civil flying career before they could fly it. It has nasty low speed characteristics, Its had to be constantly trimmed in flight, its got a snap stall with no warning. Its a challenge to fly. They also did some of the most interesting missions in the war in the worst conditions.

And no, its nothing like the 262 which is superior in every way and you know that you cannot limit how many players can select 262's in DF roomshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. So would you allow 262A1's to be in DF rooms when everyone can select them? Thats unrealistic when only 1 or 2 where ever in the air in the same sector.

p1ngu666
09-15-2005, 10:38 AM
general army support duties, so recon, attack, etc

Von_Rat
09-15-2005, 10:58 AM
[. We also have the 3 main representations of the Spitfire other than the MkI and MkII. Only those Mk's and the XIV are missing from the main production models.
_______________________________________________-

this is my point, the most famous spit is missing. but i don't see new threads every week asking for it.



________________________________________________

If you think the Tempest is uber and it will make medoacre pilots do well in DF your totally utterly wrong and need to read up on the Tempest, not hearsay or glorified speil. Its an experts plane, flown by only pilots who had at least one complete tour on Spits or Typhoons, most pilots had at least 2 years service or a long civil flying career before they could fly it. It has nasty low speed characteristics, Its had to be constantly trimmed in flight, its got a snap stall with no warning. Its a challenge to fly. They also did some of the most interesting missions in the war in the worst conditions.
________________________________________________

where did i say anything in my post above about tempest, if you look earlier in this thread i beleive you see me stating that alot of noobs are going to get pwned tnbing with the tempest.
im quite aware of the tempests strengths and weraknesses.



________________________________________________

And no, its nothing like the 262 which is superior in every way and you know that you cannot limit how many players can select 262's in DF roomshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. So would you allow 262A1's to be in DF rooms when everyone can select them? Thats unrealistic when only 1 or 2 where ever in the air in the same sector.[/QUOTE]
________________________________________________

the 262 is hardly superior in everyway to spit14 under conditions in df rooms.

id have no problem with spit14 in df rooms, if you could limit there number just like you'd like to limit 262s numbers in df room.

its going to be just as unrelistic to have every single allied player flying spit14s in every historical df room. as you say it is to have every german flying 262s.

i beleive that there were plenty of times there were more than 1 or 2 me262s in a sector. i think as many as a dozen or so flew together on at least one occaision, ill look it up.

anyway if thats true what would be wrong with having almost everyone flying 262s on at least one map on a late war server. since most servers have a 32 or so limit, and only half would be axis, it wouldnt be totally unresonable historically to have almost everyone in a 262.

except for balance reasons, with is whats this is all really about, despite all the denials i see.

p1ngu666
09-15-2005, 12:18 PM
von_rat, there is often spit Mk1 topics, but we must wait for BOB.
i prefer the look of the later marks, the MK1 looks abit squished to me anyways

262jabos often flew along, 262 in the fighter role u would have pairs atleast.

jeroen_R90S
09-15-2005, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
and b17 was a anti shipping aircraft http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


------------------
Planes of the 435th Squadron kept an alert watch for convoys carrying supplies and reinforcements for the Papuan invaders. On 28 and 29 July transports were sighted heading south from St. Georges Channel. RAAF Hudsons and PBY's, AAF B-17's and A-24's all went out from Port Moresby to oppose the landing, and eight of the B-17's bombing from approximately 2,000 feet claimed direct hits upon a transport, but the enemy landed his troops regardless. And he did it again on 13 August, despite the efforts of fifteen B-17's and four B-26's.
------------------

and
------------------
Intelligence reports continually showed a high concentration of shipping in Rabaul harbor, and an especially heavy concentration reported on the 20th invited a test in combat of the recently developed techniques for low-level attack. While two of the three flights in which the B-17's flew bombed according to standard procedures, picked planes of the 63d Squadron, including that of Major Benn, glided down through the moonlit darkness to release their bombs from less than 250 feet. Violent explosions and flying debris were observed, with the result that the experiment was considered to have been eminently successful. A later assessment, however, indicates that no vessels were actually sunk.
------------------

Funny:
------------------
In addition to the daylight attacks, night-flying B-24's were over the area with bombs, grenades, beer bottles, and anything else that would bother the Japanese and keep them awake.
------------------

From: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar

Sorry for hyjacking the thread. Please continue with Spitfire now... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Jeroen

faustnik
09-15-2005, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
If you think the Tempest is uber and it will make medoacre pilots do well in DF your totally utterly wrong and need to read up on the Tempest, not hearsay or glorified speil. Its an experts plane, flown by only pilots who had at least one complete tour on Spits or Typhoons, most pilots had at least 2 years service or a long civil flying career before they could fly it. It has nasty low speed characteristics, Its had to be constantly trimmed in flight, its got a snap stall with no warning. Its a challenge to fly.

The best Tempest pilots will be Fw190 pilots. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Monty_Thrud
09-15-2005, 12:53 PM
May i suggest petitioning Sparx on the Warclouds website for a Me262 map, i flew one on BoP awhile ago, in Thunderstorm weather, hid in the clouds all the way to the enemies airfield and bagged me a Hun...groovy http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Also..i would like the 25lber Mk IX A) Historical...i spend alot of time in FMB, trying to make, actual missions that happened, the correct maps dont matter as much to me just similar lanscapes, its the Aircraft that do matter.
B)Online/DF...i seem to spend most of my time chasing Bf's G6/AS upwards, and late FW's all over the maps...i would like to engage in some dog fighting with these late LW planes, in my favourite ride, thank you very glady http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Also, please correct me if i'm wrong but ar'nt the G6/AS~G10~G14 all boosted versions of the G2/6?

But i do understand what LW plane fans are saying, in that they are worried that everyone will be flying in boosted aircraft...but thats surely down to the Map makers to have equality on DF servers. People do have a say of what A/C they want on their regular server, Admin do listen.


But at the end of the day, the 25lber MkIX allows the RAF to have a Spit that flew frontline to the end of the war, that and the Tempest, will certainly keep me happy and make it up a little for the big disappointment of not getting our beloved MkXIV

Heres some Spitfire MkI (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/3911072943) requests
And here (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/592101314/r/592101314#592101314)
And here (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/69210843/r/69210843#69210843)

WOLFMondo
09-15-2005, 12:59 PM
faustnik, I totally agree.


Originally posted by Von_Rat:

anyway if thats true what would be wrong with having almost everyone flying 262s on at least one map on a late war server. since most servers have a 32 or so limit, and only half would be axis, it wouldnt be totally unresonable historically to have almost everyone in a 262.

except for balance reasons, with is whats this is all really about, despite all the denials i see.

Balance? Stacked teams is the order of the day online, usually blue is stacked over reds. You know that.

C'mon, 16 me262's up at once, maybe for a 1000 bomber raid but in a small scale tactical battle there was literally one or two up. They would make one very quick pass at allied airfields then bugger off home before patrolling Tempests dived on them. There was only 300 odd in service and even less pilots to fly them.

Its far more realistic to see everyone in Spit XIV's or everyone in Tempests. It wasn't un common to see 24 Tempests up looking for 1 or 2 262's or there airfields.

You said:
"somthing tells me that most who post here want them not for flying historically correct missions, but to be instantly uber in the dogfight rooms, since the best german fighter is banned in every historical room."

To quote that Russian pilot Crazyivan has in his sig, its not the violin, its the violinist. Neither Typhoon, Tempest or Spit XIV are uber but they can be in the right hands. Just like a Dora or K4 or A9.

WOLFMondo
09-15-2005, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by Monty_Thrud:
May i suggest petitioning Sparx on the Warclouds website for a Me262 map, i flew one on BoP awhile ago, in Thunderstorm weather, hid in the clouds all the way to the enemies airfield and bagged me a Hun...groovy http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

There is one with the 50mm cannon 262. Regardless they still wanted to TnB. Easy prey. I'd be up for it but online no one wants to seem to use the thick clouds and bad weather which I think was a great addition in the last patch.

p1ngu666
09-15-2005, 01:33 PM
the late 109s are all basicaly g6's that have turned to alchol http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Monty_Thrud
09-15-2005, 01:51 PM
I would have done the same http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Von_Rat
09-15-2005, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
faustnik, I totally agree.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:

anyway if thats true what would be wrong with having almost everyone flying 262s on at least one map on a late war server. since most servers have a 32 or so limit, and only half would be axis, it wouldnt be totally unresonable historically to have almost everyone in a 262.

except for balance reasons, with is whats this is all really about, despite all the denials i see.

Balance? Stacked teams is the order of the day online, usually blue is stacked over reds. You know that.
__________________________________________________ ______________________________
i don't know that,,, blue stacked over reds ,,comon its usually other way around,, you know that.



__________________________________________________ __________________________

C'mon, 16 me262's up at once, maybe for a 1000 bomber raid but in a small scale tactical battle there was literally one or two up. They would make one very quick pass at allied airfields then bugger off home before patrolling Tempests dived on them. There was only 300 odd in service and even less pilots to fly them.
__________________________________________________ ____________________________

i remember a account i read about approxmately a dozen 262s engaging a number of p51s. im trying to find it so i can referance it. it was hardly a thousand plane battle. but i guess you''ll use any excuse to exclude 262 while red gets their uber boosted planes.



__________________________________________________ _______________________---
Its far more realistic to see everyone in Spit XIV's or everyone in Tempests. It wasn't un common to see 24 Tempests up looking for 1 or 2 262's or there airfields.
__________________________________________________ __________________________

and i say its unrealistic for allies to get uber boosted planes but no 262s allowed.

as it is you would think that 99% of allied pilots flew spit9s in ww2. imagine what its going to be like with spit14s, you'll almost never see anything else.



__________________________________________________ __________________________
You said:
"somthing tells me that most who post here want them not for flying historically correct missions, but to be instantly uber in the dogfight rooms, since the best german fighter is banned in every historical room."

To quote that Russian pilot Crazyivan has in his sig, its not the violin, its the violinist. Neither Typhoon, Tempest or Spit XIV are uber but they can be in the right hands. Just like a Dora or K4 or A9. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
__________________________________________________ _____________________________


since the plane doesn't matter i guess you won't miss not having the spit14 then.

one other thing, towards the end of the war about the only thing the germans had fuel for was the jets. they were practically the only ooposition the allies would see in the closing days of the war. so to totally exclude them while allowing late war allied boosted planes is wrong.

.

faustnik
09-15-2005, 02:57 PM
I'm not sure what the Me262 has to do with the need for a late war RAF plane in PF? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

The Spit IX +25 is an easy to create fix for our lack of a late war RAF fighter. There is no logical reason for not wanting it in the sim.

Overboosting???? +25 pounds boost was standard WEP for Spit IXs after November '44.

WOLFMondo
09-15-2005, 03:02 PM
I don't say exclude the 262, i've never said that but thinking it was common that more than a couple where used in tactical engagements is delusional and wrong. Read what I put above, bring the 262 on. I don't mind fighting them but in large numbers? No, thats historically not correct. Why would I need an excuse to get 'uber red boosted' planes?

I'm not part of this red vs blue BS that some people are. YOu see me online I fly both sides. I want the Tempest not cause its 'uber and red'(saying its uber clearly shows you know nothing about that plane) but cause I want to fly it on and offline in the missions those pilots flew, one of them, the Tempests primary task in the closing days is shooting down jets! How is it unrealistic to have the RAF's main frontline fighter in 1945 exactly? pfft. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

You need to read some 2nd TAF accounts. Those pilots saw 190's and 109's all the time and only a few jets. The high altitude airwar and the low altitude airwar where very different.

BTW Most commonwealth fighter pilots did fly the Spitfire. Over 20,000 where built, they didn't just stack them up on the ground hoping people would get in them on the off chance. The 2nd TAF had over 1000 of them at any given point during 44/45. Then theres the rest of the RAF.

faustnik, Megile is right, your a red biased blue player. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Kuna15
09-15-2005, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
the late 109s are all basicaly g6's that have turned to alchol http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://free-vk.t-com.hr/domagoj/smileys/lol_1.gif

VW-IceFire
09-15-2005, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
If you think the Tempest is uber and it will make medoacre pilots do well in DF your totally utterly wrong and need to read up on the Tempest, not hearsay or glorified speil. Its an experts plane, flown by only pilots who had at least one complete tour on Spits or Typhoons, most pilots had at least 2 years service or a long civil flying career before they could fly it. It has nasty low speed characteristics, Its had to be constantly trimmed in flight, its got a snap stall with no warning. Its a challenge to fly.

The best Tempest pilots will be Fw190 pilots. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes indeedy! The Tempest I think will very much be like a FW190 in the fact that you use speed, firepower, and potentially surprise to defeat your opponent. The standard Tempest V firepower is actually heavier than the standard FW190 firepower due to the impressive Hispano V 20mm cannon so infact in some ways it will be a better BNZ machine although in both cases they cut targets to ribbons.

The FW190 is by far the superior in roll rate while the Tempest is slightly superior in turn to a FW190A and about even (depending) with the D-9 (although the Tempest may be better in certain situations because of different wing design and wing loading).

I cannot see an exodus from Spitfire to Tempest V without all of those pilots suddenly learning not to do turn fight dogfighting at 500m. But you will see some of the more experienced fighter bomber pilots flying the aircraft as both a low and medium altitude fighter and as a fighter-bomber. As fighter-bomber, I can see myself having great fun with the Tempest. Bombs and cannons will be a good combination for most targets on say WarClouds and the speed should mean I can outrun most opponents with equal energy and fight well against the rest.

I look forward to the plane for its history, its potential, and for personal interests sake. In terms of online gameplay, the Tempest gives the Red team another very capable BNZ machine but with British rather than American design philosophy. The P-47 is great and a very powerful weapon in the hands of some very capable American and non-American pilots out there but I find it sometimes lacking. The P-51 is the same...great high altitude fighter and extremely capable against FW190s and Bf109s...but when it comes to flying at lower altitudes and beating the FW190s at their own game...thats Tempest territory. I look forward to occupying it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Plus I wouldn't mind chasing a few jets...thats what they were designed to do. So long as nobody complains about me taking that jet out on landing while dodging flak http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

HeinzBar
09-15-2005, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by lrrp22:
Heinz,

All the Spit IX's in-game are using mid-1943 engines and engine boost settings. They are all unquestionably 1943 fighters.

S!,
I stand corrected. I could of sworn that people posted proof of the different engines found in the IXe being early 44 designs/boost? My mistake.

HB

luftluuver
09-15-2005, 03:57 PM
The Tempest was used as a local air superiority fighter. Chasing 262s was just part of the job but nor specific to the job. It did not carry bombs, or rockets, in WW2.

WOLFMondo
09-15-2005, 04:02 PM
It was cleared for both and napalm however. So even if it didn't it could.

luftluuver
09-15-2005, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
It was cleared for both and napalm however. So even if it didn't it could.

Are you saying you want to go non-historical? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Low_Flyer_MkII
09-15-2005, 04:15 PM
http://www.hawkertempest.se/bombs.htm

WOLFMondo
09-15-2005, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
It was cleared for both and napalm however. So even if it didn't it could.

Are you saying you want to go non-historical? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What non historical about using ordanance the Tempest was cleared to use in combat?

luftluuver
09-15-2005, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:

What non historical about using ordanance the Tempest was cleared to use in combat?

What is historical about using ordanance that they never used in combat?

p1ngu666
09-15-2005, 05:10 PM
it didnt use rockets in anger, but they did use bombs, and drop tanks.
it was cleared to use rockets in wartime, but i think they kept the tiffies doing the rocket attacks, and the tempests as fighters.

and, again
they arent as late war as some of the axis prop planes (or infact russian ones) japanease ones are late war, but mediocure http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

p1ngu666
09-15-2005, 05:12 PM
tempests with rockets will make up for the lack of tiffies. not as fearsome as the typhoon, but luckly the ai ground objects dont know fear http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

luftluuver
09-15-2005, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
tempests with rockets will make up for the lack of tiffies. not as fearsome as the typhoon, but luckly the ai ground objects dont know fear http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

That I can go with. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

VW-IceFire
09-15-2005, 05:48 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
tempests with rockets will make up for the lack of tiffies. not as fearsome as the typhoon, but luckly the ai ground objects dont know fear http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

That I can go with. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think thats the reason rockets were allowed. No Typhoon...and the Tempest is the closest approximation. I'd also be happy with a Typhoon with full rocket load and Tempest with none.

But imperfect worlds...

Badsight.
09-15-2005, 10:33 PM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:

Balance? Stacked teams is the order of the day online, usually blue is stacked over reds. You know that. & since when & for how long ?

you realise anything about hosting or hosting realities during the days (& this is YEARS we are talking here) of FB v1.0 to v3.02 ?

people would join red even if it was 15 - 5 , i got so sick of it i started hosting Allieds on the blue bases

at least then i got a laugh before i kicked them out of the room



Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Its far more realistic to see everyone in Spit XIV's or everyone in Tempests. It wasn't un common to see 24 Tempests up looking for 1 or 2 262's or there airfields. & there you go discussing Realisim with online AirQuake rooms in the same sentence

DF rooms have Nothing to do with History or Realisim

all online DogFight rooms are is : the chance to compare maddox Game developed performance against each other . . . . . . . & if your lucky , the opportuinty to pratice teamwork

the limiting numbers for history's sake is pathetic & as a argument is getting really really old

people fly the best most effective plane they can , people play for kills & points . if people can agree to allowing a Mk14 to be used & yet cant agree to the 262 being used they are BIASED

how many Bf-109Z's have you had to fight lately ? i know the amount of P-38 Late time ive been having , Allied side in FB has it made for fantasy models being allowed . that people are ok with this shows me that the days of FB v1.x are still the same as now

most people like the Allied side of WW2 & want to beat up on the german stuff

Von_Rat
09-15-2005, 11:11 PM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
I don't say exclude the 262, i've never said that but thinking it was common that more than a couple where used in tactical engagements is delusional and wrong. Read what I put above, bring the 262 on. I don't mind fighting them but in large numbers? No, thats historically not correct. Why would I need an excuse to get 'uber red boosted' planes?

I'm not part of this red vs blue BS that some people are. YOu see me online I fly both sides. I want the Tempest not cause its 'uber and red'(saying its uber clearly shows you know nothing about that plane) but cause I want to fly it on and offline in the missions those pilots flew, one of them, the Tempests primary task in the closing days is shooting down jets! How is it unrealistic to have the RAF's main frontline fighter in 1945 exactly? pfft. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

You need to read some 2nd TAF accounts. Those pilots saw 190's and 109's all the time and only a few jets. The high altitude airwar and the low altitude airwar where very different.

BTW Most commonwealth fighter pilots did fly the Spitfire. Over 20,000 where built, they didn't just stack them up on the ground hoping people would get in them on the off chance. The 2nd TAF had over 1000 of them at any given point during 44/45. Then theres the rest of the RAF.

faustnik, Megile is right, your a red biased blue player. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif


from the book last year of the luftwaffe.

"on feb 21st mustangs of the 479th fighter group on patrol in the berlin area encountered about 15 me262s and as the american leader afterwards reported, these jets behaved differantly from any previously seen,,,,,"

it goes on with the american leaders account of the fight, it was basically a draw. the jets were from III gruppe jagdgeswader 7.

SO MUCH FOR ME BEING DELUSIONAL HUH,,, or for having more than 1 or 2 being historically incorrect. and this is just one account of 262s being used in numbers greater than one or two, there are many others. you better start doing some research i think. and even if 15 262s wasn't common, so what? at least one documented battle had that many, so whats wrong with having at least one map using that many. god knows if spit14 gets in every dam map is going to be stuffed with them.

i fly both sides also,, my best kill streak in any plane was 23 planes in a spit. i think best plane in game is mustang3 i luv it.

you keep bringing up the tempest, im looking forward to flying it. its a great addition to plane set.

its all these players calling for late war uber spit 14, instead of the more important spit 1 that has me upset. and we shouldnt have to wait for bob to get the spit 1, that could be 2 years or more by some accounts.

Von_Rat
09-15-2005, 11:18 PM
great post badsight, as i said before its all about balance in df rooms, no matter how much these guys deny it.

and you know dam well that if spit14 is allowed thats pretty much the only thing that;ll be flying on red side, on every map. how historical is that???

i don't really beleive that, but its as true as the nonsense that if 262 is allowed, thats all blue will fly. it might of happened a couple times in the past, but i think that was because of the novelty.

i think it was warclouds that long ago had a regular 262 map in the rotation. the most jets i remember seeing was about 6 at a time.

since then there was a short time i think that they had a 262 map, and maybe alot did jump in jets, but as i said that was because of the novelty.

TX-Gunslinger
09-15-2005, 11:48 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
If you think the Tempest is uber and it will make medoacre pilots do well in DF your totally utterly wrong and need to read up on the Tempest, not hearsay or glorified speil. Its an experts plane, flown by only pilots who had at least one complete tour on Spits or Typhoons, most pilots had at least 2 years service or a long civil flying career before they could fly it. It has nasty low speed characteristics, Its had to be constantly trimmed in flight, its got a snap stall with no warning. Its a challenge to fly.

The best Tempest pilots will be Fw190 pilots. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So very right you are Faust and Wolf. Of all the fighters on the list, this is the one I want the most, to fly and to fight against. The late war Western front will be so much more interesting, don't you think? The Dora and late Anton's natural foe.

S~

gkll
09-15-2005, 11:56 PM
Badsight said <you see the non-approved P-38 Late fighting Bf-109Z's as well do you ? no its just the 38 Late you see allowed . when it comes to Fantasy moddeled planes allowed online , the Allied side of FB have it made wouldnt you agree ?[/QUOTE]

Actually I play online or offline so little I have no idea what is current, at all. I glanced through the posts to the end, and I see this 262 thing has legs.... dominated almost. I thought the thread was about getting late RAF birds in the game? I guess not... anyone who wants a XIV is apparently a coward and a hypocrite, after all, the 262 is banned! yes banned! from many/all servers... justice demands no XIV in retaliation for server admins choices.... or what is the point exactly?

And then the rambling about the Mk I, the deep suspicion that the 'other side' in the debate is really a bunch of arcade (yes that dirty word) noobs looking for cheap kills.. real men would want the Mk I.

Von Rat knows all, he sees into the souls of all those noob spit fanboys, he is certain of the underlying motives of anyone who wants a mid 44 spit... it is ALL about df server balance.... and yes spit noob fanboys looking for lots of gun nozzle bombastic kills....

Man oh man what a gas to see where people go, it shows you more about the commenters than the original issue sometimes.... it seems there are plenty on these forum for who the 'red' vs 'blue' thing seems stunningly obvious and is quite real, and almost dominates... it might be pretty hard to imagine a 'win win' (109 1.98 ata and 25ib spit eg) if it is all filtered through the prism of 'them' vs 'us'...

Von_Rat
09-16-2005, 12:12 AM
Von Rat knows all, he sees into the souls of all those noob spit fanboys, he is certain of the underlying motives of anyone who wants a mid 44 spit... it is ALL about df server balance.... and yes spit noob fanboys looking for lots of gun nozzle bombastic kills

not all,,, just most. otherwise if it was just history that was involved there'd be alot more threads calling for spit1, instead of spit14. it doesn't take much knowledge of human nature to guess why.

oh and i fly both sides, i do best flying red btw.

i like that quote i should use it in a sig.

gkll
09-16-2005, 12:25 AM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Von Rat knows all, he sees into the souls of all those noob spit fanboys, he is certain of the underlying motives of anyone who wants a mid 44 spit... it is ALL about df server balance.... and yes spit noob fanboys looking for lots of gun nozzle bombastic kills

not all,,, just most. otherwise if it was just history that was involved there'd be alot more threads calling for spit1, instead of spit14. it doesn't take much knowledge of human nature to guess why.

oh and i fly both sides, i do best flying red btw.

i like that quote i should use it in a sig. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah fair enough. Historical accuracy and 'air combat as sport' are two different things and they get crossed...

I'm glad you like the quote it was certainly meant to be funny

Von_Rat
09-16-2005, 12:30 AM
Yeah fair enough. Historical accuracy and 'air combat as sport' are two different things and they get crossed...

i think you hit the nail on the head, that probaly explains this long winded thread and the reason why the 262 is brought up so often in it.

ive had my say, time to bow out i think.

WOLFMondo
09-16-2005, 01:00 AM
von_rat, everyone knows we will not get the Spitfire mk1 or 11 in FB, but there is a chance of the XIV. So why not if there is a chance? cause it will piss you off in DF rooms? Thats not a valid reason.

The Spit XIV is nothing different from having a K4 or G14 or Dora.


Originally posted by Badsight.:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Its far more realistic to see everyone in Spit XIV's or everyone in Tempests. It wasn't un common to see 24 Tempests up looking for 1 or 2 262's or there airfields. & there you go discussing Realisim with online AirQuake rooms in the same sentence

DF rooms have Nothing to do with History or Realisim

all online DogFight rooms are is : the chance to compare maddox Game developed performance against each other . . . . . . . & if your lucky , the opportuinty to pratice teamwork
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats down to the server, players and map makers. You can be as realistic as you want or as air quake as you want. 1C have provided players with the oppotunity to do both so its really down how the players of this sim use it. Don't tar everyone with the same air quake brush.

Back to the point, no one has given a valid reason why the RAF shouldn't have its 44/45 planes represented in this sim. All we've heard is how the 262 should be allowed in DF rooms which is a completely different conversation.

Monty_Thrud
09-16-2005, 01:38 AM
Ok!...the next person to mention the Me262 will have my pet Rotteweiner dangling from their ******

http://premium1.uploadit.org/bsamania///killer_dog.jpg

WOLFMondo, there isnt going to be a Mk XIV Oleg says so, he..apparently doesnt have it anymore http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif


also, i think its silly that people dont want the Mk XIV because they're scared of imbalance online, its the K4's equal, and onwhiners are the minority. Would people deny a plane because of that?

and dont forget the Do335

Badsight.
09-16-2005, 01:58 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Thats down to the server, players and map makers. You can be as realistic as you want or as air quake as you want. . thats utter rubbish

settings can be full real & its STILL AirQuake , you can have a G/A objective & its STILL AirQuake

all a DF room allows is for you to pitch planes against each other - with respawn - , no way does DF room combat replicate history

bringing up history as a reason behind how a DF room should run is nonsence !

WOLFMondo
09-16-2005, 02:46 AM
Its not just down to settings but things like 1 death kick helps.

Its purely down to the players, map maker and server. You can run DF like co-ops if you want, it just needs the players to co-ordinate and follow objectives and fly in formation. Its not my fault if people don't do this.

luftluuver
09-16-2005, 03:40 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
von_rat, everyone knows we will not get the Spitfire mk1 or 11 in FB, but there is a chance of the XIV. [QUOTE]
Who would want to fly the Mk 11, er Mk XI, as it is an unarmed PR machine? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WOLFMondo
09-16-2005, 03:57 AM
Sorry, meant the MkIIhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

For offline I'd fly a PR version in a mission. They did very risky low level recon along with Mustangs III's. Scary stuff indeed!

You gotta have allot of balls to fly a pink spitfire!http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

anarchy52
09-16-2005, 04:49 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
You gotta have allot of balls to fly a pink spitfire!http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Pink spitfires would be perfect in 3.04
In 4.01 it would be a bit tasteless

WOLFMondo
09-16-2005, 04:59 AM
I don't get you there.

MEGILE
09-16-2005, 05:32 AM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:

and you know dam well that if spit14 is allowed thats pretty much the only thing that;ll be flying on red side, on every map. how historical is that???

i don't really beleive that, but its as true as the nonsense that if 262 is allowed, thats all blue will fly. it might of happened a couple times in the past, but i think that was because of the novelty.

i think it was warclouds that long ago had a regular 262 map in the rotation. the most jets i remember seeing was about 6 at a time.

since then there was a short time i think that they had a 262 map, and maybe alot did jump in jets, but as i said that was because of the novelty.

Simple answer to your problem Rat... include the Me-262 in your planeset.. and leave the Spitfire XIV out. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

HeinzBar
09-16-2005, 05:47 AM
S!,
I say bring the Tempest and mk XIV on! So long as my 151/20s still work, the Tempest and mk XIV are still fodder for my A6 or whatever plane the unfortunate pilot is flying.

Even w/ superior aircraft, we've seen how the majority of pilots fly in most server, DF & COOP, poorly. Most of them don't use tactics, but rely on a single ability to try an out maneuver. So, I fully expect the majority of Tempest and mk XIV pilots to be pushing up daisys. However, the good pilots on here, those two planes will be ace makers. And those are the pilots I really want to fly w/ and against.

HB

anarchy52
09-16-2005, 06:19 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
I don't get you there.

pink color would be perfect on 3.04 Spitfires with their gay FM

carguy_
09-16-2005, 06:48 AM
I just hope the Tempest/Typhoon will be a heavy mofo like it is supposed to.Not for n00bs.

WOLFMondo
09-16-2005, 06:51 AM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
I don't get you there.

pink color would be perfect on 3.04 Spitfires with their gay FM </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

p1ngu666
09-16-2005, 09:18 AM
actully, i want a PR spitfire, and mossie http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

XIV has performance very close to a K4,g10 and g6as, sometimes better, sometimes worse, but always close.

and extremely good at high alt.

and there are red fliers who can use team tatics. im more like that, but most cos im utterly pants at 1v1 stuff

MEGILE
09-16-2005, 09:45 AM
PR mossie should be banned from servers IMO... goes so fast it causes lag.

faustnik
09-16-2005, 09:50 AM
I would prefer the Mosquito version that has a whole lot of guns, bombs and/or rockets. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

p1ngu666
09-16-2005, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by Megile:
PR mossie should be banned from servers IMO... goes so fast it causes lag.

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

Kuna15
09-16-2005, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
PR mossie should be banned from servers IMO... goes so fast it causes lag.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://free-vk.t-com.hr/domagoj/smileys/WTF.gif
http://free-vk.t-com.hr/domagoj/smileys/lol.gif

lrrp22
09-16-2005, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
I don't get you there.

WM,

Do you mean pink Spitfires? If so, Spitfire FR IX's were painted in overall PR Pink. Supposedly, it offered excellent camouflage during low-level dawn and dusk 'Dicer' Recce missions.

Scroll down a bit to see an FR IX profile.

http://www.rafweb.org/SqnMark016B.htm


.

VW-IceFire
09-16-2005, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by HeinzBar:
S!,
I say bring the Tempest and mk XIV on! So long as my 151/20s still work, the Tempest and mk XIV are still fodder for my A6 or whatever plane the unfortunate pilot is flying.

Even w/ superior aircraft, we've seen how the majority of pilots fly in most server, DF & COOP, poorly. Most of them don't use tactics, but rely on a single ability to try an out maneuver. So, I fully expect the majority of Tempest and mk XIV pilots to be pushing up daisys. However, the good pilots on here, those two planes will be ace makers. And those are the pilots I really want to fly w/ and against.

HB
I think thats what it comes down to. It should be a very good fight either way. There is just something about the late FW190s and Tempest that says "natural enemy" and I think that would be fantastic for good pilots on both sides of the equation.

It'll be fun!

The_Gorey
09-16-2005, 05:05 PM
just be lucky you even have an RAF to fly in this "originally" Eastern Front game.

waffen-79
09-16-2005, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by JG52_Gutted:
just be lucky you even have an RAF to fly in this "originally" Eastern Front game.

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

Monty_Thrud
09-16-2005, 06:07 PM
OH GEE!..thanks Lufties for allowing us Raf fans to fly in your sim

WOLFMondo
09-16-2005, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by lrrp22:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
I don't get you there.

WM,

Do you mean pink Spitfires? If so, Spitfire FR IX's were painted in overall PR Pink. Supposedly, it offered excellent camouflage during low-level dawn and dusk 'Dicer' Recce missions.

Scroll down a bit to see an FR IX profile.

http://www.rafweb.org/SqnMark016B.htm


. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not the one confused about pink spits. You didn't read his later response lrrp.

lrrp22
09-16-2005, 11:06 PM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:

I'm not the one confused about pink spits. You didn't read his later response lrrp.

Ah, I see what you mean...

.

HellToupee
09-16-2005, 11:51 PM
Originally posted by HeinzBar:
S!,
I say bring the Tempest and mk XIV on! So long as my 151/20s still work, the Tempest and mk XIV are still fodder for my A6 or whatever plane the unfortunate pilot is flying.

Even w/ superior aircraft, we've seen how the majority of pilots fly in most server, DF & COOP, poorly. Most of them don't use tactics, but rely on a single ability to try an out maneuver. So, I fully expect the majority of Tempest and mk XIV pilots to be pushing up daisys. However, the good pilots on here, those two planes will be ace makers. And those are the pilots I really want to fly w/ and against.

HB

Ild expect most 190 pilots to be pushing up daisys they rely on their huge speed and dm advantage to simply run away when they stuff things up, the tempest will be able to catch them and with 4 20mms no matter how insanly strong the plane is its dead, with the XIV it would be like the Spit mk9 + mustang mkIII combo, which me and roo have done alot, they cant run or stick it out and fight.

HellToupee
09-17-2005, 12:03 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:

Heinz,

All the Spit IX's in-game are using mid-1943 engines and engine boost settings. They are all unquestionably 1943 fighters.


.


Right, but, they were the RAF's frontline fighter at those settings through 1944.

The Spit IX versions we have in the sim are perfectly appropriate to create missions from June 1943 through December 1944. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

and so was the 109g6, so lets remove all the other 109s and just keep the spitties comtemporary http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

NorrisMcWhirter
09-17-2005, 03:08 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HeinzBar:
S!,
I say bring the Tempest and mk XIV on! So long as my 151/20s still work, the Tempest and mk XIV are still fodder for my A6 or whatever plane the unfortunate pilot is flying.

Even w/ superior aircraft, we've seen how the majority of pilots fly in most server, DF & COOP, poorly. Most of them don't use tactics, but rely on a single ability to try an out maneuver. So, I fully expect the majority of Tempest and mk XIV pilots to be pushing up daisys. However, the good pilots on here, those two planes will be ace makers. And those are the pilots I really want to fly w/ and against.

HB

Ild expect most 190 pilots to be pushing up daisys they rely on their huge speed and dm advantage to simply run away when they stuff things up, the tempest will be able to catch them and with 4 20mms no matter how insanly strong the plane is its dead, with the XIV it would be like the Spit mk9 + mustang mkIII combo, which me and roo have done alot, they cant run or stick it out and fight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Providing that the Tempest's engine doesn't fail during the chase. No doubt the reliability issues won't me modelled http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Tempest will be a dilemna for me; a British 190...fly that or stick with what I know. Of course, if I did, I could then make over-emotional statements based purely on nationalistic grounds! Sorted!

Ta,
Norris

WOLFMondo
09-17-2005, 03:30 AM
The transition should be easy Norris. You get a little less roll but a little more speed and fire power.

carguy_
09-17-2005, 04:16 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
and so was the 109g6, so lets remove all the other 109s and just keep the spitties comtemporary http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


FYI G6 and G6late is standard aircraft in historical Normandy coops.That and about G10 being 10% of the planeset.

p1ngu666
09-17-2005, 07:32 AM
Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HeinzBar:
S!,
I say bring the Tempest and mk XIV on! So long as my 151/20s still work, the Tempest and mk XIV are still fodder for my A6 or whatever plane the unfortunate pilot is flying.

Even w/ superior aircraft, we've seen how the majority of pilots fly in most server, DF & COOP, poorly. Most of them don't use tactics, but rely on a single ability to try an out maneuver. So, I fully expect the majority of Tempest and mk XIV pilots to be pushing up daisys. However, the good pilots on here, those two planes will be ace makers. And those are the pilots I really want to fly w/ and against.

HB

Ild expect most 190 pilots to be pushing up daisys they rely on their huge speed and dm advantage to simply run away when they stuff things up, the tempest will be able to catch them and with 4 20mms no matter how insanly strong the plane is its dead, with the XIV it would be like the Spit mk9 + mustang mkIII combo, which me and roo have done alot, they cant run or stick it out and fight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Providing that the Tempest's engine doesn't fail during the chase. No doubt the reliability issues won't me modelled http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Tempest will be a dilemna for me; a British 190...fly that or stick with what I know. Of course, if I did, I could then make over-emotional statements based purely on nationalistic grounds! Sorted!

Ta,
Norris </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the engine should be fine, the problems where starting it, and when ppl had fiddled with the control boxes, which made them run at maxiumium boost all the time, even at low revs, flogged the engine to death in some cases..

CUJO_1970
09-17-2005, 07:43 AM
Still haven't seen anyone post an actual OOB for the RAF in this thread.

What squadrons flying what planes specifically, and when?

How many of them?

ImpStarDuece
09-17-2005, 08:42 AM
OOB for what period Cujo?

I have a couple of sites that give you the month that every squadron transitioned to another type for the entireity of Fighter Command.

Its simply a matter of pulling whatever information you want off the site. The Ministry of Defense website also has an excelent OOB for June 4th, 1944. It lists British, American and German air strenghts just prior to D-Day in exacting detail.

There were around 7 squadrons operating Spitfire XIVs by August 1944, if thats what you want to know. No 610 Squadron from January, Nos 91 and 322 squadron from March, Nos 130, 350, 402 and 41 squadron from August, 1944.

Kurfurst__
09-17-2005, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
The Spit IX versions we have in the sim are perfectly appropriate to create missions from June 1943 through December 1944.

and so was the 109g6, so lets remove all the other 109s and just keep the spitties comtemporary http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Gotta admit I love the idea, having only the contemporary fighters facing each others. I can`t ask for more than a Spit V vs. G-2/G-6 setup, ie. the RAF Fighter Command mainstay figther during most of 1943 (July 1943 OOB) :

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1126999612_raf-fc-1943jun.jpg

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

p1ngu666
09-17-2005, 05:44 PM
24 spit V
10 IX

probably 1/3rd of a chance ud meet IX as a lw pilot, as the IX's would be used more than the V's, and the v's would probably in the least active areas aswell.

id rather like to be in a tiffy/whirlwind anyways. or the p51A http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

tiffy for when i felt in a bad mood http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif, and needed to utterly break stuff, in the face http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Low_Flyer_MkII
09-17-2005, 05:52 PM
I'd question the term 'totally obsolete' when referring to the Whirlwind......

p1ngu666
09-17-2005, 05:54 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif @ your sig

whirly was good plane, not obsolete http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

stathem
09-17-2005, 06:02 PM
Top scoring squadron in 11 Group in Sept. 1943 was 91 - flying MkXII's.

WOLFMondo
09-17-2005, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
The Spit IX versions we have in the sim are perfectly appropriate to create missions from June 1943 through December 1944.

and so was the 109g6, so lets remove all the other 109s and just keep the spitties comtemporary http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Gotta admit I love the idea, having only the contemporary fighters facing each others. I can`t ask for more than a Spit V vs. G-2/G-6 setup, ie. the RAF Fighter Command mainstay figther during most of 1943 (July 1943 OOB) :

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1126999612_raf-fc-1943jun.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

IF the Luftwaffe attacked Scotland or the west country they'd meet V's. IF they attacked Sussex, Surrey or Kent they'd get Typhoons and Spit IX's come to meet themhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

p1ngu666
09-17-2005, 07:02 PM
lw didnt do many attacks, apart from tip and run?