PDA

View Full Version : Ta152H FM



Bellator_1
08-07-2007, 08:12 AM
Something is very wrong with the Ta-152H's FM in IL2.

Climb rate is way too low and the turn performance of this a/c in-game is ridiculously & unrealistically low to say the least, the Tempest & Mustang III both being better in-game.

Remember the Ta-152H was praised for its excellent turn & climb performance by its pilots, easily out-turning ANY opponent it met according to the pilots.

The high lift high aspect ratio wing is what made the Ta-152H such a fantastic turn-fighter & climber (High CL + High AR = High lift & Low drag), and it also made sure that the take off & landing roll was extremely short. The much heavier Ta-152H actually has a 50m shorter take off roll than the Spitfire Mk.XIV !

The climb rate of the Ta-152H at full boost was over 5,000 ft/min, and 32,808 ft was reached in just 10.1 min. Thats the same as the 5,110 ft/min Spitfire F Mk.VIII JF.319 Prototype !

I seriously hope that physics bugs as huge as this aren't going to be made in SoW...


And no I'm not whining here, just stating how things are, and you can asily check it for yourselves.

HuninMunin
08-07-2007, 08:21 AM
You don't fly it often enough to get outturned by Tempests and P-51s.
It rolls slow and therefore may draw the short one in angels fighting, in addition it bleeds E A LOT,
but it's turn is the best you get from the 190 series.
You are absolutely right though on climb and acceleration especialy.
Feels like the bugged 190 slow speed acceleration stayed in the Ta variants.

MEGILE
08-07-2007, 08:32 AM
Got track?
Got chart?
Get real!

HuninMunin
08-07-2007, 09:00 AM
Charts and tracks are t3h sUxx00r.

Real men try

Jaws2002
08-07-2007, 09:15 AM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:

And no I'm not whining here, just stating how things are, and you can asily check it for yourselves.

Since you came to this game <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">all you did was whining</span>, so I (and most people here) just can't be bothered with your "expert" opinion anymore.

HayateAce
08-07-2007, 09:18 AM
WAAA OLEG PLEASE MAKE MY [INSERT BLUE PLANE HERE] TURN TIGHTER CLIMB BETTER SHOOT BIG AMMO BECAUSE I SUXXOR.

http://myspace-295.vo.llnwd.net/00575/59/20/575250295_l.jpg

HuninMunin
08-07-2007, 09:23 AM
oh the agony.............T3H AGONY!

jimDG
08-07-2007, 09:42 AM
I agree with both turning and climb being not what they should be.
I disagree that tempests and stangs can outrun it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

mynameisroland
08-07-2007, 09:44 AM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
Something is very wrong with the Ta-152H's FM in IL2.

Climb rate is way too low and the turn performance of this a/c in-game is ridiculously & unrealistically low to say the least, the Tempest & Mustang III both being better in-game.

Remember the Ta-152H was praised for its excellent turn & climb performance by its pilots, easily out-turning ANY opponent it met according to the pilots.

The high lift high aspect ratio wing is what made the Ta-152H such a fantastic turn-fighter & climber (High CL + High AR = High lift & Low drag), and it also made sure that the take off & landing roll was extremely short. The much heavier Ta-152H actually has a 50m shorter take off roll than the Spitfire Mk.XIV !

The climb rate of the Ta-152H at full boost was over 5,000 ft/min, and 32,808 ft was reached in just 10.1 min. Thats the same as the 5,110 ft/min Spitfire F Mk.VIII JF.319 Prototype !

I seriously hope that physics bugs as huge as this aren't going to be made in SoW...


And no I'm not whining here, just stating how things are, and you can asily check it for yourselves.

Hey Bellator1 has that book you were talking about the last time you brought this up arrived?

Or do you have any tracks?

Or do you have a clue?

I already know the answer to all of the above - your just a clueless troll.

TooCooL34
08-07-2007, 10:11 AM
Typical whining.

Ta-152H is a dream to fly and it's banned in many major servers cause it's too good.
(But official ban reason is too small production number. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif )

jimDG
08-07-2007, 11:02 AM
Tracks:
http://files-upload.com/420508/quick0007.ntrk.html
http://files-upload.com/420520/quick0008.ntrk.html

Ta 152 H:
Average speed at near stall turn: 335 km/h
Average time full circle at 335 : 18 sec
Calucated radius: 267m

Tempest V:
Average speed at near stall turn: 305 km/h
Average time full circle at 305 : 20 sec
Calucated radius: 270m

Winner: Ta 152H (goes around the circle faster)

That said, I think the ta152H should be turning as well as a Spit.

JG14_Josf
08-07-2007, 11:16 AM
jimDG,

Are those turns measuring ˜sustained' turn performance or instantaneous turn performance?

I can check the tracks too. I'm just asking.

HuninMunin
08-07-2007, 11:21 AM
335 km/h sounds "cornerish" to me.

Avont29
08-07-2007, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
Something is very wrong with the Ta-152H's FM in IL2.

Climb rate is way too low and the turn performance of this a/c in-game is ridiculously & unrealistically low to say the least, the Tempest & Mustang III both being better in-game.

Remember the Ta-152H was praised for its excellent turn & climb performance by its pilots, easily out-turning ANY opponent it met according to the pilots.

The high lift high aspect ratio wing is what made the Ta-152H such a fantastic turn-fighter & climber (High CL + High AR = High lift & Low drag), and it also made sure that the take off & landing roll was extremely short. The much heavier Ta-152H actually has a 50m shorter take off roll than the Spitfire Mk.XIV !

The climb rate of the Ta-152H at full boost was over 5,000 ft/min, and 32,808 ft was reached in just 10.1 min. Thats the same as the 5,110 ft/min Spitfire F Mk.VIII JF.319 Prototype !

I seriously hope that physics bugs as huge as this aren't going to be made in SoW...


And no I'm not whining here, just stating how things are, and you can asily check it for yourselves.

why are people always complaining about the games flight model....i dont think you've ever flown a real TA so there is no way for oyu to say, if the FM is messed up or whatever

it is how it is, and it can't change right now, so really, whats the purpose of this post? to let us know your opinion? im not trying to flame oyu or anything, im just saying...get used to it man, endure it until SOW comes out.

jimDG
08-07-2007, 11:53 AM
Sustained, of course; there is no way to measure instantaneous turn times and radiuses from a track, that I can think of.

HuninMunin
08-07-2007, 12:46 PM
Avont, you don't have to have flown the real thing to comment on the planes performences that we have ingame.
Think about it: You can check easy how fast a plane can go and then compare it with the data that is known about the real plane.
The Fw 190D-9 for example is about 20 mph too fast at 5 clicks height.
Things like turn or climb are more difficult to test and compare, but it can be done.
JimDG for example just proved that the Ta 152 is a better turner then the Tempest - wich reflects historical reality.

If someone laments about a plane beeing inferior to the real thing without telling why exactly, we call it a whine - the first post here is a crossbread between whine and observation.
However there have been hundreds of threads with legitimate observations in this forums over the time.

Brain32
08-07-2007, 01:14 PM
I just watched the track of Ta152, first it was done on Pacific island map at alt of 100-90m and speed coming down from 354 to 328kmh, not bad, but not perfect either, also I didn't pull it through device link but I would say that was 20sec for 360 not 18sec.
Didn't look at Tempest track though but let's not jump with conclusions. Also what was the fuel load of both planes?

I remember in v403 Ta152 could indeed turn with the Tempest, I would say they were indentical. Ta152 got a lot worse since then...not better.(What a suprise http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif)

For all future testing done by anybody, always refer to testing done by AKA_TAGERT, one method to rule them all, otherwise it can get too messy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Blutarski2004
08-07-2007, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
Something is very wrong with the Ta-152H's FM in IL2.

Climb rate is way too low and the turn performance of this a/c in-game is ridiculously & unrealistically low to say the least, the Tempest & Mustang III both being better in-game.

Remember the Ta-152H was praised for its excellent turn & climb performance by its pilots, easily out-turning ANY opponent it met according to the pilots.

The high lift high aspect ratio wing is what made the Ta-152H such a fantastic turn-fighter & climber (High CL + High AR = High lift & Low drag), and it also made sure that the take off & landing roll was extremely short. The much heavier Ta-152H actually has a 50m shorter take off roll than the Spitfire Mk.XIV !

The climb rate of the Ta-152H at full boost was over 5,000 ft/min, and 32,808 ft was reached in just 10.1 min. Thats the same as the 5,110 ft/min Spitfire F Mk.VIII JF.319 Prototype !

I seriously hope that physics bugs as huge as this aren't going to be made in SoW...


And no I'm not whining here, just stating how things are, and you can asily check it for yourselves.



..... Can't speak to the climb rate issue. But with respect to turning, is it possible that the culprit is not actually the sustained turn performance (in terms of radius and turn rate) but a slow roll rate entering into the turn? From what I understand, roll rate for geometrically similar a/c varies as the fourth power of the wingspan.

As the TA152 has quite a broad wingspan (about 47.5 ft), it suggests to me that its roll rate suffered in comparison to other fighters of the period. Under equal flight conditions, the math implies that the TA152 would have had a roll rate only about 60 pct that of the 41 ft wingspan Tempest.

Sonmething to consider, anyways.

Xiolablu3
08-07-2007, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
Something is very wrong with the Ta-152H's FM in IL2.

Climb rate is way too low and the turn performance of this a/c in-game is ridiculously & unrealistically low to say the least, the Tempest & Mustang III both being better in-game.

Remember the Ta-152H was praised for its excellent turn & climb performance by its pilots, easily out-turning ANY opponent it met according to the pilots.

The high lift high aspect ratio wing is what made the Ta-152H such a fantastic turn-fighter & climber (High CL + High AR = High lift & Low drag), and it also made sure that the take off & landing roll was extremely short. The much heavier Ta-152H actually has a 50m shorter take off roll than the Spitfire Mk.XIV !

The climb rate of the Ta-152H at full boost was over 5,000 ft/min, and 32,808 ft was reached in just 10.1 min. Thats the same as the 5,110 ft/min Spitfire F Mk.VIII JF.319 Prototype !

I seriously hope that physics bugs as huge as this aren't going to be made in SoW...


And no I'm not whining here, just stating how things are, and you can asily check it for yourselves.


Werent the FW190D and Tempest extremely close in turn rate with the Tempest just having a tiny edge?

Thats what I have read. Why should the Ta152 have such a better turn than the FW190D9?

I am really asking, not meaning to antagonise.

JG14_Josf
08-07-2007, 02:03 PM
For all future testing done by anybody, always refer to testing done by AKA_TAGERT

Brian,

Or...check IL2compare if the idea is to test 'sustained' turn performance which will logically favor the lower wing loaded and higher power loaded plane (compared to physical reality) and give the player usable information as to which tactics (angles or energy = nose to nose and slow speed turn ˜stall fighting' or nose to tail and high speed vertical dives and zooms).

As to the ˜unknown' method of measuring instantaneous turn performance with track files:

Start high.

Turn at the highest possible g and the lowest possible speed.

If you give it a try you will soon figure out how it is done and no one can take that away from you.

You will find that the highest possible g and the lowest possible speed is a downward spiral almost at black out (grey out) and just above the stall (not too much buffet).

You can test to see if turn rate increases and turn radius decreases with flaps, Wep, Prop Pitch, Radiator Flaps, closer to black out, less black out, coordinated turn (rudder use to remove yaw), and/or uncoordinated turn (yaw).

You cannot arrive at ˜corner speed' with too much or not enough dive angle. It isn't a cake walk at first but any decent sim pilot can handle it.

While testing for ˜corner', making tracks, you can also get a feel for acceleration on the pitch axis (agility) since some planes can go very quickly from level flight to corner speed while other planes are much less agile (it takes a long time for the roll and elevator input to ˜turn into' a turn).

If ˜your' plane can turn better (more agile and has a lower corner speed), then, you can use that advantage.

Is that self evident like the following?


The Fw 190 has better acceleration under all conditions of flight and this must obviously be useful during combat.

JG14_Josf
08-07-2007, 02:25 PM
Why should the Ta152 have such a better turn than the FW190D9?

X3,

The Fw190A and D series aircraft incorporated the same wing design as did the early Ta (or so the story goes); however - the H model TA-152 incorporates a much more efficient wing where more surface area creates lift and less surface area creates drag - the L/D ratio (even under load) is improved. That is one obvious reason for the increase in turn performance.

L/D, if you remember, is independent of aircraft mass too so that L/D ratio remains the same (unless the wings suffer elastic deformation under load) when the aircraft is full of fuel or light on fuel.

In addition the TA incorporated an engine producing more thrust (not simply more engine horse power).

To give you an idea of how powerful the TA was I can quote from "Wings of the Luftwaffe" by Eric Brown (A British WWII test/fighter pilot who flew a captured TA-152):


- we had no GM 1 or MW 50 at Farnborough! Nevertheless, lack of nitrous oxide and methanol-water notwithstanding...


The take-off of the TA 152H-1 was shorter than that of the Spitfire XIX and the climb was steeper albeit somewhat slower than that of the British fighter, but once the 30,000 ft (9 145 m) mark had slopped past on the altimeter, the Tank fighter gave the impression of holding its rate of climb better than its British counterpart. In so far as manoeuvrability was concerned, the story was very much the same; the Spitfire was certainly the better of the two below 30,000 ft (9 145 m), there being little to choose between British and German fighters between that altitude and 35,000 ft (10 670 m), but above the latter altitude the TA 152H-1 enjoyed a decided edge. I gave the German fighter its head on the way to Brize Norton and did a full throttle run at 35,000 ft (10 670 m), which, by my rough reckoning, worked out at around 425 mph (684 km/h), or about 35 mph (56 km/h) less than the Spitfire XIX was capable of, but, of course, the availability of GM 1 boost would have more than redressed the balance and the TA 152H-1 was certainly the superior aeroplane on the score of range. In essence, however, these two potential opponents were remarkably close from many aspects, illustrating how closely parallel Britain and Germany were running in piston-engined fighter technology.

All that is reported in that source concerning the Spitfire XIX is that it was ˜pressurized'.

R_Target
08-07-2007, 02:42 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/4191001245/p/1

jimDG
08-07-2007, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
I just watched the track of Ta152, first it was done on Pacific island map at alt of 100-90m and speed coming down from 354 to 328kmh,


I started timing when it got to 335 kmh which it does a few seconds later.
(330 was the stall speed for TA, 300 for Tempest)
I used one of the mountains/islands at a distance as reference point (i.e. start/stop as it passes beneath the gunsight)




Also what was the fuel load of both planes?


100%

Bellator_1
08-07-2007, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

Werent the FW190D and Tempest extremely close in turn rate with the Tempest just having a tiny edge?

No, the Tempest held a tiny edge in turn rate over the captured FW-190G, the FW-190D was better than both.

Dietmarr Hermann's book on the Dora series also features a LW comparison with Allied fighters, where-in the Dora-9 is considered a superior turn fighter compared to the Tempest and Identical to the Mustang III.


Thats what I have read. Why should the Ta152 have such a better turn than the FW190D9?

The Ta-152H-1 has a MUCH lower lift-loading and a MUCH higher L/D ratio than the FW-190D & Tempest Xiolablu3, thats why in reality the Ta152H turns & climbs so much better and has a much shorter take off & landing roll.

Focke Wulf fighter performance chart:
http://aycu39.webshots.com/image/24158/2006129634914141768_th.jpg (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2006129634914141768)

The already high CLmax of the NACA 23000 series airfoil coupled with the high AR of 8.94 and a very clean wing meant maximum lift pr. area and minimum drag pr. amount of lift produced. The Ta-152H-1 featured perhaps the most lift efficient wing of any a/c of WW2.

Just how much more efficient the Ta-152H's wing is compared to that of other a/c you can calculate by using the formula's below:

Total Lift (L) = Cl * A * .5 * r * V^2

Total Drag (D) = Cd * A * .5 * r * V^2

Cd = Cdo + Cdi

Cdi = (Cl^2) / (pi * AR * e)

Cd0 = Found experimentally, but the figure is so low that it is of nil importance in a comparison.

The basic input figures:

Ta-152H:
AR: 8.94
e: .80
CLmax: 1.62

Spitfire:
AR: 5.56
e: .83
CLmax: 1.36
Cd0: 0.0229

Bf-109G:
AR: 6.09
e: .83
CLmax: 1.58
Cd0: 0.023

FW-190:
AR: 6.02
e: .87
CLmax: 1.62


I am really asking, not meaning to
antagonise.

Always the best way http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

TheGozr
08-07-2007, 06:01 PM
Ok something you have to know..
All FM are wrong but new generation sim will always be better SOW will have a better one due to more calculations .

Bellator_1
08-07-2007, 07:12 PM
I agree completely TheGozr.

AKA_TAGERT
08-07-2007, 07:14 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
Something is very wrong with the Ta-152H's FM in IL2.

Climb rate is way too low and the turn performance of this a/c in-game is ridiculously & unrealistically low to say the least, the Tempest & Mustang III both being better in-game.

Remember the Ta-152H was praised for its excellent turn & climb performance by its pilots, easily out-turning ANY opponent it met according to the pilots.

The high lift high aspect ratio wing is what made the Ta-152H such a fantastic turn-fighter & climber (High CL + High AR = High lift & Low drag), and it also made sure that the take off & landing roll was extremely short. The much heavier Ta-152H actually has a 50m shorter take off roll than the Spitfire Mk.XIV !

The climb rate of the Ta-152H at full boost was over 5,000 ft/min, and 32,808 ft was reached in just 10.1 min. Thats the same as the 5,110 ft/min Spitfire F Mk.VIII JF.319 Prototype !

I seriously hope that physics bugs as huge as this aren't going to be made in SoW...


And no I'm not whining here, just stating how things are, and you can asily check it for yourselves. <span class="ev_code_white">Got Track? ©®™</span>

PS welcome back.. How was jail? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Bellator_1
08-07-2007, 07:26 PM
How about you try it out for yourself you lazy boy ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ake109
08-07-2007, 07:51 PM
I am not too sure what I am doing wrong but on an empty test map, the Ta152H I was flying at 75% fuel(at takeoff) is pretty much straining at about 10500-11000m with IAS of <300kph. I gave up trying to reach the 'paper' ceiling of 14000m.

Any of you guys hit 14000m easily on this bird?

AKA_TAGERT
08-07-2007, 08:05 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
How about you try it out for yourself you lazy boy ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Sorry Son..

But it don't work that way..

You made the claim..

It is up to you to provide the supporting track files and data..

SAVVY?

mynameisroland
08-08-2007, 03:22 AM
Are we in the twilight zone or something? We're still waiting on you proving your stupid claims made in the last thread you started with exactly the same data. Can you just cut to the chase because were still waiting for you to finish the last one - you troll.


Originally posted by Bellator_1:
<span class="ev_code_RED">Dream on roland, heaps of data is on the way.</span>

and


Like I said, dream on roland..

<span class="ev_code_RED">Me and Josf have already unearthed some rather disturbing characteristics about the FM's in IL-2.</span>

And about the Ta-152H-0 and H-1, they are the exact same a/c except one isn't fitted with MW-50 & GM-1 and carries half the fuel load - thats it.

As to accounts, you'll get them as-well, it will all be filled into one post.

Put up or shut up - PLEASE!

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/me109-crashed-2.jpg

HuninMunin
08-08-2007, 03:56 AM
That pic hurt...

Ratsack
08-08-2007, 04:04 AM
So, grasshopper, what is the sound of sh1t happening?

Ratsack

MrMojok
08-08-2007, 04:18 AM
Sorry Roland, I'm stealing your pic.

Bewolf
08-08-2007, 04:25 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Are we in the twilight zone or something? We're still waiting on you proving your stupid claims made in the last thread you started with exactly the same data. Can you just cut to the chase because were still waiting for you to finish the last one - you troll.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Originally posted by Bellator_1:
<span class="ev_code_RED">Dream on roland, heaps of data is on the way.</span>

and


Like I said, dream on roland..

<span class="ev_code_RED">Me and Josf have already unearthed some rather disturbing characteristics about the FM's in IL-2.</span>

And about the Ta-152H-0 and H-1, they are the exact same a/c except one isn't fitted with MW-50 & GM-1 and carries half the fuel load - thats it.

As to accounts, you'll get them as-well, it will all be filled into one post.

Put up or shut up - PLEASE!

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/me109-crashed-2.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not that I know what that pic has to do with the discussion at hand, but if this suddenly changed to "lets show crashed and shot up planes", others can post I suppose.

http://www.vord.net/609/spitfires/spitfire_crash.jpg

mynameisroland
08-08-2007, 04:27 AM
Why not respond to the words in my post Bewolf? Or are you happy to listen to Bellator for another 10 pages with no end result or point whatsoever?

Bewolf
08-08-2007, 04:31 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Why not respond to the words in my post Bewolf? Or are you happy to listen to Bellator for another 10 pages with no end result or point whatsoever?

Why? The pic you posted had nothing to do with your words or this thread in general as well. (in which I even tend to agree more too you guys then Josf or Bellator). But if you want to target blue flyers in general, which you do with such pics in tradition of Targert and others, don't complain about according responses.

mynameisroland
08-08-2007, 05:05 AM
Crash and burn.

Thats why I reposted the picture that featured in Bellators last thread on the same subject. He posted no evidence to support his claims. Rather than just come up with some data, like he has promised was on the way for over 4 months he has chosen to start the same thread all over again - still with no data.

I dont just jump on 'Blue' guys. I was there knocking the guy who was whining in ORR about the P 51.

Ratsack
08-08-2007, 05:10 AM
The point of the picture, Beowulf, is clear from the context of the previous discussion of precisely this topic:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/4191001245/p/1


On the last page of that thread, immediately above the pic of the turtle Gustav, Roland wrote:

'Do I see another crash and burn?'

The dead Gustav obviously signifies that 'crash and burn'.

On the topic in hand, you can see that Bellator made the same claims in the previous topic of almost exactly the same title, and then claimed to have data to share and tracks to prove his point. He produced neither.

Furthermore, when the issue was simplified to a simple comparison of the Ta 152 H-0 with the in-game Ta 152 H-1, rather than provide the clarification that would have allowed OTHERS to do the tests, he simply skirted the subject and then disappeared.

cheers,
Ratsack

carguy_
08-08-2007, 05:31 AM
Which doesn`t change anything.The pic still has no use for the discussion. Maybe we should keep posting crashed Ponies until hayateaceholes stop posting their ####?

Bewolf
08-08-2007, 05:45 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Crash and burn.

Thats why I reposted the picture that featured in Bellators last thread on the same subject. He posted no evidence to support his claims. Rather than just come up with some data, like he has promised was on the way for over 4 months he has chosen to start the same thread all over again - still with no data.

I dont just jump on 'Blue' guys. I was there knocking the guy who was whining in ORR about the P 51.

As I said, you have my full support when it comes to the topic at hand. It's just that unthoughtful replies like the one further above probably born out of understandable anger and frustration may miss your initial target and hit some innocent bystanders.
A lot of similar replies initially aimed at individuals but onderstood by a majority contribute to this forums atmosphere.

Jaws2002
08-08-2007, 06:27 AM
Maybe we should keep posting crashed Ponies until hayateaceholes stop posting their ####?


Or we should just get rid of both of them. HayateAce and Bellator_1 never did anything productive in this forums. EVER.
All they do is start fights and draw in other people too, just like now.

Ratsack
08-08-2007, 06:55 AM
The point being that the quality of Bellator's argument was about as good as the quality of the landing for that upside-down Gustav.

Jeez, some of you people are so thin-skinned.

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

Ratsack

Bewolf
08-08-2007, 07:08 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:

Jeez, some of you people are so thin-skinned.

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

Ratsack

Welcome to the club.

jimDG
08-08-2007, 07:39 AM
More tracks, to put things into prespective

http://files-upload.com/422727/quick0010.ntrk.html

Spit IX, 25 lbs (also 100%, at 100m)
Average speed at near stall turn: 280 km/h
Average time full circle at 280 : 16 sec
Calucated radius: 198m

So, basically, all three a/cs (Tempest, Ta152, Spit) are separated by 2secs of a difference in turning performance.

(Has nothing to do with the discussion, but I got curious)

---------------------
http://files-upload.com/422755/quick0012.ntrk.html

TA152H, 25% fuel
Average speed at near stall turn: 315 km/h
Average time full circle at 315 : 18 sec
Calucated radius: 251m

So - still 18 secs - Fuel load makes no difference.

----------------------
disclaimer: Results would be different had all this been done under the same speeds (rather than "close to the respective a/c's stall speed in a turn"), and results would be different for different speed ranges.

JG14_Josf
08-08-2007, 09:32 AM
(in which I even tend to agree more too you guys then Josf or Bellator).

Whatever,

If you must shoot the messenger then you can shoot at Eric Brown.


The take-off of the TA 152H-1 was shorter than that of the Spitfire XIX and the climb was steeper albeit somewhat slower than that of the British fighter, but once the 30,000 ft (9 145 m) mark had slopped past on the altimeter, the Tank fighter gave the impression of holding its rate of climb better than its British counterpart. In so far as manoeuvrability was concerned, the story was very much the same; the Spitfire was certainly the better of the two below 30,000 ft (9 145 m), there being little to choose between British and German fighters between that altitude and 35,000 ft (10 670 m), but above the latter altitude the TA 152H-1 enjoyed a decided edge. I gave the German fighter its head on the way to Brize Norton and did a full throttle run at 35,000 ft (10 670 m), which, by my rough reckoning, worked out at around 425 mph (684 km/h), or about 35 mph (56 km/h) less than the Spitfire XIX was capable of, but, of course, the availability of GM 1 boost would have more than redressed the balance and the TA 152H-1 was certainly the superior aeroplane on the score of range. In essence, however, these two potential opponents were remarkably close from many aspects, illustrating how closely parallel Britain and Germany were running in piston-engined fighter technology.


- we had no GM 1 or MW 50 at Farnborough! Nevertheless, lack of nitrous oxide and methanol-water notwithstanding...

I just play the game and at least I know the difference between 'sustained' and 'instantaneous' turn performance (and how to measure both).

AKA_TAGERT
08-08-2007, 09:34 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Are we in the twilight zone or something? We're still waiting on you proving your stupid claims made in the last thread you started with exactly the same data. Can you just cut to the chase because were still waiting for you to finish the last one - you troll.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Originally posted by Bellator_1:
<span class="ev_code_RED">Dream on roland, heaps of data is on the way.</span>

and


Like I said, dream on roland..

<span class="ev_code_RED">Me and Josf have already unearthed some rather disturbing characteristics about the FM's in IL-2.</span>

And about the Ta-152H-0 and H-1, they are the exact same a/c except one isn't fitted with MW-50 & GM-1 and carries half the fuel load - thats it.

As to accounts, you'll get them as-well, it will all be filled into one post.

Put up or shut up - PLEASE!

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/me109-crashed-2.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>That should send Bellatard_1 back to jail for a few months! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

JG14_Josf
08-08-2007, 03:03 PM
Put up or shut up - PLEASE!

Tagert (or anyone communicating the same challenge above),

Anyone can make tracks to be viewed and criticized by anyone else as this thread shows.

What is proven?

Example:


I just watched the track of Ta152, first it was done on Pacific island map at alt of 100-90m and speed coming down from 354 to 328kmh, not bad, but not perfect either, also I didn't pull it through device link but I would say that was 20sec for 360 not 18sec.
Didn't look at Tempest track though but let's not jump with conclusions. Also what was the fuel load of both planes?


Got Track was posted.

Someone criticized Got Track.

No one ˜pulled it through device link' to ˜authorize' the accuracy of the Got Track.

So...if someone were seriously inclined to "put up or shut up", then, they could get on-line and test to see which plane does turn tighter.

Or

Continue jerking around.

One might even think that the whole idea is to jerk around – on purpose.

In WWII a person who actually flew the TA-153H-1 and flew Spitfires did actually offer his educated pilot anecdotes. He did not get Track.

Got Track here is better than pilot anecdotes for reasons that are obvious.

No balls

P.S. With the latest exposure of code manipulation in mind it can also make sense that people prefer not to have their on-line sessions recorded on tracks.


And:

That measured (Got Track) something in reality (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2006129634914141768)

The 'argument' continues to be "the game doesn't model that plane".

The game doesn't model a 1942 Fw190 fighter plane nor a 1941 Spitfire or so the story goes and goes and goes and goes...

Eldude95
08-08-2007, 03:29 PM
Guys the main target would be to climb quickly and take down bombers. 190's and 109's would escort the 152's and 262's to the bombers. Then they would use X4's(by the time mass production started they would be in use) or guns. Since this is the case they'd most likely be fighting Mustang's and a few Tempest so there good speed and armerment would be there advantage. But they would most likely be gun's empty and heading home while 190's and 109's were covering them.

AKA_TAGERT
08-08-2007, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Put up or shut up - PLEASE!

Tagert (or anyone communicating the same challenge above),

Anyone can make tracks to be viewed and criticized by anyone else as this thread shows.

What is proven?

Example:


I just watched the track of Ta152, first it was done on Pacific island map at alt of 100-90m and speed coming down from 354 to 328kmh, not bad, but not perfect either, also I didn't pull it through device link but I would say that was 20sec for 360 not 18sec.
Didn't look at Tempest track though but let's not jump with conclusions. Also what was the fuel load of both planes?


Got Track was posted.

Someone criticized Got Track.

No one ˜pulled it through device link' to ˜authorize' the accuracy of the Got Track.

So...if someone were seriously inclined to "put up or shut up", then, they could get on-line and test to see which plane does turn tighter.

Or

Continue jerking around.

One might even think that the whole idea is to jerk around – on purpose.

In WWII a person who actually flew the TA-153H-1 and flew Spitfires did actually offer his educated pilot anecdotes. He did not get Track.

Got Track here is better than pilot anecdotes for reasons that are obvious.

No balls

P.S. With the latest exposure of code manipulation in mind it can also make sense that people prefer not to have their on-line sessions recorded on tracks.


And:

That measured (Got Track) something in reality (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2006129634914141768)

The 'argument' continues to be "the game doesn't model that plane".

The game doesn't model a 1942 Fw190 fighter plane nor a 1941 Spitfire or so the story goes and goes and goes and goes... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Poor Top Dog Nancy

Bellator_1
08-08-2007, 05:47 PM
Aaaaaw ! The poor boys TAGERT & Roland seem to be upset they haven't got the track we promised them, poor guys ! So what do you say Josf, how about we give it to them ? They seem to have been waiting with anxiety for some time now (Roland even saving our posts), clutching to the feeling that since this forum isn't OUR entire world and WE don't spend every day typing on it because WE actually have more important stuff to take care of, then WE in their eyes obviously must be wrong, right ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Josf, lets show these guys what we unearthed ages ago by now, I'm free the next 3 days. (Thats if TAGERT & Roland can wait that long)

VW-IceFire
08-08-2007, 05:55 PM
They don't seem to be that upset...they seem amused that the same predictable pattern is happening once again. It doesn't matter who its from...two weeks ago it was Mustang is undermodeled week and this week we're back at FW190 and Bf109 undermodeled next week. In a few weeks we'll repeat the same cycle from the same people over and over and over again...its always the same hot air. Probably why its so humid outside right now http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Got track? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

JG14_Josf
08-08-2007, 06:02 PM
Bellator_1,

I don't recall promising anyone anything. Perhaps you can refresh my poor memory.

We did get together and did some tests ourselves and now we know what we wanted to know.

Do you really think that these people want to know something?

What do you propose that we record on track files.

Take-off roll distance?

We already know that one.

You can't seriously think that a track file showing anything of value to us will be of any value to anyone else can you?

If they want to find out how the airplanes fly in the game; they can do their own tests to their own satisfaction just like many people have done before and will do again.

IL2 compare is one example. Tagert's tests are another example. Tests, tests, and more tests are all over the internet.

What do you propose to test now?

I'm up for it – again.

AKA_TAGERT
08-08-2007, 06:45 PM
Bellatard_1 and JG14_Jokef sitting in a tree..

ElAurens
08-08-2007, 07:43 PM
http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/7093/germansurrender2pt0.jpg

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

AKA_TAGERT
08-08-2007, 10:40 PM
NICE!

Very fitting picture!

My guess is Bellatard_1 is feeling about as blue now as those guys were than! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

AKA_TAGERT
08-08-2007, 10:41 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
They don't seem to be that upset...they seem amused that the same predictable pattern is happening once again. It doesn't matter who its from...two weeks ago it was Mustang is undermodeled week and this week we're back at FW190 and Bf109 undermodeled next week. In a few weeks we'll repeat the same cycle from the same people over and over and over again...its always the same hot air. Probably why its so humid outside right now http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Got track? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Agreed 100%

M_Gunz
08-09-2007, 03:13 AM
Originally posted by HuninMunin:
Charts and tracks are t3h sUxx00r.

Real men try

And real brats whine.

There was a -0 and a -1 which last time the best numbers of each was taken to make up what the
152H is "really" supposed to be and I note that here we have the Ta-152H with nothing else AGAIN.

Should all planes just have the best data between every variant made as well?

carguy_
08-09-2007, 03:35 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/7093/germansurrender2pt0.jpg

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

LMAO

M_Gunz
08-09-2007, 10:37 AM
That looks like SS gun range popup silhouettes.

HuninMunin
08-09-2007, 10:55 AM
Do you call me a brat?

M_Gunz
08-09-2007, 02:24 PM
You can try the shoe for fit.

Let's see DATA for the Ta-152H that we have and leave out for the other.
It took pages to get that far Last Time and more pages before it came down to that actually
No Bellator Did Not Have Data For The Variant In-Game -- but he would be getting it soon!

So here we are with no new data but same old *sandwich* except without the bread, like it
has all been forgotten somehow.

It's like how we see quotes weekly about conclusions reached in Farnsborough that do not
mention the FW is not a model we have and the Spitfire is not a model we have but STILL we
are expected to take words about those as how the models we do have should compare.

That BS has been shown wrong again and again yet gets brought up again and again as if it
applies. It is EXACTLY like little kids being told NO and still THE WHINING GOES ON!

So what size are your Ta-152 shoes? Where is the data to base the claims on? The shoes
are as small as the data, infant to toddler.

HuninMunin
08-09-2007, 02:48 PM
Might it be possible that you confuse me with Bellator?
I was the first to say that he is wrong about the 152s turn.
I agreed on him about climb and acceleration because the data I achive ingame and can see in IL2 compare do not match the figures one can find of the real plane.
I did not make any wish for this to be changed at all, and Bellator did not for that matter.

So what exactly do you want to tell me?

M_Gunz
08-09-2007, 03:15 PM
You are saying the shoe does not fit. Okay fine.

Maybe this thread could use data on the Ta-152H-1 that is modeled in game and not generic for
Ta-152H. That way all can see how far off it is. I know that I would like that very much.

HuninMunin
08-09-2007, 03:17 PM
I say that you could have seen yourself that the shoe doesn't fit and spared me the brat thing.

M_Gunz
08-09-2007, 03:36 PM
I wait for data on the H-1 instead of the H-0.



Charts and tracks are t3h sUxx00r.

Real men try


You seem to be saying that such data is unnecessary and in other posts you seem to say that
I agreed on him about climb and acceleration because the data I achive ingame and can see in IL2 compare do not match the figures one can find of the real plane.

I have yet to see figures for the Ta-152H-1. I guess that you can help clear the issue?

HuninMunin
08-09-2007, 03:50 PM
The above statement by me that you quoted does not say that such data is unneccesary to proof something is wrong but rather that it is senseless to post charts or tracks because the discussion should not be more then an exchange of subjective opinion.
I can see why you guys react that way to Bellator but for me there is no drama.
Bellator said what he thinks and I reacted how I felt about his sentiment.

Going after figures from the military archive based in Freiburg the H-1 was capable of
about 728 km\h in 9000 meters without MW 50.
The figure ingame lies at about 630 +- 10.
Same archive stated a climbrate of 17,4 m/s below 3 km.
The ingame version climbs at about 14 - 16 m/s at this altitude.
I might be confusing numbers here and are writing from memory - the figures above are not the point.
The point is:

I don't care.
The performence is close enough for me.

M_Gunz
08-09-2007, 08:14 PM
No, you are not the whiner!

Going after figures from the military archive based in Freiburg the H-1 was capable of
about 728 km\h in 9000 meters without MW 50.

Thanks, how to get the rest of the figures?

I see in Wikipedia (for what it's worth) an entry in German that does translate:


technical data (TA 152H-1) [Work on]

* Dimensions
o Span: 14.82 m
o Length: 10.82 m
o Height: 3.36 m
o Wing area: 23.50 m ²
* Masses
o Unloaded weight: 3,920 kg
o Takeoff weight: maximally 5,215 kg
* Achievements
o Drive: a liquid-cooled V12-Motor Jumo 213E-1 with 1.750 HP (2,050 HP with MW50) take-off power
o Maximum speed: 730 km/h in 9.500 m height (without MW50)
o Cruising speed: 500 km/h
o Rate of climb: 1,050 m/min
o Service ceiling: 14,800 m
o Range: 1,200 km
* Armament
o a 30-mm-Maschinenkanone MK 108 with 60-90 shot
o two 20-mm automatic cannons mg 151/20 with ever 150-175 shot


IL2C has 640kph at 9km alt and 100% throttle which is still not 110% without WEP.
Max TAS at max power it shows almost 750kph.

IL2C is pretty good on max TAS and IIRC, climb, not so good on turns.

Problem is of course how to set up in game the conditions the Freiburg data were made under.

It does look at least close to 5% which given this is not a tabled sim or direct formula sim
is doing pretty good and can be devilish at the least to adjust.

HuninMunin
08-09-2007, 08:37 PM
Just checked the Wiki and the author quotes Freiburg as one of his sources.
One of my former fellow students is a major 190 geek with a massive libery and he kept quoting from the archive.
I will drop him a mail on the subject; maybe he knows some puplications that can be concidered hard fact.
Possibly the Archiv grounds on some of the original Reichlin docs - in wich case they are accesable to public.
I'm shure he'll know a book that has copies of the originals or original test data.

Anyway I agree with you ( as I said above ) that the performence fits ingame in the big picture.

What "feels" odd is acceleration.
The H-1 has a kg/hp ratio of about 2,44 wich is comparable to a G6 at about 2,31 and isn't much more "draggy".
It has massive wings, right, but they had to be a foot thick to impact on such massive engine power.
Again, just a sentiment.

Ratsack
08-10-2007, 12:45 AM
Anybody else noticed how the thread starter has gone very quiet?

De ja vu


Ratsack

VMF-214_HaVoK
08-10-2007, 01:46 AM
Stop blaming the planes because you suxxorz. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Gaaawd!

HuninMunin
08-10-2007, 02:32 AM
No one can suXXoor in a Ta. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

Ratsack
08-10-2007, 04:51 AM
I can suck in any plane I want. I find the suck coefficient, S, is directly proportional to the beer coefficient, B, for all B < 5, and directly proportional to B^2 for all B > 5.

I have the charts to prove it, too, but they're too beer stained to scan.

Ratsack

Manu-6S
08-10-2007, 05:47 AM
Every time I try to fight with a P47 in a Dora I think "damn, give me a Ta, I can follow you at 12000m without problems"

That plane it's a beast, and the Revi sight is lot better then normal 190 (A/D).

JG14_Josf
08-10-2007, 05:51 AM
Every time I try to fight with a P47 in a Dora I think "damn, give me a Ta, I can follow you at 12000m without problems"

Those 'pilot anecdotes' would show up in an accurate flight test recorded on a track file no?

I'd like to know these accurate facts too however the TA doesn't show up on any of the Servers I play on.

Is that a means of supporting the facts as being accurate?

HuninMunin
08-10-2007, 06:09 AM
edit
nevermind

Xiolablu3
08-10-2007, 07:04 AM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Why should the Ta152 have such a better turn than the FW190D9?

X3,

The Fw190A and D series aircraft incorporated the same wing design as did the early Ta (or so the story goes); however - the H model TA-152 incorporates a much more efficient wing where more surface area creates lift and less surface area creates drag - the L/D ratio (even under load) is improved. That is one obvious reason for the increase in turn performance.

L/D, if you remember, is independent of aircraft mass too so that L/D ratio remains the same (unless the wings suffer elastic deformation under load) when the aircraft is full of fuel or light on fuel.

In addition the TA incorporated an engine producing more thrust (not simply more engine horse power).

To give you an idea of how powerful the TA was I can quote from "Wings of the Luftwaffe" by Eric Brown (A British WWII test/fighter pilot who flew a captured TA-152):


- we had no GM 1 or MW 50 at Farnborough! Nevertheless, lack of nitrous oxide and methanol-water notwithstanding...


The take-off of the TA 152H-1 was shorter than that of the Spitfire XIX and the climb was steeper albeit somewhat slower than that of the British fighter, but once the 30,000 ft (9 145 m) mark had slopped past on the altimeter, the Tank fighter gave the impression of holding its rate of climb better than its British counterpart. In so far as manoeuvrability was concerned, the story was very much the same; the Spitfire was certainly the better of the two below 30,000 ft (9 145 m), there being little to choose between British and German fighters between that altitude and 35,000 ft (10 670 m), but above the latter altitude the TA 152H-1 enjoyed a decided edge. I gave the German fighter its head on the way to Brize Norton and did a full throttle run at 35,000 ft (10 670 m), which, by my rough reckoning, worked out at around 425 mph (684 km/h), or about 35 mph (56 km/h) less than the Spitfire XIX was capable of, but, of course, the availability of GM 1 boost would have more than redressed the balance and the TA 152H-1 was certainly the superior aeroplane on the score of range. In essence, however, these two potential opponents were remarkably close from many aspects, illustrating how closely parallel Britain and Germany were running in piston-engined fighter technology.

All that is reported in that source concerning the Spitfire XIX is that it was ˜pressurized'. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the reply and your thoughts.

Bellator_1
08-10-2007, 09:27 PM
Not even a day goes by before someone says: *Hey guys, notice that the author of this thread has suddenly gone quiet ??*

Get some patience ! Me Josf first have to record the flights already !

Now I've had a look at IL2compare and supposing those figures are correct the Ta-152H-1 certainly does not perform as it should!

As to the real life performance of the Ta-152 please read Dietmarr Hermann's book on the bird, it features the original performance charts I've posted on here before. The 17.5 m/s climb rate is at Stieg u. Kampfleistung @ 1,590 PS, and 20 m/s at Start u. Notleistung @ 1,750 PS.

And finally about the Ta-152H's turn performance, well if you don't believe me then whats stopping you from attempting to disprove the facts I provided in any way ?? The only answer is that you simply don't know.

Ratsack
08-11-2007, 04:06 AM
Hum-hum-num-num-tee-tumm....

Manu-6S
08-11-2007, 04:23 AM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Every time I try to fight with a P47 in a Dora I think "damn, give me a Ta, I can follow you at 12000m without problems"

Those 'pilot anecdotes' would show up in an accurate flight test recorded on a track file no?

I'd like to know these accurate facts too however the TA doesn't show up on any of the Servers I play on.

Is that a means of supporting the facts as being accurate? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I tried more than a time to fight with P51s and P47s at high altitude (because they are normal planes compared to the Spits below, IMO).

With Ta152H I can outspace P51 and outclimb it while you can outspace P47s only using GM1, but here there is a problem known with Spit9-25 too: These planes rarely overheat, so they will catch you then you have to turn off the boost.

All people say Dora are faster than Spit9-25, and it's true, but only between 5500m and 7000m you are "really" faster. At all the other altitudes this Spit can catch you when you turn off boost.

The same with P47 against Ta152H.

However I like the Ta152H like it is now: it's enough for me.

Kurfurst__
08-11-2007, 05:43 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
The point of the picture, Beowulf, is clear from the context of the previous discussion of precisely this topic:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/4191001245/p/1


On the last page of that thread, immediately above the pic of the turtle Gustav, Roland wrote:

'Do I see another crash and burn?'

The dead Gustav obviously signifies that 'crash and burn'.

On the topic in hand, you can see that Bellator made the same claims in the previous topic of almost exactly the same title, and then claimed to have data to share and tracks to prove his point. He produced neither.

Furthermore, when the issue was simplified to a simple comparison of the Ta 152 H-0 with the in-game Ta 152 H-1, rather than provide the clarification that would have allowed OTHERS to do the tests, he simply skirted the subject and then disappeared.

cheers,
Ratsack

Regardless of the subject at hand, these 'Crash and burn' pictures are an utterly primitive ways to form an arguement.
It merely shows that the ones who think they can 'win' discussion' by posting pictures of crashed planes are at least equally incapable of providing convincing evidence for their point of view, as the others they accuse with being incapable doing the same.

Ironically, that while they do not provide convincing evidence as to the question of wheter the 'other side' is being incapable of posting evidence or not, they provide such evidence against themselves in the form of such 'crash&burn' pictures, which only reveal the desperation to win and not having the means (valid arguements) to do so.

They simply believe in the convincing power of a club, and they attempt to lynch their opponents, not convince them.
And I find both mynamisroland and Ratsack to be eager members of that club far too often. There are many others.

MEGILE
08-11-2007, 05:56 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
There are many others.

Including yourself Kurfurst.

The use of the Messer was questionable.

But regardless, the metaphor it represents is wholly accurate.

Bellator who? He dissapears without a track *cough*, trace.

Ratsack
08-11-2007, 06:43 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
.... There are many others.

Somebody needs a hug.

Ratsack

AKA_TAGERT
08-11-2007, 06:51 AM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
Get some patience ! Me Josf first have to record the flights already ! 3 months and counting..

AKA_TAGERT
08-11-2007, 06:59 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Regardless of the subject at hand, these 'Crash and burn' pictures are an utterly primitive ways to form an arguement.
It merely shows that the ones who think they can 'win' discussion' by posting pictures of crashed planes are at least equally incapable of providing convincing evidence for their point of view, as the others they accuse with being incapable doing the same.
Well..

Yes..

Crash-n-Burn don't really prove much..

But remember when you were going on about all 109K's having Flettner Tabs?

In that case pictures did prove something..

i.e.

http://geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/AIRCRAFT/Bf109/SANS_FLETTNER/bf109k4_023-swfoto.jpg
http://geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/AIRCRAFT/Bf109/SANS_FLETTNER/bf109k-4-r1.jpg
http://geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/AIRCRAFT/Bf109/SANS_FLETTNER/bf109k4_006A-swfoto.jpg
http://geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/AIRCRAFT/Bf109/SANS_FLETTNER/bf109k4_007-swfoto.jpg
http://geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/AIRCRAFT/Bf109/SANS_FLETTNER/bf109k4_008-swfoto.jpg
http://geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/AIRCRAFT/Bf109/SANS_FLETTNER/bf109k4_009-swfoto.jpg
http://geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/AIRCRAFT/Bf109/SANS_FLETTNER/bf109k4_009b-swfoto.jpg
http://geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/AIRCRAFT/Bf109/SANS_FLETTNER/bf109k4_013-swfoto.jpg
http://geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/AIRCRAFT/Bf109/SANS_FLETTNER/bf109k4_011-swfoto.jpg
http://geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/AIRCRAFT/Bf109/SANS_FLETTNER/bf109k4_026-swfoto.jpg
http://geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/AIRCRAFT/Bf109/SANS_FLETTNER/baghdadBf109k.jpg

That hardly any of them did have Flettner Tabs!

Oh and here is a CRASHED looking one just to round things out FTW http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/AIRCRAFT/Bf109/SANS_FLETTNER/bf109k4_001-swfoto.jpg

SAVVY?

Kurfurst__
08-11-2007, 07:13 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT

But remember when you were going on about all 109K's having Flettner Tabs?

Nope, I don't recall having made such a statement.

Though funnily enough, this picture you posted showing a 109K captured unfinished on the assembly line quite clearly shows the Flettner actuator's element right between the german cross and the aileron's mass balance.

It's only present on 109s fitted with a aileron Flettner tab.

http://geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/AIRCRAFT/Bf109/SANS_FLETTNER/bf109k4_009-swfoto.jpg

AKA_TAGERT
08-11-2007, 07:15 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Nope, I don't recall having made such a statement.
Ill bet you dont.


Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Though funnily enough, this picture you posted showing a 109K captured unfinished on the assembly line quite clearly shows the Flettner actuator's element right between the german cross and the aileron's mass balance.
Note true

That is simply something white colored behind the plane laying on the ground.. There are several iteams like that..

Here take a look.. Ill draw a blue line along the trailing edge and you well see it is not even part of the wing

http://geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/AIRCRAFT/Bf109/SANS_FLETTNER/bf109k4_009-swfoto_ZOOM.jpg

Sorry..

Nice try though!

stalkervision
08-11-2007, 07:32 AM
working flettner tabs..

http://www.flight1.com/products.asp?product=bf109k


http://www.flight1.com/images/bf109/bf109k_box.jpg

Aircraft Features

Highly accurate VC, with many functioning parts;
Revi16B gunsight that folds accurately out of the way;
Revi16B can be turned on and off;
Three different models;
Twelve different textures;
Accurate and challenging ground-handling characteristics;
Droppable Drop Tank, that removes weight and fuel from the aircraft.cfg for realistic performance;
Working Flettner tabs on ailerons and rudder;
Working MW emergency boost system;
Accurate pilot flight suit and flight helmet;
100% authentic Bf-109 startup sounds;
Propeller blades which alter their angle with prop setting;
Functioning coolant flaps, which also serve as landing flaps;
3D gauges in the VC, for incredible realism;
Paint kit included.

AKA_TAGERT
08-11-2007, 07:34 AM
Hollywood & games for sure..

WWII..

Not so much

Low_Flyer_MkVb
08-11-2007, 07:45 AM
You bunch o' noobs can't even post decent 'plane crash pictures. No wonder this forum is such a frikking mess http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/whirl-02.jpg

Kurfurst__
08-11-2007, 07:45 AM
It seem Tag has troubles understanding the location of the item.


...Flettner actuator's element right between the german cross and the aileron's mass balance...

On the picture, the actuator rod itself is seen missing (the aircraft is not finished anyway, it's flight controls are still disconnected). A flettner tab itself may or may not be on the aileron itself, it's difficult to tell on this blurry picture.

What is there, however, is the actuator's element, sticking out of the lower side of wing, seemingly connecting the external mass balance to the wing. There are some other pics showing aircraft dump sites at the end of the war, one of them is showing a removed 109 wing with a Flettner tab clearly present.

It's just seems to be some kind of founding stone in tag's belief system that no 109K, ever, had been fitted with an aileron Flettner. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

JG14_Josf
08-11-2007, 07:46 AM
3 months and counting..

To anyone caring to know the facts,

I now have a friend who lives in Denmark. We met on this forum. His association with me costs him a measure of infamy as my efforts to communicate with him includes an effort to know how futile it is to transfer accurate information to people who have an aversion to accurate information.

So...if Bellator_1 has not delivered track files to anyone for any reason the cause of this lack of transfer can be traced back to me, for, the times spent in the effort to make track files was spent having fun instead.

In other words – to each their own.

If you can't have fun with your friends, then, they are probably not friends.

Why bother transferring any information at all?

What is the point?


- we had no GM 1 or MW 50 at Farnborough! Nevertheless, lack of nitrous oxide and methanol-water notwithstanding...


The take-off of the TA 152H-1 was shorter than that of the Spitfire XIX and the climb was steeper albeit somewhat slower than that of the British fighter, but once the 30,000 ft (9 145 m) mark had slopped past on the altimeter, the Tank fighter gave the impression of holding its rate of climb better than its British counterpart. In so far as manoeuvrability was concerned, the story was very much the same; the Spitfire was certainly the better of the two below 30,000 ft (9 145 m), there being little to choose between British and German fighters between that altitude and 35,000 ft (10 670 m), but above the latter altitude the TA 152H-1 enjoyed a decided edge. I gave the German fighter its head on the way to Brize Norton and did a full throttle run at 35,000 ft (10 670 m), which, by my rough reckoning, worked out at around 425 mph (684 km/h), or about 35 mph (56 km/h) less than the Spitfire XIX was capable of, but, of course, the availability of GM 1 boost would have more than redressed the balance and the TA 152H-1 was certainly the superior aeroplane on the score of range. In essence, however, these two potential opponents were remarkably close from many aspects, illustrating how closely parallel Britain and Germany were running in piston-engined fighter technology.

http://aycu39.webshots.com/image/24158/2006129634914141768_fs.jpg

To some people, not all people, there is a combination of points converging toward historical accuracy, simulation, and fun.

I can assure anyone reading these forums that it is more than possible with this game to accomplish all three without much effort at all when you can find friends who share these three points.

Don't let the personal attacks that polluted this forum fool.

What kind of a point is that?

Ratsack
08-11-2007, 07:52 AM
OK, now the fifth column from the left refers to a Ta152 H-0, but I can't read the rest because it's too small.

What does it say?

cheers,
Ratsack

AKA_TAGERT
08-11-2007, 09:13 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
It seem Tag has troubles understanding the location of the item.
Hardly!

But it appears that Jerry himself was a bit confused.. i.e.

http://geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/AIRCRAFT/Bf109/SANS_FLETTNER/differanceindrawings.jpg


Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">...Flettner actuator's element right between the german cross and the aileron's mass balance...

On the picture, the actuator rod itself is seen missing (the aircraft is not finished anyway, it's flight controls are still disconnected). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That grease stain/dribble your trying to call a actuator rod mount is not what I was trying to show you..


Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
A flettner tab itself may or may not be on the aileron itself, it's difficult to tell on this blurry picture.
The lack of a flettner tab is what I was trying to show you!


Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
What is there, however, is the actuator's element, sticking out of the lower side of wing, seemingly connecting the external mass balance to the wing.
So, you would have us belive they would mount the actuator rod.. but not an alieron with a flettener tab?

What so they can take it off once the alierons with flettner tabs show up?

Please!

Give us a little more credit than the kidos that visit your web sight.


Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
There are some other pics showing aircraft dump sites at the end of the war, one of them is showing a removed 109 wing with a Flettner tab clearly present. It's just seems to be some kind of founding stone in tag's belief system that no 109K, ever, had been fitted with an aileron Flettner. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif
I never said none had them..

Where as you said most had them..

Big difference..

Just showing that it was the exception not the rule (read most)..

As in a field experment that never really took hold.

SAVVY?

Kurfurst__
08-11-2007, 10:59 AM
It's web site, not 'web sight', Tag.

MEGILE
08-11-2007, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
It's web site, not 'web sight', Tag.

The brevity of your post speaks volumes IMO.

Kurfurst__
08-11-2007, 11:30 AM
That was the intention.

FluffyDucks2
08-11-2007, 12:27 PM
You guys are splitting hairs over photos that may, or may not, show something that may, or may not, be there. It is IMPOSSIBLE to conclusively prove ANYTHING from the photos posted here. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

The problem is that NOBODY knows what, how, why, or where most of these photographs were produced. NOBODY knows, or can prove what editing may or may not have been applied to them, they prove absolutely NOTHING.

To base arguments on blurry indistinct photographs which have no documented or proven history and appear on the internet, is foolish at best.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

AKA_TAGERT
08-11-2007, 12:59 PM
not true

AKA_TAGERT
08-11-2007, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
It's web site, not 'web sight', Tag. I noticed that you are trying to change the subject..

Typical Troll Tatic when said troll realises his mistake.

Nice try!

Gold star for effort!

Kurfurst__
08-11-2007, 01:09 PM
Originally posted by FluffyDucks2:
You guys are splitting hairs over photos that may, or may not, show something that may, or may not, be there. It is IMPOSSIBLE to conclusively prove ANYTHING from the photos posted here. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

The problem is that NOBODY knows what, how, why, or where most of these photographs were produced. NOBODY knows, or can prove what editing may or may not have been applied to them, they prove absolutely NOTHING.

To base arguments on blurry indistinct photographs which have no documented or proven history and appear on the internet, is foolish at best.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

That's the point. The number of samples we have is marginal compared to the number aircraft produced, and even those samples are not equally spread amongst the early and later production aircraft. Most pics tend to be early production a/c, I suppose the pilots were more excited with their new rides when they got them.

In any case, it's a silly arguement, a pointless return trip to a 3-4 year old debate, yet some continue to enjoy such foolish debates, even if they have to debate it alone... even if the question itself is rather marginal, they feel the need to 'win' it. It's best to just lay back, get satisfied with the information that is currently available. No doubt more will emerge from the archives and from a new generation of researchers in the coming years. Just browse the 10-20 years old Squadron Signals, how little was known about the late-war 109s not so long ago.. and compare them to publications available now from Japo, Schiffer, SAMI and others.

AKA_TAGERT
08-11-2007, 01:45 PM
That is the point..

Unless Kurfurst is trying to use picutres to prove Flettner Tabs did exist.. As he tried to do with tha grease stain in this thread

M_Gunz
08-11-2007, 04:29 PM
Originally posted Sat August 11 2007 05:59 by AKA_TAGERT:
But remember when you were going on about all 109K's having Flettner Tabs?

First mention of Flettner Tabs in this thread, dredging up OT issue to cover for OT pictures.

Yes, that evil Kurfurst is at it again!

AKA_TAGERT
08-11-2007, 04:33 PM
Poor But Hurt Nancy!

luftluuver
08-15-2007, 08:03 AM
posted Aug 8 and is now Aug 15

Josf, lets show these guys what we unearthed ages ago by now, I'm free the next 3 days


Originally posted by Bellator_1:
Get some patience ! Me Josf first have to record the flights already ! So, is there any update on this Ta152 flight recording?

AKA_TAGERT
08-15-2007, 04:20 PM
Don't hold your breath..

It appears that Bellatard_1 is on a probing mission..

Every few months he re-posts the same lame excuses in the hopes that one of these times nobody will notice and the S will stick to the wall..

luftluuver
08-18-2007, 06:15 AM
bump since it made pg 3 and nary a word.

You might be correct Tag even Josf, who is never at a loss for words, is silent. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

AKA_TAGERT
08-18-2007, 07:57 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
You might be correct Tag even Josf, who is never at a loss for words, is silent. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif ROTFL!

luftluuver
08-20-2007, 02:21 PM
Made pg 3 again, so needs a bump. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Almost 2 weeks and still nothing posted. Tag can do one of his tests in a day, so what is the problem with Josf and Bellator? Maybe they crashed and burned. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

JG14_Josf
08-20-2007, 02:33 PM
To anyone caring to know the facts,

I now have a friend who lives in Denmark. We met on this forum. His association with me costs him a measure of infamy as my efforts to communicate with him includes an effort to know how futile it is to transfer accurate information to people who have an aversion to accurate information.

So...if Bellator_1 has not delivered track files to anyone for any reason the cause of this lack of transfer can be traced back to me, for, the times spent in the effort to make track files was spent having fun instead.

In other words – to each their own.

If you can't have fun with your friends, then, they are probably not friends.

Why bother transferring any information at all?

What is the point?

People (or something similar),

I re-posted the above since the current ignorance level appears to be high - again.

In other words:

If anyone wishes to know something, then, they don't need permission.

Know it.

How?

Do you need permission for that too?

Blutarski2004
08-20-2007, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> To anyone caring to know the facts,

I now have a friend who lives in Denmark. We met on this forum. His association with me costs him a measure of infamy as my efforts to communicate with him includes an effort to know how futile it is to transfer accurate information to people who have an aversion to accurate information.

So...if Bellator_1 has not delivered track files to anyone for any reason the cause of this lack of transfer can be traced back to me, for, the times spent in the effort to make track files was spent having fun instead.

In other words – to each their own.

If you can't have fun with your friends, then, they are probably not friends.

Why bother transferring any information at all?

What is the point?

People (or something similar),

I re-posted the above since the current ignorance level appears to be high - again.

In other words:

If anyone wishes to know something, then, they don't need permission.

Know it.

How?

Do you need permission for that too? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Your logic is faulty, Josf. This is not a case of knowledge versus ignorance. It is a disagreement over so far unsubstantiated allegations made by Bellator. He promised to deliver evidence to prove his claims. That promise was not made conditional upon the help of a 3rd party to the best of anyone's knowledge.

Since no accurate information has yet been forthcoming from the Bellator side, it is difficult to see how any sense of futility can be felt in connection with presenting it. Neither can the unidentified author of the missive which you have quoted possibly know whether any aversion to accurate information is actually involved in this dispute.

JG14_Josf
08-20-2007, 03:23 PM
..... Your logic is faulty, Josf.

Blutarski,

You may have me confused with your imaginary friend. My response was aimed at a specific sentence published by a specific person who probably understood what I wrote. You can go on with whatever it is you are doing?

What is the point of involving me in your imaginary argument where your imaginary friend is failing something that you think is logic?


Neither can the unidentified author of the missive which you have quoted possibly know whether any aversion to accurate information is actually involved in this dispute.

What is your problem?

If you can state your problem clearly, then, your imaginary friend may care about it.

Meanwhile why do you involve me in your internal argument? I am curious.

luftluuver
08-20-2007, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
If you can state your problem clearly, then, your imaginary friend may care about it.
LOL, this from the master of textual diarreha. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

When the thread makes pg 3 again, will get a bump to pg 1.

JG14_Josf
08-20-2007, 08:09 PM
http://aycu39.webshots.com/image/24158/2006129634914141768_fs.jpg


The take-off of the TA 152H-1 was shorter than that of the Spitfire XIX and the climb was steeper albeit somewhat slower than that of the British fighter, but once the 30,000 ft (9 145 m) mark had slopped past on the altimeter, the Tank fighter gave the impression of holding its rate of climb better than its British counterpart. In so far as manoeuvrability was concerned, the story was very much the same; the Spitfire was certainly the better of the two below 30,000 ft (9 145 m), there being little to choose between British and German fighters between that altitude and 35,000 ft (10 670 m), but above the latter altitude the TA 152H-1 enjoyed a decided edge. I gave the German fighter its head on the way to Brize Norton and did a full throttle run at 35,000 ft (10 670 m), which, by my rough reckoning, worked out at around 425 mph (684 km/h), or about 35 mph (56 km/h) less than the Spitfire XIX was capable of, but, of course, the availability of GM 1 boost would have more than redressed the balance and the TA 152H-1 was certainly the superior aeroplane on the score of range. In essence, however, these two potential opponents were remarkably close from many aspects, illustrating how closely parallel Britain and Germany were running in piston-engined fighter technology.


- we had no GM 1 or MW 50 at Farnborough! Nevertheless, lack of nitrous oxide and methanol-water notwithstanding...

Diverting the focus away from the available data and towards imaginary conflicts concerning manufactured personalities is par for this forum.

What is the point?

Anyone having an interest in measuring how well or how badly the game measures up to the available data can do so with or without the help of the more vocal members on this forum.

What is the point?

luftluuver
09-07-2007, 07:46 AM
Bump, bump. Still no test results from the Dynamic Duo.

Btw Joke, the data sheet you posted is for the H-0, not for the H-1 we have in the game. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

JG14_Josf
09-07-2007, 08:28 AM
Anyone (besides trolls),

Testing game performance with a freind is a whole lot more fun than reading troll posts on this board.

The Spitfire VB (1941) is not in the game. The Fw190A-4 is not in the game. What is in the game is fun.

luftluuver
09-07-2007, 08:50 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

verbaska
09-07-2007, 08:51 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JG14_Josf
09-07-2007, 09:07 AM
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2Flugbuch/FW%20Dive.jpg

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2Flugbuch/Anatamy%20of%20Drag%20Test.jpg

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2Flugbuch/DiveZoomTest1.jpg

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2Flugbuch/DiveZoomTest1b.jpg

The game above.


The primarly source documents are here (http://www.pbase.com/chrisdnt/root):


The initial acceleration of the Fw 190 is better than the Spitfire IX under all conditions of flight, except in level flight at such altitude where the Spitfire has a speed advantage and then, providing the Spitfire is cruising at high speed, there is little to choose between the two aircraft

If any player wants to test the game they can and in any way they want. Good luck.

luftluuver
09-07-2007, 09:31 AM
Since when did the Fw190A become a Ta152H-1? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

In case you missed the thread title, it is <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Ta152H FM</span>.

Someone did do a climb test for the Ta152H and guess what? It performed as did the rl Ta152H.

faustnik
09-07-2007, 09:44 AM
(This is an honest question, and not a jab at anyone.)

Do you guys really enjoy picking at each other all the time on the forums? Is it kind of a game within the game?

JG14_Josf
09-07-2007, 10:48 AM
Do you guys really enjoy picking at each other all the time on the forums? Is it kind of a game within the game?

Faustnik,

How about answering your own question? Why did you post and claim that 'you guys really enjoy picking on each other all the time'?

Are you picking on me? Do you claim that I enjoy picking on anyone - ever?

Are you playing some game within the game here with your post where you insinuate that everyone is guilty of something instigated by people like you?

Do I misunderstand your post where you collect everyone into the same pot as if everyone is guilty of the actions of a few while you remain completely innocent? Are you averse to placing the blame squarely on the shoulders of the people you think are enjoying something you think ˜they' are enjoying?

Who is ˜they' Fasutnik? Who are these people you find to be guilty of something you think is happening?

Who are ˜you guys' – exactly?

Would ˜you guys' be you?

Why did you post in this Ta152H RM thread just now?

Of course your motives are pure, of course, so who, then, are ˜you guys' exactly – Faustnik?

Von_Rat
09-07-2007, 10:51 AM
ibtl

ElAurens
09-07-2007, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
ibtl

Be very sure.

faustnik
09-07-2007, 10:59 AM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:

Are you picking on me?

No.


Are you playing some game within the game here with your post where you insinuate that everyone is guilty of something instigated by people like you?

No.


Do I misunderstand your post where you collect everyone into the same pot as if everyone is guilty of the actions of a few while you remain completely innocent?

Yes.


Who is ˜they' Fasutnik? Who are these people you find to be guilty of something you think is happening?

A small group who move from board to board fighting with each other.

No need to single out individuals.

IFly_1968
09-07-2007, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Do you guys really enjoy picking at each other all the time on the forums? Is it kind of a game within the game?

Faustnik,

How about answering your own question? Why did you post and claim that 'you guys really enjoy picking on each other all the time'?

Are you picking on me? Do you claim that I enjoy picking on anyone - ever?

Are you playing some game within the game here with your post where you insinuate that everyone is guilty of something instigated by people like you?

Do I misunderstand your post where you collect everyone into the same pot as if everyone is guilty of the actions of a few while you remain completely innocent? Are you averse to placing the blame squarely on the shoulders of the people you think are enjoying something you think ˜they' are enjoying?

Who is ˜they' Fasutnik? Who are these people you find to be guilty of something you think is happening?

Who are ˜you guys' – exactly?

Would ˜you guys' be you?

Why did you post in this Ta152H RM thread just now?

Of course your motives are pure, of course, so who, then, are ˜you guys' exactly – Faustnik? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And I thought us guys that complained about the P51 have issues. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Xiolablu3
09-07-2007, 12:22 PM
The main reason that the FW190 is having trouble outdiving the SPitfire in this track is all the corners and turning.

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2Flugbuch/DiveZoomTest1.jpg

Try and keep the FW190 as straight as possible in the dive, every turn, however small, benefits the chasing plane. Judging by the smoke on those tracks, the FW190 is doing a lot of unecesary turning which will always benefit any chasing plane (in this case the Spitfire)

I find it very easy to escape a Spitfire V by diving in a 109F4. In my opinon its even easier in a FW190A4, as long as you have not let the speed drop to very low levels when you begin the dive.

DKoor
09-07-2007, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Try and keep the FW190 as straight as possible in the dive, every turn, however small, benefits the chasing plane. +1

That is very true.

It would be true even if 190 chases the Spit.

The more jinking victim does teh more screwed he is.

Blutarski2004
09-07-2007, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Try and keep the FW190 as straight as possible in the dive, every turn, however small, benefits the chasing plane. +1

That is very true.

It would be true even if 190 chases the Spit.

The more jinking victim does teh more screwed he is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



..... Just a question - how would a spiral dive fit in as an evasion tactic in this case?

JG14_Josf
09-07-2007, 01:30 PM
The main reason that the FW190 is having trouble outdiving the SPitfire in this track is all the corners and turning.

X3,

Your authoritative diagnosis of my presentation is interesting considering the fact that half the time during the testing process I flew the Spitfire and the other half of the session my good friend Hertt flew the Spitfire as we both tested over and over again to see which plane accelerated faster and decelerated slower.

Since you have the amazing ability to refute what I conclude to be true based upon the tests conducted by me and Hertt (and Hertt found the same conclusion), since your amazing ability is so accurate, I find it difficult, but possible, to repeat the same challenge to you – again.

Show me.

Show me how you are right, again, and I am wrong – again as we both prove how right you are, again, with an on-line sessions recorded with track files just like the one presented with the .jpg file (the file you use to diagnose everything you claim in your words):

These words:


The main reason that the FW190 is having trouble outdiving the SPitfire in this track is all the corners and turning.

Neither plane had any ˜trouble' out-diving the other plane which is clear in the presentation.

We, Hertt and I, tried different methods and we had a lot of fun doing so even though we both already knew how these two planes stacked up in the game since we both fly both types in the game.

The game is not anything like reality when looking at primary source information documented from WWII wartime tests when these planes were tested side by side for accurate quantification of relative performance capabilities even if you wish to claim otherwise – again.

Does repetition make false true?


The main reason that the FW190 is having trouble outdiving the SPitfire in this track is all the corners and turning.

When you find someone to test the tests I conducted like I conducted my tests with my friends, then, you can comment on the tests I conducted like I conducted my tests, or, you can continue to repeat your opinion concerning the .jpg file I use to communicate the test results.

Anytime you run out of people to test with look me up. I'll hook you up with someone if I am not currently available. Hertt is a good player. He may offer his services for you to teach him which plane dominates.

Thanks.


Try and keep the FW190 as straight as possible in the dive, every turn, however small, benefits the chasing plane. Judging by the smoke on those tracks, the FW190 is doing a lot of unecesary turning which will always benefit any chasing plane (in this case the Spitfire)

Oh...more expert analysis based upon your superior perspective concerning the tests done by Hertt and I, so, a response is OK – right?

Hertt and I spent awhile restarting the coop mission used to generate the track file used to generate the presentation (.jpg file). We practiced the routine over and over again.

We start side by side (sometimes). We start one ahead of the other (sometimes). We form up sometimes and other times we simply race down from the moment we spawn.

We race down to a ship on the water from the same height.

We compete to see who can pull out closest to the ship.

We race to see who will zoom highest.

We repeat. We repeat again. We switch planes. We repeat again – and again.

We learn which plane does what with whom at the stick.

At first I managed to top out higher than Hertt no matter which plane Hertt flew but that soon changed once Hertt understood the routine where unloading during the dive and unloading during the climb and minimizing the time spent turning (pulling through the turn as fast as possible just under black out) won the race to a higher altitude.

We conducted a good experiment. We concluded a reasonable conclusion based upon our experimentation and if you wish to comment on our experiment, then, you may be in a position to do so but, and you can ignore this like everything else you ignore, you won't be able to comment as accurately as you can if you conduct the experiment yourself with another player – but you can go on believing that you can – of course.

Hertt, I, and anyone else conducting the test will conclude that the game does not simulate the actual tests conducted in WWII.

Such as:


Climb:
The climb of the Fw 190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights. The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same, but the angle of the Fw 190 is considerably steeper. Under maximum continuous climbing conditions the climb of the Fw 190 is about 450 ft/min better up to 25,000 feet [7,620 m]. With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the Fw 190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled into a climb from a dive, the Fw 190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it.

Dive
Comparative dives between the two aircraft have shown that the Fw 190 can leave the Spitfire with ease, particularly during the initial stages.

The Fw 190 has better acceleration under all conditions of flight and this must obviously be useful in combat


When I talk with my new friend about doing more tests with the TA-152 (we conducted take off roll tests so far) I tell him with the utmost confidence that no one cares about the facts except those people who find out the facts so, and again, I advise him to waste no more time trying to convince anyone else about anything concerning the game and the actual evidence (including more data concerning take off-roll distance).

I site my extensive tests conducted relative to the Fw190A-4 and the Spitfire VB (1941). We even did a few dive and zoom tests but nothing as extensive as my tests done with Hertt; the tests that you have suddenly become an expert on.

Take-off roll test results are as revealing as the dive and zoom tests.

The Fw 190A in the game does not simulate the initial acceleration advantage that was often mentioned in history from many primary sources.

The Fw 190 A in the game does not simulate the inability to decelerate as the primary source confirms as follows:


FORMATION FLYING
....but care must be taken to avoid over-shooting as its clean lines make deceleration slow.


The Fw190A has more thrust, higher density, cleaner aerodynamics, smaller size, and greater acceleration under all conditions of flight in reality according to the primary source documentation. If a player does not want to know this; then a player can unknown these facts as he wishes.

What is the point in repeating this same argument over and over again?

Why not do the test yourself if you really want to be an authority on the test?

Again:


Dive
Comparative dives between the two aircraft have shown that the Fw 190 can leave the Spitfire with ease, particularly during the initial stages.


Hertt and I conducted many dive tests to see if either of us could get ahead of the other one in either plane and our conclusion is reflected in the .jpg file taken from one of the track files we both recorded.

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2Flugbuch/DiveZoomTest1b.jpg

The time between 0 and 21 seconds in that particular test of many (nearly the same result every time after an initial refinement of the test process) is shown in the .jpg file.

The time between 0 and 21 seconds is a dive test.


Dive
Comparative dives between the two aircraft have shown that the Fw 190 can leave the Spitfire with ease, particularly during the initial stages.


The Fw190 is denser.
The Fw190 has more thrust.
The Fw190 is smaller.
The Fw190 is cleaner in aerodynamic design.

The time between 0 and 21 seconds does not reflect the historical record as:


Dive
Comparative dives between the two aircraft have shown that the Fw 190 can leave the Spitfire with ease, particularly during the initial stages.


Next:


When both aircraft are pulled into a climb from a dive, the Fw 190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it.
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2Flugbuch/DiveZoomTest1.jpg

Between 21 seconds and the end of the test (when both aircraft stalled at the same time) both aircraft were pulled into a climb from a dive followed by a race to see which plane slowed down faster. The results repeated over and over again the same no matter which player flew which plane. The .jpg represents the test results. The test can be repeated by anyone – anytime.


Dive
Comparative dives between the two aircraft have shown that the Fw 190 can leave the Spitfire with ease, particularly during the initial stages.



When both aircraft are pulled into a climb from a dive, the Fw 190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it.

The Fw190A-4 (the game) is a superior model to the Fw190A-3 tested by the British.

The Spitfire VB (1941) in the game is an inferior model to the Spitfire VB (June 1942) tested by the British in June 1942.


Dive
Comparative dives between the two aircraft have shown that the Fw 190 can leave the Spitfire with ease, particularly during the initial stages.



When both aircraft are pulled into a climb from a dive, the Fw 190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it.

When I advise my new friend about the futility of trying to communicate to people who chose to remain ignorant I may actually inspire an embrace of this knowledge. Then again I may fail.

What can I say? Don't call me late for dinner.

JG14_Josf
09-07-2007, 01:46 PM
A small group who move from board to board fighting with each other.

No need to single out individuals.

How about singling out an individual who goes around complaining about a small group who move from board to board fighting with each other (starting yet another thing to fight about)?

That would be a small group which includes the player named Faustnik who asks people to leave his forum when he doesn't like being called on his hypocrisies.

See how this works? Rather than contribute to the topic the idea is to stir things up by blaming everything on a few individuals who go from board to board with their off-topic troll subjects; like blaming everyone for the actions of a few rather than naming the few and naming the exact things the few does to start fights.

Like; going from board to board blaming everyone for their own actions as if they are some innocent bystander guilty of nothing.

faustnik
09-07-2007, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:That would be a small group which includes the player named Faustnik who asks people to leave his forum when he doesn't like being called on his hypocrisies.

I've only asked one person to leave, and that was for being repeatedly obnoxious on the forum. That person left, as they said they would, which I respect. If they are still hurt by that, I'm sorry, but, it worked out for the best.

JG14_Josf
09-07-2007, 03:45 PM
No need to single out individuals.

Brain32
09-07-2007, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
(This is an honest question, and not a jab at anyone.)

Do you guys really enjoy picking at each other all the time on the forums? Is it kind of a game within the game?

Yes we do, it's a keyboard dogfight http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/typing.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

luftluuver
09-07-2007, 04:25 PM
So what does the Fw190A have to do with the Ta152H and the promised testing of the Ta152H? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

JG14_Josf
09-07-2007, 05:12 PM
When I talk with my new friend about doing more tests with the TA-152 (we conducted take off roll tests so far) I tell him with the utmost confidence that no one cares about the facts except those people who find out the facts so, and again, I advise him to waste no more time trying to convince anyone else about anything concerning the game and the actual evidence (including more data concerning take off-roll distance).

Of course a promise may have been made and I can't speak for anyone concerning such promise. You can conduct your inquisition as you see fit - of course.

luftluuver
09-07-2007, 05:46 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Of course a promise may have been made and I can't speak for anyone concerning such promise. You can conduct your inquisition as you see fit - of course.

Not "may have been made" but was.

Aug 8 2007

Josf, lets show these guys what we unearthed ages ago by now, I'm free the next 3 days. (Thats if TAGERT & Roland can wait that long)

Your reply, Aug 8 2007

I'm up for it – again.

So where are these originals posted?

Xiolablu3
09-07-2007, 05:55 PM
I am not saying anyone is wrong - I offered advice for a FW190A4 pilot who wants to outrun the Spitfire Vb in a dive.


If I remember, and play a map online which includes these two planes, I will try and remember to record a track of the many times I leave a SPitfire Vb floudering behind in a dive. Which is seriously around 99% of the time - they just cannot catch me. Its the same when I am in a 109F4 - I love that plane.

robban75
09-08-2007, 02:53 AM
Climb time. Ta 152H-1, full fuel, full power(no MW50 or GM-1), cowl flaps auto. Crimea map. Climb speed, ~280km/h IAS.

1000 - 1:00
2000 - 1:57
3000 - 2:58
4000 - 4:04
5000 - 5:07
6000 - 6:11
7000 - 7:40
8000 - 9:23
9000 - 11:14
10,000 - 12:57

Climb time. Ta 152H-1, full fuel, full power(using MW50 or GM-1), cowl flaps auto. Crimea map. Climb speed, ~280km/h IAS.

1000 - 0:47
2000 - 1:39
3000 - 2:31
4000 - 3:20
5000 - 4:16
6000 - 5:22
7000 - 6:37
8000 - 7:55
9000 - 9:15
10,000 - 10:59

AKA_TAGERT
09-08-2007, 08:13 AM
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 JG14_Josf:
Of course a promise may have been made and I can't speak for anyone concerning such promise. You can conduct your inquisition as you see fit - of course.

Not "may have been made" but was.

Aug 8 2007

Josf, lets show these guys what we unearthed ages ago by now, I'm free the next 3 days. (Thats if TAGERT & Roland can wait that long)

Your reply, Aug 8 2007

I'm up for it – again.

So where are these originals posted? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I would like to know too.. Appears Bellatard_1 has left the building once again.

DKoor
09-08-2007, 09:03 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Try and keep the FW190 as straight as possible in the dive, every turn, however small, benefits the chasing plane. +1

That is very true.

It would be true even if 190 chases the Spit.

The more jinking victim does teh more screwed he is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



..... Just a question - how would a spiral dive fit in as an evasion tactic in this case? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Spitfire being destroyed much faster than with normal Spitfire turning evasion?

JG14_Josf
09-08-2007, 10:30 AM
So where are these originals posted?

Inquisition,

When I get a call from someone who requests my participation in some endeavor I usually accept such a proposition on my terms.

Is that sentence too difficult to understand?

My friend and I often talk and we tend to lose focus on superfluous bull$hit when there are so many neat things to talk about like Music, Physics, Science, Cars, Airplanes, Current Events, Space Travel, etc.

So...if you are looking to hang someone up on a cross somewhere and you are targeting my friend and I for some nebulous crime, then, you got us. We are ever so guilty.

In fact our test results that we did do were so convincing to me that I felt no need to share my knowledge with anyone other than the one person who expressed an interest in this knowledge. I can say with confidence that my aversion for futility has spread and this is why my friend adjusted his priorities away from a futile crusade.

Name calling is an interesting and childish game for children; some of us, unfortunately, grow up. Nanny nanny poo poo.

Nice climb charts too – thanks.

http://aycu39.webshots.com/image/24158/2006129634914141768_fs.jpg


The take-off of the TA 152H-1 was shorter than that of the Spitfire XIX and the climb was steeper albeit somewhat slower than that of the British fighter, but once the 30,000 ft (9 145 m) mark had slopped past on the altimeter, the Tank fighter gave the impression of holding its rate of climb better than its British counterpart. In so far as manoeuvrability was concerned, the story was very much the same; the Spitfire was certainly the better of the two below 30,000 ft (9 145 m), there being little to choose between British and German fighters between that altitude and 35,000 ft (10 670 m), but above the latter altitude the TA 152H-1 enjoyed a decided edge. I gave the German fighter its head on the way to Brize Norton and did a full throttle run at 35,000 ft (10 670 m), which, by my rough reckoning, worked out at around 425 mph (684 km/h), or about 35 mph (56 km/h) less than the Spitfire XIX was capable of, but, of course, the availability of GM 1 boost would have more than redressed the balance and the TA 152H-1 was certainly the superior aeroplane on the score of range. In essence, however, these two potential opponents were remarkably close from many aspects, illustrating how closely parallel Britain and Germany were running in piston-engined fighter technology.


- we had no GM 1 or MW 50 at Farnborough! Nevertheless, lack of nitrous oxide and methanol-water notwithstanding...

luftluuver
09-08-2007, 01:41 PM
You really aren't all there between the ears are you Josf?

JG14_Josf
09-08-2007, 01:55 PM
You really aren't all there between the ears are you Josf?

Troll,

If you are looking for an example of what a troll does, then, look no further.