PDA

View Full Version : British 46' what if's...



MrBlueSky1960
11-20-2006, 11:29 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I know the coming 46 was meant for Russian sales only, but it would have been nice to see some of these as well...

http://www.flitzerart.com/bsecret.htm<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v187/Secudus/WhirlySig0101.jpg

ploughman
11-21-2006, 03:09 AM
1. Doubt it. Always thought you had to be patched up to the the same level as the server still I might be wrong.

2. Don't know, can't be bothered to check for you.

3. My sympathies about getting shafted. There's going to be a 4.08 apparrently so don't think the SoM 1946 disk is the series in a can either. Foxy.

joeap
11-21-2006, 03:11 AM
About the servers I don't know. I think usually the online community moves on to the latest patch. Yea the 88 is completely new and improved, all the old ones are now this new object. Really cool. I don't have any questions now.

MrMojok
11-21-2006, 03:32 AM
What is 4.8 supposed to be?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://members.cox.net/f1dude/P51_sig.JPG

ploughman
11-21-2006, 03:49 AM
4.08 is, allegedly, a batch of third party offerrings that have accumulated over time and may or may not include various maps, Italy, Norway, Slovakia etc., and new aircraft (please let there be a Mk XIV) like that Daemon thing Bushy's always on about and more objects for us to bomb, shoot and strafe.

Maybe.

stathem
11-21-2006, 05:25 AM
Here's a question;-

What's the missing 32nd Aircraft?

The blub says '32 new flyables'

Totting up from the RRG site gives

Pe-2 - 6 a/c

Sturmo over Manchuria - 8 a/c

'46 - 17 a/c

That's 31 - so what's missing?

Is there really a 32nd? or is it just that 32 sounds better than 31?

Not that I mind, just for fun. I'm perfectly happy with 31, if that's all there is.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

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

carguy_
11-21-2006, 05:27 AM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
...Italy, Norway, Slovakia etc., and new aircraft (please let there be a Mk XIV)...


NEVEEEEEEEEEER!!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

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

DeerHunterUK
11-21-2006, 08:30 AM
Originally posted by OD_79:
LEts see...Canberra, Vampire along with the newer Meteors - would have made an interesting force.

OD.

I'll second that. It's a shame we haven't got at least the Meteor in FB. The Vampire would of been the icing on the cake for me.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

No43_Moggy
-----
In memory of 'The Few'
http://www.sharkscage.com/deerhunter/spitfire.jpg
The Tangmere Pilots - http://www.tangmerepilots.co.uk/
Know your enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles, you will never be defeated.

SlickStick
11-21-2006, 09:32 AM
With all of the crying we have now about the Spitfires, could you imagine what British '46 planes would do to this already fragile community?!?! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________________
????????k??t????k??? ????2006

http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/8847/tsigspitixcw6cq.jpg
Coming Soon to a Full Six near you...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
Track Library (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/1171010994)

SlickStick
11-21-2006, 09:39 AM
Newer patches have always been incompatible with previous patches for online play. A client must always have the same version of the game as the Host to even join. This avoids two players having different game content in one server.

One thing that's good is that it was previously said that the newest patches will feature a new check for modifications that became obvious with the information of the tool that is out there. One plus I'm looking forward to. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif



Originally posted by carguy_
NEVEEEEEEEEEER!!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

You bastage!!! What are you worried about, you'll still have your Bf109-G2! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________________
????????k??t????k??? ????2006

http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/8847/tsigspitixcw6cq.jpg
Coming Soon to a Full Six near you...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
Track Library (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/1171010994)

general_kalle
11-21-2006, 10:57 AM
i still havent catched it. is it passible to buys 46 and manchuria alone (does it require pe2?)<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

what have you got to lose?
You know, you come from nothing - you're going back to nothing.
What have you lost? Nothing!) -life of Brian

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
11-21-2006, 12:08 PM
great site and some of those brit 46'ers would make welcome additions to the crimson skies mod in the pipeline for Strike fighters .....hmmmm yes very good

Aaron_GT
11-21-2006, 12:22 PM
The speeds are a bit optimistic, but it is worth noting that the fastest Spiteful managed 494 mph, and the Fury prototype about 490mph. So based on this knocking 10% off the optimistic figures would possibly bring things somewhere close to reality.

Xiolablu3
11-21-2006, 01:15 PM
Nice pics!

Would have been good to get the Vampire into the war.

From some things I have read, De Havilland put the Vampire on the back burner and sent their last testing engine to the USA for P80 testing (The original US one was wrecked), leaving them selves engine-less for a long time.

Possibly the Vampire would have been in service alongside the Meteor had there been any urgency. De havilland were busy making that other legendary aircraft which we all know so well, however. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Vampire vs Me262 would have been a great fight. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The Vampire's specs were up there with the best of the 1945 jets, and it was by far the best turner of them all, as it could outturn a Spitfire.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

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

Friendly_flyer
11-21-2006, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by Jaws2002:
But they have a really ugly FW-190 wannabe there http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif:
http://www.flitzerart.com/images/WW2%20BRITISH%20SECRETP/11.jpg

Wouldn't that be more of a Buffalo wannabe? Follands war-designs used to be small and agile. A 30 ft. plane is hardly a giant. At least it looks like it has all the personality it would ever need.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Fly friendly!

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a37/Friendly_flyer/WhirlwindforBoB-II.jpg

Visit No 79 Squadron vRAF (http://www.gazzamataz.com/79vRAF/)

Petter B??ckman
Norway

Viper2005_
11-21-2006, 03:10 PM
Folland were very good at light weight concepts. This one looks as though it would have been something of a hotrod, but I expect the useful combat radius would have been about 6 inches. I wonder where the landing gear would have gone?

Oh and what is it with the whole "ugly = personality" thing? It's quite possible for pretty things/people to also have a good personality, whilst it is sadly equally possible for ugly things/people to have no redeeming features whatsoever such that only a parent might be so misguided as to love them.

This aeroplane looks as though it could be a real handful since it is quite short-coupled with a tightly packed mass distribution. Its wing seems rather thick to me, and I would expect some compressibility issues at speed. It is potentially a very high performance machine, but might well be extremely twitchy.

Not ugly by any means, but certainly not as pretty as a Spitfire or a 190.

zbw_109
11-21-2006, 04:13 PM
Uhh... nother question
As never patched before/over-installed if get Sturmovik 1946 DVD and install will it just add new content or re-install everything + will I have to copy all my skins/missions?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Deutsche Zentralbibliothek fur Wirtschaftswissenschaften

vocatx
11-21-2006, 04:29 PM
Kalle, if you want to up-grade to 4.07, you will HAVE to get 4.05. Patches MUST be added sequentially. I've pre-ordered the DVD. It's the about the same price as two Pe-2 downloads, and with all the new content in the add-on, it's a steal.

Zbw, I would defintely back up any data I didn't want to lose, as I would bet a re-install will over-write your old install.

4.08 is, as Ploughman stated, supposed to be the last of the FB/PF series (at least from Maddox). It will probably have several more aircraft, three maps, and most likely any bug-fixes necessary for 4.07. This will be a PATCH, not an addon, according to what I read at SimHQ. There is also a rumor that RRG Studios, or someone else, may continue to do some add-ons AFTER Oleg drops support of the series. His team would have nothing to do with development, it would all be from an outside source.

I don't understand the panic from some of the people who have been here longer than me. This should be no different than when AEP or PF came out, but a lot of people are acting like they have never seen a patch or add-on come out. I've bought everything up to 4.05 so far, and the complete DVD set is a great deal as far as I am concerned. Plus, I won't have to deal with a Boontybox download, or have to ask "permission" from the brainless nit-wits at <b style="color:black;background-color:#a0ffff">Ubi[/b] if I want to do a re-install.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

4H_V-man
The 2nd Horseman

BfHeFwMe
11-21-2006, 04:37 PM
Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words, or a book even.

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q150/Biffy_06/Turbo-39.jpg

As can readily be seen, the turbo was never internally integrated. As to how your going to gain any real performance over a slick model in this configuration is rather obvious, it ain't happening.

It was an experiment, nothing more, NACA and Bell could find no way to integrate it without making a whole new airframe.

horseback
11-21-2006, 05:05 PM
I don't know for sure what that is, but it isn't the original Bell prototype for the P-39; that aircraft was silver, and had the turbosupercharger mounted inside the fuselage. There were inlets covering the exhausts on the sides, reminiscent of the ones on the tail booms of the P-38 only much more shallow. The original tail was of a different profile, and rose up sharply from the fuselage. The canopy/windscreen were higher, with the intent of providing the pilot with a superior field of view, and a longer wingspan, for better high altitude performance and handling.

Try to find Bert Kinzey's P-39 in Detail and Scale for pictures and scale drawings of the prototype. It should be easily available through Squadron.com.

As my earlier post noted, the XP-39 crashed in 1940, which was some time before the Army Air Corps went to the Olive Drab and Neutral Grey paint schemes were adopted, and it was never armed.

The picture you are posting looks like a P-39D model (note the fin fillet at the base of the vertical tail, the guns in the wing, open exhausts and the low profile windscreen/canopy, all things that never made their way onto the prototype), probably taken in early '42, when certain parties sobered up and were looking for a quick fix for the American lack of high altitude capable fighters.

Nice try, though. Did you find that picture in "Wings of the Weird and Wonderful"?

cheers

horseback<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

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

darkhorizon11
11-21-2006, 06:58 PM
Somebody should check those planes for anabolic steriods...

Seriously though I could see that Folland being mistaken for an FW190 from above or the reaper for a Bf-110...

zbw_109
11-21-2006, 11:46 PM
people are acting like they have never seen a patch or add-on http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Deutsche Zentralbibliothek fur Wirtschaftswissenschaften

fordfan25
11-22-2006, 12:24 AM
that pic of the race bearcat is sooooo sexy. i wounder if she is seeing anybody http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

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

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

Thanatos833
11-22-2006, 12:48 AM
Follands war-designs used to be small and agile
Aye, I remember how the Gnats held their own against the starfighters.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

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

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

Flitzer13
11-29-2006, 04:28 AM
Hi all...
I'm the artist responsible for the British Secret Profiles displayed here.
I noticed also the discrepency in the power/speed figures of the Hawker P1030 and the Supermarine Type 391 when doing them.
All figures were as found in references, mainly Tony Buttler's excellent book on the same subject.

It will probably go down as one of life's little mysteries?
If anyone has any theories about this it would be interesting to read.

I'm hoping to expand flitzerart in the future to include profiles of French, Japanese, Russian, Italian and American projects.

So much to do and so little time...lol.

Many thanks and cheers
Peter

Xiolablu3
11-29-2006, 08:56 AM
Thx for the info Peter,

I am going to seek out the book you suggest http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Very nice pics!

That stubby Folland Fo117 looks like a cross between the FW190 and the J2M3<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

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

SlickStick
11-29-2006, 09:03 AM
Is it just my eyes or monitor that sees a 4-bladed prop behind a 3-bladed prop in the side view, but two 3-bladed props in the front view of that Folland? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/5320/follandprophs6.jpg

Awesome site, BTW. Thanks for taking the time to gather that information. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________________
????????k??t????k??? ????2006

http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/8847/tsigspitixcw6cq.jpg
Coming Soon to a Full Six near you...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
Track Library (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/1171010994)

blaze10001
11-29-2006, 11:03 PM
http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/5320/follandprophs6.jpg

People are too lazy to notice the biggest of mistakes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

koivis
11-29-2006, 11:24 PM
No actually that's two 3-bladed props, but they are in exact oppisite positions. The first prop's third blade directly is behind the spinner, while the in the second the other two are farther from viewer and the third in the middle posiotion http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Redguys Air Racing Team
Member A4
www.simairracing.com (http://www.simairracing.com)

"The fastest pilots of the online world..."

ColoradoBBQ
11-29-2006, 11:26 PM
Originally posted by SlickStick:
Is it just my eyes or monitor that sees a 4-bladed prop behind a 3-bladed prop in the side view, but two 3-bladed props in the front view of that Folland?

Notice that the propeller connected to the white band is rounded on the hub part yet the rear propeller is flat. Also, the side view propeller is shorter than the front view propeller suggesting that the side view propeller is angled.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://ourworld.cs.com/Gebaupointy/Backup1.JPG

wayno7777
11-29-2006, 11:52 PM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
that pic of the race bearcat is sooooo sexy. i wounder if she is seeing anybody http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Actually, I think she is for sale or was just sold....<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

US Army Aviation: Above The Best!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v224/wayno77/He219_1.jpg
Any landing you can walk away from is a good one!
After all, it was Plato who said, "A fool learns by experience, the
wise man by the experience of others."

www.magnum-pc.com (http://www.magnum-pc.com)
http://journal.rcn.com/wayno77_Home/gallery/

SlickStick
11-30-2006, 08:07 AM
Originally posted by ColoradoBBQ:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SlickStick:
Is it just my eyes or monitor that sees a 4-bladed prop behind a 3-bladed prop in the side view, but two 3-bladed props in the front view of that Folland?

Notice that the propeller connected to the white band is rounded on the hub part yet the rear propeller is flat. Also, the side view propeller is shorter than the front view propeller suggesting that the side view propeller is angled. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know...seems to me that the two propellers in the side-view pic are in the same position, given that the props appear to have the same blade length, as in the front view.

In the side-view, it appears we are looking down a blade that is at 90?? and we're staring down it's length. If that blade is at 90??, and it indeed is a 3-bladed prop, the other two would be much shorter, given their position on the hub.

It may just be an optical illusion, and of course, no big deal, I was just curious. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________________
????????k??t????k??? ????2006

http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/8847/tsigspitixcw6cq.jpg
Coming Soon to a Full Six near you...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
Track Library (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/1171010994)

Flitzer13
12-05-2006, 06:40 AM
Hi all....
many thanks to all you eagle eyed pilots....eat plenty of carrots.

Yes there is something amiss with the props on the Folland. I missed it when I was illustrating iy...you might say 'I screwed up"...
I'll get round to fixing it when I get a quiet