PDA

View Full Version : Manual prop pitch in combat



Grendel-B
10-10-2005, 01:49 AM
From a closed thread:



You said;
"since many experienced pilots did indeed take advantage of it"

Infact there is doubt that many used it at all other than that when cruising to conserve fuel and start and takeoff. (many Finns seemingly used auto-pitch at takeoff and landing aswell.
I remember that one Finn, in some of my gathered intervies, stated that he never switched to manual pitch)

I have not found a single account of a German pilot using Manual pitch in combat (yet), but several where they stated they only used autopitch in combat. (still searching)


Here is an interesting source:

Spitfire on my tail, by Ulrich Steinhilper


Page 303
Of special importance was teaching them (new pilots) how to change the pitich of their propeller to get maximum pull from the engine at high altitude. ... It was vital they mastered this technique if they were to keep up in a battle climb at high altitude.

...

It was obvious that he wasn't manipulating the pitch control with the skill of the more seasoned to pilots to produce the same ower as our machines. ... Eventually Kuhle told him to leave the formation and return to base (as the new pilot was not able to keep pace with the older pilots, who were able to produce much more power from their 109s than the new guy).

Footnote 5, page 306
"This technique of varying the throttle setting and pitch led to constant rising and falling os engine speed. One of the observations of people in Britain was that you could tell which aircraft were German and which British, because the German engine noise seemed to be rising and ralling, unline the British engines which seemdd to remain constant.

Get that book. It is filled with amazing hand'n'foot flying stuff, and gives clear vision that experienced pilots were contantly using manual controls in their Emils to get maximum "pull from the engine" in climb and combat.

Cheers,
Grendel

Codex1971
10-10-2005, 02:31 AM
And this is why the manual prop pitch function should not be touched, modified or removed in the sim.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Gwihair
10-10-2005, 02:36 AM
If I am not mistaken, the problem is not wether the manual prop pitch was used or not, but the way it is modelled in the game.

As far as i know, the manual setting of the prop pitch is modelled this way in the game.

1. You can switch from automatic (default mode) to manual with a key.
2. Once you get in manual mode, the game reads the value of an axis.
3. If you get back to automatic, the game reverts to automatic settings, as it should be.

This makes it possible for soemone to set the axis value to a high setting and switch quickly on/off the automatic mode, in order to get a boost with no overrev problem.

Now this is the way it SHOULD work to perform just like it did in the Bf109.

1. You should be able to switch from manual to automatic and back with a key. When you turn on the manual mode, the prop uses the setting it had in automatic mode.
2a. One KEY should allow an increase in prop pitch.
2b. One KEY should allow an decrease in prop pitch.

In reality there was a two-ways swith, you had to repeat switch strikes to modify the prop pitch.

The manual prop pitch exploit is only possible besause the prop pitch can be set to an axis for the Bf109. If it was modelled correctly, it would be difficult to change quickly from one setting to another.

With the correct modelling, the prop pitch setting would only be set to manual for cruise flight and not in combat.

Regards.

Abbuzze
10-10-2005, 03:18 AM
Originally posted by Gwihair:


Now this is the way it SHOULD work to perform just like it did in the Bf109.

1. You should be able to switch from manual to automatic and back with a key. When you turn on the manual mode, the prop uses the setting it had in automatic mode.
2a. One KEY should allow an increase in prop pitch.
2b. One KEY should allow an decrease in prop pitch.

In reality there was a two-ways swith, you had to repeat switch strikes to modify the prop pitch.

The manual prop pitch exploit is only possible besause the prop pitch can be set to an axis for the Bf109. If it was modelled correctly, it would be difficult to change quickly from one setting to another.

With the correct modelling, the prop pitch setting would only be set to manual for cruise flight and not in combat.

Regards.

And this would be much better, cause without a stickwheel you can´t switch to manual setting at 100% power in flight, cause default pitch is 100% so your engine is overreving immediatly. The time you need to lower the pitch is mostly to long - the engine will be damaged.

Bartolomeo_ita
10-10-2005, 04:06 AM
Originally posted by Abbuzze:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gwihair:


Now this is the way it SHOULD work to perform just like it did in the Bf109.

1. You should be able to switch from manual to automatic and back with a key. When you turn on the manual mode, the prop uses the setting it had in automatic mode.
2a. One KEY should allow an increase in prop pitch.
2b. One KEY should allow an decrease in prop pitch.

In reality there was a two-ways swith, you had to repeat switch strikes to modify the prop pitch.

The manual prop pitch exploit is only possible besause the prop pitch can be set to an axis for the Bf109. If it was modelled correctly, it would be difficult to change quickly from one setting to another.

With the correct modelling, the prop pitch setting would only be set to manual for cruise flight and not in combat.

Regards.

And this would be much better, cause without a stickwheel you can´t switch to manual setting at 100% power in flight, cause default pitch is 100% so your engine is overreving immediatly. The time you need to lower the pitch is mostly to long - the engine will be damaged. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

that's the problem ... :\

Gwihair
10-10-2005, 04:28 AM
Originally posted by Abbuzze:
And this would be much better, cause without a stickwheel you can´t switch to manual setting at 100% power in flight, cause default pitch is 100% so your engine is overreving immediatly. The time you need to lower the pitch is mostly to long - the engine will be damaged.
The way people presently use the exploit (rapid switch on/off succession), they get the boost and not the overrev...

With keystrokes the changes would be slower one way and the other, one should be extra cautious in its use, as it should be...

I hope alll the players will agree to replace the present system with this one.

Bartolomeo_ita
10-10-2005, 07:06 AM
a good way to fix it is set picht to ZERO after ON

p1ngu666
10-10-2005, 08:44 AM
the early emils had manual pitch only http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

so clearly, the pilots would haveto use manual pitch, as there wasnt a auto http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

imagine a pilot tryin to use auto when it wasnt there... all the other pilots call him n00b.

and there be 2 mechanics, and 1 goes to the other, "why is that pilot not doing anything?" the other replies that hes abit special...
"hero of teh luftwaffe?"
ahh no.

F19_Ob
10-10-2005, 09:19 AM
Thanks for the tip Grendel. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

my wife thought i needed some new reading so she ordered it today.

interesting is how little info we in this forum have gathered about the prop pitch use in these years. it must be very scarse in the litterature aswell since many researchers have no clue either and few forum members have had anything to contribute about this issue.

post more info and sources if u gott'em. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

DaimonSyrius
10-10-2005, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
the early emils had manual pitch only http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

so clearly, the pilots would haveto use manual pitch, as there wasnt a auto http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

imagine a pilot tryin to use auto when it wasnt there... all the other pilots call him n00b.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
Spot on, and funnily too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Thanks for the laugh within the explanation, pingu http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

F19_Ob
10-10-2005, 10:10 AM
Addition to my above post:

The manual and auto proppitch issue is very important to know about for me, since it gives explanations and further questions about its performance.

# How much impact did the manual prop in the 109e have in the whole german doctrin to BnZ as main tactic? Manipulating the proppitch in turnfighting where speed varies constantly must have required a lot more of the pilot than careful BnZ where less proppitch input was required?


# When the auto proppitch came, did the pilots still switch to manual pitch in combat? and in wich situations?
I've read about German and Finnish pilots who left pitch on auto for the whole flight. Was that the common thing?

I have a lot more questions similar to these.
My own research goes slowly but I still got a few years ahead of me I think http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Gwihair
10-10-2005, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by Bartolomeo_ita:
a good way to fix it is set picht to ZERO after ON This would fix nothing, as exploiters would use the cheat by first mapping the prop pitch to a (virtual) axis, set its value to max and get back to the old cheating on/off sequence.

The only way to fix it is to forbid the mapping to an axis for the planes such as the Bf109.

There should be simply three keys :

1. Auto/manual switch
2. Increase (manual) prop pitch
3. Decrease (manual) prop pitch

All poeple wanting the status quo simply use the cheat and want the exploit to live on...

p1ngu666
10-10-2005, 10:48 AM
Originally posted by F19_Ob:
Addition to my above post:

The manual and auto proppitch issue is very important to know about for me, since it gives explanations and further questions about its performance.

# How much impact did the manual prop in the 109e have in the whole german doctrin to BnZ as main tactic? Manipulating the proppitch in turnfighting where speed varies constantly must have required a lot more of the pilot than careful BnZ where less proppitch input was required?


# When the auto proppitch came, did the pilots still switch to manual pitch in combat? and in wich situations?
I've read about German and Finnish pilots who left pitch on auto for the whole flight. Was that the common thing?

I have a lot more questions similar to these.
My own research goes slowly but I still got a few years ahead of me I think http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

auto is simiply much better at everything pretty much. the main advantage of proppitch ingame is the overrev, funnnily enuff irl u wouldnt want to overrev the engine.
in 109 u got engine, then teh cannon and mg and then its u. personaly id rather not cause a massive engine failure with something thats a metre at most away, and inbetween theres a large amount of explosive. and your settin on 400litres of fuel(well, probabably less but..)

on the 110 a cylinder head might make a bid for freedom, crash thru your greenhouse and into your head, a decapitated body with a knights cross with fig leaves or whatever was somewhat frowned apon. cant sport silly facial hair, if u dont have a face http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Pinker15
10-10-2005, 10:52 AM
Originally posted by Abbuzze:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gwihair:


Now this is the way it SHOULD work to perform just like it did in the Bf109.

1. You should be able to switch from manual to automatic and back with a key. When you turn on the manual mode, the prop uses the setting it had in automatic mode.
2a. One KEY should allow an increase in prop pitch.
2b. One KEY should allow an decrease in prop pitch.

In reality there was a two-ways swith, you had to repeat switch strikes to modify the prop pitch.

The manual prop pitch exploit is only possible besause the prop pitch can be set to an axis for the Bf109. If it was modelled correctly, it would be difficult to change quickly from one setting to another.

With the correct modelling, the prop pitch setting would only be set to manual for cruise flight and not in combat.

Regards.

And this would be much better, cause without a stickwheel you can´t switch to manual setting at 100% power in flight, cause default pitch is 100% so your engine is overreving immediatly. The time you need to lower the pitch is mostly to long - the engine will be damaged. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

U are wrong Abbuze. Before turning off auto mode U can set propeler pitch for any setting U want. For example U can set to 70% first and next switch pitch to manual mode without risk of burning engine at full power. Problem with manual pitch is that for short time U can on manual reach 3500 rpm. and get big bost without blowing engine. Most fun is that when U turn off overheating in server settings U can fly on 3500 rpm all the time and never damage engine. It shows clearly how manual pitch works here.

p1ngu666
10-10-2005, 11:06 AM
u can massivily overrev without overheat, sounds cool then goes silent http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

u dont go very fast tho http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Pinker15
10-10-2005, 11:22 AM
Sorry but I use manual prop everyday verry often and I notice that I can reach 3500 rpm for 1 sec withotut risc of overrev. Next I need to switch to auto wait 15 sec for rpm return to normal mode and again I can use manual. Until my engine is cool there is small risc of damage engine. If engine is overheating I can use manual upto 3000 rpm. Please turn off in game settings overheating and U will see that U never cant damage engine on manual.

DaimonSyrius
10-10-2005, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by Pinker15:
Sorry but I use manual prop everyday verry often and I notice that I can reach 3500 rpm for 1 sec withotut risc of overrev. Next I need to switch to auto wait 15 sec for rpm return to normal mode and again I can use manual. Until my engine is cool there is small risc of damage engine. If engine is overheating I can use manual upto 3000 rpm. Please turn off in game settings overheating and U will see that U never cant damage engine on manual.

Good posting Pinker15 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif you've managed to show in just a few lines how that way of using the manual/auto cycling is really a 'gaming' thing, rather than any (known) real-world physics/mechanics, not to mention sensible pilot judgement, as pingu pointed at. I bet that's why 1C:Maddox said they were working on a better modelling of that particular issue http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif That's assuming that they were referring to the Bf109, which Oleg_Maddox didn't specify in his post, IIRC.

My guess is that the possibility to switch between manual and auto will not be removed, and that they will just fix somehow the current ability for the pilot to tap the button in that 1s/15s cycle you just described, and to keep doing that for ages at no mechanical cost. Just a guess, though.

S.

jeroen-79
10-10-2005, 01:49 PM
The issue doesn't sound like an interface-problem but a physics-problem to me.

Alternating between automatic pitch (presume this sets pitch at 'medium') and manual pitch (presume this sets pitch at 'maximum') would be like rapidly yanking the pitch lever from 'medium' to 'high'.

The engine's thrust, RPM, temperature and wear would not be controlled by how prop pitch is regulated but by prop pitch itself.

p1ngu666
10-10-2005, 02:20 PM
iirec, irl when u switched to manual, the auto mechnism stopped. *but* say your at 50% pitch on auto, change to manual it will stay at 50% untill u change it.
so the current switch thing some do shouldnt actully be possible anyways. ie insta over rev and therefor boost..

surpose u could switch really fast, but u wouldnt really be doing much.

Buzzsaw-
10-10-2005, 02:28 PM
Salute

There is nothing wrong with having manual pitch on the German aircraft which historically had it. (although the allied aircraft also had the option to use it in the same way, something which is not possible in the game)

The real issue is that certain German aicraft can over rev their engines while in manual pitch mode, and not suffer any penalty.

For example, the later 109's can routinely rev to 3000 rpm, and not suffer ill effects. The historical aircraft's engines, (especially the highly boosted models) were much more fragile.

If Oleg can eliminate this anomaly, then he will eliminate many of the problems associated with the 109's FM.

Historically, the manual pitch mode was used in climbouts, when enemy aircraft were not in the area, as for example when a Gruppe was climbing from their airfield to set up for an interception of a B-17 formation.

Once aircraft got into combat, manual pitch was not used. (except for the 109E's which of course, had no auto mode)

Abbuzze
10-10-2005, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

There is nothing wrong with having manual pitch on the German aircraft which historically had it. (although the allied aircraft also had the option to use it in the same way, something which is not possible in the game)

The real issue is that certain German aicraft can over rev their engines while in manual pitch mode, and not suffer any penalty.

For example, the later 109's can routinely rev to 3000 rpm, and not suffer ill effects. The historical aircraft's engines, (especially the highly boosted models) were much more fragile.

If Oleg can eliminate this anomaly, then he will eliminate many of the problems associated with the 109's FM.

Historically, the manual pitch mode was used in climbouts, when enemy aircraft were not in the area, as for example when a Gruppe was climbing from their airfield to set up for an interception of a B-17 formation.

Once aircraft got into combat, manual pitch was not used. (except for the 109E's which of course, had no auto mode)

The Problem is that the CEM http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif need a complete overhoul! Even planes with CSP could overrev in dives, did it ever happend in this sim? Hmm yes heard such things about FW190 in one patch but it´s some time ago.

bolillo_loco
10-10-2005, 07:46 PM
I think the problem that everybody seems to have with it is this.

In the Bf-109 for example, I can use cem to gain nearly a 50% increase in its rate of climb. Last time I checked I could climb 6,500 FPM. No other aircraft in this game can benifit from this like the Bf-109. Even though many american aircraft also had manual prop pitch, it cannot even be used.

Gwihair
10-10-2005, 11:33 PM
Originally posted by jeroen-79:
The issue doesn't sound like an interface-problem but a physics-problem to me.

Alternating between automatic pitch (presume this sets pitch at 'medium') and manual pitch (presume this sets pitch at 'maximum') would be like rapidly yanking the pitch lever from 'medium' to 'high'.

The engine's thrust, RPM, temperature and wear would not be controlled by how prop pitch is regulated but by prop pitch itself. There was no such lever in a Bf109...

Just a two-ways switch that allowed the pilot to change the prop pitch by multiple clicks.

Gwihair
10-10-2005, 11:59 PM
Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
I think the problem that everybody seems to have with it is this.

In the Bf-109 for example, I can use cem to gain nearly a 50% increase in its rate of climb. Last time I checked I could climb 6,500 FPM. No other aircraft in this game can benifit from this like the Bf-109. Even though many american aircraft also had manual prop pitch, it cannot even be used.
In fact, there are two problems.

1. The prop pitch control in the Bf109 was not that easy. You needed to use a two-ways switch by clicking. So the "clock" instrument was very important to tell the pilot wich position the prop pitch had. The pilot could not simply set a lever at a certain position as in other planes. It also made changes quite slow and restricted the use of prop pitch to non combat situations. So there should no axis mapping possible for prop pitch in the Bf109.

2. Manual prop pitch performances are mostly unknown. As far as I know, the charts all give the performance for auto-pitch for the Bf109. So the performances obtained with the manual prop pitch are largely guesswork. Am I wrong on this one ?

Regards.

FritzGryphon
10-11-2005, 12:03 AM
In the Bf-109 for example, I can use cem to gain nearly a 50% increase in its rate of climb. Last time I checked I could climb 6,500 FPM. No other aircraft in this game can benifit from this like the Bf-109. Even though many american aircraft also had manual prop pitch, it cannot even be used.



I've also tested climb to 6000m in the 109G2. The best improvement I managed was ~5% with manual pitch, as opposed to the same test with auto.

You got an improvement 10 times what I could. Got track?

EDIT------------------------------

I re-did it with 109K4. Climb from SL to 3000m. Crimea, noon, 100% fuel, 110% power w/ MW50.

I tried to peg the RPM between 3000-3200 in manual. Any higher and it breaks down.

Auto: 1:48 (27.8 m/s)
Manual: 1:41 (29.7 m/s)

A total of 6% improvement in climb rate.

tracks: http://members.shaw.ca/evilgryphon3/climb.zip
----------------------

Not 50% improvement. Not close. If the player somehow managed to maintain 3200 RPM exactly, they may get another percentage point. Impossible in my case, as my wheel seems to change the pitch 2% at a time.

I also found that, even to maintain 3000RPM, was very hard. On two occasions I accidentally turned the wheel a bit too far and poof, engine toast. Immediate, with no warning. The engine RPM also fluctuates upward as you ascend, and you have to constantly adjust the pitch.

Anyone using this would have to be staring at the tachometer. There's no other effective way to do it. You could do it by ear, acepting lower RPMs and the risk of destruction, but your gains would only be 2-3%. In both cases, you could only do it in a well controlled, constant-rate climb. In both cases, it would completely occupy your attention, making any SA impossible.

I think people using this exploit are deluding themselves at to what they're gaining.

FALK13
10-11-2005, 03:35 AM
now thats the first post in this threat that sound somewhat profund in terms of the simulation ingame.
we are discussing an advantage of 5-6% which is gained while loosing SA !

So the only conclusion is:
it isn´t worth to change!

skyiced
10-11-2005, 03:36 AM
All poeple wanting the status quo simply use the cheat and want the exploit to live on...

I have not yet gotten into this at all in the game. but the few seconds it would take a pilot to switch to manuel and set the pitch would be just that a few seconds. in game its instant the difference of a few seconds. so quick your belly aching. its a game error that buys the pilot the power he should have 2 or 3 seconds before he should have it.

Learn how to fly and you wont get waxed so often. and stop whining. since its not an exploit. its the aircrafts design. and the games design flaw.

Pinker15
10-11-2005, 03:56 AM
I tested differences between climbing on auto and manual too. Crimea map 100% fuel 109G2. I start climb from 1000 up to 5000 m. I start count time from 2000 m and end at 5000m. I think Fritz do something wrong when he climb on manual bacause I reach 34.4% higher climb rate on manual than on auto mode. On manual I was climbing from 2000m to 5000m in 1.41 min. The same on auto took me 2.15 min. In meters it equals for about 700m alt difference between manual and auto at the same time. This is verry big difference.I have tracks but have no idea how to post it any ideas ?

Mysha76
10-11-2005, 04:11 AM
Gryphon is right.Same observation. Onlene tests with friends.

Using manual pitch has "only" two reasons for me:
-in horizontal turns, or in other maneuvers with big energy consuption, I can gain a little speed. Sometimes it is very crucial. But IMO not historical. Just like crazy behavior of all AC in game at slow, stall speeds. How to say it... Defensive maneuvers are abou energy fighting too: for example how to take away energy from your oponents. In game all ACs have uber slow speed behavior and can keep fighting at speeds under 200km/h. I can take away energy from my enemy, but he si still able move with his plane effectively, or he gain very quickly speed about 200-220 km/h again. And pitch is sometimes only way how to cope with it - how to fight at slow speeds with good wing-load ratio planes. I dont need propitch in case of better FM, where planes are more like bricks at slow speeds and hard maneuvers are risky. Because I will defense myself thanks to normal physical laws.

-or I use pitch for better acceleration after lost of speed. Without prop.pitch (not only) Bf partly lost his historical advantage against some planes.
Differencies in acceleration of all AC are present in game, but IMO are small.

Changing prop.pitch exploit is good, but it is
only half-way solution. We need more changes.
For example Tagerts tests show general bug in game about uber slow speed roll-rates. I thing, it is one syndrom of bigger problem I mentioned: the UFO-slow speed charecteristics of FM in game
(version 4,xx is good way after all these years)

JG53Frankyboy
10-11-2005, 04:55 AM
Originally posted by Gwihair:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jeroen-79:
The issue doesn't sound like an interface-problem but a physics-problem to me.

Alternating between automatic pitch (presume this sets pitch at 'medium') and manual pitch (presume this sets pitch at 'maximum') would be like rapidly yanking the pitch lever from 'medium' to 'high'.

The engine's thrust, RPM, temperature and wear would not be controlled by how prop pitch is regulated but by prop pitch itself. There was no such lever in a Bf109...

Just a two-ways switch that allowed the pilot to change the prop pitch by multiple clicks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

actually the early Emils had such a lever on their cockpit panel , and that is how it is designed in game http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif the white lever on the central cockpit panel is the prop-pitth lever- it just dont move http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif .
later emils changed to the switch on the throttle.

Pinker15
10-11-2005, 05:30 AM
Originally posted by Mysha76:
Gryphon is right.Same observation. Onlene tests with friends.

Using manual pitch has "only" two reasons for me:
-in horizontal turns, or in other maneuvers with big energy consuption, I can gain a little speed. Sometimes it is very crucial. But IMO not historical. Just like crazy behavior of all AC in game at slow, stall speeds. How to say it... Defensive maneuvers are abou energy fighting too: for example how to take away energy from your oponents. In game all ACs have uber slow speed behavior and can keep fighting at speeds under 200km/h. I can take away energy from my enemy, but he si still able move with his plane effectively, or he gain very quickly speed about 200-220 km/h again. And pitch is sometimes only way how to cope with it - how to fight at slow speeds with good wing-load ratio planes. I dont need propitch in case of better FM, where planes are more like bricks at slow speeds and hard maneuvers are risky. Because I will defense myself thanks to normal physical laws.

-or I use pitch for better acceleration after lost of speed. Without prop.pitch (not only) Bf partly lost his historical advantage against some planes.
Differencies in acceleration of all AC are present in game, but IMO are small.

Changing prop.pitch exploit is good, but it is
only half-way solution. We need more changes.
For example Tagerts tests show general bug in game about uber slow speed roll-rates. I thing, it is one syndrom of bigger problem I mentioned: the UFO-slow speed charecteristics of FM in game
(version 4,xx is good way after all these years)

First we must say that 109g2 was never can climb 35,4 m/s as it can do here. I agree with that planes behave here to good at too low speeds. I can understand that a little for planes with good wing loading ratio like Zero, Spitfire, Yak 3 but not for flying bricks like FW 190, P47, and in some part for 109. Someone can say that 109 was have wing slats so that what 109 can do here is correct. I dont agree with this. Slats can help but not so mutch to let 109 G2 manouver succesfully at extremaly low speeds with Yak or Spitfire. In real situation manouver fight on 109 was never possible against planes like Spitfire as we can do it here. I agree with that some planes have too slow roll rate especially FW 190 but from other hand on some planes we have too gentle stall too. FW 190 has surly too gentle stall.

skyiced
10-11-2005, 05:46 AM
and the same argument of poor fm and **** goes on.
cant we close this Whining and B****ing thread. The people seem to just not get it.

Bearcat99
10-11-2005, 07:00 AM
Originally posted by Abbuzze:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

There is nothing wrong with having manual pitch on the German aircraft which historically had it. (although the allied aircraft also had the option to use it in the same way, something which is not possible in the game)

The real issue is that certain German aicraft can over rev their engines while in manual pitch mode, and not suffer any penalty.

For example, the later 109's can routinely rev to 3000 rpm, and not suffer ill effects. The historical aircraft's engines, (especially the highly boosted models) were much more fragile.

If Oleg can eliminate this anomaly, then he will eliminate many of the problems associated with the 109's FM.

Historically, the manual pitch mode was used in climbouts, when enemy aircraft were not in the area, as for example when a Gruppe was climbing from their airfield to set up for an interception of a B-17 formation.

Once aircraft got into combat, manual pitch was not used. (except for the 109E's which of course, had no auto mode)

The Problem is that the CEM http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif need a complete overhoul! Even planes with CSP could overrev in dives, did it ever happend in this sim? Hmm yes heard such things about FW190 in one patch but it´s some time ago. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Buzz that is my only issue with the pitch here... even the planes with CSPs had some kind of pitch control from the pilots I have spoken to. One, who flew P-51Cs.. said that when you pushed that pitch knob forward you were pushed back in the seat.... not to me that sounds like acceleration.... not like what we have in the sim. The same thing with the mix... you could switch between auto and manual mixture.... most pilots kept it on auto for the most part.. less stuff to fiddle with.. but you did have the option. Thats how a lot of pilts made it home after long missions that stretched out a lkittle longer than anticipated.

Abbuze... actually I have overrevved... in a P-40 and a P-47..... I always lower my pitch in a steep dive..... of course I have to be care ful how I pull out.. especially in a Mustang.

p1ngu666
10-11-2005, 07:57 AM
send me track @ pingu666@ gmail.com

ill see what i can do about hostin http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Kocur_
10-11-2005, 08:44 AM
I was interested if there was really no way to gain something by pp in csp planes, so got in P-51D (50% fuel, Crimea, etc.) and tried acceleration at alt close to SL. What I did was switching from 100%pp to 0%pp for a moment and back again before rpm dropped too much. Recorded it and checked times to accelerate to speeds form 200kmh (speed bar) to 300kmh, than to 400kmh and 500kmh using stopwatch. Heres what I got:

............200-300......300-400.......400-500.....500-top
100pp.......11,9..........17,1..........34,4...... 1,16,6
100pp/0pp...11,5..........16,1..........27,9.......47,5

My method was of course too rough to make any conclusions, but looks promising. Could a professionalhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif tester try it please?

Brain32
10-11-2005, 09:44 AM
now thats the first post in this threat that sound somewhat profund in terms of the simulation ingame.
we are discussing an advantage of 5-6% which is gained while loosing SA !

So the only conclusion is:
it isn´t worth to change!

Yes that is true but look at the all that whines after 4.01 trying to cripple axis palnes as much as possible, they were no danger before 4.01 since one needed whole ammo loadout of 151/20 to down a plane(and even then there were complains about mk108 being too strong http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif).
Now this is just insane http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif, maybe those of us who dare to like axis planes should proclaim an "Allied whiner day" at which we would all go online and just fly straight http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif in a formation and let the whiners shoot as down all day http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Pinker15
10-11-2005, 10:06 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> now thats the first post in this threat that sound somewhat profund in terms of the simulation ingame.
we are discussing an advantage of 5-6% which is gained while loosing SA !

So the only conclusion is:
it isn´t worth to change!

Yes that is true but look at the all that whines after 4.01 trying to cripple axis palnes as much as possible, they were no danger before 4.01 since one needed whole ammo loadout of 151/20 to down a plane(and even then there were complains about mk108 being too strong http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif).
Now this is just insane http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif, maybe those of us who dare to like axis planes should proclaim an "Allied whiner day" at which we would all go online and just fly straight http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif in a formation and let the whiners shoot as down all day http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ofcourse Brain that 109 G2 climb 35m/s is right and anyone who point this out is just whiner. LOL.

p1ngu666
10-11-2005, 10:54 AM
109 is best at everything, be sure.

FatBoyHK
10-11-2005, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
I was interested if there was really no way to gain something by pp in csp planes, so got in P-51D (50% fuel, Crimea, etc.) and tried acceleration at alt close to SL. What I did was switching from 100%pp to 0%pp for a moment and back again before rpm dropped too much. Recorded it and checked times to accelerate to speeds form 200kmh (speed bar) to 300kmh, than to 400kmh and 500kmh using stopwatch. Heres what I got:

............200-300......300-400.......400-500.....500-top
100pp.......11,9..........17,1..........34,4...... 1,16,6
100pp/0pp...11,5..........16,1..........27,9.......47,5

My method was of course too rough to make any conclusions, but looks promising. Could a professionalhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif tester try it please?

I am very interested to see a further testing of this!!!

IL2-chuter
10-11-2005, 11:33 AM
My turn. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


The E-1 (109) had auto pitch ((VDM9-11081A). It wasn't as sophisticated as later versions, however. My guess is that pilots would use manual to closely adjust rpm as auto would let the rpm vary a bit before adjusting (hydraulics are constantly adjusting). If you were in level flight at redline and nosed up slightly, dropping maybe 50rpm (the governor wouldn't adjust pitch for this drop) then you could manually drop pitch to pick this rpm back up and go back to auto and maintain redline. Electric props are famous for having operating windows of rpm, some more and some less. (Later 109s had smaller ranges.) The reason for this is current load and heat. You don't want to drain your electrical system and you don't want to burn up your armature and brushes with your prop constantly running (there was normally a current operated brake -no current = brake on- that held the armature when not operating). Later systems improved electrical system efficiency and prop drive durability (the weight gain was now seen as acceptable) as well as faster pitch change so it would hold rpm closer.

What is missing -BIGTIME- is the full feathering prop on the 109.


"Even though many american aircraft also had manual prop pitch, it cannot even be used." bolillo_loco

Not sure what he means, really. Auto systems, whether German or American, are based on percentage rpm. (The 109 would constantly display actual blade angle.) With the prop control (the 109 worked off of throttle position, no seperate rpm selector) you select the rpm you want to maintain, like 100% (redline), and the governor would not let the engine overrev at all within the limits of pitch change speed (nosing over suddenly might cause an overrev before the pitch could adjust), electrics being slower. On American aircraft there wasn't a system (that I am aware of) to manually adjust the prop to a blade angle of the pilot's choice other than feather.

Brain32
10-11-2005, 12:05 PM
Well were are those "smartguy" tracks and test results? All I saw was a test showing a mere 5-6% advantage while at the same time completely loosing SA(that is if you can really call that advantage http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif)
The funniest thing is, I don't give a f*** if they remove the manual PP completely as when I fly the 109 I don't use it anyway http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
I don't think 109 is best at everything, actally I'm most dangerous(read competitive http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif) in a P47, but I just can't believe this every day effort to cut the 109 as much as possible...

p1ngu666
10-11-2005, 12:20 PM
i can curiously, feather the prop on a j8a..

Pinker15
10-11-2005, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
i can curiously, feather the prop on a j8a..
Thats nothing because I can block tailwell on P11. I have tracks showing how 109 g2 climb on manual 35m/s from 2000 up to 5000 without any damage to engine

p1ngu666
10-11-2005, 01:37 PM
share the wealth then http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
pingu666@ gmail.com

Pinker15
10-11-2005, 01:54 PM
pingu666@ gmail.com

here this two tracks

http://s53.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=28PIL0UGZJ9V225T9ZFRL2IVZV

http://s64.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=2UY3DFQL7MVA91K4TBGK9D6E64

jeroen-79
10-11-2005, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by Gwihair:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jeroen-79:
The issue doesn't sound like an interface-problem but a physics-problem to me.

Alternating between automatic pitch (presume this sets pitch at 'medium') and manual pitch (presume this sets pitch at 'maximum') would be like rapidly yanking the pitch lever from 'medium' to 'high'.

The engine's thrust, RPM, temperature and wear would not be controlled by how prop pitch is regulated but by prop pitch itself. There was no such lever in a Bf109...

Just a two-ways switch that allowed the pilot to change the prop pitch by multiple clicks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Then instead of yanking a lever you would be clicking buttons to rapidly alternate between 'medium' and 'high' pitch.
Same thing, different interface.

But lever or switch, the engine shouldn't wear/overheat less at a given rpm/power/radiator setting when pitch is controlled automatic instead of manually.

The engine, it's cooling or lubrication don't change when the method of pitch control is changed.

p1ngu666
10-11-2005, 02:09 PM
ta http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

IL2-chuter
10-11-2005, 08:15 PM
I would be very much surprised if the 109's prop pitch adjusted as quickly as it does in the game when going between manual/auto. And I would be very much surprised (all over again) if there was any power increase above redline in a prop pitch unduced overspeed. I have no basis for these beliefs (yes, I'm religious, thankyou) other than my 29yrs of aviation experience which includes P-39 propellers (Curtiss Electrics) and converting a Buchon to disc brakes. So . . . I'm an expert.


GOOD DAY, SIR!


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

RedDeth
10-11-2005, 10:10 PM
manual prop pitch was not possible in battle in a 109.

in four years on this forum it has NEVER been proven.

period. that first post is just a lame internet post. prove it. copy some pages from books get some verification....lets go kids.

dont freeking believe everything you see in an online forum kiddies.

FritzGryphon
10-11-2005, 10:28 PM
here this two tracks

Very nice, you got much better results by rocking the pitch up and down.

But, you didn't get 35 m/s. I watched your tracks and worked it out. Auto pitch was average 22m/s from 2000-5000. Manual was 29 m/s over the same period.

But still, a big increase. I stand corrected.

EDIT: I tried it your way with the 109K4, and got average 32m/s from 0-3000m. 18% better than I did with auto.

http://members.shaw.ca/evilgryphon3/climby.trk

Even if not usefull in combat, it's still a very worthwhile thing to do while climbing. Or, during combat, climb away from the opponent this way.

Pinker15
10-12-2005, 03:02 AM
Originally posted by FritzGryphon:

But, you didn't get 35 m/s. I watched your tracks and worked it out. Auto pitch was average 22m/s from 2000-5000. Manual was 29 m/s over the same period.

If U watch track carefully U will see that climb from 2000 upto 5000 tooks 1,41 min. So if 1,41 min. equals 84,6 sec. than we have 3000m / 84,6 sec. = 35,46 m/sec.

Brain32
10-12-2005, 05:11 AM
If U watch track carefully U will see that climb from 2000 upto 5000 tooks 1,41 min. So if 1,41 min. equals 84,6 sec. than we have 3000m / 84,6 sec. = 35,46 m/sec.

Nope he calculated correctly, at 0:37 you were at 2000m and at 2:19 you were at 5000m that's 102sec so 3000/102=29,4m/s...
But anyway this is the first time somebody actually showed me(and everybody) how it's done, and yes it looks like a bug/cheat to me.
It looks really unrealistic.
As for the worthness of changing that, I really don't care as I never used it and I never will(especially now after I saw it), so EOD from me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Pinker15
10-12-2005, 06:24 AM
This is verry strange because when we count time from what game shows us its really 1.82min. But I was cout time not from game but from electronic stopper in my hand and here I was have 1.41 min. I was thinking mabe my stopper is damaged so I was check again on other clock with stopper and result is still the same 1,41 min. I dont understand that.

Chadburn
10-12-2005, 08:12 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Brain32:
But anyway this is the first time somebody actually showed me(and everybody) how it's done, and yes it looks like a bug/cheat to me.
QUOTE]

Brain, I hate to burst your bubble, but this has been around for years and tracks have been posted here before. Its use was even allowed in the ICAS competition and the tracks made available for downloading.

JG53Frankyboy
10-12-2005, 08:24 AM
Originally posted by RedDeth:
manual prop pitch was not possible in battle in a 109.

....................

1939/1940 in Emils for sure.

Kocur_
10-12-2005, 08:25 AM
So if 1,41 min. equals 84,6 sec. than we have 3000m / 84,6 sec. = 35,46 m/sec.


the same 1,41 min. I dont understand that.

I do http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Its not "1 coma 41" minute (which would be 1 minute + 0,41minute = 60s + 0,41 x 60s = 60s + 24,6s = 84,6s indeed) but "1 semicolon 41", i.e. 1 minute and 41 seconds = 60s + 41s = 101s. Devil in the details http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Pinker15
10-12-2005, 09:11 AM
Thank U Kocour how I could not see that, stupid me.

Kocur_
10-12-2005, 09:18 AM
Naa! We all make such mistakes: too obvious to noticehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

IL2-chuter
10-12-2005, 01:16 PM
1939/1940 in Emils for sure.


Really for sure? The constant speed control (early version) was introduced on production E-1s in 1938. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

JG53Frankyboy
10-12-2005, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by IL2-chuter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">1939/1940 in Emils for sure.


Really for sure? The constant speed control (early version) was introduced on production E-1s in 1938. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

reading Steinhilper, Meimberg and Prien (JG53 history ), yes.

or the book about the Bf109 in Swiss service.

F19_Ob
10-12-2005, 03:28 PM
Anyone got any good pictures of the prop pitch lever?

Chadburn
10-12-2005, 08:42 PM
Originally posted by F19_Ob:
Anyone got any good pictures of the prop pitch lever?

On the E model, look at the vertical lever just below the gunsight.

On the G model it was moved beside the throttle.

RedDeth
10-12-2005, 08:51 PM
frankyboy internet talk is cheap. like i said after four years on this forum. manual prop pitch use in combat has NEVER been proven.

NEVER. again. chat all you want and i say your full of hot air.

even in the emil it would be too slow and cumbersome. it would get you killed.

p1ngu666
10-12-2005, 09:37 PM
reddeth, certainly some saw action in poland, czech france etc early on, but with the auto mode, why whould u switch to manual as a pilot irl?
u wouldnt, as auto works really well, and u dont haveto constantly adust things, which is good cos your lazy

IL2-chuter
10-12-2005, 09:41 PM
The closest thing to a prop control "lever" on the 109 was the lever like control on the E-1 and E-3 directly below the gunsight at the bottom of the primary panel, although this is likely a momentary increase/decrease switch (or . . . a three position Takoff/Cruise/Dive pitch postion switch?). Later 109s had a rocker type switch on the inboard end of the throttle knob.

JG53Frankyboy
10-13-2005, 06:41 AM
here is some more "hot air" from me (thx btw !)

http://www.franky.fliegerhospital.de/AutopitchJG53.jpg

credit to Jochen Priens JG53 history volume1.

butch2k
10-13-2005, 06:47 AM
Originally posted by IL2-chuter:
The closest thing to a prop control "lever" on the 109 was the lever like control on the E-1 and E-3 directly below the gunsight at the bottom of the primary panel, although this is likely a momentary increase/decrease switch (or . . . a three position Takoff/Cruise/Dive pitch postion switch?). Later 109s had a rocker type switch on the inboard end of the throttle knob.

Actually the throttle based system could be found on E-1/E-3 as well.

JG53Frankyboy
10-13-2005, 06:49 AM
ah, abd btw, Bodenick was shoot down in his first combat mission in this kind of plane - he couldnt follow his comrades because the system didnt gave him the corrsct pitch.

so, actually THIS early automatic almost (he became POW) killed him http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Daiichidoku
10-13-2005, 09:56 AM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
here is some more "hot air" from me (thx btw !)



that wont do frankyboy...gotta do better...much better....in fact, if you actually took reddeth in a real Emil, and did real combat with it, using manual pitch all the way he still wouldnt believe you

i know, i have debated with him myself before, and seen many other debates he has had with others

once he believes something, correctly or not, he will NEVER change his mind

faustnik
10-13-2005, 10:17 AM
The control existed and it could be used, there is no question of that. Here is the control, set to easily adjust with the pilots left thumb in the Fw190:

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/190throttle1.jpg

The questions is, was switching to manual able to produce large performance gains in combat conditions? With the Fw190 in PF, climb performance in somewhat lower than historical. Using manual pitch settings historical climb performance can be acheived. What people are questioning with the Bf109s are the performance gains in the sim from using manual pitch that are well beyond historical. It's a legitimate question, not just a redwhine.

IL2-chuter
10-13-2005, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by butch2k:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by IL2-chuter:
The closest thing to a prop control "lever" on the 109 was the lever like control on the E-1 and E-3 directly below the gunsight at the bottom of the primary panel, although this is likely a momentary increase/decrease switch (or . . . a three position Takoff/Cruise/Dive pitch postion switch?). Later 109s had a rocker type switch on the inboard end of the throttle knob.

Actually the throttle based system could be found on E-1/E-3 as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know the E-4 and later came with the throttle rocker. Were the earlier Es throttle rockers retrofit?

bolillo_loco
10-13-2005, 12:46 PM
what everybody seems to keep skirting is the rediculous over boost that german aircraft (especially later model bf-109s) have in this game.

nearly every american aircraft had manual prop pitch. For those of you that do not believe this, but have a copy of america's hundred thousand, I would suggest taking a look at propeller controls. manual pitch in american a/c was a back up system incase the CSP failed. a CSP will provide maximum thrust constantly which is humanly impossible to do with manual control.

either take away the rediculous exploit german aircraft have, or give it to every aircraft in this game that had a manual prop pitch system on board.

its that simple, why do you skirt the issue with pics and copied text from books? afraid that your favorite axis plane will be neutered? moreover, do you think it is historically accurate for a bf-109 to be able to rev the prop to nearly 3,500 rpm w/o suffering some sort of failure? I can rev the engine routinely to 3,200-3,500 for split seconds making it sound like a chain saw and increase the bf-109s rate of turn and climb significantly. with the gear reduction and the prop spinning at nearly 3,500 rpm this means the crankshaft is spinning in excess of 8,000 rpms, the DB would fly apart at those speeds.

stop skirting the issue, get honest, and either take away the prop pitch exploit or give it to all aircraft that have it.

p1ngu666
10-13-2005, 01:31 PM
tagert did his devicelink stuff and pinker got 6000fpm climb out of the g2, and he wasnt doin the max he said http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

6000feet per minute is about 1000+ higher than any ww2 prop fighter
spit late marks, k4 (best climbers those two) where about 4500-5000 feet per min

faustnik
10-13-2005, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
6000fpm climb out of the g2


6000fpm! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif Maybe he meant "V2" not "g2"?

Nero111
10-13-2005, 02:12 PM
I personaly fly my 109 in this sim with manual prop pitch before the engine has even started. I never ever use auto pitch and have never used this on and off switching. I do change the pitch constantly though in dogfights,higher reving for climbs, lower revs for dives.I can sqweeze a few extra hp when I need em and its not easy flying like this. It took me a while to get it right and stop seizing engines.
The Emil and Frederick's are the worst and sieze in a split second, these 2 models are actualy better flown on auto probably.
The G2 and up are easier to control on manual pitch than E/F as the engines seem to have better cooling and allow for higher std rpm's.

On the climb rates, when you do the checks manual vs this on off switching,,, also include one with just higher rpm.
From G2 up you can fairly safetly run at highher than normal rpm's controlled by the pitch. In a climb for instance I run my manifold pressure on the highest 'safe' setting (not maxed out) and then with the prop pitch I keep my revs above normal (2800-3000). I can keep it there for a while with a steadily rising temperature, obviousely backing off before the overheat. My climbrate is much better and this is surely not and unfair advantage. Its just running the engine a bit harder than it would normaly do under auto prop and you pay for it with plenty of 'degrees celsius' in rising engine temps.
Anyway jmho http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Daiichidoku
10-13-2005, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
6000fpm climb out of the g2


6000fpm! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif Maybe he meant "V2" not "g2"? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

p1ngu666
10-13-2005, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
6000fpm climb out of the g2


6000fpm! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif Maybe he meant "V2" not "g2"? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

pff u guys have forgotten that 109 is best at everything, how long to i haveto keep repeating it untill its true?

v2 was worse than 109, in every respect. be sure.

RedDeth
10-13-2005, 09:49 PM
frankyboy dont worry about daiichidoku. he was ejected from AFJ and has a biased opinion.i remember one debate daiichi and i had regarding the legality of stealing a licence plate from another car so he could drive in canada with his license suspended.the police caught him for it of course and that compounded things. he then debated that it wasnt wrong to try to doctor up documents that his license wasnt revoked to get a job and tried to enlist afjs to help him do it. trust me you dont want to listen to daiichidoku

i read that single page and it states in plane english to SET the pitch for combat or for climbing or set for cruise.

this proves you wrong. you dont manually adjust pitch in combat. you cant. he stated you needed three hands to just set the thing.

as i have stated over and over you try to monitor prop pitch and continually adjust it in combat and you will not be able to fly the plane and it is not a quick thing either.

youve proved your self wrong i think you could lift a zeppelin with the amount of hot air your blowing.

p1ngu666
10-13-2005, 10:51 PM
hm i guess the pilots would haveto roughly use prop pitch in combat ie put it low for dive, then at some point put it back up some when he had time, but u couldnt keep the engine in the sweet spot doing that, and not get the maxium performance. thats the advantage of cps or other systems like it, the inbetween bits. the fixed pitch hurri or spit, where actully faster (top speed), but in pretty much everything else, cps was better.

IL2-chuter
10-14-2005, 01:08 AM
nearly every american aircraft had manual prop pitch.


You might have trouble locating this manual (governor bypass) control for a Hydromatic propeller. Curtiss Electrics (like VDM and Aeropruducts electrics) had them, though. It's an ELECTRIC thing. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Hamilton Standard built only hydraulic props, Curtiss-Electric only electric (as in the name) but Aeroproducts did both.

Daiichidoku
10-14-2005, 02:01 AM
Originally posted by RedDeth:i read that single page and it states in plane english to SET the pitch for combat or for climbing or set for cruise.

yes, maybe in plane english...however, in plain english, it actually states:"during combat, as diff settings needed for climbing, diving and turning...seems to me, that during combat, one will climb, dive, and turn many different times...oddly enough, it doesnt seem to mention anything about cruise...where did you see that?...oh, do you mean that bit that states:"we got the first aircraft with auto pitch control>>>but this first machine>>>was adjusted so that the prop automatically set itself on cruising speed right away...while im sure they DID set manual pitch fo cruise, dont say the item says so when it clearly does not...it also seem clear that Bodendiek DID change his prop pitch manually during combat flying an Emil with manual pitch, before the atuo machines arrived...that is, adjusting it manually to confer with his diving, climbing and turning...during combat..btw, I can see a certain pitch setting for cruise...or a climb...but taking your quote verbatim, is there such a thing as a particular pitch setting "for combat", I wonder?


Originally posted by RedDeth:this proves you wrong. you dont manually adjust pitch in combat. you cant.

read the above...and also read the scanned item...it seems, literally, that one can...or at least, ONE luftwaffe pilot did


Originally posted by RedDeth:he stated you needed three hands to just set the thing.

a figure of speech....just as a spit pilot needed a "third hand" (and presumably fingers, a thumb and an arm to go with it) to raise gear and hold wings level on take off without allowing some roll, from switching hands on the stick to facilitate this..so sure, taken literally, barring any mutant LW pilots in Emils 1940, the would need three hands to do this..again, during combat...naturally, while not in a danger zone, on a ferry flight, etc, one could easily, in spite of having a mere two hands, set pitch for econ. cruise


Originally posted by RedDeth:as i have stated over and over you try to monitor prop pitch and continually adjust it in combat and you will not be able to fly the plane and it is not a quick thing either.

In combat, i doubt they "monitored" (assuming monitor means to devote a vast majority of one's attention to a particular, singular task) the pitch gauge...im sure that they didnt "continually" adjust pitch
during combat either

yes, a fighter pilot in combat is a busy man...with CSPs and other auto devices, his workload can be reduced and refocussed to other vital tasks, spending more of the now free time used to tend to pitch issues, for example, to instead check 6, aquite a tgt, check location, et al...before sept 17 1940, pilots of II gruppe, and any other pilot of a type with manual prop pitch, would have to adjust pitch frequently, just as frequently as he would change from attitudes of climb, dive, and turn...hardly "continuous", but in a transition state, mostly...most combat manuvers, once executed, will last for a few to several seconds of elapsed time; any manuver that will not be sustained for more than a few seconds will not be signifigantly affected by pitch anyhow, as inertia and speed will carry through the action, thus requiring no, and benefiting little, if at all, from a prop pitch change...any manuver carried out for a longer period of several (say, perhaps, 6 or more seconds?) may indeed require, and benefit from a pitch change....of course, im not an expert..but it is easy to comprehend moving a solitary single-action lever, then glancing at a gauge VERY close to eye level in that cockpit, and the function itself all taking place within that time...look at your watch...6 seconds is not that fast

you want to do a full turn in your Emil? 20 seconds time to do so? more? im sure you could adjust pitch in that time...will the mechanism work to completion that fast? I dunno...but given the scanned, published account in plain english that I just read, it would seem so...as goes for a climb to a tgt, like a bomber, or fighter, say, 300m above you?even at 30m/s, thats 10 seconds...a dive to bounce a tgt 900m below you? you dont get there with teleportationhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif...it takes time...not a lot, but seconds mean a lot in air combat and flight dynamics, and much can be done, barring mechanical limitations

Just as i dont know, i cannot say how fast or slow the actual pitch change takes...you say "it is not a quick thing either"...are you assuming? do you know if it is or not? if so, then DO tell, please

all in all, while a type has manual prop pitch and no auto function, it MUST be flown according to its caprices...in the case of auto types, such as any F model and later 109, or most of the various nations types contemporary to the F through K 109s, i certainly cannot see any practical, prudent use of manual pitch during combat other than mechanical failure of auto unit, which should provide optimum performance at all times..otherwise, it wouldnt be needed, much less wanted, if pilots could do better themselves!



Originally posted by RedDeth:youve proved your self wrong i think you could lift a zeppelin with the amount of hot air your blowing.

what hot air? frankyboy stated that Emils had manual prop pitch, to which YOU replied:

Originally posted by RedDeth:
manual prop pitch was not possible in battle in a 109
and

Originally posted by RedDeth:
copy some pages from books get some verification....lets go kids.

the kids went, it seems http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif


ironically, you ended that particualr post with this:

Originally posted by RedDeth:
dont freeking believe everything you see in an online forum kiddies.

well, after reading this next section, I must say, red, that i totally, 100% agree with you....i cannot believe i saw this in an online forum


Originally posted by RedDeth:
frankyboy dont worry about daiichidoku. he was ejected from AFJ

red, you know well that i was hardly "ejected"..
i was found to "not mesh well with some other afj members", at the end of a "probation" period...the same "PROBE-ation" period that not EEVERY other AFJ has had to go through...


remember? it was a vote...a vote by only about less than half of the then sqd members...(previous to this, you recall, about 4 members resigned within the space of 2 or 3 weeks..and more were on the fence...at least 4 of these same members strongly supported my original app to the sqd...do you recall yet?conveniently, most of those who would have likely voted me to stay, I found out later after speaking with many, never even knew there was a vote taking place about this...and were surprised, and in at least one case..angry of just what had taken place....im sure YOU did all you could to inform them

yes, not at all "ejected", as might be the case with someone who could be a long-time member of a sqd and summarily cast out by the C.O. for appearantly writing a post or posts in a forum that could and/or would cast the sqd in an embarrassing light for having such a boor for a member...perhaps even compounded by the fact that he could have been the chief, if not sole, reason the C.O.s former wingman, and friend, left the sqd in the distant past...any of this ring a bell yet?


funny...as in funny ha-ha...i was once in a sqd where the above actually happened...the guy was ejected for basically proving over and over what a boor he was...he got ejected allright...
soon the C.O. decided to have a vote to see if finally he could rejoin...at the time, i didnt quite realize what a boor this guy was, i only thought that nobodys perfect, and that it would be a shame that he was out due to his obvious devotion and almost overzealous love for this sqd...my vote was one of the first cast, and it was for him to rejoin...with hindsight, i regretted it, cuz it came back to bite me in the bum...but thats another story....




Originally posted by RedDeth:
and has a biased opinion

well, naturally!http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif arent opinions, by definition, all biased?

maybe im wrong, but then...thats my opinion....and yes, its biased




Originally posted by RedDeth:
i remember

really? cool! youre starting to remember things now! YAY!


Originally posted by RedDeth:
regarding the legality of stealing a licence plate from another car

now that you remember, please tell us ALL just WHEN this particular debate was..

bet chu cant...you KNOW why, too, cuz it NEVER TOOK PLACE!

please, red, pretty please...let me tell what is the truth, and not fabrication and/or embellishment, mmmmmK?

sittin comfortably, are we? lets begin

well....i NEVER discussed anything

Originally posted by RedDeth:
regarding the legality of stealing a licence plate from another car
with anyone, ever...i KNOW its illegal..theres no two ways about...why on earth would i ever "debate" if it was illegal or not to steal a licence plate off another car?

i would either do it,http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif or not...that it is illegal, which is clear, there cannot be a debate about its "legality" is irrelevant..i never had this debate with anyone, ever


Originally posted by RedDeth:
he then debated that it wasnt wrong to try to doctor up documents that his license wasnt revoked

i was SO hopeful that youre reagan-like memory was restored, red, but alashttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

well....this time you didnt state that i debated this with you..correct..but you are incorrect about a few things, just in this quote alone..sigh...suffice to sayt that i never debated with anyone about it being wrong to DR a document...in fact, i never debated with anyone at this time



Originally posted by RedDeth:
tried to enlist afjs to help him do it

"enlist"? or do you mean press gang?...into my army, my ever growing army of "document doctoring-uppers"

the truth? (red, you cant handle the truth! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )
i had dicussed with an individual, (NOT as implied by red any more than the singular;
Originally posted by RedDeth:
afjs a member of afj as to wether he would be willing to alter a few characters of numeric text on a virtual copy of a sheet of printed paper i had...
he had expressed his aversion to doing so for for his own reasons....i concurred and understood his position, and made it clear to him that i did indeed understand why he did not go along with it, and that i did not in anyway expect him to, but that i knew he had the knowledge, and that i felt that if anyone, perhaps a squadmate might be there to help another in need...i demurred to him greatly in his opinion, and was bouyed when he told me in the most basic terms of what one could do with any simple paint/photoshop type software that somes in virtually all PCs today...i thanked him for what he did to do assist me, and that was it...or so i thought...or at least, i think...see, i think today that this episode, in part, at least, is the "not prefect meshing" with some sqdmembers, the reason my employment in afj was not continued past probation

THATS THE TRUTH...



ironically, later someone i knew in HL had jumped to assist me without my asking, though he did what i originally desired, by then i had already tended to matters, so it made no difference...wish i had crossed his path before humiliating myself to ask someone something i really didnt want to



even more TRUTHFUL info...

as i was first speaking with the afj member in question on teamspeak, in a channel separate from anyone else, red came into the channel, no doubt interested in what we two could be chatting about...

i happened to have the TS window up and open at that time, and so instantly noticed reds arrival...the other memeber with whom i was chatting must have as well, or had the audible message of ones entry to the channel, as we both stopped our conversation immediately, followed seconds later by the one i was chatting with telling red that we were having a private conversation, and asking him to afford us that privacy....red quickly did so

red, is this instance where you had a "debate" with me? maybe all this has finally refreshed your memory?



yea, y'know, i took a shot at you in this thread earlier..a pretty lightweight, anemic, pathetic, glancing, almost negligble shot...
funny, considering the kind of comments you often generate from others...in HL, and even from yoru teammates...and you only know the stuff they say to your face...

you told someone no, no, no, never, "your blowing hot air" "enough hot air to fill a zeppelin",

what did i do? i told that person (even though he called your bluff, and produced scanned info/proof from a book, as you dared him to)
not to bother, that even with extreme influence, you have a trait of never changing your mind, right or wrong..some may call it bull headed, or stubborn, others consistent, or persistent, or tenacious

sorry you took it so hard as to post these absolutley scathing, largely incorrect, and hideously untrue statements about me and your imaginary interactions with me


there are a number of other things, red, that i know about that you have said about me, inferred to others about me, etc, vocally and/or written, in the not-too-distant past, and i wont say any of it here, as it is not the time or place...and i hope will never be...

the ppl i know at HL, in nUBIe forum, many AFJ members, and members of many other sqds who play FB i am confident to say that most of them...ok, at least half? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif of em like me...cuz maybe im funny, or funny looking, or a decent pilot, or just i TRY to be honuorable...maybe some like me cuz i can be SUCH an anal retentive git at certain subjects....maybe the same reason they hate me...i dunno

i DO know, however, that NO-ONE has ever publicly written such a load of total cr@p directed at my face with such malice and design than what you have done, red



not that it matters anymore, anyhow, but ive always wondered how you did get "know" what you do....and you and i both know there is only two places you could have got it from...from what i said it went to ONLY one person (until some time later, and after you revealed to me that you were told by one of the two possible leaks by your comments to me on ventrilo one night...im sure you dont recall that, either), and that person would have told you, or told concievable only one other, who in turn would have told you...




Originally posted by RedDeth:
trust me you dont want to listen to daiichidoku


no, frankyboy....you dont want to listen to me....but not for anything that red says

p1ngu666
10-14-2005, 08:55 AM
well, with the manual pitch in combat, u would shurely end up snatching to change the pitch when u could, if u where under G, then your accuracy, or even ability to reach the lever would be greatly reduced. ive noticed that in the car when ive tried to reach for stuff, my arm floats about hard tobe preicese, and thats when im not driving...

CPS or auto greatly reduces pilot workload AND improves transitional performance

bolillo_loco
10-14-2005, 08:52 PM
Originally posted by IL2-chuter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">nearly every american aircraft had manual prop pitch.


You might have trouble locating this manual (governor bypass) control for a Hydromatic propeller. Curtiss Electrics (like VDM and Aeropruducts electrics) had them, though. It's an ELECTRIC thing. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Hamilton Standard built only hydraulic props, Curtiss-Electric only electric (as in the name) but Aeroproducts did both. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would suggest picking up a roaring glory warbirds video. Prior to take off the pilot goes over the check list, he runs up the engine, checks mags, checks CPS in auto and manual by increasing and decreasing propellor rpm.

it is in the pilot's manual

america's hundred thousand also lists manual prop pitch control and most american a/c had it.

RedDeth
10-14-2005, 08:53 PM
lmao.... dude you have got issues.....oh lord..

oh how the truth burns the blood

bolillo_loco
10-14-2005, 08:53 PM
RedDeth and Daiichidoku need to get a room; I detect a lot of sexual tension.

p1ngu666
10-14-2005, 09:08 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Daiichidoku
10-14-2005, 09:11 PM
Originally posted by RedDeth:
lmao.... dude you have got issues.....oh lord..

oh how the truth burns the blood


sure, i have issues...you dont??


DO tell about the truth, Red...

can you produce the truth, Red?

seems ive exposed your falsehoods...will you insist upon your tale of "having a debate with me about licence plates"?

i think in my (yes, i admit) too-long post it is clear that i told the truth, and that you told outright lies

Daiichidoku
10-14-2005, 09:16 PM
Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
RedDeth and Daiichidoku need to get a room; I detect a lot of sexual tension.


youre just jealous, loco....your SO catty

btw, give my anal beads back..youve had them since last year, at the gerbil conference...and THIS time, clean them before you give em back

bolillo_loco
10-14-2005, 10:10 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
RedDeth and Daiichidoku need to get a room; I detect a lot of sexual tension.


youre just jealous, loco....your SO catty

btw, give my anal beads back..youve had them since last year, at the gerbil conference...and THIS time, clean them before you give em back </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

do not drag me into your lover's spat!

p1ngu666
10-14-2005, 10:21 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

bolilo likes them too much http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
or maybe they went MIA... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

bolillo_loco
10-14-2005, 10:28 PM
I have seen photos of both daiichidoku and reddeth. They both look alike, chubby, german looking, about 6' tall, not very attractive.

both their personalities are very similar on ventrilo, they talk and talk and talk.

Daiichidoku
10-14-2005, 11:47 PM
Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
I have seen photos of both daiichidoku and reddeth. They both look alike, chubby, german looking, about 6' tall, not very attractive.

both their personalities are very similar on ventrilo, they talk and talk and talk.


i talk and talk and talk so you cant start your lectures on hispanic gynecology, recessive genes, hairlines and front-side bus speeds and AGP vs PCI cr@p that you KNOW i just dont have any idea nor interest in...not that im ever successful or anything http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

plus, your american, all americans should be seen, and not heard http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

bolillo_loco
10-15-2005, 01:50 AM
daiichidoku, I am always trying to figure out your THC level so I know what exponent I need to factor out what you are saying. I think that today I need a rather large exponent.

RedDeth
10-15-2005, 02:21 AM
oh i was serious about the licence plate heist and putting it on your vehicle. and attempted doctoring of canadian dmv type docs to try to get a job.

ive known you for a long time and wouldnt make that stuff up for any reason. none.

i would think that your still fighting that stuff in court too as it was less than a year ago i believe that you did all this.

Badsight.
10-15-2005, 02:35 AM
this is nearly getting as good as the time Siggi's brother showed up & started having a family row at simHQ

PM guys , because your mentioning your squad here & it'll reflect


plus, your american, all americans should be seen, and not heard thats rotfl classic http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

carguy_
10-15-2005, 02:55 AM
It is really sad to see what some ppl will say after being owned by a Bf109.I don`t understand why anyone should ask for removing historical features of a plane that were actually there?Just to win a df?

Currently auto pp gives 200RPM less on every throttle setting than it should on all Bf109.The plane on auto pp does not reach its real RPMs,only manual setting gives this possibility.The automatic pp has been always busted because it dumbs down the real plane performance.

I don`t understand why really many of you completely ignore that fact.I`m lost as to why you guys want generic cure instead of trying to keep things historically correct.

Grendel-B
10-15-2005, 03:06 AM
Originally posted by RedDeth:
manual prop pitch was not possible in battle in a 109.

in four years on this forum it has NEVER been proven.

period. that first post is just a lame internet post. prove it. copy some pages from books get some verification....lets go kids.

dont freeking believe everything you see in an online forum kiddies.

You're a funny boy, did you know that? I dare to claim that my first post was not "some lame internet post". I dare to say that after four years it was just proven. Especially beacuse he was a Emil pilot, and Emil did not have automatic prop pitch control ;-) It is more interesting to see how he says they constantly adjusted the prop to achieve max performance all the time.

You're welcome to verify the quotes from the book. I gave the author/pilot name, book name and relevant pages. Here is some more info:

Paperback version:
# Publisher: Crecy Publishing Limited
# ISBN: 0782836003
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0782836003/qid.../202-5302658-1839851 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0782836003/qid=1129366914/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl/202-5302658-1839851)

Hardcover
336 pages (May 1990)
# Publisher: Independent Books
# Language: English
# ISBN: 1872836003
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1872836003/ref.../202-5302658-1839851 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1872836003/ref=ed_ra_of_dp/202-5302658-1839851)

http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/1872836003.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

You're most welcome to order the book and enjoy the excellent story of this 109 E pilot.

Daiichidoku
10-15-2005, 04:46 AM
Originally posted by RedDeth:
oh i was serious about the licence plate heist and putting it on your vehicle. and attempted doctoring of canadian dmv type docs to try to get a job.

ive known you for a long time and wouldnt make that stuff up for any reason. none.

i would think that your still fighting that stuff in court too as it was less than a year ago i believe that you did all this.


you didnt seem to be able to understand the item frankyboy scanned out of a book, so i guess i shouldnt expect you to understand just what i posted, either

if you took the time to read that post, you would have noticed, red, that i only directly challenged certain claims you made, and barely mentioned others...

let me try again, I will challenge certain statements you made, and you can answer them, mmmmm-K?

1)i remember one debate daiichi and i had regarding the legality of stealing a licence plate from another car yadda yadda yadda

this is one statement you made, and i deny that we ever had any debate, or dicussion in any form on this topic...as I , unlike you, will tell the truth in this matter, i volunteer that I had a discussion, and NOT debate, with a certain AFJ member who shall remain nameless,...you know who i mean, and it was NOT YOU, that happened to involve a situation concerning auto licence plates...further, this dicussion did NOT involve "the legality of stealing a licence plate"...ie, the terms, conditions, definitions, penalties, et al of property theft...suffice to say that i dicussed with this person something that may have had to do with an auto licence plate, and may have also included any interaction i may have had with any auto licence plate
I can assure you, that dicussing the legality of licence plate theft was never dicussed, showing you are making further untrue statements, if not showing your abject ignorance of said conversation

will you still claim to have had a "debate" over "legalities" with me?


2)so he could drive in canada with his license suspended.the police caught him for it of course


How did you come up with this, that "the police caught me"? did you dream it?
I certainly DID NOT, ever, tell you anything of this sort...so, red, if i did not tell you this, just WHERE did it come from?

are you going to lie and say that i told you this? did you make it up? better think carefully on this one....cuz you know that if you tell the truth about WHERE you got this from, (you and I know where you did) ALL will see that you did indeed lie about our having "debated"...IF you decide to directly answer this question, which i doubt you will


3)he then debated that it wasnt wrong to try to doctor up documents that his license wasnt revoked to get a job

well, red...you dont actually say here that you "debated" anything with me...but given your statements previous to that, it seems to me sure as hell you inferred that you did...
irrelevant, however.

what is relevant, though, is that I never "debated that it wasnt wrong to doctor up (BTW, the "up" is redundant for this purpose...just thought you should know for the next time you try to put someone in a bad light)documents" with ANYBODY, at any time

as i previously stated, as I am being honest, I did dicuss, and NOT debate, with a certain AFJ member, the same one as I had dicussed matters as i outlined above, matters pertaining to the use of photoshop-type programs...in fact, i did ask this person if he would change numeric text on a virtual copy of a sheet of paper i had, 'nuff said!...he expressed his aversion to doing so to me, and i expressed in return that i fully understood his decision, and did not press the matter any further...HE did, in fact, tell me that while he would not do so, he could tell me the basics of how to use a photoshop-type program...and i gladly accepted

so, red....why would you say that i debated about wether or not doctoring a document is wrong? are you saying that i had this so-called debate with you? come clean...i aver that i never had ANY debate with ANYone, ever, over wether doctoring a document is wrong...as I stated above, I did dicuss the methods of changing text within a page of text...nothing more

again, you will have to LIE and say that we had this dicussion, or you will expose yourself in truth...( of course, if you do cough up the truth, it goes without saying that you would not name that certain AFJ'r involved, nes't pas?)



4)Red, its obvious to me that you framed these things in the context of having been directly involved with me in debate over non-existant issues simply to try to tell whoever is reading this thread that i have done bad things...oh, such bad, bad things, and to try to embarrass me..or something...

did you do this, or is all the previous 3 points i made all lies that i concocted? DO tell...



when, in this same thread, i more or less called you..stubborn...no, let even make it harsher, to justify how you retaliated...bull-headed...nope, lets make it really vile...i sunk SO low as to virtually call you pig-headed...
did this hurt and wound you so much as to lie about these things i pointed out above, combined with facts that for the most part arent facts at all, only your best guesses or recollections of what someone told you after whatever took place happened?


i have 4 points, numbered up there...please respond in kind to each of them



BTW

Originally posted by RedDeth:
ive known you for a long time and wouldnt make that stuff up for any reason. none.

ummm read the second and third from last paragraphs, please..thos about my calling you pig headed...thats my best guess as to "any reason. none."

AND...if "youve known me for a long time" and, wouldnt make it up for any reason", I, and I'd bet most ppl, would tend to believe you are inferring that you are a friend, and wouldnt tell lies to facilitate an unsavory, embarrassing, or possibly harmful statement about me....OR, one could take it another way, as knowing me for a long time COULD just as easily infer that you dont like me at all, and are far from a friend to me, and that you wouldnt make it up for any reason could also mean that you indeed DID NOT make it up...cuz it was told to you by someone else, nes't pas?

and if it was someone else who told you, then your statements of debating this and that with me are LIES, nes't pas?


just shoulda said what you wanted to say to smear me instead of concoct what you probably thought was a credible way to make me look bad without sullying yourself, Red...I still woulda been pis sed that you had the balls to tell ppl that kinda stuff, but that you lied doing it just iced it for me


im still hoping you can concisely answer to those 4 items i left for you, Red, without sidetracking with statements like "lmao.... dude you have got issues.....oh lord..
oh how the truth burns the blood"



and have a sweet, sweet day, filled with rainbows, marmalade, and thrice-blessed felicity, you wonderful, wonderful man, you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

p1ngu666
10-15-2005, 08:27 AM
Originally posted by carguy_:
It is really sad to see what some ppl will say after being owned by a Bf109.I don`t understand why anyone should ask for removing historical features of a plane that were actually there?Just to win a df?

Currently auto pp gives 200RPM less on every throttle setting than it should on all Bf109.The plane on auto pp does not reach its real RPMs,only manual setting gives this possibility.The automatic pp has been always busted because it dumbs down the real plane performance.

I don`t understand why really many of you completely ignore that fact.I`m lost as to why you guys want generic cure instead of trying to keep things historically correct.

just tried g6, g14 and e4
g6,g14 both reach 2,800 rpm, a quick google shows this tobe the max rpm of the db605, which is a decent rpm for a 35litre or so engine.

db601, that seems tobe in the 2,400 rpm to 2,500rpm range,
ingame the e4 does 2,300rpm

maybe we want to get rid of it because it enables a g2 to easily climb at over 6000ft per min, for comparison

k4 Initial climb rate 1470 meters/min (4823 ft/min).

numbers from bf109.com which seems generous in what performance it states.

ofcourse cruise and stuff maybe wrong, but its wrong for alot of planes, and isnt terribly important anyways http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

and, i think i should round of my post with

you is wrong. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

MEGILE
10-15-2005, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by carguy_:
The automatic pp has been always busted because it dumbs down the real plane performance.



umm might wanna check plane performance there buddy.... in game auto mode for the BF-109 does nothing close to dumbing down performance.

carguy_
10-15-2005, 04:24 PM
Bf109 testing all models done RPM range 2850-3150 climb to 6500m.Climb is average 320m/min faster.

bolillo_loco
10-15-2005, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by carguy_:
Bf109 testing all models done RPM range 2850-3150 climb to 6500m.Climb is average 320m/min faster.

I think that you might ask around and find out how other people are using manual prop pitch in the bf-109. I can increase climb nearly 50% in the 109k4. I can obtain climbs of 6,500 fpm while using manual prop pitch. It also helps the 109 turn a lot better. Manual pitch should not be as good as a constant speed unit because it is humanly impossible to maintain maximum thrust as a CSP can during times of full power, while climbing, diving, and rapid speed changes. Take it away from the bf-109 or give it to all aircraft that had manual prop pitch (which includes nearly ever American fighter) and make sure that you can spool up the engine like you can in the bf 109 to obtain climb, acceleration, and turn rates that are SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVED.

stop skirting the issue of the ridiculous exploit that manual pitch gives the bf-109.

p1ngu666
10-15-2005, 05:27 PM
320/60 = 5.3333333

so, whats a extra 5.3333 metres per sec in real terms?

http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666//proppitchclimb.jpg

a large increase...

La7_brook
10-15-2005, 09:09 PM
flying manual pitch for has been enjoyable part of the game like gears in a car flying auto is ok ,but making this game simple takes sum thing out ,the hard fly in the 109,s what gives that extra enjoyment over other planes in game for me over the years / dont care if it **** or goes but want to see all planes as they really were if had manual so be it if not cool ill were it too / right modeling is what we all want? all do we all need help so we can think we fly better and we all have to play PS2 ???

Nero111
10-16-2005, 01:37 AM
Shame, as I have said before I run my engine at higher rpm's, cause the auto pitch is like driving miss Daisy.
If the Allied pilots are so miffed at this ask Oleg to patch the sim so that you cannot turn the auto prop pitch on and off continuousely without a 5 or 10 second delay, that will stop the people using this so called exploit as they will seize their engines the first time they try.
There can be no case to remove the manual prop pitch from the 109's, none at all so whine all you like, the way it is used can be changed in the game code though to prevent continuous on oand off switching.
As for setting the pitch on buttons, you have to have rocks in youre head and are just jealous. Go and buy yourself some better hardware and leave your dodgitech sticks for the dogs. Just cause you dont have a slider or rotary on your 10$ stick doesnt mean that because you perhaps spend all your money elsewhere, or dont have any for better hardware, should not handicap the rest that can buy decent controllers. Go fly Battlefield 2 with a frikkin keyboard then.

LStarosta
10-16-2005, 08:23 AM
Nero, has anyone told you that like your historical counterpart, you are full of yourself?

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

Nero111
10-16-2005, 09:05 AM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
Nero, has anyone told you that like your historical counterpart, you are full of yourself?

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

All the time old chum, but thank God I dont whine like some of these people here.

p1ngu666
10-16-2005, 10:09 AM
funnily enuff, im of the opionion that DB would have raised the rev limit if the engine was capable of more...

going from the stated boost, your looking at 300-400 or so extra horsepower, a extra 25% roughly?

just looking at il2compair, and a similer boost to say the spitIX would have it performing *very* close to alholic 109s, probably right in with them
where u would expect to find a 25lb boost spit infact...

effte
10-16-2005, 11:07 AM
Could someone enlighten me as to how this supposed exploit works? I have still to see it described.

Running the engine RPM a bit high should not do much, it was designed to put out max power at max RPM. Beyond that, the power curve should drop off. Are you saying there is a glitch there, or is the glitch in how the simulator handles the transitions from manual to auto and back?

Daiichidoku
10-16-2005, 05:26 PM
still waitin, red....


for decent, direct responses to frankyboy, grendel, and me

you just gonna slink off after all that? wont pay the piper?


or is it just taking you this long to cook up some more cr@p outta your cauldron?

p1ngu666
10-16-2005, 09:18 PM
Originally posted by effte:
Could someone enlighten me as to how this supposed exploit works? I have still to see it described.

Running the engine RPM a bit high should not do much, it was designed to put out max power at max RPM. Beyond that, the power curve should drop off. Are you saying there is a glitch there, or is the glitch in how the simulator handles the transitions from manual to auto and back?

switchin trick lets the engine rev higher AND from devicelink, higher manifold pressure, end result is more power thus u climb more or go faster.... (irl the switch would just stop the auto system, so it would stay at the same angle until u changed it)

most ppl consider it was really wasnt used in combat, as between u and engine there was the mg and cannons, there ammo plus propellent, and the pilot pretty much sat on the fuel tank. even ppl on warclouds agreed, u wouldnt want tobe pushing a engine way past its limits. plus its of dubious production quality while surounded by things that go bang in a *big* way

Daiichidoku
10-17-2005, 09:26 AM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
still waitin, red....


for decent, direct responses to frankyboy, grendel, and me

you just gonna slink off after all that? wont pay the piper?


or is it just taking you this long to cook up some more cr@p outta your cauldron?


day+2 still waitin

BigKahuna_GS
10-17-2005, 06:49 PM
S!


Pay attention to Pling and the graph he posted--that will answer all your questions and you will know why it is being changed.


__

RedDeth
10-17-2005, 06:53 PM
what are you waiting for daichi? ive said my say. what else are you waiting on? its pointless to discuss further with you. read my posts and anyone can figure out why. your long drawn out responses look completely disjointed and rambling. you lose your point every other sentence. im not going to copy one of your posts and pick it apart. that would provide too many days of entertainment. i dont have that much time.thats what happens when i have a battle of wits with an unarmed individual.